Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Updated: Epic & Improbable Providing $25M to 'Help Developers Transition to More Open Engines'

13»

Comments

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaMember EpicPosts: 15,383
    LOL
    It was in that last thread that i mentioned why Epic's Unreal became so good and popular was because they were hiring third party vendors to improve their own product.Well it didn't take Epic very long to do at it again,this is why they have been such a huge success story for years now.


    anemo said:


    Limnic said:


    SBFord said:




    Are they trying to make it out as if Epic is the knight in shining armor that came out of nowhere... I'm 100% sure that they've had meetings for months before this until they reached an agreement. 

    Actually according to Tim Sweeney it all went down really fast.




    My point is that everything is probably fake. They've been talking for months probably. No one just does that nowadays, especially with all the money that's involved.

    That's just tin foil-hatting since there's no evidence to support the claim. Why not just take things at face value? O.o

    Sometimes things just are what they are. 


    At face value, it mostly looks like Improbable is trying to spite Unity and Epic is along for the ride to benefit.


    You would too.

    Essentially this came about from the Unity's (ies?) Terms of Service having a clause of allowing them to change the Terms of Service at any time.   To then change that clause to stomp down on an established an established competitor (Improbable) after unity decided to adopt a Live/Cloud Service model for the future.

    This is after Improbable has decided to toss out their old JavaScript hook/head (which also why Chronicles of Elyria is no longer SpactialOS), in favor of further supporting Unity as a compatible engine.   Which represents thousands upon thousands of hours of development for Improbable's time.

    Improbable has had massive levels of positive support even before this shenanigan has started up.   You need to remember that Worlds Adrift has been in development for years(Improbably and Bossa both have very strong links with each other), not just the 6 months to 1 year that Unity is claiming.


    ______________________________________________

    Personally I'm hoping it goes to court.   Magically appendable Terms of Service really really need to get shot down with how anti-consumer they are (and are virulent with how Microsoft/Google/Facebook abuse them), let two well funded corporations impale themselves on the court system for it.



    Oh geesus you have no idea how many times i have thought about this subject and how scummy it is.I simply cannot believe how LAZY the courts/laws are in making change the entire game industry,it is setup right now where the laws protect the developers but not the consumers at all.

    Being able to make change to a TOS in a video game is total scum.Soi the VAGUE coverage of the law is to make sure they give you notice,like 24-48 hours...wtf is notice going to do for we the consumer?I just ran into this vey problem with Skylines,they want to do whatever they want with my personal information or i can't play the game if i don't agree.Developers are doing this already making total BS claims of not selling or sharing your information they only now make sure to give you "notice" because the EU says they must and could cause them a huge lawsuit where by the gamer they couldn't care less.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,285
    edited January 12
    If I'm reading the EULA @Torval linked correctly, the inability to freely distribute the source code for the engine disqualifies it as true open source.

    From the EULA (emphasis mine):

    "There is no restriction on your Distribution of a Product made using the Licensed Technology that does not include any Engine Code . . .  

    . . . Distribution to end users - You may Distribute the Licensed Technology incorporated in object code format only as an inseparable part of a Product"

    Definition of open source is that the source code may be shared freely.  Per OpenSource.org:

    "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

    (Guidelines listed on that site derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which is consistent with the article Torval linked)
    ...you really how no idea what is going on here and it's funny how you still try to lecture me :)

    The bit about open source is just Torvals plug, a plug that incorrectly describes how open source works(nothing to do with platform sw is running on) neither it is relevant to current topic since Improbable nor Epic are promoting open source sw.


    He could not be more off...
    Post edited by Gdemami on
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 18,379
    Gdemami said:
    Torval said:
    I understand the difference just fine.
    ...apparently not.
    If I'm reading the EULA @Torval linked correctly, the inability to freely distribute the source code for the engine disqualifies it as true open source.

    From the EULA (emphasis mine):

    "There is no restriction on your Distribution of a Product made using the Licensed Technology that does not include any Engine Code . . .  

    . . . Distribution to end users - You may Distribute the Licensed Technology incorporated in object code format only as an inseparable part of a Product"

    Definition of open source is that the source code may be shared freely.  Per OpenSource.org:

    "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

    (Guidelines listed on that site derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which is consistent with the article Torval linked)
    In the most pedantic technical sense any source you can read is "open". You've read another's source code uncompiled. For licensing purposes their source is only available for modifiable redistribution through a paid license. They can also completely close all current and past versions of their code. That's not open source.

    What they're advertising is a permissive ecosystem. Their closed license allows them to revoke or modify that arrangement at any time they want, just like Unity.

    This isn't a comment on the quality of their engine or their services which are quite popular. I'm commenting on the Hollywood song and dance they're trying to sell with it.
    Gdemami
    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Valve Corporation Member LegendaryPosts: 11,200
    Gdemami said:
    If I'm reading the EULA @Torval linked correctly, the inability to freely distribute the source code for the engine disqualifies it as true open source.

    From the EULA (emphasis mine):

    "There is no restriction on your Distribution of a Product made using the Licensed Technology that does not include any Engine Code . . .  

    . . . Distribution to end users - You may Distribute the Licensed Technology incorporated in object code format only as an inseparable part of a Product"

    Definition of open source is that the source code may be shared freely.  Per OpenSource.org:

    "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

    (Guidelines listed on that site derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which is consistent with the article Torval linked)
    ...you really how no idea what is going on here and it's funny how you still try to lecture me :)

    The bit about open source is just Torvals plug, a plug that incorrectly describes how open source works(nothing to do with platform sw is running on) neither it is relevant to current topic since Improbable nor Epic are promoting open source sw.


    He could not be more off...
    G just stop. We get it. You are the only one  who 'gets it' 
    Well done. Let us mere mortals wallow in the mud while you look on in condescending lol's 

    smh
    GdemamiTorvalMadFrenchie

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,285
    G just stop. We get it. You are the only one  who 'gets it' 
    Well done. Let us mere mortals wallow in the mud while you look on in condescending lol's 

    smh
    Sorry, it's not my fault people post crap...
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember LegendaryPosts: 7,748
    Gdemami said:
    If I'm reading the EULA @Torval linked correctly, the inability to freely distribute the source code for the engine disqualifies it as true open source.

    From the EULA (emphasis mine):

    "There is no restriction on your Distribution of a Product made using the Licensed Technology that does not include any Engine Code . . .  

    . . . Distribution to end users - You may Distribute the Licensed Technology incorporated in object code format only as an inseparable part of a Product"

    Definition of open source is that the source code may be shared freely.  Per OpenSource.org:

    "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

    (Guidelines listed on that site derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which is consistent with the article Torval linked)
    ...you really how no idea what is going on here and it's funny how you still try to lecture me :)

    The bit about open source is just Torvals plug, a plug that incorrectly describes how open source works(nothing to do with platform sw is running on) neither it is relevant to current topic since Improbable nor Epic are promoting open source sw.


    He could not be more off...
    You'll notice I added the "if I'm reading this correctly," indicating what follows is merely my reading and comparing the definition to what the EULA says.  I'm not a lawyer, nor are you as far as I know, yet only one of us is acting like a pompous asshole about the conversation.

    Yet again, you struggle to look like anything more than a troll, even when I attempt to engage you in a completely neutral manner.  Well done.
    Gdemami

    image
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 18,379
    You can disagree, but I've actually provided some sort of factual support for my position. Any software engine and any platforms built on it are only as open as their license. They can promise a more permissive environment, interoperability, and access to API or source, but I don't think that means much if the license says they can take that away when it suits them.
    Gdemami
    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember LegendaryPosts: 7,748
    Torval said:
    Gdemami said:
    Torval said:
    I understand the difference just fine.
    ...apparently not.
    If I'm reading the EULA @Torval linked correctly, the inability to freely distribute the source code for the engine disqualifies it as true open source.

    From the EULA (emphasis mine):

    "There is no restriction on your Distribution of a Product made using the Licensed Technology that does not include any Engine Code . . .  

    . . . Distribution to end users - You may Distribute the Licensed Technology incorporated in object code format only as an inseparable part of a Product"

    Definition of open source is that the source code may be shared freely.  Per OpenSource.org:

    "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

    (Guidelines listed on that site derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which is consistent with the article Torval linked)
    In the most pedantic technical sense any source you can read is "open". You've read another's source code uncompiled. For licensing purposes their source is only available for modifiable redistribution through a paid license. They can also completely close all current and past versions of their code. That's not open source.

    What they're advertising is a permissive ecosystem. Their closed license allows them to revoke or modify that arrangement at any time they want, just like Unity.

    This isn't a comment on the quality of their engine or their services which are quite popular. I'm commenting on the Hollywood song and dance they're trying to sell with it.
    Just reading through the document you linked and comparing it to the definition I listed, I found a couple areas that seemed to conflict with the definition I was reading, but merely listed the one as it seemed the simplest.  The portion I quoted seemed to indicate they may not distribute to end users the code in source code form (the EULA specifically stating it must be distributed in object code format), which seemed contrary to open source.  And I get what you're saying about having to purchase a license for modifiable distribution.  Definitely seems to run afoul of both the definition and spirit of open source.
    Gdemami

    image
  • HatefullHatefull Member RarePosts: 1,678
    Hatefull said:

    DMKano said:


    SBFord said:




    Are they trying to make it out as if Epic is the knight in shining armor that came out of nowhere... I'm 100% sure that they've had meetings for months before this until they reached an agreement. 

    Actually according to Tim Sweeney it all went down really fast.




    My point is that everything is probably fake. They've been talking for months probably. No one just does that nowadays, especially with all the money that's involved.

    That's just tin foil-hatting since there's no evidence to support the claim. Why not just take things at face value? O.o

    Sometimes things just are what they are. 




    True - some things are just what they are.

    However businesses and what they tell the public is rarely just what it is.

    So skepticism should always be the first reaction if it a business related public announcement 





    Yeah, well be that as it may, if I were sitting there reading the news of the split and I saw the opportunity to make a profit, look the hero, and possibly forward my field of endeavor, I would jump on it. Especially if I had the monetary clout and business sense Sweeny has.

    You think you have the inside knowledge of the game industry, well I have a degree and life experience in business, no matter the reason, Sweeny made a very smart decision here and none of it feels premeditated. Only time will tell on that.
    The current situation is not premeditated, it is opportunistic. However, this is also not the first time that Epic has had discussions about converting products to their services. This just presents an opportunity for both publicity, as well as increased business going forward. The money spent on this is not a 100% loss, as much of this can be used to convert other products in the future, and that the more developer friendly this option is, the more growth they will see going forward. This is simply an investment in future revenue, at a time when they are cash flush... to ensure that they have good cash flow in the future, when this may not be true.
    Pretty much exactly. I am only speaking to refuting the conspiracy theories. It's all sound business really. If I had the ability to throw down what is essentially a risk-free investment that could profit me Gods only know how much, bask in the glow of all the free advertising, and and and look like I am being the good guy (whether his motives or benevolent or not they look good)...why the HELL would I not!?!?!
    Sovrath

    If you want a new idea, go read an old book.

  • LimnicLimnic Member UncommonPosts: 390
    anemo said:
    Limnic said:
    SBFord said:
    Are they trying to make it out as if Epic is the knight in shining armor that came out of nowhere... I'm 100% sure that they've had meetings for months before this until they reached an agreement. 
    Actually according to Tim Sweeney it all went down really fast.



    My point is that everything is probably fake. They've been talking for months probably. No one just does that nowadays, especially with all the money that's involved.
    That's just tin foil-hatting since there's no evidence to support the claim. Why not just take things at face value? O.o

    Sometimes things just are what they are. 
    At face value, it mostly looks like Improbable is trying to spite Unity and Epic is along for the ride to benefit.
    You would too.

    Essentially this came about from the Unity's (ies?) Terms of Service having a clause of allowing them to change the Terms of Service at any time.   To then change that clause to stomp down on an established an established competitor (Improbable) after unity decided to adopt a Live/Cloud Service model for the future.

    This is after Improbable has decided to toss out their old JavaScript hook/head (which also why Chronicles of Elyria is no longer SpactialOS), in favor of further supporting Unity as a compatible engine.   Which represents thousands upon thousands of hours of development for Improbable's time.

    Improbable has had massive levels of positive support even before this shenanigan has started up.   You need to remember that Worlds Adrift has been in development for years(Improbably and Bossa both have very strong links with each other), not just the 6 months to 1 year that Unity is claiming.


    ______________________________________________

    Personally I'm hoping it goes to court.   Magically appendable Terms of Service really really need to get shot down with how anti-consumer they are (and are virulent with how Microsoft/Google/Facebook abuse them), let two well funded corporations impale themselves on the court system for it.
    Last I heard terms of service was a recent change, and was a response to a breach of the Unity EULA by Improbable that was not absolved in the last year(which is what the 6 months to 1 year thing is about).

    And Unity already said they are not stopping people that have current or released projects from continuing to use SpatialOS, so whatever amount of time World's Adrift has been in development is irrelevant as they are fine to continue using SpatialOS at their own discretion.

    You seem to be mixing a few things up.
    MadFrenchieGdemami
  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 31,760
    Sovrath said:
    Kyleran said:
    Sovrath said:
    Well, companies are companies and will always be companies.

    Not sure if anything bad can come out of this and it seems some actual good will come out of this. I don't care if Epic makes another 5 billion dollars if indie devs can benefit.

    Someone's got to pay for things.
    Which at the end of the day will be we gamers. 
    Well, we have jobs! Let's pony up the dough!!!!
    And cell phones....party on Wayne..


    "I should run a marathon backwards. So I could see what second place look like" Royce da 5'9"

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 ATM.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 18,379
    Kyleran said:
    Sovrath said:
    Kyleran said:
    Sovrath said:
    Well, companies are companies and will always be companies.

    Not sure if anything bad can come out of this and it seems some actual good will come out of this. I don't care if Epic makes another 5 billion dollars if indie devs can benefit.

    Someone's got to pay for things.
    Which at the end of the day will be we gamers. 
    Well, we have jobs! Let's pony up the dough!!!!
    And cell phones....party on Wayne..


    blueturtle13
    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • mmrvmmrv henderson, NVMember UncommonPosts: 260


    Who would have thought that
    Tencent (Epic Games)
    NetEase (Improbable)
    would be spearheading an initiative for an open sourced indie friendly development solution.
    What a wacky start to 2019 for game development.



    Huh? Its a cash grab trying to convert people to Unreal Engine. Not saying its a bad thing but its pretty clear whats going on and its not "charity". This is big bucks as they try to position EPIC/UNREAL ENGINE into the total monopoly of the gaming development platform.
    Gdemami
  • ScotScot UKMember EpicPosts: 10,094
    When a fund like this is announced what is important is who can draw on it, how they do so and in the end how much actually gets used. Such funds rarely get used in their entirety, but still it is a helpful move.

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Algo Star SystemMember EpicPosts: 3,355
    gervaise1 said:
    "Me and another company came up with a way to give away 25mil to help other companies go open source and completely bypassed finance and legal"

    -Kris Kringle
    The legal and finance teams will have been a phone call away - and could very easily ave been involved in the live editing of the agreement. Not to mention the fact that pretty much everyone involved in managing stuff should have - as a minimum - enough legal and finance knowledge to know when to call in the specialists.
    Drafting a doc of that nature within that alleged time span and announcing shortly after is basically bypassing both those departments regardless if they were present or not...

    "You want to WHAT? WHEN? What TF ever dude, I'm omw over" -General Counsel
    Gdemami
    Raging Demons for all flowchart "Kens". This is a metaphor.
  • lahnmirlahnmir UtrechtMember EpicPosts: 2,062
    Torval said:
    You can disagree, but I've actually provided some sort of factual support for my position. Any software engine and any platforms built on it are only as open as their license. They can promise a more permissive environment, interoperability, and access to API or source, but I don't think that means much if the license says they can take that away when it suits them.
    Ohh please @Torval , you don’t seriously think all of that is a match for the LOL button? Come on....

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    blueturtle13Torval
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 


    But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.

    Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
Sign In or Register to comment.