The whole situation reads to me like improbable is just a bunch of software geeks with no comprehension of legalese and that they really need to hire someone to handle that end of the business.
It's like they're pissing on Unity and begging them not to sue them at the same time
"We know we ignored your terms and then tried to drag your name through the mud and turn your customers against you for our crusade... our bad. But, you guys are wrong and should see things our way. But... you guys are great... please don't take us to court. We know it's a bit late, but someone please rescue us from a lawsuit!"
The more they say, the more there is to use against them, should the matter go to court.
SpatialOS is one of the larger and more cohesive package solutions to netcode, multiplayer gaming/matchmaking, and third-party platform partners for Unity, but it was and is far from the only one. Them burning bridges like this just means others solutions will take their place.
The fallout with them doing that $25 million fund is likely to impact Unity, but one would hope there is enough people with reason to see through the spite.
A big thing for this to me is still wanting to know exactly what it was in Unity's EULA that Improbable was in breach of, for Unity to have pulled their partnership.
SpatialOS is one of the larger and more cohesive package solutions to netcode, multiplayer gaming/matchmaking, and third-party platform partners for Unity, but it was and is far from the only one. Them burning bridges like this just means others solutions will take their place.
The fallout with them doing that $25 million fund is likely to impact Unity, but one would hope there is enough people with reason to see through the spite.
A big thing for this to me is still wanting to know exactly what it was in Unity's EULA that Improbable was in breach of, for Unity to have pulled their partnership.
It’s preatty straight forward actually. With current Unity licencing model you can host servers for your own games/products, but if you want to host a “service” i.e. provide service for other companies, you need a servicing deal - obviously, which is a common practice across industry.
Unreal licence already covers a service-like product, because it’s revenue based. Improbable is playing a victim card here, when in fact they knew since 2 years already their business model was violating the EULA, and in result was actually selling counterfeit product.
SpatialOS is one of the larger and more cohesive package solutions to netcode, multiplayer gaming/matchmaking, and third-party platform partners for Unity, but it was and is far from the only one. Them burning bridges like this just means others solutions will take their place.
The fallout with them doing that $25 million fund is likely to impact Unity, but one would hope there is enough people with reason to see through the spite.
A big thing for this to me is still wanting to know exactly what it was in Unity's EULA that Improbable was in breach of, for Unity to have pulled their partnership.
It’s preatty straight forward actually. With current Unity licencing model you can host servers for your own games/products, but if you want to host a “service” i.e. provide service for other companies, you need a servicing deal - obviously, which is a common practice across industry.
Unreal licence already covers a service-like product, because it’s revenue based. Improbable is playing a victim card here, when in fact they knew since 2 years already their business model was violating the EULA, and in result was actually selling counterfeit product.
That was not the question I posed. Doesn't really address anything I said either, you just repeated things I'd actually said on the first page.
I asked what of the EULA was Improbable violating, as that was the unclear factor. Repeating that they violated the EULA does not clarify that at all.
Well Epic didn't hesitate at all, they are making more open engine than UE4 or Unity together with Improbable and help those devs who got screwed by Unity to convert their games from Unity to this new engine
Well Epic didn't hesitate at all, they are making more open engine than UE4 or Unity together with Improbable and help those devs who got screwed by Unity to convert their games from Unity to this new engine
There really aren't any devs "screwed up by Unity" by what Unity has thus-far done. The only caveat being if Improbable chooses to suspend support and development of SpatialOS and it's services for Unity, and leave everyone that is using it dead in the water themselves.
Unity already said people that are already using it, for released titles and in-dev titles, can still use it. It's at the user's discretion and Improbable's discretion at this point for what it means to the users.
The whole situation reads to me like improbable is just a bunch of software geeks with no comprehension of legalese and that they really need to hire someone to handle that end of the business.
It's like they're pissing on Unity and begging them not to sue them at the same time
"We know we ignored your terms and then tried to drag your name through the mud and turn your customers against you for our crusade... our bad. But, you guys are wrong and should see things our way. But... you guys are great... please don't take us to court. We know it's a bit late, but someone please rescue us from a lawsuit!"
The more they say, the more there is to use against them, should the matter go to court.
Actually it sounds more like Improbable played Unity
This, very much this. Improbable threw out some insinuating “news” and after the fallout swept in to pick up the pieces and look the hero. They played Unity hard.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'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...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I asked what of the EULA was Improbable violating, as that was the unclear factor.
...he just told you.
"...their business model was violating the EULA..." does not tell you anything. It does not describe what element of their business model nor what part of the EULA was being violated, so it gives no real sense to scale of the issue either beyond the fact that whatever it was, it was enough for Unity to finally give up on Improbable.
"...their business model was violating the EULA..." does not tell you anything. It does not describe what element of their business model nor what part of the EULA was being violated, so it gives no real sense to scale of the issue either beyond the fact that whatever it was, it was enough for Unity to finally give up on Improbable.
Oh dear...
He said it explicitely, you just need to read:
It’s preatty straight forward actually. With current Unity licencing model you can host servers for your own games/products, but if you want to host a “service” i.e. provide service for other companies, you need a servicing deal - obviously, which is a common practice across industry.
"...their business model was violating the EULA..." does not tell you anything. It does not describe what element of their business model nor what part of the EULA was being violated, so it gives no real sense to scale of the issue either beyond the fact that whatever it was, it was enough for Unity to finally give up on Improbable.
Oh dear...
He said it explicitely, you just need to read:
It’s preatty straight forward actually. With current Unity licencing model you can host servers for your own games/products, but if you want to host a “service” i.e. provide service for other companies, you need a servicing deal - obviously, which is a common practice across industry.
The quote you used does not explicitly say anything. Improbable had a deal and was a Unity approved partner, they were one, and then lost their standing because of a violation of the EULA according to Unity.
Improbable didn't even mention that in their final statement, they just claim they were not in violation and blame the recent change instead.
The best you got is a "he said she said" situation, and neither tell you what in terms of service or EULA was violated, just that Unity says they were in violation and Improbable says they weren't.
"More than a year ago, we told Improbable in person that they were in violation of our Terms of Service or EULA. Six months ago, we informed Improbable about the violation in writing. Recent actions did not come as a surprise to Improbable; in fact, they’ve known about this for many months."
This does not say what they were violating in the ToS or EULA, nor does Improbable's post.
EDIT: If you wish to say that you believe it's related to the ToS change in that Improbable was packaging the Unity Runtime in with their service, in which case that would then mean Improbable had been packaging and reselling an asset they had a license to use, but not distribute/sell, then I could see that allusion being made by their final statement given Improbable's hyper-focus on the ToS change.
That would then make Improbable a bunch of idiots, but at least it would be more of a clear point of what they violated.
Improbable didn't even mention that in their final statement.
They did, you either did not read it or lack comprehension, however making things up or draw false conclusions isn't going to help your cause.
SpatialOS acts like a service for Unity - it substitutes an engine component(networking) for Unity instead of proprietary Unity tools.
Improbable stance is/was, that this did not violate Unity EULA, Unity on the other hand considered this breach of ToS and changed their EULA which ruled out use of all 'unapproved' services on new projects.
A story of what is going on in a nutshell.
That is why I said it is still being a big deal even for those who can use SpatialOS with Unity legaly, because SpatialOS cannot legaly support them and any further development on both ends, Unity and SpatialOS, is very much uncertain(will happen at same very minimal level)...
Improbable didn't even mention that in their final statement.
They did, you either did not read it or lack comprehension, however making thing up or draw false conclusions isn't going to help your cause.
SpatialOS acts like a service for Unity - it provides (usually networking) component for Unity instead of proprietary Unity tools.
Improbable stance is/was, that this did not violate Unity EULA, Unity on the other hand considered this breach of ToS and changed their EULA which ruled out use of all 'unapproved' services on new projects.
A story of what is going on in a nutshell.
That is why I said it is still being a big deal even for those who can use SpatialOS with Unity legaly, because SpatialOS cannot legaly support them and any further development on both ends, Unity and SpatialOS, is very much uncertain...
And to that end, as I noted by even quoting Unity on this matter, the narrative you just claimed is not necessarily even true at all.
Given Unity makes the statement that Improbable had been in violation of the ToS/EULA for over a year, predating any changes to the ToS' syntax, means the claim that they lost their license because unity changes the ToS nothing but one of a two-sided argument where two different things are being claimed.
This is also where your continued comment bears a problem since Unity, again, said active titles with SpatialOS can still develop with SpatialOS, and ultimately it's on Improbable for how they choose to support that service going forward. They have the option still, according to Unity, to talk this out and address whatever violation they committed.
And another note. "Unapproved services" were already unapproved. According to Unity they "In December, we made clarifications to our Streaming and Cloud Gaming Restrictions because we received requests for clarification as the industry is evolving quickly."
They did not outright change the ToS. They revised it for clarity, to which if it is a problem related to that revised segment then that only indicates Improbable was likely packaging and reselling the Unity Runtime as part of their services, which would have been a big no-no any ways.
Your story of what was going on in a nutshell is excessively flawed as you are quoting a single source, which happens to be one of the two opposing parties, and taking their word to be true, which given the fact that the opposition claims something else, means a rational mind needs to step back and ask "What's actually accurate here?".
I'm not going to take a hearsay argument as gospel.
And to that end, as I noted by even quoting Unity on this matter, the narrative you just claimed is not necessarily even true at all.
....can't help those who do not want to be helped.
Enjoy your ignorance!
That's quite the statement of irony coming from you, given my whole point in that post was that you just quoted Improbable's take on things without factoring it against Unity's take on the situation at all.
IE, you just tried to establish an argument with half or less of the information available.
That is most definitely an argument from ignorance, especially compared to anything I wrote.
I mean how do you have the balls to say this; "...however making things up or draw false conclusions isn't going to help your cause." As a response to a post where I literally quoted and gave you a link to Unity's own blog post showing their side of the argument and how it differs? How is directly quoting a source "making things up"?
If you can't even account for the fact that the two sides make two different claims, that consequently means Improbable was in violation of the ToS in different ways depending on which you take to be true, and the subsequent fact that it means you have to figure out which one is being more honest before slapping a conclusion on things, means you cannot be grabbing one hearsay argument and claiming it to be gospel.
I fail to see where your problem with comprehension is. To reiterate - Improbable is selling service using Unity technology without proper servicing agreement, which is against EULA. They were never Unity’s partner in the first place, they are just customer.
The fact the try to push their own EULA interpretation in their blog posts, which is against common business sense, won’t change what is actually there from legal perspective. It’s just a PR move from their side.
I fail to see where your problem with comprehension is. To reiterate - Improbable is selling service using Unity technology without proper servicing agreement, which is against EULA. They were never Unity’s partner in the first place, they are just customer.
The fact the try to push their own EULA interpretation in their blog posts, which is against common business sense, won’t change what is actually there from legal perspective. It’s just a PR move from their side.
"Unity approved partner" is a term for people who are approved for leveraging Unity and the Unity Runtime as a platform.
Your reiteration, is not a statement from Unity who was intentionally vague. Improbable also did not single that out to be the problem, though their focus on that part of the ToS in their criticism does make it the reasonable assumption. To that end, it's actually likely the problem is that they were packaging the Unity Runtime as part of their third party hosting services, which means they were functionally repackaging a Unity asset for sale. That's more than a simple lack of service agreement, it's a breach of property rights.
But that's the thing right there. It's an assumption. It's also one that is contested, again, by the fact that there's two different claims made, and I am not going to bias towards one side or the other without additional information that has not been provided.
eh give it up Limnic, you're wrong and just making yourself look silly.
Referencing what's actually written by Unity and Improbable isn't wrong.
Claiming someone is without merit, and using conjecture as a counterargument, is. An argument isn't magically right because you agree with an opinion, facts have to factor in there too.
so “netcode” is a made up word/term created by gamers trying to sound like they know what they’re talking about. Makes me want to gouge my eyes out when I read it.
Unity would work great for an MMO. Unless you have game development experience and have used unity then stop spreading bs.
It it doesn’t matter who’s at fault here. Spatial and Unity cannot be used together for future projects (unless you want to stick with the current alpha forever apparently) so it’s all moot anyway. If you want to use spatial you’ll need to use one of the many others.
Comments
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
The fallout with them doing that $25 million fund is likely to impact Unity, but one would hope there is enough people with reason to see through the spite.
A big thing for this to me is still wanting to know exactly what it was in Unity's EULA that Improbable was in breach of, for Unity to have pulled their partnership.
It’s preatty straight forward actually. With current Unity licencing model you can host servers for your own games/products, but if you want to host a “service” i.e. provide service for other companies, you need a servicing deal - obviously, which is a common practice across industry.
Unreal licence already covers a service-like product, because it’s revenue based. Improbable is playing a victim card here, when in fact they knew since 2 years already their business model was violating the EULA, and in result was actually selling counterfeit product.
I asked what of the EULA was Improbable violating, as that was the unclear factor. Repeating that they violated the EULA does not clarify that at all.
Unity already said people that are already using it, for released titles and in-dev titles, can still use it. It's at the user's discretion and Improbable's discretion at this point for what it means to the users.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
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...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
https://improbable.io/company/news/2019/01/11/improbable-a-final-statement-on-spatialos-and-unity
Improbable didn't even mention that in their final statement, they just claim they were not in violation and blame the recent change instead.
The best you got is a "he said she said" situation, and neither tell you what in terms of service or EULA was violated, just that Unity says they were in violation and Improbable says they weren't.
For the flipside statement to what Improbable said, this is still Unity's most recent blog post on the matter;
https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improbables-blog-post-and-why-you-can-keep-working-on-your-spatialos-game/
"More than a year ago, we told Improbable in person that they were in violation of our Terms of Service or EULA. Six months ago, we informed Improbable about the violation in writing. Recent actions did not come as a surprise to Improbable; in fact, they’ve known about this for many months."
This does not say what they were violating in the ToS or EULA, nor does Improbable's post.
EDIT: If you wish to say that you believe it's related to the ToS change in that Improbable was packaging the Unity Runtime in with their service, in which case that would then mean Improbable had been packaging and reselling an asset they had a license to use, but not distribute/sell, then I could see that allusion being made by their final statement given Improbable's hyper-focus on the ToS change.
That would then make Improbable a bunch of idiots, but at least it would be more of a clear point of what they violated.
SpatialOS acts like a service for Unity - it substitutes an engine component(networking) for Unity instead of proprietary Unity tools.
Improbable stance is/was, that this did not violate Unity EULA, Unity on the other hand considered this breach of ToS and changed their EULA which ruled out use of all 'unapproved' services on new projects.
A story of what is going on in a nutshell.
That is why I said it is still being a big deal even for those who can use SpatialOS with Unity legaly, because SpatialOS cannot legaly support them and any further development on both ends, Unity and SpatialOS, is very much uncertain(will happen at same very minimal level)...
Given Unity makes the statement that Improbable had been in violation of the ToS/EULA for over a year, predating any changes to the ToS' syntax, means the claim that they lost their license because unity changes the ToS nothing but one of a two-sided argument where two different things are being claimed.
This is also where your continued comment bears a problem since Unity, again, said active titles with SpatialOS can still develop with SpatialOS, and ultimately it's on Improbable for how they choose to support that service going forward. They have the option still, according to Unity, to talk this out and address whatever violation they committed.
And another note. "Unapproved services" were already unapproved. According to Unity they "In December, we made clarifications to our Streaming and Cloud Gaming Restrictions because we received requests for clarification as the industry is evolving quickly."
They did not outright change the ToS. They revised it for clarity, to which if it is a problem related to that revised segment then that only indicates Improbable was likely packaging and reselling the Unity Runtime as part of their services, which would have been a big no-no any ways.
Your story of what was going on in a nutshell is excessively flawed as you are quoting a single source, which happens to be one of the two opposing parties, and taking their word to be true, which given the fact that the opposition claims something else, means a rational mind needs to step back and ask "What's actually accurate here?".
I'm not going to take a hearsay argument as gospel.
IE, you just tried to establish an argument with half or less of the information available.
That is most definitely an argument from ignorance, especially compared to anything I wrote.
I mean how do you have the balls to say this; "...however making things up or draw false conclusions isn't going to help your cause."
As a response to a post where I literally quoted and gave you a link to Unity's own blog post showing their side of the argument and how it differs? How is directly quoting a source "making things up"?
If you can't even account for the fact that the two sides make two different claims, that consequently means Improbable was in violation of the ToS in different ways depending on which you take to be true, and the subsequent fact that it means you have to figure out which one is being more honest before slapping a conclusion on things, means you cannot be grabbing one hearsay argument and claiming it to be gospel.
Do you have no concept of due diligence?
I fail to see where your problem with comprehension is. To reiterate - Improbable is selling service using Unity technology without proper servicing agreement, which is against EULA. They were never Unity’s partner in the first place, they are just customer.
The fact the try to push their own EULA interpretation in their blog posts, which is against common business sense, won’t change what is actually there from legal perspective. It’s just a PR move from their side.
Your reiteration, is not a statement from Unity who was intentionally vague. Improbable also did not single that out to be the problem, though their focus on that part of the ToS in their criticism does make it the reasonable assumption. To that end, it's actually likely the problem is that they were packaging the Unity Runtime as part of their third party hosting services, which means they were functionally repackaging a Unity asset for sale. That's more than a simple lack of service agreement, it's a breach of property rights.
But that's the thing right there. It's an assumption. It's also one that is contested, again, by the fact that there's two different claims made, and I am not going to bias towards one side or the other without additional information that has not been provided.
Claiming someone is without merit, and using conjecture as a counterargument, is.
An argument isn't magically right because you agree with an opinion, facts have to factor in there too.
so “netcode” is a made up word/term created by gamers trying to sound like they know what they’re talking about. Makes me want to gouge my eyes out when I read it.
Unity would work great for an MMO. Unless you have game development experience and have used unity then stop spreading bs.
It it doesn’t matter who’s at fault here. Spatial and Unity cannot be used together for future projects (unless you want to stick with the current alpha forever apparently) so it’s all moot anyway. If you want to use spatial you’ll need to use one of the many others.