25 ms·

Unity Engine ToS change makes cloud-based SpatialOS games illegal

264 points by MikusR 8y ago

holtalanm 8y ago
damn. I was looking forward to playing Worlds Adrift someday. Hopefully they can get this resolved.
- Gaelan 8y ago
  Worlds Adrift says they're still up for now.
  - holtalanm 8y ago
    that remains to be seen for how long. if they are operating against the Unity ToS, I would expect it to be down soon as a result. Like I said, I really hope they get this fixed, because that game looked good.
- Prefinem 8y ago
  You should play it while you can. It's a very fun game and the PVE server is some of the best relaxing gameplay I have experienced (as long as falling into an abyss doesn't stress you out)
- kej 8y ago
  From the Worlds Adrift blog, they've apparently heard back from the Unity side: "Bossa has been informed by Unity that Worlds Adrift should not be affected by the situation between Improbable and Unity. Thus, Worlds Adrift remains live as normal."
eropple 8y ago
This article is pretty awful. Ars Technica's is better: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/01/unity-engine-tos-change-makes-cloud-based-spatialos-games-illegal/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/01/unity-engine-tos-chan...
- pro_zac 8y ago
  Thank you! Actually explains what Spatial OS is, why it is used, and what changed in Unity’s ToS that affects it.
- sctb 8y ago
  Thanks! We've updated the link from https://www.mcvuk.com/development/unity-blocks-improbables-spatial-os-all-live-and-in-development-games-affected https://www.mcvuk.com/development/unity-blocks-improbables-s....
andrewmcwatters 8y ago
I sort of find it poetic. If you decide to build on a commercial platform like Unity's you're subject to the whims of Unity Technologies. It sucks, but game engines are by far one of the riskiest investments I've seen across technical subfields. You have all of this engine-specific knowledge, and all of a sudden moving engines is near impossible. Tons of common things across major game engines, but in practice it's not so easy to move here or there. It's not like a database, where maybe some data type quirks are a bit different, and hopefully you can just change the underlying implementation behind your DB abstraction. Change a connector or something of the sort. With game engines, you'd have to reexport models from sources, textures might be treated a bit differently, map formats might have to be scrapped all together or converted using some at-the-moment nonexistent scene converter. There's a lot involved.
- thexa4 8y ago
  Isn't that always the case with frameworks vs libraries? A database can be seen as a library but you build your entire game on top of the engine which makes it like a framework.
atburrow 8y ago
Here's a discussion on the Unity forum: https://forum.unity.com/threads/recent-tos-update-blocks-the-use-of-spatialos-to-make-games-in-unity.610447/ https://forum.unity.com/threads/recent-tos-update-blocks-the...
hesdeadjim 8y ago
I’m pretty aghast at this move by Unity. They have made it clear they have a managed cloud hosting infrastructure in the works, but explicitly blocking others from providing it as a service strikes me as a “we really need this revenue and will do anything to protect it” move. PlayFab is unmentioned but they will also be affected by this move as they offer a dedicated server hosting service among their offerings. Even more frustrating is that Unity’s offering is not even in beta yet. Details have been sparse, though I expect to hear more at GDC this year.
- andrewmcwatters 8y ago
  It basically signals to me they don't give a fuck about you; it's Unity-first, and you can deal with it. Take it or leave it. After being burnt by the Source Engine, I'll never use Unity again after having read this.
  - hadrien01 8y ago
    What happened with Source?
    - umvi 8y ago
      Valve pretty much abandoned developing everything but Steam. You'll still see a few token projects come out of Valve, but it seems like they've basically turned into Steam, Inc.
      - izzydata 8y ago
        It's not really that surprising. That can do 1/10th the work as before and make 100 times the revenue. Until something seriously disrupts the online PC game market they can sit back and ignore game development.
        dx87 8y ago
        They actually had a new game, Artifact, come out the end of November. It didn't have a good reception, mostly due to unrealistic expectations set by people in the beta, but they've commited to supporting and improving it for a long time.
hedora 8y ago
I’m surprised the developers can’t simply reject the changes to the Unity TOS and keep using an old version of the engine (especially for production games!) Anyone know why that’s not an option?
- andrewmcwatters 8y ago
  Because Unity's TOS, like many software agreements, stretch retroactively and proactively across versions. If you use Unity, you agree to Unity Technologies terms, and their discretion to change them, without notice. It's literally in the terms. It's not so much software as it is software as a service.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    Its highly unlikely that retroactively changing an agreement like that is actually legal.
    - ncallaway 8y ago
      The agreement that you agreed to previously included terms that stipulated that Unity specifically had the right to unilaterally revise the terms. If you don't agree with the new terms, you must immediately stop using the product.
    - jkaplowitz 8y ago
      A lot of the instincts around one-sided or surprising contract terms come from consumer protection laws in some countries. Not only is that comparatively absent from the US legal climate, it often doesn't apply to business to business relationships (such as between Unity and game development companies) even where it is present for consumers.
  - ABCLAW 8y ago
    The doctrine of illusory promise makes a lot of the 'we can change the license however we want' clauses very weak, as far as contractual robustness goes. There are other similar contractual doctrines that attempt to deal with similar issues, but the issue isn't that the release valves don't exist. It's that they're old, rusted and require a lot of force to turn. The illusory promise doctrine is very seldomly used which means there's a lot of uncertainty about whether or not it would even work. And that's if the dispute gets into the courts in the first place. Which courts it gets into is another big deal; some T&Cs put requirements that the choice of forum for disputes is a favourable one for them, or they force arbitration to be the primary dispute resolution mechanic. That said, the illusory promise doctrine CAN and HAS demolished these type of T&Cs in the past. Sometimes they even blow up other contractor favouring terms as they go (like the aforementioned choice of forum/arbitration clauses, etc.) But why are people still putting this language into their agreements? Well... Even if the court doesn't like that segment of the contract and they sever it, there are other ways for the contractor to indicate that the bargain they've arrived at shouldn't be disturbed - including pointing towards continued performance and a lack of notice from others, so even if you correctly note that the contract is busted, the court might say you tacitly agreed to the changed terms and they're read back in, anyways. Civilian systems have a different strategy for dealing with these types of contracts, calling them contracts of adhesion. They aren't the product of a negotiation, so they treat them will less lenience and deference. Common law countries often adopt this style of protection through Consumer protection laws or other similar vehicles where the rules of contract are changed to fix different types of contracts. Basically, it's very complicated - this is just my top-of-mind snapshot on some of the issues, and that complexity creates cost, and that cost prevents oversight.
EamonnMR 8y ago
This is why I tend to shy away from proprietary tools like Unity-an event like this is sort of like an asteroid strike, it's improbable but there's no defense against it and if it happens you are wiped out.
- vkou 8y ago
  Do that, and your game will never ship - because developing your own engine is a beast of a timesink. The open source offerings are toys compared to Unity/Unreal.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    Not necessarily. Many developers still write their own engines, they just don't usually make high-end graphical AAA type games. Even then it is possible, as Jonathan Blow proves.
    - learc83 8y ago
      Jonathan Blow was a hugely success indie developer prior to creating The Witness, and it had a multi-million dollar budget. Also it's a great game, but I wouldn't say it's comparable graphically to a high end AAA game.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - Retra 8y ago
    Only if you need an engine that powerful and flexible. A toned down and simplified engine is certainly not as hard to develop.
  - hnbroseph 8y ago
    maybe, but we can see that projects built on spatialos won't be shipping either. (hopefully this is a temporary unintended consequence of the license update.)
bitwize 8y ago
This is why I write my own damn engines.
- leppr 8y ago
  Or just use Godot[1] or any of the many FOSS game engines out there. [1]: https://godotengine.org/ https://godotengine.org/
- baldfat 8y ago
  I think using Open Sourced Engines is the proper response to this. Why reinvent the wheel unless you have your own use case.
  - Thaxll 8y ago
    Open source engine suck big time, and I'm not even talking about the tooling part which is an even bigger problem, video game engine are usually not something you can do well on your own without large resources.
    - baldfat 8y ago
      Godot and Phaser are not "Suck Big Time" engines. It depends what you are making, but again there is no reason why we must be stuck with closed source engines.
      - Thaxll 8y ago
        Not to offend anyone, but those are toys engine. Godot is probably the most advanced and it's nowhere in term of what proprietary engines can do. I mean look at their showcase: https://godotengine.org/showcase https://godotengine.org/showcase The game engine world is really different from what you usually read on HN like libraries, frameworks, DBs, languages ect ... it's a closed world where everyone built something custom.
        nortiero 8y ago
lordnacho 8y ago
This is directly relevant to that Cory Doctorow article from yesterday. In real world inventions someone could make a compatible piece and users could just buy it and plug it in. Say you have a clever new attachment for a vacuum cleaner. In cyberspace you can make things incompatible by law, and it's very effective to police. So what should you be allowed to do this with?
- fijal 8y ago
  There are protections against that in the EU - you can reverse engineer and otherwise circumvent all the protections for the sake of making things interoperable.
  - lordnacho 8y ago
    Isn't Unity Danish?
    - ed312 8y ago
      US users (both devs + gamers), and companies would still be subject to US contract law.
    - fijal 8y ago
      According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_Technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_Technologies they're based in San Francisco these days (but were founded in Denmark).
asien 8y ago
In September and January of last year Unity raised a considerable amount of cash [0]. It seems like VCs want their growth number up and Unity has a very clear plan to run their engine in the cloud to create artificial growth by being the sole vendor of Unity Multiplayer Hosting. This is the shadiest move I’ve seen in the Industry, even worst than MongoDB. [0]https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/unity-technologies https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/unity-technologies
- ivraatiems 8y ago
  What did MongoDB do?
  - aboutruby 8y ago
    Probably the licensing change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MongoDB#Licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MongoDB#Licensing
    - nothis 8y ago
      What’s the problem here?
      - ac29 8y ago
        It "requires that those making the software publicly available as a service must make the service's source code available under this license".
        DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
        That change seems to be in line with the FOSS ethos. I imagine that from the perspective of the FOSS community, using FOSS software in a SaaS product without releasing the code that drives the service is just a loophole.
        stordoff 8y ago
tcfunk 8y ago
I feel like people are missing the mark here, complaining about commercial game engines. SpatialOS was basically re-distributing Unity under a SaaS model. Unity is in the right here. Edit: Have heard some pretty good points about the ambiguous wording of the ToS (such as theoretically making the distribution of a Unity-made game through a storefront illegal). It will be interesting to see if this ToS change sticks.
- wishinghand 8y ago
  No, Spatial was not doing that, they are an integration with Unity. Developers still needed to install Unity with a license, get the SpatialOS framework running as their net code, and then write a game.
  - tcfunk 8y ago
    I'm not so sure. Maybe I am misunderstanding but the terms prohibit the "use [of] a managed service running on cloud infrastructure...to install or execute the Unity Runtime on the cloud or a remote server". Which leads me to believe they are installing or running the Unity Runtime on their servers? If not I'd love a better explanation :)
    - vorpalhex 8y ago
      If I write a Java app and run it on AWS, I'm in the clear. If I write a licensed Unity app and run it on SpatialOS, well, that's now no longer allowed.
    - mattigames 8y ago
      Yes they are running unity runtime on their servers, there is nothing in the TOS against that, what is illegal is to share any of the data from that runtime online with other Unity instances. Which has nothing to do with "re-distributing" Unity has a SAAS.
      - tcfunk 8y ago
        Re-distributing was the wrong word to use. But it seems to me that the Unity Runtime is a part of the stack of their SaaS.
wishinghand 8y ago
Godot is a game engine licensed with the MIT license. Unity just proved that free != yours.
- thrillgore 8y ago
  Godot is also behind the curve on content pipeline tools. I love it to death, but I would never be able to convince anyone outside hobbyists to use it because it has no goddamn FBX support, or an easy ECS framework.
  - wishinghand 8y ago
    Hopefully some of the Unity exodus helps Godot along with more contributors.
    - cwyers 8y ago
      The issue, of course, is most of the people using Unity are using it because they don't have the ability (or time) to write the functionality Unity provides themselves.
      - wishinghand 8y ago
        There will be higher skilled devs who are using Unity that are appalled by this business practice and will want to move to a more open platform.
        thrillgore 8y ago
        Unless there's an incentive for them to share their contributions back to Godot (like a paid plugin store, of which at least one is in development) they won't stay. And no, I am not talking about the Asset Library.
        wishinghand 8y ago
        If that was true, then no open source software would ever get released.
Reedx 8y ago
Improbable's response: https://improbable.io/company/news/2019/01/10/unity-blocks-spatialos https://improbable.io/company/news/2019/01/10/unity-blocks-s... "Worryingly, this change occurred during an open commercial negotiation with the company to find a way to do more together." So they had an ongoing negotiation and Unity just went ahead and made the change? Yikes. Also kudos to Improbable for setting up an emergency fund for partners affected by this.
- tjbarkley 8y ago
  Maybe it's a shady negotiating tactic? I wonder if they had come to an impasse.
- bane 8y ago
  It's funny, I worked for a company that was negotiating a license with improbable and they also changed the terms in the middle and left us hanging. I'm playing a very small violin right now.
  - dimgl 8y ago
    That blog post is so slimy. Making Unity look like the bad guy when there's clearly business dealings in the background that the public is unaware of.
- Reedx 8y ago
  Unity's response, saying that Improbable is incorrect: https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improbables-blog-post-and-why-you-can-keep-working-on-your-spatialos-game/ https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improba...
  - ButlerianHerecy 8y ago
    The relevant portion of Unity's EULA which says that they their PR folks are incorrect "2.4 Streaming and Cloud Gaming Restrictions. You may not directly or indirectly distribute the Unity Software, including the runtime portion of the Unity Software (the 'Unity Runtime'), or your Project Content (if it incorporates the Unity Runtime) by means of streaming or broadcasting so that any portion of the Unity Software is primarily executed on or simulated by the cloud or a remote server and transmitted over the Internet or other network to end user devices without a separate license or authorization from Unity..."
ezekg 8y ago
> You may not directly or indirectly distribute the Unity Software, including the runtime portion of the Unity Software (the “Unity Runtime”), or your Project Content (if it incorporates the Unity Runtime) by means of streaming or broadcasting so that any portion of the Unity Software is primarily executed on or simulated by the cloud or a remote server and transmitted over the Internet or other network to end user devices without a separate license or authorization from Unity. These terms are incredibly vague. Makes it sound like you cannot run your own dedicated server for multiplayer without being in breach of the new terms. If Unity forces their new multiplayer hosted service on their users, I (and I foresee many others) will immediately start transitioning to Unreal. Ref: https://unity3d.com/legal/terms-of-service/software https://unity3d.com/legal/terms-of-service/software (sec 2.4)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jimmaswell 8y ago
  That reads to me like you can still have servers, just without them using the Unity runtime. Is using the Unity runtime for servers common? The multiplayer Unity games that I know of don't do that.
  - meheleventyone 8y ago
    I believe Rust does and that’s perhaps the single biggest Unity multiplayer project in terms of concurrent users AFAIK.
  - ezekg 8y ago
    Yes, as far as I know, running a headless version of the game (Unity in "batch mode") is how a lot of (most?) games do dedicated authoritative servers, otherwise your server wouldn't actually be running the same game. Or am I misunderstanding something?
    - meheleventyone 8y ago
      You don’t strictly need to have the same codebase for client and server. If you’re making a slower paced game it’d be wasteful to burn processing power running the full Unity runtime.
JasonSage 8y ago
Seems like the best path forward for a current cloud Unity provider would be to move from managed Unity to one you can deploy yourself. Make it so it’s trivial to run your own and move the licensed use to the game developer instead of the cloud service. EDIT: after reading the actual terms it seems like even game developers can’t do this without violating terms. Unity really wants this to be something they wholly own. Yikes
jayd16 8y ago
So what does the TOS change mean exactly? At first glance it sounds like they want a lince see for every instance of the editor running. This doesn't apply to build code deployed on servers does it?
victorbstan 8y ago
It’s got to be said. I felt unity’s business model was not very friendly to devs because you don’t get access to the source code. Unless you have a very expensive enterprise license. On the other hand, you can get access to unreal engines source code in github for free. Switch to unreal.
- beerlord 8y ago
  Look on Upwork, Freelancer, or other jobs sites. There are 20x as many Unity programmers as Unreal. C++ is overkill for most tasks. C# is just an easier and safer language to use. For a small studio, using Unity can be the difference between finding a game programmer or not. Plus there is a much bigger community in case your programmer gets stuck, and more useful assets available on the store.
yodon 8y ago
Twitch streaming is pretty important to most gaming markets. This announcement sounds like it also has the result of making twitch streaming against the Unity TOS. > You may not [distribute Unity or your Unity Project Content via] streaming or broadcasting so that any portion of the Unity Software is primarily executed on or simulated by the cloud or a remote server and transmitted over the Internet or other network to end user devices without a separate license or authorization from Unity.
- hessproject 8y ago
  > streaming or broadcasting so that any portion of the Unity Software is primarily executed on or simulated by the cloud or a remote server and transmitted over the Internet or other network to end user devices I could be wrong, but the "is primarily executed on" bit sounds to me like it is more aimed at preventing creation of a service like geforce now or playstation now where a user plays the game but it is streamed from the remote system where it is actually running
- mesozoic 8y ago
  I guess they're kicking Hearthstone off of Twitch
DaveSapien 8y ago
Its stuff like this that make me glad I spread client work over Unity and my own studios (important) projects on our own engine (c++). I want to be able to play/port my games in 40+ years. Who knows what else a private company like Unity will introduce in coming years.
tomc1985 8y ago
Hey look, yet another software rental provider fucking over its customers! Y'all did this to computing, folks. Should have stuck with perpetual licensing...
jahewson 8y ago
SpatialOS streaming Unity seems broadly equivalent to AWS hosting MongoDB. Especially in that it undermines Unity’s (i.e. Mongo’s) ability to sell a hosted equivalent product (whether or not that exists yet) and it leverages some of Unity’s value into rent for Improbable. Now there’s a difference in that SpatialOS is adding meaningful value - but it’s not necessarily their’s to take. Ultimately this is Unity’s platform and they control it and its future direction. I suspect that more value can be delivered to both parties if they reach an agreement - SpatialOS is really cool! What we’re seeing here is presumably a strong negotiation tactic from Unity - they want to continue to own the relationship with their own customers - hopefully we’ll see some kind of agreement in the future.
- ec109685 8y ago
  AWS isn’t using any of MongoDB’s code — merely emulating the protocol and behavior.
ufo 8y ago
Could someone please clarify what SpatialOS actually does? Even in the updated arstechnica link I still don't quite get what is going on and how it breaches the new terms of service. Are the game clients used by the players running Unity? Is the server running Unity? How is SpatialOS's setup different from other multiplayer games?
- Thaxll 8y ago
  It's a server side framework that integrates with other commercial engines ( Unity / Unreal ), what it does is it allows to have a single big map where each small chunks of the map are handled by a gameserver. For the player it's transparent, you can have huge world with inter connected game server, instead of having one map with 32 players on it.
mr_puzzled 8y ago
Just curious, how does the godot engine compare to Unity and UE4? Is it suitable for AAA studios or are there any major pieces missing?
- suby 8y ago
  It is not ready imo. Someone correct me if I am wrong about any of this. Their custom scripting language is extremely slow to the point where I wouldn't consider using it. You can use C#, but if you download the c# version you get a warning on startup which states that this version isnt production ready. You can use C++, but I found the workflow here awkward, plus they just introduced it with 3.0. They are about to launch 3.1 but this includes breaking changes to the way you use c++, so if you were using it and wanted to upgrade you'd have to rewrite a portion of your code.
  - ignaloidas 8y ago
    Oh, come on, how many compute-intensive things you need to do in a game scripting language? GDscript is fast enough for scripting, C++ is there for the compute-intensive tasks you might do (though most of them are already implemented by the engine). C# on the other hand, is to attract Unity users that are too lazy to put in 30 minutes to go through GDscript's concepts. It's OK that it's there, but personally I found C# one of the least enjoyable languages to program in.
    - suby 8y ago
      Performance is a feature. If you want your game to have as large a playerbase as possible, it needs to perform well even on bad hardware. I strongly suspect that most people will write their entire game in an engines default language. Especially in this case where the much advertised best alternative (C#) gives you a warning on startup about not being production ready. Yes, C# is probably integrated due to its success in Unity, but it's a sane choice. I would argue more so than GDScript. C# has better performance, tooling, support, not to mention an existing userbase of people who already know (and I'm sure many of whom like) the language. Ignoring C#, they cannot be breaking their API for writing native code. I'm not sure if it was a one time thing, or if it will continue going into future releases, but they absolutely need to have stability if they want people to use their engine long term.
Animats 8y ago
So right now we know the "what", but not the "why". What Improbable really has, or claims to have, is a way to scale massively multiplayer games where everyone is in the same world. They have a back end which is basically a synching system for small data elements between computers in a data center. Think of it as being like the way a shared memory multiprocessor synchs its memory system. Some data items belong to a single CPU, and that CPU has read/write access to it. Anybody else can read, but they get updated if the data changes. Who has write ownership can change based on demand. Improbable has a downloadable demo if you want to play with this. The game use of this is as a solution to the "region crossing" problem in Second Life. The big Second Life world is divided into squares 256m on a side, each managed by a separate process. The processes talk to each other, and objects can move across region boundaries. The system used is ad-hoc and fails frequently. If you drive around Second Life, about twice an hour you'll have serious trouble at a region crossing and may have to relog. Improbable raised $500M, the largest investment ever made in a European tech startup.[1] They put 150 developers on the problem. They claim to have a solution. It's set up as a pay per use service. You pay for data storage, you pay for network traffic, and it has to run on Google's cloud. They don't publish prices, but at least one developer dumped them for cost reasons. This is going to be like physics engines. In the 1990s it was really hard, and physics engines required heavy research into nonlinear differential equation solvers and fast collision detection. I used to work on that. There were startups with unicorn dreams - Mathengine, Havok. Now, everybody does it, and multiple open source libraries are available. Mathengine is gone, and Havok had a down round, downsized, replaced the management, and was sold twice. Physics is routine middleware now. Right now, though, Improbable has the only system for this. Until someone else figures it out. This event pushed Improbable to open source their API code with the MIT license. That means anyone can now see how to talk to the back end, and start thinking about how to replace their back end. Progress marches on. (Hm. What if you wrote a back end which, instead of needing multiple "cloud" machines, ran on a single huge Amazon AWS instance, like the one with 128 CPUs. That's an easier problem than coordinating it over the network. You might not be able to support a planet sized world, but you could support large islands you have to teleport between.) [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/10/british-gaming-company-improbable-faces-ransom-demands-from-supplier-unity https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/10/british-gam...
sandyhatches 8y ago
Illegal is the wrong word, but still, fuck. My game uses dedicated servers built on Unity. Seems this applies even to me. Kinda shitty.
- ralph84 8y ago
  Yes, breach of contract is more accurate. The lesson is make sure your product doesn't depend on clickwrap terms that can be changed at any time.
DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
IANAL, but if you want to include a blanket “we can change these terms at any time” clause in your TOS, it seems like you should be obligated to specify a “grandfathering” window, i.e., a length of time during which any licensee will be allowed to operate under the old terms in the event of a change. Otherwise, you’re not actually giving reasonable consideration, since you’re accepting payment in return for what could potentially be a single day (or hour, or minute) of use of your software. Furthermore, a particular licensee’s window ought to be proportional to the amount of consideration given by that licensee, i.e., the number of licenses/renewals purchases by them. How is a contract conscionable if it allows one party to become dependent on the other’s services—and to pay them accordingly—while providing for the latter’s right to suddenly withdraw support?
holtalanm 8y ago
If I was using Unity, I would be immediately looking at other alternatives. This kind of thing just screams shady business that doesn't care about their customers in the least.
cleansy 8y ago
The CEO of Unity is the former CEO of Electronic Arts. I do believe that he might be executing the same business practices on Unity's developers as EA did on their customers. The first time I saw their CEO choice I thought that this can't be good for the dev community around Unity. Here is a question, even though Unity is incorporated in the US, did anyone find the filings with the SEC? Or is it not required for and Inc to publish them?
- Mikeb85 8y ago
  > Here is a question, even though Unity is incorporated in the US, did anyone find the filings with the SEC? Unity is a private company.
- apta 8y ago
  Who thought it was a good idea to hire's EA's ex-CEO?
- goobynight 8y ago
  Incorporation doesn't mean you need SEC filings. You're thinking of going public. Basically, if you can't go buy a company's stock, they probably don't have public filings with the SEC.
iandanforth 8y ago
Tim Sweeney (Founder of Epic Games) reacted strongly to this in a thread on Twitter. https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1083407460252217346 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/108340746025221734... "We specifically make the UE4 EULA apply perpetually so that when you obtain a version under a given EULA, you can stay on that version and operate under that EULA forever if you choose."
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  In fairness, that's easy for a guy sitting on Fortnite to say. That said, I do agree with his point. Unity should consider making these new TOS provisions apply from today forward instead of making them apply to everything. (That probably won't happen, because it would kneecap their upcoming cloud offerings, but I think ideally that's how it should work.)
  - TillE 8y ago
    This was their pitch with UE4 even back when Fortnite was just some weird survival game they demoed at an Apple keynote.
  - wmf 8y ago
    A retroactively-changeable EULA sounds totally radioactive and not doing that seems more like table stakes than a luxury. But I guess that's what we get with a game engine specifically aimed at less-professional developers.
    - SomeHacker44 8y ago
      IANAL but really, is this enforceable, for code already downloaded, used and deployed in compliance with the license at that time?
      - mroche 8y ago
        According to Crytek, it should be. Their engine license[0] is, if I am reading it correctly, similar in this respect. > By doing so, you, the Licensee, agree to all terms and conditions of this Agreement or in the accompanying documentation. You should read this Agreement carefully before the Start Date. If you do not agree with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement you are not authorized to use the CRYENGINE. > You agree to check www.cryengine.com periodically for new information and terms that govern your use of CRYENGINE. Crytek may modify this Agreement at any time. Crytek will inform you about revisions to this Agreement by email and/or by a notice on our home page and/or during log in. Revisions to terms affecting existing CRYENGINE shall be effective thirty (30) days after posting at www.cryengine.com If you do not agree with the new terms your only remedy is to stop using CRYENGINE. ... > If your register your Game later than June 30, 2018 then this current Agreement shall apply (no matter which CRYENGINE version you use); ... [0] https://github.com/CRYTEK/CRYENGINE/blob/release/LICENSE.md https://github.com/CRYTEK/CRYENGINE/blob/release/LICENSE.md
CosmicBagel 8y ago
Does anyone know of any cases where this new clause was used to shut down existing games using the unity runtime in their servers? This ToS change has been around for about a month so I figured that there might have been previous activity.
- CosmicBagel 8y ago
  They cleared up this concern in their blog post: https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improbables-blog-post-and-why-you-can-keep-working-on-your-spatialos-game/ https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improba...
marcinzm 8y ago
I'm not familiar with Unity so I have a few questions which aren't clear to me. Why is SpatialOS running Unity code in the cloud? Presumably a Unity client can talk to an arbitrary server backend over standard network protocols, right? Was it simply easier to write the backend in the same SDK as the frontend? Does Unity provide a networking layer that works better with both sides running Unity SDK?
mattnewport 8y ago
Forum post on the Unity forums from the Unity CTO: "We are preparing a blog post because there is a lot of mis-information but the short summary is that using Unity as a game developer or game studio in a generic cloud (GCP, AWS, Azure) or on your own servers is perfectly legal." https://forum.unity.com/threads/recent-tos-update-blocks-the-use-of-spatialos-to-make-games-in-unity.610447/page-4#post-4086469 https://forum.unity.com/threads/recent-tos-update-blocks-the...
tzs 8y ago
Consider a traditional MMORPG architecture, using a third party engine rather than an in-house engine. The engine ran on the player's computer, and the game company bought one engine license per copy of the game sold. If one were to build an MMORPG with SpatialOS instead of following the tradition approach, how does that change the number of copies of the game engine you need to license? It sounds like the engine runs in the cloud, so do they only need one copy per person who is actually online at the time, or even only one per currently occupied region of the game world, or is it still one per copy of the game sold?
- dwild 8y ago
  You need an unity engine license per copy of the game? Do you have a source for that? I can't find any reference to that on their website, they even answer "Yes" in the FAQ on the "Do I own the content I create?" which what you mentions would make it essentially false. How does free game made on Unity works?
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  It runs in the cloud and on every player's computer. Not that unity charges per copy in the first place.
Mikeb85 8y ago
Improbable is very well funded, what are the odds they could take Unity to court over this? 500m raised is no small amount, I'm sure their investors want to protect it. It seems like a Google/Java situation all over, where Improbable are building something to interact with Unity's API, and Unity is using a quasi-legal TOS to try stopping them.
robterrell 8y ago
Unity's CTO responds: https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improbables-blog-post-and-why-you-can-keep-working-on-your-spatialos-game/ https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improba... "If a game developer runs a Unity-based game server on their own servers or generic cloud instances (like GCP, AWS or Azure), they are covered by our EULA."
- ButlerianHerecy 8y ago
  Funny, that isn't what their EULA says "2.4 Streaming and Cloud Gaming Restrictions. You may not directly or indirectly distribute the Unity Software, including the runtime portion of the Unity Software (the 'Unity Runtime'), or your Project Content (if it incorporates the Unity Runtime) by means of streaming or broadcasting so that any portion of the Unity Software is primarily executed on or simulated by the cloud or a remote server and transmitted over the Internet or other network to end user devices without a separate license or authorization from Unity..."
honkycat 8y ago
Stuff like this is exactly why I stay away from Unity and stick with Unreal.
funkaster 8y ago
Unity's official response: https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improbables-blog-post-and-why-you-can-keep-working-on-your-spatialos-game/ https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improba...
- dimgl 8y ago
  So in essence, this doesn't affect anyone except for SaaS platforms that are attempting to release their own products while heavily using Unity's engine within them. Which 100% makes sense. You're building your company based off of someone else's commercial product... You need a specific license for this. GG Improbable
- fomojola 8y ago
  Reading between the lines, it sounds like they only want the game developer to be running Unity on the server, not any other third party. Does this create an opportunity for a professional services outfit to provide maintenance and support for running cloud servers rented by the game developer? Can I put an AMI up in the AWS marketplace and charge for it?
  - ButlerianHerecy 8y ago
    That's what their PR people say, but that isn't what their terms and conditions actually do say... "2.4 Streaming and Cloud Gaming Restrictions. You may not directly or indirectly distribute the Unity Software, including the runtime portion of the Unity Software (the 'Unity Runtime'), or your Project Content (if it incorporates the Unity Runtime) by means of streaming or broadcasting so that any portion of the Unity Software is primarily executed on or simulated by the cloud or a remote server and transmitted over the Internet or other network to end user devices without a separate license or authorization from Unity..."
peterept 8y ago
I run a multiplayer VR team platform where we run a copy of Unity3d on the linux cloud server and load the the same Unity Asset Bundle on the server as the clients ("The current world"). I chose this method because: (1) it followed the Unity3d documented approach using UNET server and client architecture (2) it meant we get to simulate the entire scene on the server (physics, meshes, networked objects, etc) We boot the instances on demand when a team wants to meet in VR. Sounds like Unity's new T&C's means this architecture is dead in the water.. unless Authorized by Unity3d. :-(
danielvf 8y ago
Here’s Unity’s response: https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improbables-blog-post-and-why-you-can-keep-working-on-your-spatialos-game/ https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improba...
wink 8y ago
This is also an interesting angle: https://twitter.com/antumbral/status/1083587536310611968 https://twitter.com/antumbral/status/1083587536310611968

264 points by MikusR 8y ago

holtalanm 8y ago

damn. I was looking forward to playing Worlds Adrift someday. Hopefully they can get this resolved.

Gaelan 8y ago
Worlds Adrift says they're still up for now.
- holtalanm 8y ago
  that remains to be seen for how long. if they are operating against the Unity ToS, I would expect it to be down soon as a result. Like I said, I really hope they get this fixed, because that game looked good.
Prefinem 8y ago
You should play it while you can. It's a very fun game and the PVE server is some of the best relaxing gameplay I have experienced (as long as falling into an abyss doesn't stress you out)
kej 8y ago
From the Worlds Adrift blog, they've apparently heard back from the Unity side: "Bossa has been informed by Unity that Worlds Adrift should not be affected by the situation between Improbable and Unity. Thus, Worlds Adrift remains live as normal."

eropple 8y ago

This article is pretty awful. Ars Technica's is better: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/01/unity-engine-tos-change-makes-cloud-based-spatialos-games-illegal/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/01/unity-engine-tos-chan...

pro_zac 8y ago
Thank you! Actually explains what Spatial OS is, why it is used, and what changed in Unity’s ToS that affects it.
sctb 8y ago
Thanks! We've updated the link from https://www.mcvuk.com/development/unity-blocks-improbables-spatial-os-all-live-and-in-development-games-affected https://www.mcvuk.com/development/unity-blocks-improbables-s....

andrewmcwatters 8y ago

I sort of find it poetic. If you decide to build on a commercial platform like Unity's you're subject to the whims of Unity Technologies. It sucks, but game engines are by far one of the riskiest investments I've seen across technical subfields. You have all of this engine-specific knowledge, and all of a sudden moving engines is near impossible. Tons of common things across major game engines, but in practice it's not so easy to move here or there. It's not like a database, where maybe some data type quirks are a bit different, and hopefully you can just change the underlying implementation behind your DB abstraction. Change a connector or something of the sort. With game engines, you'd have to reexport models from sources, textures might be treated a bit differently, map formats might have to be scrapped all together or converted using some at-the-moment nonexistent scene converter. There's a lot involved.

thexa4 8y ago
Isn't that always the case with frameworks vs libraries? A database can be seen as a library but you build your entire game on top of the engine which makes it like a framework.

atburrow 8y ago

Here's a discussion on the Unity forum: https://forum.unity.com/threads/recent-tos-update-blocks-the-use-of-spatialos-to-make-games-in-unity.610447/ https://forum.unity.com/threads/recent-tos-update-blocks-the...

hesdeadjim 8y ago

I’m pretty aghast at this move by Unity. They have made it clear they have a managed cloud hosting infrastructure in the works, but explicitly blocking others from providing it as a service strikes me as a “we really need this revenue and will do anything to protect it” move. PlayFab is unmentioned but they will also be affected by this move as they offer a dedicated server hosting service among their offerings. Even more frustrating is that Unity’s offering is not even in beta yet. Details have been sparse, though I expect to hear more at GDC this year.

andrewmcwatters 8y ago
It basically signals to me they don't give a fuck about you; it's Unity-first, and you can deal with it. Take it or leave it. After being burnt by the Source Engine, I'll never use Unity again after having read this.
- hadrien01 8y ago
  What happened with Source?
  - umvi 8y ago
    Valve pretty much abandoned developing everything but Steam. You'll still see a few token projects come out of Valve, but it seems like they've basically turned into Steam, Inc.
    - izzydata 8y ago
      It's not really that surprising. That can do 1/10th the work as before and make 100 times the revenue. Until something seriously disrupts the online PC game market they can sit back and ignore game development.
      - dx87 8y ago
        They actually had a new game, Artifact, come out the end of November. It didn't have a good reception, mostly due to unrealistic expectations set by people in the beta, but they've commited to supporting and improving it for a long time.

hedora 8y ago

I’m surprised the developers can’t simply reject the changes to the Unity TOS and keep using an old version of the engine (especially for production games!) Anyone know why that’s not an option?

andrewmcwatters 8y ago
Because Unity's TOS, like many software agreements, stretch retroactively and proactively across versions. If you use Unity, you agree to Unity Technologies terms, and their discretion to change them, without notice. It's literally in the terms. It's not so much software as it is software as a service.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Its highly unlikely that retroactively changing an agreement like that is actually legal.
  - ncallaway 8y ago
    The agreement that you agreed to previously included terms that stipulated that Unity specifically had the right to unilaterally revise the terms. If you don't agree with the new terms, you must immediately stop using the product.
  - jkaplowitz 8y ago
    A lot of the instincts around one-sided or surprising contract terms come from consumer protection laws in some countries. Not only is that comparatively absent from the US legal climate, it often doesn't apply to business to business relationships (such as between Unity and game development companies) even where it is present for consumers.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  The doctrine of illusory promise makes a lot of the 'we can change the license however we want' clauses very weak, as far as contractual robustness goes. There are other similar contractual doctrines that attempt to deal with similar issues, but the issue isn't that the release valves don't exist. It's that they're old, rusted and require a lot of force to turn. The illusory promise doctrine is very seldomly used which means there's a lot of uncertainty about whether or not it would even work. And that's if the dispute gets into the courts in the first place. Which courts it gets into is another big deal; some T&Cs put requirements that the choice of forum for disputes is a favourable one for them, or they force arbitration to be the primary dispute resolution mechanic. That said, the illusory promise doctrine CAN and HAS demolished these type of T&Cs in the past. Sometimes they even blow up other contractor favouring terms as they go (like the aforementioned choice of forum/arbitration clauses, etc.) But why are people still putting this language into their agreements? Well... Even if the court doesn't like that segment of the contract and they sever it, there are other ways for the contractor to indicate that the bargain they've arrived at shouldn't be disturbed - including pointing towards continued performance and a lack of notice from others, so even if you correctly note that the contract is busted, the court might say you tacitly agreed to the changed terms and they're read back in, anyways. Civilian systems have a different strategy for dealing with these types of contracts, calling them contracts of adhesion. They aren't the product of a negotiation, so they treat them will less lenience and deference. Common law countries often adopt this style of protection through Consumer protection laws or other similar vehicles where the rules of contract are changed to fix different types of contracts. Basically, it's very complicated - this is just my top-of-mind snapshot on some of the issues, and that complexity creates cost, and that cost prevents oversight.

EamonnMR 8y ago

This is why I tend to shy away from proprietary tools like Unity-an event like this is sort of like an asteroid strike, it's improbable but there's no defense against it and if it happens you are wiped out.

vkou 8y ago
Do that, and your game will never ship - because developing your own engine is a beast of a timesink. The open source offerings are toys compared to Unity/Unreal.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  Not necessarily. Many developers still write their own engines, they just don't usually make high-end graphical AAA type games. Even then it is possible, as Jonathan Blow proves.
  - learc83 8y ago
    Jonathan Blow was a hugely success indie developer prior to creating The Witness, and it had a multi-million dollar budget. Also it's a great game, but I wouldn't say it's comparable graphically to a high end AAA game.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- Retra 8y ago
  Only if you need an engine that powerful and flexible. A toned down and simplified engine is certainly not as hard to develop.
- hnbroseph 8y ago
  maybe, but we can see that projects built on spatialos won't be shipping either. (hopefully this is a temporary unintended consequence of the license update.)

bitwize 8y ago

This is why I write my own damn engines.

leppr 8y ago
Or just use Godot[1] or any of the many FOSS game engines out there. [1]: https://godotengine.org/ https://godotengine.org/
baldfat 8y ago
I think using Open Sourced Engines is the proper response to this. Why reinvent the wheel unless you have your own use case.
- Thaxll 8y ago
  Open source engine suck big time, and I'm not even talking about the tooling part which is an even bigger problem, video game engine are usually not something you can do well on your own without large resources.
  - baldfat 8y ago
    Godot and Phaser are not "Suck Big Time" engines. It depends what you are making, but again there is no reason why we must be stuck with closed source engines.
    - Thaxll 8y ago
      Not to offend anyone, but those are toys engine. Godot is probably the most advanced and it's nowhere in term of what proprietary engines can do. I mean look at their showcase: https://godotengine.org/showcase https://godotengine.org/showcase The game engine world is really different from what you usually read on HN like libraries, frameworks, DBs, languages ect ... it's a closed world where everyone built something custom.
      - nortiero 8y ago

lordnacho 8y ago

This is directly relevant to that Cory Doctorow article from yesterday. In real world inventions someone could make a compatible piece and users could just buy it and plug it in. Say you have a clever new attachment for a vacuum cleaner. In cyberspace you can make things incompatible by law, and it's very effective to police. So what should you be allowed to do this with?

fijal 8y ago
There are protections against that in the EU - you can reverse engineer and otherwise circumvent all the protections for the sake of making things interoperable.
- lordnacho 8y ago
  Isn't Unity Danish?
  - ed312 8y ago
    US users (both devs + gamers), and companies would still be subject to US contract law.
  - fijal 8y ago
    According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_Technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_Technologies they're based in San Francisco these days (but were founded in Denmark).

asien 8y ago

In September and January of last year Unity raised a considerable amount of cash [0]. It seems like VCs want their growth number up and Unity has a very clear plan to run their engine in the cloud to create artificial growth by being the sole vendor of Unity Multiplayer Hosting. This is the shadiest move I’ve seen in the Industry, even worst than MongoDB. [0]https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/unity-technologies https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/unity-technologies

ivraatiems 8y ago
What did MongoDB do?
- aboutruby 8y ago
  Probably the licensing change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MongoDB#Licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MongoDB#Licensing
  - nothis 8y ago
    What’s the problem here?
    - ac29 8y ago
      It "requires that those making the software publicly available as a service must make the service's source code available under this license".
      - DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
        That change seems to be in line with the FOSS ethos. I imagine that from the perspective of the FOSS community, using FOSS software in a SaaS product without releasing the code that drives the service is just a loophole.
        stordoff 8y ago

tcfunk 8y ago

I feel like people are missing the mark here, complaining about commercial game engines. SpatialOS was basically re-distributing Unity under a SaaS model. Unity is in the right here. Edit: Have heard some pretty good points about the ambiguous wording of the ToS (such as theoretically making the distribution of a Unity-made game through a storefront illegal). It will be interesting to see if this ToS change sticks.

wishinghand 8y ago
No, Spatial was not doing that, they are an integration with Unity. Developers still needed to install Unity with a license, get the SpatialOS framework running as their net code, and then write a game.
- tcfunk 8y ago
  I'm not so sure. Maybe I am misunderstanding but the terms prohibit the "use [of] a managed service running on cloud infrastructure...to install or execute the Unity Runtime on the cloud or a remote server". Which leads me to believe they are installing or running the Unity Runtime on their servers? If not I'd love a better explanation :)
  - vorpalhex 8y ago
    If I write a Java app and run it on AWS, I'm in the clear. If I write a licensed Unity app and run it on SpatialOS, well, that's now no longer allowed.
  - mattigames 8y ago
    Yes they are running unity runtime on their servers, there is nothing in the TOS against that, what is illegal is to share any of the data from that runtime online with other Unity instances. Which has nothing to do with "re-distributing" Unity has a SAAS.
    - tcfunk 8y ago
      Re-distributing was the wrong word to use. But it seems to me that the Unity Runtime is a part of the stack of their SaaS.

wishinghand 8y ago

Godot is a game engine licensed with the MIT license. Unity just proved that free != yours.

thrillgore 8y ago
Godot is also behind the curve on content pipeline tools. I love it to death, but I would never be able to convince anyone outside hobbyists to use it because it has no goddamn FBX support, or an easy ECS framework.
- wishinghand 8y ago
  Hopefully some of the Unity exodus helps Godot along with more contributors.
  - cwyers 8y ago
    The issue, of course, is most of the people using Unity are using it because they don't have the ability (or time) to write the functionality Unity provides themselves.
    - wishinghand 8y ago
      There will be higher skilled devs who are using Unity that are appalled by this business practice and will want to move to a more open platform.
      - thrillgore 8y ago
        Unless there's an incentive for them to share their contributions back to Godot (like a paid plugin store, of which at least one is in development) they won't stay. And no, I am not talking about the Asset Library.
        wishinghand 8y ago
        If that was true, then no open source software would ever get released.

Reedx 8y ago

Improbable's response: https://improbable.io/company/news/2019/01/10/unity-blocks-spatialos https://improbable.io/company/news/2019/01/10/unity-blocks-s... "Worryingly, this change occurred during an open commercial negotiation with the company to find a way to do more together." So they had an ongoing negotiation and Unity just went ahead and made the change? Yikes. Also kudos to Improbable for setting up an emergency fund for partners affected by this.

tjbarkley 8y ago
Maybe it's a shady negotiating tactic? I wonder if they had come to an impasse.
bane 8y ago
It's funny, I worked for a company that was negotiating a license with improbable and they also changed the terms in the middle and left us hanging. I'm playing a very small violin right now.
- dimgl 8y ago
  That blog post is so slimy. Making Unity look like the bad guy when there's clearly business dealings in the background that the public is unaware of.
Reedx 8y ago
Unity's response, saying that Improbable is incorrect: https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improbables-blog-post-and-why-you-can-keep-working-on-your-spatialos-game/ https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improba...
- ButlerianHerecy 8y ago
  The relevant portion of Unity's EULA which says that they their PR folks are incorrect "2.4 Streaming and Cloud Gaming Restrictions. You may not directly or indirectly distribute the Unity Software, including the runtime portion of the Unity Software (the 'Unity Runtime'), or your Project Content (if it incorporates the Unity Runtime) by means of streaming or broadcasting so that any portion of the Unity Software is primarily executed on or simulated by the cloud or a remote server and transmitted over the Internet or other network to end user devices without a separate license or authorization from Unity..."

ezekg 8y ago

> You may not directly or indirectly distribute the Unity Software, including the runtime portion of the Unity Software (the “Unity Runtime”), or your Project Content (if it incorporates the Unity Runtime) by means of streaming or broadcasting so that any portion of the Unity Software is primarily executed on or simulated by the cloud or a remote server and transmitted over the Internet or other network to end user devices without a separate license or authorization from Unity. These terms are incredibly vague. Makes it sound like you cannot run your own dedicated server for multiplayer without being in breach of the new terms. If Unity forces their new multiplayer hosted service on their users, I (and I foresee many others) will immediately start transitioning to Unreal. Ref: https://unity3d.com/legal/terms-of-service/software https://unity3d.com/legal/terms-of-service/software (sec 2.4)

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jimmaswell 8y ago
That reads to me like you can still have servers, just without them using the Unity runtime. Is using the Unity runtime for servers common? The multiplayer Unity games that I know of don't do that.
- meheleventyone 8y ago
  I believe Rust does and that’s perhaps the single biggest Unity multiplayer project in terms of concurrent users AFAIK.
- ezekg 8y ago
  Yes, as far as I know, running a headless version of the game (Unity in "batch mode") is how a lot of (most?) games do dedicated authoritative servers, otherwise your server wouldn't actually be running the same game. Or am I misunderstanding something?
  - meheleventyone 8y ago
    You don’t strictly need to have the same codebase for client and server. If you’re making a slower paced game it’d be wasteful to burn processing power running the full Unity runtime.

JasonSage 8y ago

Seems like the best path forward for a current cloud Unity provider would be to move from managed Unity to one you can deploy yourself. Make it so it’s trivial to run your own and move the licensed use to the game developer instead of the cloud service. EDIT: after reading the actual terms it seems like even game developers can’t do this without violating terms. Unity really wants this to be something they wholly own. Yikes

jayd16 8y ago

So what does the TOS change mean exactly? At first glance it sounds like they want a lince see for every instance of the editor running. This doesn't apply to build code deployed on servers does it?

victorbstan 8y ago

It’s got to be said. I felt unity’s business model was not very friendly to devs because you don’t get access to the source code. Unless you have a very expensive enterprise license. On the other hand, you can get access to unreal engines source code in github for free. Switch to unreal.

beerlord 8y ago
Look on Upwork, Freelancer, or other jobs sites. There are 20x as many Unity programmers as Unreal. C++ is overkill for most tasks. C# is just an easier and safer language to use. For a small studio, using Unity can be the difference between finding a game programmer or not. Plus there is a much bigger community in case your programmer gets stuck, and more useful assets available on the store.

yodon 8y ago

Twitch streaming is pretty important to most gaming markets. This announcement sounds like it also has the result of making twitch streaming against the Unity TOS. > You may not [distribute Unity or your Unity Project Content via] streaming or broadcasting so that any portion of the Unity Software is primarily executed on or simulated by the cloud or a remote server and transmitted over the Internet or other network to end user devices without a separate license or authorization from Unity.

hessproject 8y ago
> streaming or broadcasting so that any portion of the Unity Software is primarily executed on or simulated by the cloud or a remote server and transmitted over the Internet or other network to end user devices I could be wrong, but the "is primarily executed on" bit sounds to me like it is more aimed at preventing creation of a service like geforce now or playstation now where a user plays the game but it is streamed from the remote system where it is actually running
mesozoic 8y ago
I guess they're kicking Hearthstone off of Twitch

DaveSapien 8y ago

Its stuff like this that make me glad I spread client work over Unity and my own studios (important) projects on our own engine (c++). I want to be able to play/port my games in 40+ years. Who knows what else a private company like Unity will introduce in coming years.

tomc1985 8y ago

Hey look, yet another software rental provider fucking over its customers! Y'all did this to computing, folks. Should have stuck with perpetual licensing...

jahewson 8y ago

SpatialOS streaming Unity seems broadly equivalent to AWS hosting MongoDB. Especially in that it undermines Unity’s (i.e. Mongo’s) ability to sell a hosted equivalent product (whether or not that exists yet) and it leverages some of Unity’s value into rent for Improbable. Now there’s a difference in that SpatialOS is adding meaningful value - but it’s not necessarily their’s to take. Ultimately this is Unity’s platform and they control it and its future direction. I suspect that more value can be delivered to both parties if they reach an agreement - SpatialOS is really cool! What we’re seeing here is presumably a strong negotiation tactic from Unity - they want to continue to own the relationship with their own customers - hopefully we’ll see some kind of agreement in the future.

ec109685 8y ago
AWS isn’t using any of MongoDB’s code — merely emulating the protocol and behavior.

ufo 8y ago

Could someone please clarify what SpatialOS actually does? Even in the updated arstechnica link I still don't quite get what is going on and how it breaches the new terms of service. Are the game clients used by the players running Unity? Is the server running Unity? How is SpatialOS's setup different from other multiplayer games?

Thaxll 8y ago
It's a server side framework that integrates with other commercial engines ( Unity / Unreal ), what it does is it allows to have a single big map where each small chunks of the map are handled by a gameserver. For the player it's transparent, you can have huge world with inter connected game server, instead of having one map with 32 players on it.

mr_puzzled 8y ago

Just curious, how does the godot engine compare to Unity and UE4? Is it suitable for AAA studios or are there any major pieces missing?

suby 8y ago
It is not ready imo. Someone correct me if I am wrong about any of this. Their custom scripting language is extremely slow to the point where I wouldn't consider using it. You can use C#, but if you download the c# version you get a warning on startup which states that this version isnt production ready. You can use C++, but I found the workflow here awkward, plus they just introduced it with 3.0. They are about to launch 3.1 but this includes breaking changes to the way you use c++, so if you were using it and wanted to upgrade you'd have to rewrite a portion of your code.
- ignaloidas 8y ago
  Oh, come on, how many compute-intensive things you need to do in a game scripting language? GDscript is fast enough for scripting, C++ is there for the compute-intensive tasks you might do (though most of them are already implemented by the engine). C# on the other hand, is to attract Unity users that are too lazy to put in 30 minutes to go through GDscript's concepts. It's OK that it's there, but personally I found C# one of the least enjoyable languages to program in.
  - suby 8y ago
    Performance is a feature. If you want your game to have as large a playerbase as possible, it needs to perform well even on bad hardware. I strongly suspect that most people will write their entire game in an engines default language. Especially in this case where the much advertised best alternative (C#) gives you a warning on startup about not being production ready. Yes, C# is probably integrated due to its success in Unity, but it's a sane choice. I would argue more so than GDScript. C# has better performance, tooling, support, not to mention an existing userbase of people who already know (and I'm sure many of whom like) the language. Ignoring C#, they cannot be breaking their API for writing native code. I'm not sure if it was a one time thing, or if it will continue going into future releases, but they absolutely need to have stability if they want people to use their engine long term.

Animats 8y ago

So right now we know the "what", but not the "why". What Improbable really has, or claims to have, is a way to scale massively multiplayer games where everyone is in the same world. They have a back end which is basically a synching system for small data elements between computers in a data center. Think of it as being like the way a shared memory multiprocessor synchs its memory system. Some data items belong to a single CPU, and that CPU has read/write access to it. Anybody else can read, but they get updated if the data changes. Who has write ownership can change based on demand. Improbable has a downloadable demo if you want to play with this. The game use of this is as a solution to the "region crossing" problem in Second Life. The big Second Life world is divided into squares 256m on a side, each managed by a separate process. The processes talk to each other, and objects can move across region boundaries. The system used is ad-hoc and fails frequently. If you drive around Second Life, about twice an hour you'll have serious trouble at a region crossing and may have to relog. Improbable raised $500M, the largest investment ever made in a European tech startup.[1] They put 150 developers on the problem. They claim to have a solution. It's set up as a pay per use service. You pay for data storage, you pay for network traffic, and it has to run on Google's cloud. They don't publish prices, but at least one developer dumped them for cost reasons. This is going to be like physics engines. In the 1990s it was really hard, and physics engines required heavy research into nonlinear differential equation solvers and fast collision detection. I used to work on that. There were startups with unicorn dreams - Mathengine, Havok. Now, everybody does it, and multiple open source libraries are available. Mathengine is gone, and Havok had a down round, downsized, replaced the management, and was sold twice. Physics is routine middleware now. Right now, though, Improbable has the only system for this. Until someone else figures it out. This event pushed Improbable to open source their API code with the MIT license. That means anyone can now see how to talk to the back end, and start thinking about how to replace their back end. Progress marches on. (Hm. What if you wrote a back end which, instead of needing multiple "cloud" machines, ran on a single huge Amazon AWS instance, like the one with 128 CPUs. That's an easier problem than coordinating it over the network. You might not be able to support a planet sized world, but you could support large islands you have to teleport between.) [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/10/british-gaming-company-improbable-faces-ransom-demands-from-supplier-unity https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/10/british-gam...

sandyhatches 8y ago

Illegal is the wrong word, but still, fuck. My game uses dedicated servers built on Unity. Seems this applies even to me. Kinda shitty.

ralph84 8y ago
Yes, breach of contract is more accurate. The lesson is make sure your product doesn't depend on clickwrap terms that can be changed at any time.

DATACOMMANDER 8y ago

IANAL, but if you want to include a blanket “we can change these terms at any time” clause in your TOS, it seems like you should be obligated to specify a “grandfathering” window, i.e., a length of time during which any licensee will be allowed to operate under the old terms in the event of a change. Otherwise, you’re not actually giving reasonable consideration, since you’re accepting payment in return for what could potentially be a single day (or hour, or minute) of use of your software. Furthermore, a particular licensee’s window ought to be proportional to the amount of consideration given by that licensee, i.e., the number of licenses/renewals purchases by them. How is a contract conscionable if it allows one party to become dependent on the other’s services—and to pay them accordingly—while providing for the latter’s right to suddenly withdraw support?

holtalanm 8y ago

If I was using Unity, I would be immediately looking at other alternatives. This kind of thing just screams shady business that doesn't care about their customers in the least.

cleansy 8y ago

The CEO of Unity is the former CEO of Electronic Arts. I do believe that he might be executing the same business practices on Unity's developers as EA did on their customers. The first time I saw their CEO choice I thought that this can't be good for the dev community around Unity. Here is a question, even though Unity is incorporated in the US, did anyone find the filings with the SEC? Or is it not required for and Inc to publish them?

Mikeb85 8y ago
> Here is a question, even though Unity is incorporated in the US, did anyone find the filings with the SEC? Unity is a private company.
apta 8y ago
Who thought it was a good idea to hire's EA's ex-CEO?
goobynight 8y ago
Incorporation doesn't mean you need SEC filings. You're thinking of going public. Basically, if you can't go buy a company's stock, they probably don't have public filings with the SEC.

iandanforth 8y ago

Tim Sweeney (Founder of Epic Games) reacted strongly to this in a thread on Twitter. https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1083407460252217346 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/108340746025221734... "We specifically make the UE4 EULA apply perpetually so that when you obtain a version under a given EULA, you can stay on that version and operate under that EULA forever if you choose."

bilbo0s 8y ago
In fairness, that's easy for a guy sitting on Fortnite to say. That said, I do agree with his point. Unity should consider making these new TOS provisions apply from today forward instead of making them apply to everything. (That probably won't happen, because it would kneecap their upcoming cloud offerings, but I think ideally that's how it should work.)
- TillE 8y ago
  This was their pitch with UE4 even back when Fortnite was just some weird survival game they demoed at an Apple keynote.
- wmf 8y ago
  A retroactively-changeable EULA sounds totally radioactive and not doing that seems more like table stakes than a luxury. But I guess that's what we get with a game engine specifically aimed at less-professional developers.
  - SomeHacker44 8y ago
    IANAL but really, is this enforceable, for code already downloaded, used and deployed in compliance with the license at that time?
    - mroche 8y ago
      According to Crytek, it should be. Their engine license[0] is, if I am reading it correctly, similar in this respect. > By doing so, you, the Licensee, agree to all terms and conditions of this Agreement or in the accompanying documentation. You should read this Agreement carefully before the Start Date. If you do not agree with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement you are not authorized to use the CRYENGINE. > You agree to check www.cryengine.com periodically for new information and terms that govern your use of CRYENGINE. Crytek may modify this Agreement at any time. Crytek will inform you about revisions to this Agreement by email and/or by a notice on our home page and/or during log in. Revisions to terms affecting existing CRYENGINE shall be effective thirty (30) days after posting at www.cryengine.com If you do not agree with the new terms your only remedy is to stop using CRYENGINE. ... > If your register your Game later than June 30, 2018 then this current Agreement shall apply (no matter which CRYENGINE version you use); ... [0] https://github.com/CRYTEK/CRYENGINE/blob/release/LICENSE.md https://github.com/CRYTEK/CRYENGINE/blob/release/LICENSE.md

CosmicBagel 8y ago

Does anyone know of any cases where this new clause was used to shut down existing games using the unity runtime in their servers? This ToS change has been around for about a month so I figured that there might have been previous activity.

CosmicBagel 8y ago
They cleared up this concern in their blog post: https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improbables-blog-post-and-why-you-can-keep-working-on-your-spatialos-game/ https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improba...

marcinzm 8y ago

I'm not familiar with Unity so I have a few questions which aren't clear to me. Why is SpatialOS running Unity code in the cloud? Presumably a Unity client can talk to an arbitrary server backend over standard network protocols, right? Was it simply easier to write the backend in the same SDK as the frontend? Does Unity provide a networking layer that works better with both sides running Unity SDK?

mattnewport 8y ago

Forum post on the Unity forums from the Unity CTO: "We are preparing a blog post because there is a lot of mis-information but the short summary is that using Unity as a game developer or game studio in a generic cloud (GCP, AWS, Azure) or on your own servers is perfectly legal." https://forum.unity.com/threads/recent-tos-update-blocks-the-use-of-spatialos-to-make-games-in-unity.610447/page-4#post-4086469 https://forum.unity.com/threads/recent-tos-update-blocks-the...

tzs 8y ago

Consider a traditional MMORPG architecture, using a third party engine rather than an in-house engine. The engine ran on the player's computer, and the game company bought one engine license per copy of the game sold. If one were to build an MMORPG with SpatialOS instead of following the tradition approach, how does that change the number of copies of the game engine you need to license? It sounds like the engine runs in the cloud, so do they only need one copy per person who is actually online at the time, or even only one per currently occupied region of the game world, or is it still one per copy of the game sold?

dwild 8y ago
You need an unity engine license per copy of the game? Do you have a source for that? I can't find any reference to that on their website, they even answer "Yes" in the FAQ on the "Do I own the content I create?" which what you mentions would make it essentially false. How does free game made on Unity works?
Dylan16807 8y ago
It runs in the cloud and on every player's computer. Not that unity charges per copy in the first place.

Mikeb85 8y ago

Improbable is very well funded, what are the odds they could take Unity to court over this? 500m raised is no small amount, I'm sure their investors want to protect it. It seems like a Google/Java situation all over, where Improbable are building something to interact with Unity's API, and Unity is using a quasi-legal TOS to try stopping them.

robterrell 8y ago

Unity's CTO responds: https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improbables-blog-post-and-why-you-can-keep-working-on-your-spatialos-game/ https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improba... "If a game developer runs a Unity-based game server on their own servers or generic cloud instances (like GCP, AWS or Azure), they are covered by our EULA."

ButlerianHerecy 8y ago
Funny, that isn't what their EULA says "2.4 Streaming and Cloud Gaming Restrictions. You may not directly or indirectly distribute the Unity Software, including the runtime portion of the Unity Software (the 'Unity Runtime'), or your Project Content (if it incorporates the Unity Runtime) by means of streaming or broadcasting so that any portion of the Unity Software is primarily executed on or simulated by the cloud or a remote server and transmitted over the Internet or other network to end user devices without a separate license or authorization from Unity..."

honkycat 8y ago

Stuff like this is exactly why I stay away from Unity and stick with Unreal.

funkaster 8y ago

Unity's official response: https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improbables-blog-post-and-why-you-can-keep-working-on-your-spatialos-game/ https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improba...

dimgl 8y ago
So in essence, this doesn't affect anyone except for SaaS platforms that are attempting to release their own products while heavily using Unity's engine within them. Which 100% makes sense. You're building your company based off of someone else's commercial product... You need a specific license for this. GG Improbable
fomojola 8y ago
Reading between the lines, it sounds like they only want the game developer to be running Unity on the server, not any other third party. Does this create an opportunity for a professional services outfit to provide maintenance and support for running cloud servers rented by the game developer? Can I put an AMI up in the AWS marketplace and charge for it?
- ButlerianHerecy 8y ago
  That's what their PR people say, but that isn't what their terms and conditions actually do say... "2.4 Streaming and Cloud Gaming Restrictions. You may not directly or indirectly distribute the Unity Software, including the runtime portion of the Unity Software (the 'Unity Runtime'), or your Project Content (if it incorporates the Unity Runtime) by means of streaming or broadcasting so that any portion of the Unity Software is primarily executed on or simulated by the cloud or a remote server and transmitted over the Internet or other network to end user devices without a separate license or authorization from Unity..."

peterept 8y ago

I run a multiplayer VR team platform where we run a copy of Unity3d on the linux cloud server and load the the same Unity Asset Bundle on the server as the clients ("The current world"). I chose this method because: (1) it followed the Unity3d documented approach using UNET server and client architecture (2) it meant we get to simulate the entire scene on the server (physics, meshes, networked objects, etc) We boot the instances on demand when a team wants to meet in VR. Sounds like Unity's new T&C's means this architecture is dead in the water.. unless Authorized by Unity3d. :-(

danielvf 8y ago

Here’s Unity’s response: https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improbables-blog-post-and-why-you-can-keep-working-on-your-spatialos-game/ https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improba...

wink 8y ago

This is also an interesting angle: https://twitter.com/antumbral/status/1083587536310611968 https://twitter.com/antumbral/status/1083587536310611968