3 ms·

I've been using Unity on and off since 2008. All I can say is that the whole day's events were just bizarre. There's this thread on the Unity Forum with close t

I've been using Unity on and off since 2008. All I can say is that the whole day's events were just bizarre. There's this thread on the Unity Forum with close to 500 replies as of now. In the thread are mostly people lashing out at Unity. Mr. Sweeney also linked this thread on twitter saying this thread is "full of highly intelligent indie devs having an insightful debate about engine EULAs and their legal ramifications". I must have a very different set of eyes than Mr. Sweeney here. But the first 200 or so replies were made before Unity could even post a response. They were mostly speculations and mods asking people to calm down and wait for an official response. This is mostly because Improbable's first blog post did not give any specifics and made it sound like Unity pulled the plug overnight (later according to Unity, Improbable knew about the TOS violation for over a year). So then Unity made a response blog post. Improbable made a 2nd blog post. And Epic made their 25mil announcement. Then, that Unity thread has pretty much turned into a conspiracy thread fueled by the f#$@ed up timing of everything. "Highly intelligent" and "insightful debate" would not be my choice words to describe that thread. And lastly, I want to say, even if Mr. Sweeney had all the good intentions, it was really painful to see Epic capitalizing on Unity in such quick manner and intensity. I was actually in agreement with his tweets before he posted the lame thread link and announced the 25mil fund to help people transition from Unity to UE4. https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1083580407541583872 https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/108358040754158387... https://improbable.io/company/news/2019/01/10/unity-blocks-spatialos https://improbable.io/company/news/2019/01/10/unity-blocks-s...

Flenser 8y ago
Unity's blog post refutes a lot of what Improbable claim about released and in production games: 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...
- reitzensteinm 8y ago
  No, it does not. Even if Unity grants an exception to the games already in development, they've nipped the longevity of the integration in the bud. Why would Improbable continue to support Unity long term when it's a dead end for them? Unity has just done something actively hostile to their users, and they're attempting to downplay it, poorly.
  - OCASM 8y ago
    Improbable could simply comply with the licensing or negotiate a deal. Instead they pretended it as if it was just Unity being evil for no reason at all. It's Improbable who acted badly here.
    - reitzensteinm 8y ago
      No deal should be needed. The TOS itself is Unity being evil to line its own pockets. Unity is trying to tell me, as a game developer using their product, where and how I can use the built executables generated from their editor. I have no interest in Improbable and this has been a major shot across the bow for me.
      - OCASM 8y ago
        Such an evil TOS that the only affected party was a company that launches FUD campaigns when things don't go its way...
        reitzensteinm 8y ago
        I am affected, as is anyone developing headless multiplayer games in Unity, a feature they've taken care to support since at least as far back as 2011 when I started using Unity. Were this limited to Improbable, and the changes limited to what is required to stop them (no building of executables for third parties using the Unity Editor), nobody would care much. If you're not just trying to troll, I would suggest actually reading the wording of the changes.

Flenser 8y ago

Unity's blog post refutes a lot of what Improbable claim about released and in production games: 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...

reitzensteinm 8y ago
No, it does not. Even if Unity grants an exception to the games already in development, they've nipped the longevity of the integration in the bud. Why would Improbable continue to support Unity long term when it's a dead end for them? Unity has just done something actively hostile to their users, and they're attempting to downplay it, poorly.
- OCASM 8y ago
  Improbable could simply comply with the licensing or negotiate a deal. Instead they pretended it as if it was just Unity being evil for no reason at all. It's Improbable who acted badly here.
  - reitzensteinm 8y ago
    No deal should be needed. The TOS itself is Unity being evil to line its own pockets. Unity is trying to tell me, as a game developer using their product, where and how I can use the built executables generated from their editor. I have no interest in Improbable and this has been a major shot across the bow for me.
    - OCASM 8y ago
      Such an evil TOS that the only affected party was a company that launches FUD campaigns when things don't go its way...
      - reitzensteinm 8y ago
        I am affected, as is anyone developing headless multiplayer games in Unity, a feature they've taken care to support since at least as far back as 2011 when I started using Unity. Were this limited to Improbable, and the changes limited to what is required to stop them (no building of executables for third parties using the Unity Editor), nobody would care much. If you're not just trying to troll, I would suggest actually reading the wording of the changes.