3 ms·

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-improbabl

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.

3 ms·

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-improbabl

by Flenser 8y ago

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.