4 ms·

Because they said "overnight" it make everything they said invalid? Because Unity contacted them a year ago make this an non issue? Don't you agree that based

by dwild 8y ago

Because they said "overnight" it make everything they said invalid? Because Unity contacted them a year ago make this an non issue? Don't you agree that based on the EULA, that this: > Projects that are currently in production or live using SpatialOS are not affected by any actions we have taken with Improbable. Is false? > 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. This too? This is merely saying that they will selectively apply their EULA, which from the beginning is extremely vague, even more so before the previous update. What's even a year in game development? Could you abandon your whole game source code in a year based on Unity deciding to apply their EULA to you specifically? I don't think so. Could you force your whole user base to stop using your whole system because Unity decided to apply their EULA to you specifically? That's what they asked them a year ago and overnight made more clear in their EULA. What Improbable said is true, the issue Improbable raised, is true. Whether they have been told this a year ago, or today, doesn't change that this practice from Unity is extremely awful and put in danger EVERY SINGLE entity that Unity may not like in the future. Personally I think what Improbable did by waiting a year was extremely generous, they gave Unity a year to change their stance and not start to apply their EULA selectively like that. Overnight, Improbable showed to the world the true nature of Unity.

blueboo 8y ago
I agree, but you have the wrong takeaway. Improbable's knowing, selective omission of the pertinent fact that they'd been in negotiation for over a year shows the true nature of Improbable. I really think Unity went above and beyond, here. And the fact that Improbable ran to their competitor to do a rapid PR stunt shows that they had their knives sharpened and ready to go. Tsk, tsk!
- jhall1468 8y ago
  Improbable stated, up front, that they were in negotiations with Unity. The disagreement seems to be that Unity claims they were in violation of the TOS the entire time, while Improbable claims the recent changes to the EULA are what they now violate. > I really think Unity went above and beyond, here. Nonsense. Unity likes to portray itself as the "open" alternative to other gaming engines, when in reality they have an iron-fisted grip on everything distantly involving their platform.

by dwild 8y ago

blueboo 8y ago

I agree, but you have the wrong takeaway. Improbable's knowing, selective omission of the pertinent fact that they'd been in negotiation for over a year shows the true nature of Improbable. I really think Unity went above and beyond, here. And the fact that Improbable ran to their competitor to do a rapid PR stunt shows that they had their knives sharpened and ready to go. Tsk, tsk!

jhall1468 8y ago
Improbable stated, up front, that they were in negotiations with Unity. The disagreement seems to be that Unity claims they were in violation of the TOS the entire time, while Improbable claims the recent changes to the EULA are what they now violate. > I really think Unity went above and beyond, here. Nonsense. Unity likes to portray itself as the "open" alternative to other gaming engines, when in reality they have an iron-fisted grip on everything distantly involving their platform.