4 ms·
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
by 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 agoNo 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 agoSuch an evil TOS that the only affected party was a company that launches FUD campaigns when things don't go its way...
- reitzensteinm 8y agoI 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.