4 ms·

> but the fact they are applying this retroactively to every game every made in Unity that also seems like it should not be legal no matter what you put in you

> but the fact they are applying this retroactively to every game every made in Unity that also seems like it should not be legal no matter what you put in your TOS, at least in some jurisdictions it probably isn't (in the same way that e.g. conditional auto-termination contracts are no actually auto-terminating in many jurisdictions even if it's written in the contract)

rjzzleep 3y ago
In Germany it is not. SaaS apps can be particularly challenging because you cannot just change the terms for existing users and contracts. Ironically most customers don't know and don't react accordingly. Generally the customer behaviour is that customers get spooked and pay anyway. ... but if they were to sue it would be a problem, which is why typically small companies try to follow legislation and big company with big legal department, don't necessarily care.
- alpaca128 3y ago
  I thought you can change the terms for existing users but if it's not 100% beneficial to them they are allowed to cancel without costs?
realusername 3y ago
> at least in some jurisdictions it probably isn't I also don't think "you'll agree to future unpublished terms" will work anywhere in the EU
isilofi 3y ago
I'm not so sure about that. You are totally right that e.g. here in the EU contracts and terms of service with ordinary consumers ("B2C") are restricted as you say, limiting what can possibly be agreed on in that contract. Generally this consumer protection only applies to individuals for their private use. E.g. later changes to the terms of a contract are a big no-no. Contracts between businesses ("B2B") are far less restricted, there is no such thing as consumer protection for businesses. Whereas for consumers, terms of service are heavily restricted by a special law ("AGBG", basically translates as "terms-of-service-law") It is generally thought that business people are savvy enough to know what they can and cannot agree on. Therefore legislation and courts lean strongly towards providing greater freedom of business and contract in anything B2B. And I think in most circumstances, a game developer who distributes its game to a wider audience is a business in the scope of the aforementioned discussion. It would only maybe not be a business if there were no monetary benefit of any kind, so no selling games, no advertisements, no publicity that could lead to monetary benefit in the future...
pech0rin 3y ago
Not sure you read the article. Unity explicitly states they are NOT applying this retroactively.
- dgb23 3y ago
  Retroactively in terms of previous installs or in terms of already published games?
  - oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
    It applies to new installs (from 01/24) of all games, regardless of when they were published.
    - prmoustache 3y ago
      Well if that is the case it is either a) illegal. b) the developper/studios already agreed on a license that would allow unity to change term and licensing fee on stuff made long ago and screw them whenever they want. If the answer is b, then I guess those involved should just slap themselves and swallow it instead of complaining.
    - dathinab 3y ago
      EDIT: It seems that while some article say they retroactively apply this other state they expliticly do not do so. Through they seem to have removed previous clauses which would allow developers to stay on the version they started developing with which hadn't had that terms jet. Which is scummy (because it relies on "tricking" companies into those terms) but might be legal. put new installs are not newly published products, i.e. they don't involve the publisher bundling in a new version of unity they got from the vendor so while the installs are new the contract between the producer <-> publisher <-> distributor <-> unity is not which means it's uniliteraly retroactively changing a contract which sounds like very much not very legal if you consider that the other contract partner is somewhat dependent on unity (switching is expensive) it might also involve other laws not necessary racketeering but something in that direction and while unity might be able to terminate the contract with the publisher (by their lawyers sending them a letter, not automatic) this is between the publisher and them i.e. it shouldn't affect already sold products but they explicitly want additional fees from distributor or publishers for _already sold products they have no control over_ which is just tbh. ridiculous and even if it only affects newly sold products it's still affecting already produced product retroactively which still is highly questionable

rjzzleep 3y ago

In Germany it is not. SaaS apps can be particularly challenging because you cannot just change the terms for existing users and contracts. Ironically most customers don't know and don't react accordingly. Generally the customer behaviour is that customers get spooked and pay anyway. ... but if they were to sue it would be a problem, which is why typically small companies try to follow legislation and big company with big legal department, don't necessarily care.

alpaca128 3y ago
I thought you can change the terms for existing users but if it's not 100% beneficial to them they are allowed to cancel without costs?

realusername 3y ago

> at least in some jurisdictions it probably isn't I also don't think "you'll agree to future unpublished terms" will work anywhere in the EU

isilofi 3y ago

I'm not so sure about that. You are totally right that e.g. here in the EU contracts and terms of service with ordinary consumers ("B2C") are restricted as you say, limiting what can possibly be agreed on in that contract. Generally this consumer protection only applies to individuals for their private use. E.g. later changes to the terms of a contract are a big no-no. Contracts between businesses ("B2B") are far less restricted, there is no such thing as consumer protection for businesses. Whereas for consumers, terms of service are heavily restricted by a special law ("AGBG", basically translates as "terms-of-service-law") It is generally thought that business people are savvy enough to know what they can and cannot agree on. Therefore legislation and courts lean strongly towards providing greater freedom of business and contract in anything B2B. And I think in most circumstances, a game developer who distributes its game to a wider audience is a business in the scope of the aforementioned discussion. It would only maybe not be a business if there were no monetary benefit of any kind, so no selling games, no advertisements, no publicity that could lead to monetary benefit in the future...

pech0rin 3y ago

Not sure you read the article. Unity explicitly states they are NOT applying this retroactively.

dgb23 3y ago
Retroactively in terms of previous installs or in terms of already published games?
- oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
  It applies to new installs (from 01/24) of all games, regardless of when they were published.
  - prmoustache 3y ago
    Well if that is the case it is either a) illegal. b) the developper/studios already agreed on a license that would allow unity to change term and licensing fee on stuff made long ago and screw them whenever they want. If the answer is b, then I guess those involved should just slap themselves and swallow it instead of complaining.
  - dathinab 3y ago
    EDIT: It seems that while some article say they retroactively apply this other state they expliticly do not do so. Through they seem to have removed previous clauses which would allow developers to stay on the version they started developing with which hadn't had that terms jet. Which is scummy (because it relies on "tricking" companies into those terms) but might be legal. put new installs are not newly published products, i.e. they don't involve the publisher bundling in a new version of unity they got from the vendor so while the installs are new the contract between the producer <-> publisher <-> distributor <-> unity is not which means it's uniliteraly retroactively changing a contract which sounds like very much not very legal if you consider that the other contract partner is somewhat dependent on unity (switching is expensive) it might also involve other laws not necessary racketeering but something in that direction and while unity might be able to terminate the contract with the publisher (by their lawyers sending them a letter, not automatic) this is between the publisher and them i.e. it shouldn't affect already sold products but they explicitly want additional fees from distributor or publishers for _already sold products they have no control over_ which is just tbh. ridiculous and even if it only affects newly sold products it's still affecting already produced product retroactively which still is highly questionable