Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Unity 4 New EULA Restrictions

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by npsf3000, Dec 7, 2012.

  1. npsf3000

    npsf3000

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    3,830
    Unity's Vision:

    Democratize game development and enable everyone to create rich interactive 3D content.

    It became apparent in the recent gambling thread, linky, that Unity had made some very substantial changes the EULA for Unity4 that had largely gone unnoticed by the community. These changes are:

    • Streaming and Cloud Gaming Restrictions
    • Embedded Software Restriction
    • Gambling Restrictions

    Thoughts?



    Edit: Make your voice heard - Feedback Item
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  2. TylerPerry

    TylerPerry

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Posts:
    5,577
    Depends on the prices of these licenses.
     
  3. imaginaryhuman

    imaginaryhuman

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    5,834
    Can someone summarize the impact of the changes?
     
  4. SevenBits

    SevenBits

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2011
    Posts:
    1,953
    Damn. They're pulling an Apple on us...
     
  5. Foam

    Foam

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Posts:
    322
    Do you have any specifics about the exact changes? I don't have time right now to pursue the EULA.

    Gambling doesn't bother me. That's just keeping the lawsuits away.

    Embedded... what does that even mean?

    Cloud restrictions though...
     
  6. npsf3000

    npsf3000

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    3,830
    http://unity3d.com/company/legal/eula

    It's near the top an in english not legalise. [Added link to OP]

    My personal concerns are:

    A) They've taken away options that I've plans for. Clients have asked about gambling games, I have a couple game/app idea's that seem to fall under embedded, and streaming is a cool idea that's becoming increasingly viable.

    B) There is no real rationale for these changes... so what is this a precedent for? Will MMO's, Non-game apps, simulations, Ooya etc. be treated differently in the future?
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  7. keithsoulasa

    keithsoulasa

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Posts:
    2,126
    The only real problem I found was this
    What I get from this is I can't work with a service like Onlive . I don't get the reason for this , its still a pretty small market for doing this , it involves numerous cost such as VM's ect .

    Now what I understood is that the prior license was something like .
    If you buy Unity pro you can do just about whatever you want WITH THE CONTENT YOU CREATE Assuming you don't mess with the Unity engine itself .
    While the gambling is something I understand , this looks like Unity is trying to target bigger companies with the resources to set up steaming services .

    To fix this Unity should be upfront on what companies its trying to get money out of . Something like an exception to the new changes( minus gambling) for companies with a gross income of less then 5 million .
     
  8. BrUnO-XaVIeR

    BrUnO-XaVIeR

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,687
    If your game is big enough to be accepted by OnLive and such, I can't see why bother on
    buying Unity's open source or not...
    However, we see a future prototype of one more 'Epic Games' rising here folks, we can clearly see UT's plans for next 10 years, just take a look at overall picture of everything they've done last years... The failed rise of upgrade prices, etc...
    Enjoy Unity Pro while you can.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  9. npsf3000

    npsf3000

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    3,830
    Yep, you must be real big to afford to pay $50/month: http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/161643-Kickfolio-allows-iOS-apps-to-be-played-in-the-browser

    The argument that unity is trying to target big companies is bogus for three reasons:

    1) What about all the big companies not making these apps? There's plenty of money on iOS and in MMO's.

    2) For at least two of the three options, the entry level is very low [possible exception gambling].

    3) The people it impacts the most are the small guys who are now restricted from developing these apps - big companies are in a better position to meet whatever terms U3D decide to impose on the alternative licenses.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  10. keithsoulasa

    keithsoulasa

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Posts:
    2,126
    I guessed its big guys Unity's trying to get more out of . You can't milk a dry cow, a small dev is lucky if they can afford Unity pro as is .



    I really don't like the streaming restriction though , since its VERY hard to get average joe to install the unity web player, streaming is just another possible way to deliver content
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  11. Foam

    Foam

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Posts:
    322
    A "small dev" either doesn't need Unity Pro or can afford it. I'm sorry but if a game is going to take thousands of hours to make, $1500 is practically irrelevant.

    The only people I hear complaining about the Unity Pro price are kids.
     
  12. npsf3000

    npsf3000

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    3,830
    Then we should say no - we had a deal with unity and now they're trying to renegotiate behind our backs.

    We pay a flat fee to use unity to create our content - regardless of our success or failure. Unity shouldn't tell us what we can or cannot do, or try to extract additional revenues by restricting our distribution/platforms arbitrarily.
     
  13. TylerPerry

    TylerPerry

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Posts:
    5,577
    Well, our money will only effect them in like a year or too when Unity 5 comes out so what do you propose we do?
     
  14. BrUnO-XaVIeR

    BrUnO-XaVIeR

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,687
    I didn't know about that :)
     
  15. npsf3000

    npsf3000

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    3,830
    The most effective thing to do to change this IMO, is simply to state your opinion and get others to do the same. A lost sale or two isn't going to impact Unity, but it's own community public voicing concern could be fairly important. Unity has made promises to us, do you feel it's living up to its side of the bargin?

    http://feedback.unity3d.com/unity/all-categories/1/hot/active/remove-new-40-eula-restrictions
     
  16. keithsoulasa

    keithsoulasa

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Posts:
    2,126
    It really depends on where your at . Like after i've invested money and time into learning Unity I don't want to say screw it's time to drop everything and switch Engines
     
  17. BrUnO-XaVIeR

    BrUnO-XaVIeR

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,687
    Gambling can rot for all I care; but requiring end user to have Unity Player as only source of interaction with the product is kinda dumb.
    Anyways, cloud gaming is doomed by bandwidth caps so I personally don't care much about it too...
     
  18. npsf3000

    npsf3000

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    3,830
    You do know that bandwidth caps increase substantially faster that monitor resolution?

    I'm not a fan of gambling myself, but that's not the issue being raised.
     
  19. BrUnO-XaVIeR

    BrUnO-XaVIeR

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,687
    I've read a paper somewhere stating that by 2014 or so, most phones will be smartphones... And connected to internet 24/7. This is real market projection;
    If DNS clusters do not scale up fast enough, AT&T says that is the case, won't be room for everyone and those bazillion smartphones are already sucking all bandwidth they can. Lag spikes will be unsolvable problem unless cloud provider has a server close to your town, this already happens on online games, playing at 50- ms is hard to get if server is far from your city, and that is just for input... What about input + video stream... Most internauts simply can't play. I know internet of big cities from rich countries are very good, but for the world in general, cloud gaming will never be a reality and ppl will still be stuck in WoW / LoL servers.
    Take a look at what happened to Diablo3's launch, DNSs already suffer too much.

    @topic, I understand this is about freedom, but what can you do but not upgrade? We shall never forget UT is a business like any other, not our friend.
     
  20. npsf3000

    npsf3000

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    3,830
    @BrUnO, if you want to talk technical merits, I'm more than interested to have that discussion in another thread. Suffice to say the idea that lag or bandwidth is an 'unsolvable problem' is laughable. Furthermore, not only does DNS not come into the equation, cloud based gaming would likely reduce DNS load.
     
  21. BrUnO-XaVIeR

    BrUnO-XaVIeR

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,687
    Sure, online stuff is not my business. I am just repeating what many journals are saying again and again since 2011.
    Than again, I can't really say I didn't see things like this new Eula coming, Unity is not a shy indie anymore since they've rised private investor's capital.
    I bet nowadays, for UT, small indies are to them just what freebie gamers are to devs... "Let em stay but focus on the guy with money".
    Someone need to pay for all those pirated copies of Unity Pro out there and I am glad they go after the big boys instead of smalls like me for that.
    To be able to not affect the joes, of course they would need to change the Eula, and sorry but I can't see where this change does affect small companies.
     
  22. Noisecrime

    Noisecrime

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Posts:
    2,051
    The problem with this 'easy' attitude is that its fine until due to the precedent being set now, Unity does change the EULA concerning something that is important to you, by which time its all too late. This to me is the biggest concern, not simply the specific three instances that have been sneaked into the EULA, ones I had no knowledge of when I pre-ordered Unity 4. Its the question is this simply the thin edge of the wedge?

    Sure I doubt I'll ever do a gambling game, however I become much less sure when talking about embedded or streaming. Especially streaming as the barrier to entry, like many new technologies is diminishing all the time. Not that I plan to do an 'onlive', but its certainly feasible and even desirable to accomplish something similar for the type of projects I do get involved with. As an example think of a museum with an interactive piece that could be controlled via any smartphone or tablet, instead of writing numerous apps and trying to support all of them, it would be much easier to write a webpage that simply streamed Unity content and users actions back and forth.

    I read the gambling thread and couldn't understand why many replies didn't think it was a big issue, especially since several developers pointed out several times that there is no reason at all for the Unity engine to be involved with the actual 'gambling' parts, it would just be a front end. Yet due to the ELUA it doesn't matter, you still have to pony up a 6 figure sum. Sure if you wanted to embed the gambling parts within Unity and UT provide substantial assistance with this I could quite happily pay the additional license, but its the being force to do so part that I find distasteful.

    Its really difficult to see such a wonderful tool such as Unity move further and further away from ones needs, between these changes to the EULA and adding expensive features that honestly I feel few developers can really make the most of, whilst neglecting basic features that could aid many, I can't help but wonder what future lies in store.

    Edit:
    I really think the blanket EULA is the wrong place for this. Had Unity simply offered an additional license that had added features for supporting gambling application needs and conforming to the legal standards required it would have been fine. Those involved with creating gambling apps could evaluate if the additional license was worth it, or whether they actually needed it. UT would then have been seen as offering something of value to the community, or adding value to Unity, that was 'opt-in', instead of coming across as moving the goal-posts and milking a particular market.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  23. BrUnO-XaVIeR

    BrUnO-XaVIeR

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,687
    So, what do you suggest Unity should do instead in order to be able to pay for their offices with saunas?

    * 'Their offices'? 'There offices'?? I see ppl around here saying 'there stuff' constantly. Could a native speaker explain, please??
     
  24. npsf3000

    npsf3000

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    3,830
    Yep, because Unity didn't come along and remove potentially valuable features from you license... oh wait...

    If Unity wanted to target the big boys they'd do something along the following lines:

    • Revenue Share
    • Another Revenue Cap - E.g. $5Mn
    • Create useful products/services that are targeted at bigger studio's/projects
    Instead they've decided to remove functionality that was already sold to us, hoping that we wouldn't notice, to try and make another sale. Closest equivilent I can think of is the Bait and Switch scam.
     
  25. npsf3000

    npsf3000

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    3,830
    Their, There, They're. Three words with different meanings, but sounds the same.
     
  26. TylerPerry

    TylerPerry

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Posts:
    5,577
    The reason is that English is a badly structured language, really there(I probably got that wrong but I guess you know what I said) is no reason for these words at all.

    I think that is perfectly readable, if someone can read then I'm sure they can comprehend that, if not then they can't read.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  27. BrUnO-XaVIeR

    BrUnO-XaVIeR

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,687
    Only part I understood from your whole post was this:

    ;)

    Wtf is 'thisis' ?




    Maybe that is what they want to do, but is a step too far at the moment?
    Unity's folio is not enough for AAA companies to rise interest, so maybe this thing with gambling is just 'plan B' ?
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  28. I am da bawss

    I am da bawss

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,574
    "Their office" is correct. People who mistaken the usage of these words "there/their/they're shows the decline of our education system.

    Anyway. Back to topic - I think Unity starting to tell user what they can or cannot do without extra licensing cost is distressing. What's to say in Unity 5.0 they will start telling us what type of games we have to pay extra license cost for? Let' say $1000 for Adventure game, or another $1000 if you want to make violent FPS?
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  29. I am da bawss

    I am da bawss

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,574
    I think he meant "thesis" :D Oh and that's the wrong word to use too. Theory is a better word.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  30. BrUnO-XaVIeR

    BrUnO-XaVIeR

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,687
    Thank you! I've also learned a new word today: 'distressing'
    Damn, I love internet... You have no idea the piles of money I would have to expend if I had to take some years of English lessons on private schools we have here, haha!

    Now I get it. But don't you agree there is no need to worry about possibilities? Everything is possible, that is why I always tell myself that I love Unity but can't be attached to it for everything I do.
    For possibilities like the examples you give, we can always remind UT they are not the only engine provider on the market. Doing things like that would be shooting their own foot and as soon users get used to other engines and finish on going projects they may for sure say goodbye to Unity and move on...
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  31. TylerPerry

    TylerPerry

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Posts:
    5,577
    Nah, I just re worded from what I had originally then did something else upon returning I though I just forgot to press the "Post Quick Reply" button but in reality I only had half finished my changing of words and it was in no state to be posted yet.

    But we should not be going off topic on such an important thread.
     
  32. runner

    runner

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    Posts:
    865
    Might there not be a very good reason for the changes in the EULA in that reflect concerns both to unity and it's own licensing and Us the sub-licensor. So far in that the technology they have implemented might be at risk of 3rd party snooping. client-side injection buffer overflow and a host of other matters hence the reason for signing an extended contract. Perhaps they provide extra support and guidance maybe even legal help ?

    As i see it maybe we are jumping to conclusions instead of asking for clarification which would be prudent
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  33. shaderop

    shaderop

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Posts:
    942
    Useless bit of trivia: I remember the C4 engine doing something very similar and introducing a clause that required a separate, substantially more expensive license for applications that were not games, e.g. simulations and interactive training. The developer didn't explain the reasoning, and there was some push back on the forums, but it didn't change anything.

    On topic: I think the majority of us Unity users will not be affected by these changes. Even the one about embedded software, which was the most worrying to me at first, turned out to be rather benign on second reading because it applies to "Licensee Content installed on more than 50 electronic devices or systems." So most people working on interactive displays and kiosk kind of applications should not be affected.

    However, and as already stated, this does set a worrying precedent. I personally would have appreciated some transparency and open discussion of these changes, or at the very least for Unity Technologies to explain why these changes were needed.

    My two satoshis.
     
  34. test111

    test111

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Posts:
    11
    My important question is: IS SOMETHING CHANGED FOR UNITY 3.5 EULA ?

    Because, in this case, one can still prepare the code with 3.5 (which is included when you buy the 4.0).

    What is the position of the company regarding 3.5 ? I am not trusting them any more btw.
     
  35. npsf3000

    npsf3000

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    3,830
    I've got two projects at early stages that could easily breach 50 devices - after all once the content is authored scaling hardware is fairly trivial.

    Particularly with streaming, these restrictions could eventually end up impacting the majority of developers if that kicks off in the next few years.

    If that's the case then Unity can offer corrections - this is their forums. That said, I can't see how any of the situations you postulated would warrant the restrictions outlined in OP.

    The EULA page has a option for 3.5 which appears does not appear to have the restrictions raised in this thread.
     
  36. imtrobin

    imtrobin

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Posts:
    1,548
    I don't think so. Unity Pro. a full license cost $6500, imagine u have 5 developers, already costing over 30K. And we need to upgrade every 2 years. Compare to Unreal, which you can develop for free first, Unity is looking less attractive for mid size longer term projects.

    This Eula is very sneaky, we will see more competition when Cryengine releases their mobile version next year.
     
  37. BrUnO-XaVIeR

    BrUnO-XaVIeR

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,687
    CryEngine don't even let you publish a freakin standalone exe, that thing is a joke.
    Only option for serious devs without big money is UDK and some Unity's competitors hidden on the shadows.
     
  38. Kaspar-Daugaard

    Kaspar-Daugaard

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Posts:
    150
    I think the intention with the streaming clause is that whoever runs the infrastructure has to make an agreement with us, not that we make it difficult or expensive for individual developers to publish Unity content. There are some opportunities for making content easier to publish by doing the streaming integration once, but since this is still new technology, no one is completely sure how it will work out.
     
  39. test111

    test111

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Posts:
    11
    Yes I read the EULA 3.5.
    The problem is: can U3D change the EULA of 3.5 retroactively? They can try to do it as they accepted pre orders of 4.0 with a different EULA.

    Because in this case this platform is becoming unstable from the trusting point of view.
     
  40. mywan

    mywan

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2012
    Posts:
    3
    Just hope for the best. I don't like it when I hear anything to do with the word 'changes'
     
  41. saymoo

    saymoo

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Posts:
    850
    weird EULA

    "You may not directly or indirectly distribute interactive Licensee Content by means of streaming or broadcasting such Licensee Content that is primarily executed on a server and transmitted over the Internet or other network to end user devices without a separate license from Unity. This restriction does not prevent end users from remotely accessing Licensee Content from an end user device that is running on another end user device."

    thus multiplayer in the client <-> mp server is out of the question without separate license. (device is a way to broad term: it also means desktop computers), client <-> client multiplayer is allowed however. But also hosted webplayer games are (strickly speaking) forbidden, since it's streamed (thus executed) from a non enduser device to an end user device, this the conflicting part.


    "You may not directly or indirectly distribute Licensee Content installed on more than 50 electronic devices or systems if such Licensee Content provides the user interface or primary functionality of such electronic device or system without a separate license from Unity. This restriction does not prevent you from distributing Licensee Content pre-installed on personal computers and consumer electronic devices such as mobile phones, tablets, televisions or set top boxes as long as such Licensee Content does not provide the user interface or primary functionality of such device."

    Another weird restriction:
    So, more than 50 copies of your project is forbidden, unless you have a separate license OR it's been preinstalled on the device (which can be anything really). Goodbye app store, play store, and other delivery platforms. After 50 copies you NEED a separate license to continue to have you app being allowed to be distributed (free or payed). Since each app provides an UI (in a way) of such an device, or primary functionality (unless it's a headless/server app, see below).

    now comes the real fun:
    "personal computers and consumer electronic devices such as mobile phones, tablets, televisions or set top boxes as long as such Licensee Content does not provide the user interface or primary functionality of such device"
    Sure, thus guiless apps, with or without primary functionality, are allowed to have more than 50 copies floating around.
    That could only mean server apps (or headless apps), <sarcasm>that's nice to have on your tablet! </sarcasm>, a server app, without any gui at all.
    how would you control it? configure it? you need a gui somewhere, o wait that gives a problem, since only 50 of those qui apps are allowed without separate licenses.

    Strickly speaking with these two restrictions, you are required to have separate licences if you want to publish anything (with the goal to have more than 50 copies distributed, through networking or discs), be it freely available or commercially..(with or without server <-> client multiplayer)

    You need to read the EULA very carefully, word by word, strictly (in the most restrictive way).
    In court, a single word, can make you win or loose the case.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  42. npsf3000

    npsf3000

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    3,830
    Which is fine and all but...

    1) WTF!? We buy our licenses so that we can author games for our players. Whether we distribute by P2P, Internet downloads, Steam, Physical or Streaming has absolutely nothing to with Unity.

    2) Feel good suggestions are starting to get on my nerves. The idea that Unity has decided to remove this functionality from us on the concept that maybe sometime down the track you'll be in a position to do something nice is either poorly thought out or a deception. If you want to become involved, you can do it without forcing peoples hand via EULA. So my question is simple: did Unity change the EULA because of some poorly thought out idealistic scenarios... or did Unity do it as a carefully considered, albiet underhand, business move?

    Of course, my words are directed at Unity as a whole, you just happen to be the Unity guy responding ATM. I suspect you're just a dev trying to help out - but Wishy Washing 'good feelings' aren't what I'm looking for in this case.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  43. Kaspar-Daugaard

    Kaspar-Daugaard

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Posts:
    150
    Yeah, I am a developer and not a lawyer, so don't take my opinion as absolute legal truth. However, I think there has been some misreading of the EULA that makes it sound scarier than it really is.

    Streaming in this case means that the executable is running on the server, not just that the file is hosted on the server, as is the case with the web player. Also the wording that the content is primarily executed on the server means it is doing more than just coordinating a game world between different clients. I'm fairly sure this is aimed at streaming a game as video to a device where it is being played, but I would like our legal guys to clear that up. It sounds like it could possibly cover cases where the server is "authoritative" but I'm pretty sure that was not the intention.

    If you are going to set up a streaming service for games, you are going to need a heavy investment in hardware spread out across the area you want to serve, in order to keep the latency down. You are also going to care a lot about how many clients you can serve from each physical machine, since that will decide whether it is economically viable or not. What the EULA says is that you must work with us to make that happen, instead of trying to do it yourself for Unity based games. If we didn't have that clause, streaming services could use our software without paying us anything, at least as long as they didn't need to modify the source code.

    I do understand your point that it is your game and your content, but this is a totally standard restriction to have on most software. Adobe Flash for example does not allow being run on a file server in any situation. We are actively following what's happening with streaming games, and want to help make this available to our users, once it's more clear which direction the technology will go. The reason for changing the EULA now, as I understand, is that we didn't consider there could be a potentially large need to run our software on dedicated server machines. If that becomes a major distribution platform, it seems reasonable not to put the Unity runtime on specialized, commercial hardware for free.
     
  44. marcaurelio74

    marcaurelio74

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Posts:
    60
    Hi,
    my english is very poor and then i did not understand clearly the new EULA restrictions,
    if someone could help me to understand i'll be grateful :
    If i make a desktop game and i want to distribute it through digital download (my site or STEAM) my pro license (Unity 4) is enough?
    Thanks
     
  45. Kaspar-Daugaard

    Kaspar-Daugaard

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Posts:
    150
    Anything where you download the game, like STEAM, your own site, app stores, Humble Bundles, is all fine.
     
  46. marcaurelio74

    marcaurelio74

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Posts:
    60
    Thanks Kaspar.
     
  47. npsf3000

    npsf3000

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Posts:
    3,830
    I entirely understand what they mean by streaming content... I completely fail to understand why Unity belive they should have the right to dictate terms on whether or not we use it - as it has absolutely NO impact on their orignal model. You do not charge per download, you do not charge per client, you do not charge per install, you do not charge per hour played... but suddenly because it's 'streamed' you can charge accordingly?

    False - you're simply making a guess at one potential roll-out scenario.

    Possibly, possibly not. Again, what does U3D have to do with this?

    Exactly. Under the previous agreements they didn't have to pay you anything... because they weren't using the software you sell [i.e. the unity3d editor]. Now, under this rule change you can start charging them on the content that we've already licensed to author. You don't actually provide any new benefit, you simply double charge.

    Is that your new motto? Unity... it's just like Adobe? That's odd, I must of copy-pasted the wrong one in OP.

    Translated: you're actively trying to restrict and control which way the technology goes rather than let your users explore the market on their own terms. By all means make partnerships, sell a special version of unity that's optimised for this, make investments etc. - but that's not what we're discussing here.

    Which is a rubbish argument - you licensed those rights to us and are now 'rethinking' them? Next you'll be telling uLink to pay up or shut down because it utilises Unity on the server. Maybe you should reconsider the MMO genre as a whole - because that way you can make a few bucks of a use you 'didn't consider'. Is everything we do now going to be done under the shadow of a opportunistic and conveniently forgetful tool provider trying to get on action it's already sold?

    I expect you to do the same for the Ooya then? Maybe reconsider the iPad because iOS obviously meant iPhone only? Kindle obviously isn't 'correct' android so you'll charge a few more bucks there?

    TL;DR - You provide a tool so that we can produce content - you never charged based on usage so why the sudden change of heart?
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2012
  48. TheOtherMonarch

    TheOtherMonarch

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Posts:
    862
    The wording is not clear as to how this affects authoritative servers, MMO games, and the gray space between the two!!! This limits new networking models.

    I read this as MMO and company run authoritative servers are banned but not end user run authoritative servers. Please clarify broadcasting is overly broad and content is undefined.
     
  49. superpig

    superpig

    Drink more water! Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    Posts:
    4,649
    Yeah, I don't follow your argument there. I can make a game with my Unity Pro license, upload it to Kongregate, and Kongregate can then supply it to users, and neither Kongregate (who are hosting) nor the users (who are 'using your software,' i.e. executing the code) need to buy any licenses. But if OnLive want to both host *and* execute the code, they need a license? Why treat them differently?
     
  50. Kaspar-Daugaard

    Kaspar-Daugaard

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Posts:
    150
    Someone higher up needs to clarify this, I share the same concern but do not think this is meant to cover MMOs, authoritative servers etc.