,
29 tweets,
8 min read
Read on Twitter
So Unity v Improbable has been resolved. I will provide more details once I have reviewed everything later.
We won 🤣👍
We won 🤣👍
To the notable industry types who kept silent through this farce because it wasn't your problem, you're welcome. Some of us speak up not just because it's the right thing to do, but because of repercussions directed at those who cannot.
This farce that @unity3d pulled against @Improbableio, though 100% legal and well within their rights, should make you all pay attention because as industry consolidations continues, it can and will happen it again. And yes, it has in fact happened before.
I have just now read the statement that Unity put out, along with the revised 2.4 of the EULA.
It's INEXCUSEABLE bs which CLEARLY shows that they did this walk back WITH PREJUDICE. My guess is that @TimSweeneyEpic and Epic stepping up, had a LOT to do with it.
It's INEXCUSEABLE bs which CLEARLY shows that they did this walk back WITH PREJUDICE. My guess is that @TimSweeneyEpic and Epic stepping up, had a LOT to do with it.
First, let's discuss the updated 2.4. I have both before and after versions.
BEFORE:
imgur.com/JM7h3hf.jpg
AFTER:
imgur.com/jLSd94o.jpg
SOURCE:
unity3d.com/legal/terms-of…
web.archive.org/web/2018061604…
BEFORE:
imgur.com/JM7h3hf.jpg
AFTER:
imgur.com/jLSd94o.jpg
SOURCE:
unity3d.com/legal/terms-of…
web.archive.org/web/2018061604…
As you can see, the AFTER version literally bears ZERO relevance or connection to the BEFORE version. In fact, for all intent and purposes, the prior version was specifically designed to kill (hence 'kill list' exception) competitors to a competing (my guess Multiplay) product
In my decades long experience in signing all kinds of agreements, normally when a section is revised or clarified, you don't normally see the whole thing being tossed and re-written.
Unity had to have known this was bs from the start, but they had the power to do it - at will.
Unity had to have known this was bs from the start, but they had the power to do it - at will.
In revised 2.4, they are still targeting Improbable. Think I'm kidding? Fine. Read it.
"(3) create or use any marketing materials that suggest an affiliation with, or endorsement by, Unity. All use of Unity’s trademarks must comply with Unity’s Trademark Guidelines."
"(3) create or use any marketing materials that suggest an affiliation with, or endorsement by, Unity. All use of Unity’s trademarks must comply with Unity’s Trademark Guidelines."
Now ask yourself this. Why would Unity see the need to do this? It's completely uncalled for and overly aggressive. Which is precisely why I said they found themselves over a barrel due to the outcry and a competitor stepping in with a massive $25M stick.
Now that they've asserted that Improbable are not "partners", my guess is that they're setting up to again put them in violation as per the trademark guidelines. e.g. this all public facing pages & docs are normally where that would begin. e.g.
improbable.io/games/spatialo…
improbable.io/games/spatialo…
I pointed this out before, and the Unity statement is 100% confirmation that I was right. This was ALL about Multiplay which they bought in Q4/17.
Compare that page to Multiplay.
See the problem?
unity.com/multiplay
Compare that page to Multiplay.
See the problem?
unity.com/multiplay
Some of us have known John for years, long before he ended up at Unity. And I believe his statements without reservation.
But that's not the issue here.
imgur.com/BoqmwsV.jpg
But that's not the issue here.
imgur.com/BoqmwsV.jpg
Here's the thing. After seeing the 2.4 changes, how EXACTLY is it that Improbable is now - all of a sudden - in "technical & marketing" compliance?
It's pure nonsense.
They tried to put a competing service out of business, and got busted doing it. It REALLY is THAT simple.
It's pure nonsense.
They tried to put a competing service out of business, and got busted doing it. It REALLY is THAT simple.
Thing is, it's not even illegal for them to do that. And as I've said before, they are 100% within their rights to do as they please. Their product. Their rules. Moral obligations be damned.
ofc if you said they're not partners, well, you don't owe them anything do you?
ofc if you said they're not partners, well, you don't owe them anything do you?
Imagine what would happen if Unity decides to start selling games one day. What's stopping them from only allowing Unity games? Nothing.
What if they bought another competing product for which a plugin solution already exists? What's stopping them from pulling stunt this again?
What if they bought another competing product for which a plugin solution already exists? What's stopping them from pulling stunt this again?
Imagine if Epic Games, or even Amazon, issued a blog post that people using their tech were no longer partners, but who can totally use them anyway. It has HUGE legal implications. It's the equivalent of holding a legal stick over someone, and which you can wield at any time.
Also, what now is stopping Unity from implementing a source level change that breaks how SpatialOS interfaces with Unity? It would take me all of 30 mins to do it; so my guess is that a Unity engine could probably do it in his sleep.
This is where we are now.
This is where we are now.
There are NO assurances made by Unity today. They are clearly engaged in hostile active measures against a competitor who for all intent and purposes and under normal circumstances IS in fact a partner.
If you continue to use Unity with SpatialOS, you do so at your own risk.
If you continue to use Unity with SpatialOS, you do so at your own risk.
It's clear now that the Unity owned Multiplay is a direct competitor to Improbable's SpatialOS. Aside from fact that the latter is far more advanced due to how it works. And had Unity not bought Multiplay, none of this would have been an issue because they had NO prior conflicts
Those of you being tribal over this, instead of sticking to the facts ARE the reason that corps tend to pull crap like this while going unchallenged.
That Improbable had to issue a public statement for any of this to be in the public view, was bad enough in and of itself.
That Improbable had to issue a public statement for any of this to be in the public view, was bad enough in and of itself.
For the record, I have friends & peers at both companies, I've shipped a multi-platform Unity game, but never a UE4 game. So don't mistake my concern for altruism because that would imply that I have something to lose. I make my own road and nobody but me gets to pave it.
{end}
{end}
For those sending me DMs, let me link my 3 threads about this fiasco, as they contain all your questions.
This is why I write threads; so you don't have to :)
1/3
This is why I write threads; so you don't have to :)
1/3
3/3
ps. Not sure if I had previously linked this. It explains why I am astonished by today's Unity statement about Improbable not being a "partner".
Improbable presentation at Unity's Unite 2016 conference
Less than 18 months later, Unity bought Multiplay
Improbable presentation at Unity's Unite 2016 conference
Less than 18 months later, Unity bought Multiplay
Try not to chant all at once, that I called it. That would be weird. 🤣
Straight from the horse's mouth. Q.E.D.
imgur.com/EobeVnf.jpg
Straight from the horse's mouth. Q.E.D.
imgur.com/EobeVnf.jpg
