🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉

Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!

Back to News

Unity Updates Terms of Service in Response to Developer Backlash

Kevin Hawkins · 2019-01-16T23:50:19

Unity follows up last week's Improbable controversy with an update to the Unity Terms of Service Section 2.4, concluding that Improbable is no longer in violation of the Unity ToS and licenses have been reinstated. In a blog post detailing the Unity ToS update, Unity co-founder and CTO Joachim Ante, outlines the new updates to the controversial 2.4 clause and reaffirms Unity's commitment to providing developers with an open platform. Quote Over the last week there was much confusion, and untrue statements were raised which we refuted. But most importantly we listened to you, our community that felt that the End User License Agreement (EULA)/Terms of Service (TOS) was too restrictive. When you make a game with Unity, you own the content and you should have the right to put it wherever you want. Our TOS didn’t reflect this principle – something that is not in line with who we are. The blog post goes on to say that a developer can use any 3rd party service they would like - but it's possible, if the 3rd party service is not an official partner - that Unity will not be able to support it for you. Quote Some of these services will be supported, others will not. The distinction is that with a supported service, we understand the technology. We make sure the service and Unity work better together for developers. We also ensure that the supported service always runs well on the latest version of our software, so we can help future proof your project in Unity and ensure access to the latest tech. These changes also mean Improbable is not in violation of the ToS, but Unity makes it very clear that they are not a Unity partner: Quote But we do not consider them a partner, and cannot vouch for how their service works with Unity as we have no insight into their technology or how they run their business. We know Improbable was in violation even before the December TOS update and misrepresented their affiliation with us. On Twitter, GameDev.net has asked Unity for clarification on the criteria for being a partner and how Improbable failed that criteria. Presumably, Improbable violated one of the three items in the new Section 2.4: Quote Unity developers are free to use any service offered to Unity developers (each, a “Third Party Service”). Unity does not have any obligation to provide support for any Third Party Service provider or Third Party Service under this Agreement. Third Party Service providers may not, without Unity’s express written permission: (1) use a stylized version of any Unity name, trademark, logos, images or product icons, or other Unity-owned graphic symbols; (2) use a product name confusingly similar to a Unity product or that could be construed by Unity developers as being a Unity product or service; or (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. Previous news and discussion: https://www.gamedev.net/news/unity-tos-changes-impact-improbables-spatialos-potentially-thousands-of-devs-r728/ https://www.gamedev.net/news/in-light-of-unity-tos-changes-epic-games-and-improbable-reaffirm-commitment-to-devs-r730/ View full story

News Topical Unity

Started by khawk January 16, 2019 04:25 PM

13 comments, last by FRex 5 years, 5 months ago

fleabay

1,327

January 16, 2019 09:08 PM

2 hours ago, FRex said:

Their trademark guidelines also say not to use 'Unity' as a noun

If you Google 'Trademarks are adjectives' you will get tons of links stating that that is proper use and one could lose a trademark if not used in that fashion. The examples I have seen given are: Elevator, Kerosene, Corn Flakes, Yo-Yo. Apparently they had their Trademarks revoked because they were advertised as nouns or fell into use as nouns. Nobody I know says 'Walmart store' so maybe it's time to revoke Wal-Marts trademark.

🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂<←The tone posse, ready for action.

FRex

1,798

January 16, 2019 10:00 PM

Oh sure, I can buy that, but:

It's Unity who used the word as a noun for years now all over the place.
Their website does it still: "announcing Unity XXXX.YY", "Download Unity", etc.
Even the blogpost announcing these rules does it.

It's as if they just had lawyers who never even heard of Unity before copy paste some legalese.

It also sends mixed signals yet again: "everyone does it", "Unity does it", "Unity let's people do it", etc. just like with 2.4.

Septopus

480

January 16, 2019 10:27 PM

1 hour ago, FRex said:

Seemingly no one uses the forum to chat about this.

I don't see that there's much more to chat about. Unity got their I hand slapped and had to open up their restrictive TOS. Game devs actually won this one from where I'm sitting. Unity can no longer hold this clause over anybody who uses their engine, for anything really, as long as they don't claim to be a partner of Unity's. Done deal. All marketing slogans aside, how democratic do you actually expect a for-profit company to get?

Current WIP: https://www.gamedev.net/projects/1006-sling-bot-boarding/

Play it here(Chrome or FF): https://www.kongregate.com/games/WilliamOlyOlson/slingbot-boarding

FRex

1,798

January 16, 2019 11:50 PM

21 minutes ago, Septopus said:

I don't see that there's much more to chat about.

This was a question to Promit about where that chat he mentioned was. Turns out if was a Unity Pro specific channel that isn't public.

I'm done chatting about it now and forever really. My opinion of Unity is set (to zero). Apology in one place and passive aggressive "not everyone can be as open as mature as we are" on the other.

21 minutes ago, Septopus said:

All marketing slogans aside, how democratic do you actually expect a for-profit company to get?

It turned out they knew what Improbable were doing since they were at Unite 2016 talking about "running thousands of Unity instances int he cloud".

Here are things they could have avoided doing: changing the ToS like that; claiming they blocked Improbable's license keys to "protect the integrity and value of our technology and Unity developers" (actual blog post quote); claiming there always was ToS violation even when backpedaling hard and restoring the keys; saying "we won't say the details of their violation out of respect for all sides" while calling Improbable immature withing the same hour.

I'm not sure why you are so contrarian. I'm done with this topic and won't reply anymore. All the arguments are on the table. If you think Unity acted well - I think you're wrong but what can I do? If you just like the engine, work for a company using it, work for Unity company itself, use it for your projects - that's fine, the criticism is of CTO, CEO and the corporation. No sane person would blame a random user or employee for something bad Unity did as a corporation.

Now I'm unfollowing all Unity related threads since this is all over.

Goodbye.

🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉

Unity Updates Terms of Service in Response to Developer Backlash

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉

Unity Updates Terms of Service in Response to Developer Backlash

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines