• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Gameindustry: SpatialOS games under threat as Unity revokes Improbable's license

deadasdisco

deadasdisco

Member
Jun 10, 2018
552
This truly sucks for Unity users out there, and existing developers who currently may have to halt projects because of this.

A change in Unity Technologies' terms of service has left Unity games created using Improbable's SpatialOS platform under threat.
According to a statement released by Improbable today, Unity changed its terms of service on December 4 2018, and clarified the change to Improbable yesterday.
As a result, Improbable has said, "all existing SpatialOS and Unity games, including production games and in-development games of all developers, are now in breach of Unity's license terms."
The new terms of service "specifically disallow services like Improbable's" to work with Unity, which was not the case in the previous iteration of the terms, and is still not the case with competing tech like Epic's Unreal Engine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

EDIT:
According to Improbable, this development arose from an "open commercial negotiation" with a goal of finding new ways for the two companies to work together
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

UPDATED - Unity CTO Response:
"We are preparing a blog post because there is a lot of mis-information but the short summary is that using Unity as a game developer or game studio in a generic cloud (GCP, AWS, Azure) or on your own servers is perfectly legal."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


UPDATE 2: Improbable's updated blog post.
https://improbable.io/company/news/2019/01/10/an-update-on-todays-events

__
Read More: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...aims-improbable-has-breached-terms-of-service
 
Last edited:
gofreak

gofreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,738
Hmm.

I'm not familiar with SpatialOS, but by the new terms, you're not allowed to run the Unity Engine itself (as in their Editor/IDE) on a remote/cloud server in order to provide a service?

I presume that's what they mean by 'the Unity runtime' in the terms - if it means you can't run anything made with Unity on your own servers or cloud servers that would be completely ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
NewDust

NewDust

Visited by Knack
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,605
This sucks for devs using SpatialOS, but I can kinda see where Unity is coming from. As I read it, Improbable allowed multiple Unity users/projects under the same license.
 
Bjones

Bjones

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,622
Well as far as I see they just made unity integration on their own and sold it as a feature. It's really on them. They should have reached out and partnered with unity.
 
Last edited:
BraXzy

BraXzy

Chicken Chaser
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,431
This is crazy... Is Unity planning on doing something similar in-house and don't want the competition? Or were SpatialOS out of line?

To just suddenly throw some devs under the bus like that. For games that are live even.

From other thread:

Orayn said:
Games affected, based on checking their website:
  • Worlds Adrift
  • Scavengers
  • Mavericks: Proving Grounds
  • Vanishing Stars: AI at Scale
  • Seed
  • Lazarus
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Last edited:
gofreak

gofreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,738
Lucifonz said:
This is what I'm trying to wrap my head around. Is it entirely Unity to blame?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Define 'integration' though...

If they're running the Unity Editor in the provision of their service, then I understand Unity's concern.

If this is, however, a service that offers libraries for use with Unity and/or hosts unity-built games, then if Unity is trying to limit who can do that to pre-approved partners, then it seems like a big regression. Unity invited people to offer plugins, extensions etc without any explicit screening.

It's almost like they're treating 'the cloud' as a proprietary space that they can decide who you're allow to 'build' and run on, even though 'the cloud' is just another Windows or Linux environment or whatever.

What I'm saying here is only relevant if they're actually stopping people running Unity-built software off the cloud or remote servers. If it's a matter of just the Unity Editor, then I understand better where Unity would be coming from.

edit - I will say though, regardless of the context, withdrawing a license after a service has been operating for years, and retroactively applying those terms, is not nice at all. I think it would make me very wary of what else Unity might in the future do retroactively. And I love Unity, I love some of the new stuff they're doing in particular. But this is scary from that perspective alone.
 
Sasliquid

Sasliquid

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,299
I think this needs to gain more traction. My gf is working on one of the games impacted and they can't really do anything today.
 
TheThreadsThatBindUs

TheThreadsThatBindUs

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,151
United Kingdom
NewDust said:
This sucks for devs using SpatialOS, but I can kinda see where Unity is coming from. As I read it, Improbable allowed multiple Unity users/projects under the same license.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If that's the case then I can understand Unity's position on this.

If lots of devs are using Unity's technologies through SpatialOS but all under one (SpatialOS) Unity license, then that's not really right.

Seems SpatialOS tried to play the game of fuzzy license terms and got caught out.
 
SuperHans

SuperHans

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,603
I've been reading their webpage for ten minutes and still i'm unsure what SpatialOS is. Is it just a cloud service like AWS or Azure?
 
BraXzy

BraXzy

Chicken Chaser
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,431
Need an ELI5 to fully explain what SpatialOS does and who is "in the wrong" so to speak.
 

Deleted member 49831

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 22, 2018
11
BraXzy said:
Need an ELI5 to fully explain what SpatialOS does and who is "in the wrong" so to speak.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Can't speak to the second part but it's a cloud platform that powers multiplayer games. Effectively allows for massive, persistent worlds with thousands of players playing simultaneously across the same server.
 
NewDust

NewDust

Visited by Knack
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,605
TheThreadsThatBindUs said:
If that's the case then I can understand Unity's position on this.

If lots of devs are using Unity's technologies through SpatialOS but all under one (SpatialOS) Unity license, then that's not really right.

Seems SpatialOS tried to play the game of fuzzy license terms and got caught out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, reading more on S.OS... I'm not entirely sure if my initial response was correct.
 
Tygre

Tygre

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,132
Chesire, UK
This is incredibly irresponsible from Unity and speaks poorly to their viability as a platform going forwards.



It also demonstrates the inherent precariousness of putting yourself and your business in the hands of a company with total control over you and what you're allowed to do.
 
Runner

Runner

Member
Nov 1, 2017
2,732
It sounds like you can't use a cloud system to stream any unity code (including assets that have eg, scripts?) to a unity application. Not sure though.
 

Deleted member 8468

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
9,109
Really sucks Unity seemed to pull the rug out from under people. This is going to cost people real time and money they may not have accounted for. Sounds like a dick move to me.
 
gofreak

gofreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,738
Someone on twitter says that this page got updated today:

https://unity.com/solutions/real-time-multiplayer/game-server-hosting

i.e. Unity is launching its own hosted MP service.

So if the terms change is aimed at killing competitors to this service, it means you cannot roll your own MP server infrastructure anymore? You can't stream your games from your own servers if you wanted? What an absolute shit-show if that's the case.

Heartbreaking actually. I've been loving stuff like ECS/Burst and the job system. But if I couldn't run my game or its servers on my own machines, be it in the cloud or elsewhere, then I'll have to start looking again at UE4.
 
Durante

Durante

Dark Souls Man
Member
Oct 24, 2017
5,074
That section 2.4 is straight bullshit.
(I don't care and am not qualified to say who is legally in the wrong, but IMHO the moral situation is clear)
 

devSin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,197
Durante said:
That section 2.4 is straight bullshit.
(I don't care and am not qualified to say who is legally in the wrong, but IMHO the moral situation is clear)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Is it, though?

If this was Spatial exploiting their license to Unity, is it morally wrong to stop it? The agreement doesn't say you can't do it; it just says you need a license (you can't just piggyback off Spatial's license).
 
Durante

Durante

Dark Souls Man
Member
Oct 24, 2017
5,074
devSin said:
Is it, though?

If this was Spatial exploiting their license to Unity, is it morally wrong to stop it? The agreement doesn't say you can't do it; it just says you need a license (you can't just piggyback off Spatial's license).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm talking specifically about this part:
Without limiting the foregoing, you may not use a managed service running on cloud infrastructure (a "Managed Service") or a specific integration of a binary add-on (for example, a plugin or SDK) or source code to be integrated in the Unity Software or Your Project Content incorporating the Unity Runtime (an "SDK Integration") to install or execute the Unity Runtime on the cloud or a remote server, unless such use of the Managed Service or SDK Integration has been specifically authorized by Unity.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's incredibly far-reaching and restrictive. Unless I'm missing something, it e.g. means that you can't even run a multiplayer server for your game on a cloud infrastructure unless "specifically authorized".
 
Moosichu

Moosichu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
898
devSin said:
Is it, though?

If this was Spatial exploiting their license to Unity, is it morally wrong to stop it? The agreement doesn't say you can't do it; it just says you need a license (you can't just piggyback off Spatial's license).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You are misunderstanding what SpatialOS is.

It basically allows game developers to use an existing engine as a dedicated server for multilayer games, handling load balancing and persistence across many machines.

People playing the game are still playing with a Unity license locally, the server just handles physics on separate instances of the runtime.
 
Moosichu

Moosichu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
898
Durante said:
I'm talking specifically about this part: That's incredibly far-reaching and restrictive. Unless I'm missing something, it e.g. means that you can't even run a multiplayer server for your game on a cloud infrastructure unless "specifically authorized".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes, that is what it means. SpatialOS is a really sophisticated multiplayer server. That's it. (Awesome tech tho)
 

devSin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,197
Durante said:
I'm talking specifically about this part: That's incredibly far-reaching and restrictive. Unless I'm missing something, it e.g. means that you can't even run a multiplayer server for your game on a cloud infrastructure unless "specifically authorized".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Without knowing the specifics of their authorization, though, it may not be as far-reaching as it sounds.

I do agree that it seems unusual; I'm not sure what they're afraid of if each developer has an individual license to Unity (though since the other company has said they were negotiating, obviously it's a problem that Unity has communicated to them in advance).

Moosichu said:
You are misunderstanding what SpatialOS is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't know what SpatialOS is, so I'm just spit-balling based on the limited information in this thread.

Moosichu said:
It basically allows game developers to use an existing engine as a dedicated server for multilayer games, handling load balancing and persistence across many machines.

People playing the game are still playing with a Unity license locally, the server just handles physics on separate instances of the runtime.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not an end-user license, it's a license for the developer who made the game.

Did they license the engine from Unity, or did they just give money to SpatialOS to use their tools (who provides Unity access)? If it's the latter, then I think Unity is fair to shut this down.
 
Durante

Durante

Dark Souls Man
Member
Oct 24, 2017
5,074
devSin said:
I do agree that it seems unusual; I'm not sure what they're afraid of if each developer has an individual license to Unity (though since the other company has said they were negotiating, obviously it's a problem that Unity has communicated to them in advance).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd say they are probably "afraid" of not getting a cut/separate fee from "authorized" cloud services. (Sorry for always assuming the worst in these cases, it's because that has good predictive value when dealing with capitalism)
 
Tygre

Tygre

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,132
Chesire, UK
Some commentary from industry luminaries about how incredibly troubling and scummy this is:





More from Sweeny on his feed explaining that something like this could never happen with UE due to differences in how it's EULA works.
 
Moosichu

Moosichu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
898
devSin said:
Without knowing the specifics of their authorization, though, it may not be as far-reaching as it sounds.

I do agree that it seems unusual; I'm not sure what they're afraid of if each developer has an individual license to Unity (though since the other company has said they were negotiating, obviously it's a problem that Unity has communicated to them in advance).

I don't know what SpatialOS is, so I'm just spit-balling based on the limited information in this thread.

It's not an end-user license, it's a license for the developer who made the game.

Did they license the engine from Unity, or did they just give money to SpatialOS to use their tools (who provides Unity access)? If it's the latter, then I think Unity is fair to shut this down.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, if you want to develop your game you need a Unity license. Of course it's not the latter.
 
gofreak

gofreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,738
It's completely reasonable and fair for Unity devs to expect they'd be able to run instances of their game - be it client or server - on whatever hardware they wish. Obviously there are proprietary platforms, like the consoles, with separate licensing terms. But as far as Unity is concerned, it should place no restrictions beyond what is technically possible and impossible.

I.e. if I build my game for an open distribution platform like windows, I should be able to run instances of that build on any windows hardware, server or client, without having to defer to Unity.

Breaking that principle - retroactively! - would be an absolutely terrible move.

If it's the unity editor they're talking about, then that's fine... but 'everyone' seems to be saying this means your own game builds.
 
catboy

catboy

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,322
Nothing says "continue to use our engine for future projects" like "btw your current projects are against TOS active immediately".
 

Deleted member 28815

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
626
This is pretty crap. My current hobby stuff isn't affected, but this has me wondering how long it would take to move to another engine.
Fucking Unity.
 
gofreak

gofreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,738
Bony Manifesto said:
Well, it's made The Guardian, so I suspect we'll see a sheepish climbdown (probably in the form of a 'clarification' of their TOS) from Unity by the end of the day.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Even with a climbdown, after this they have to take out their open-ended modification clause from the ToS, the one that allows them to make changes whenever they want.

The terms need to become fixed per version after this fiasco.
 
Durante

Durante

Dark Souls Man
Member
Oct 24, 2017
5,074
gofreak said:
Even with a climbdown, after this they have to take out their open-ended modification clause from the ToS, the one that allows them to make changes whenever they want.

The terms need to become fixed per version after this fiasco.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, building anything of value on technology the license for which could actually be changed at any time affecting your product seems like a terrible idea.
 
gofreak

gofreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,738
So a forum post from Unity's CTO:

"We are preparing a blog post because there is a lot of mis-information but the short summary is that using Unity as a game developer or game studio in a generic cloud (GCP, AWS, Azure) or on your own servers is perfectly legal. "

I'm still not really totally happy with this, let alone with the idea that terms can change retroactively.

It still feels like Unity extending a qualified right to run instances of your own game in 'approved' contexts - and not in third party contexts that Unity decides is competing with them (like Improbable). That's not ownership of your own game.

And there are types of game - and service games - that one might make with Unity that, it seems to me, Unity could decide overnight are not what they had in mind in terms of hosting on their own servers. Or what if you become super successful and extend your network to partner games? Are you then a service Unity will withdraw permission from overnight?

We need the same simple absolute rights to distribute and run instances on open operating systems as we always assumed we had before. This feels too risky.

Durante said:
Yeah, building anything of value on technology the license for which could actually be changed at any time affecting your product seems like a terrible idea.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah. I hadn't even thought about this possibility in a Unity context before. Now it's all I can think about today... I don't even have a product out right now, I can only imagine the anxiety for devs actually affected today. And judging by the CTO's comments, they are indeed out of luck because they're hosted on a non-generic (read: competing) service.
 
Last edited:
Dreamwriter

Dreamwriter

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,461
Durante said:
I'm talking specifically about this part: That's incredibly far-reaching and restrictive. Unless I'm missing something, it e.g. means that you can't even run a multiplayer server for your game on a cloud infrastructure unless "specifically authorized".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Right, which is what SpatialOS is designed for. Heck, I work for a company that has used apps we build in Unity for research, running the apps on multiple cloud servers so we could get lots of data quickly. That is no longer allowed.

Edit: Unity's CTO may think differently, but their TOS wording does *not* allow using Unity in a generic cloud server or on your own server. He should get together with their legal team.
 
Kyuur

Kyuur

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,535
Canada
It sounds to me like this service was essentially using monetizing their own licenses to Unity? That's probably the big no-no here.

The licensing stuff is likely not in the spirit of what they actually want to enforce.
 
Dascu

Dascu

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,994
I think they'll be clarifying and re-writing it a bit. I don't think this was a deliberate attempt to lock down a Unity-controlled gaming development and distribution ecosystem. That said, I do agree with the concerns about fluctuating EULA terms. The EULA terms that you signed when getting your Unity subscription and product should remain in place indefinitely and not be open for retro-active, unilateral changes. I'm not sure if such contract changes would even hold up in court, were any of this to be actually litigated.
 
gofreak

gofreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,738
Kyuur said:
It sounds to me like this service was essentially using monetizing their own licenses to Unity? That's probably the big no-no here.

The licensing stuff is likely not in the spirit of what they actually want to enforce.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No...it's not about the editor license. The CTO's comment makes clear that they don't want people hosting their own game on services they don't approve of i.e. services that would compete directly with their new service. And are asserting control over what's acceptable in this regard or not.

I.e. Really, imo, you don't own your game.
 
Dascu

Dascu

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,994
gofreak said:
No...it's not about the editor license. The CTO's comment makes clear that they don't want people hosting their own game on services they don't approve of i.e. services that would compete directly with their new service. And are asserting control over what's acceptable in this regard or not.

I.e. Really, imo, you don't own your game.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Depends what he means with 'using Unity', as per the above quote. Does he mean running the editor in a cloud environment, or does he mean actual Unity-based games?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.