Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Cloud The Almighty Buck Entertainment Games

Improbable, Epic Games Establish $25 Million Fund To Help Devs Move To 'More Open Engines' After Unity Debacle (techcrunch.com) 80

Lucas Matney writes via TechCrunch: Improbable is taking a daring step after announcing earlier today that Unity had revoked its license to operate on the popular game development engine. The U.K.-based cloud gaming startup has inked a late-night press release with Unity rival Epic Games, which operates the Unreal Engine and is the creator of Fortnite, establishing a $25 million fund designed to help game developers move to "more open engines." This is pretty bold on Improbable's part and seems to suggest that Unity didn't give them a call after Improbable published a blog post that signed off with, "You [Unity] are an incredibly important company and one bad day doesn't take away from all you've given us. Let's fix this for our community, you know our number."

Unity, for its part, claims that they gave Improbable ample notice that they were in violation of their Terms of Service and that the two had been deep in a "partnership" agreement that obviously fell short. The termination of Improbable's Unity license essentially cut them off from a huge portion of indie developers who build their stuff on Unity. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney was quick to jump on the news earlier today, rebuking Unity's actions. "Epic Games' partnership with Improbable, and the integration of Improbable's cloud-based development platform SpatialOS, is based on shared values, and a shared belief in how companies should work together to support mutual customers in a straightforward, no-surprises way," the blog post reads.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Improbable, Epic Games Establish $25 Million Fund To Help Devs Move To 'More Open Engines' After Unity Debacle

Comments Filter:
  • Oh, the irony (Score:5, Insightful)

    by macraig ( 621737 ) <mark.a.craig@gmail . c om> on Friday January 11, 2019 @09:41PM (#57948190)

    Any executive from Epic games trying to convince gamers or other developers that such an unrepentantly selfish corporation has "shared values" in common with them is a fool who doesn't recognize his own irony even as he creates it.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Context?

    • Care to elaborate? The worst I can think of from Epic is that lawsuit with Silicon Knights, and that was decided entirely in Epic's favor. They have nothing like Bethesda's or EA's records for screwing their customers and business partners.

      Meanwhile, Unity not only spies on their customers but also spies on their customers' customers. A premium user can disable the first thing, but not the second. That's pretty damning, from my perspective.
  • Okay I currently have a subscription to Unity.

    I will be definitely canceling it now and letting Unity know that I no longer agree with it's terms of service.

    Fuck that noise!

    • Re:Oh damn! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Xenx ( 2211586 ) on Friday January 11, 2019 @10:00PM (#57948234)
      TFS was very one-sided and doesn't really cover anything but Improbable's side. I'm not saying you should definitely side with Unity, but if you haven't already read their side of things I recommend you do.

      The short of it is that Unity's terms state Improbable needed to be an approved Unity platform partner to host servers for games developed by someone else. The EULA basically only allows for you to host your own servers, or your own instanced servers from a cloud provider, unless you're a platform partner. After a year of failed negotiations with Improbable, they cut them off.
      • The EULA basically only allows for you to host your own servers, or your own instanced servers from a cloud provider, unless you're a platform partner.

        That Improbable agreed to those terms in the first place shows very bad judgment, and shows that Unity indeed is the villain in this story. That Improbable would partner with another villain (Epic Games) shows additional bad judgment. They're really just substituting one abuser for another.

        • by Xenx ( 2211586 )
          The license gives licensed developer free reign to host their own multiplayer servers, or use a cloud solution to instance their hosted servers. Improbable isn't a game developer in this context. Improbable is selling Unity game hosting, and not just the server for the developer to then host themselves. Unity's terms require you to be a platform partner to do this. They need to be a partner because they're specifically selling Unity hosting.
        • by Anonymous Coward

          They didn't agree to the terms, the terms were retroactively changed.

        • The EULA basically only allows for you to host your own servers, or your own instanced servers from a cloud provider, unless you're a platform partner.

          That Improbable agreed to those terms in the first place shows very bad judgment, and shows that Unity indeed is the villain in this story. That Improbable would partner with another villain (Epic Games) shows additional bad judgment. They're really just substituting one abuser for another.

          Uh, dude, just no. Stop it.

          If Improbable agreed to the EULA, then Unity is not the villain. One can criticize the EULA for many valid (and invalid) reasons, but if you agree to an allegedly faulty EULA with full usage of your mental faculties about the terms in said EULA, the other party is not the villain. There was no deception.

          Unless we are invoking some sort of "Inequality of bargaining power" context here, I'm sorry, this characterization doesn't fly.

      • by Kremmy ( 793693 )
        Why did Unity sign a partnership with a company that was supposedly violating the ToS?
        It didn't. TFS left out the part where Unity changed their ToS in order to create the situation.
        • Re:Oh damn! (Score:4, Informative)

          by Xenx ( 2211586 ) on Saturday January 12, 2019 @01:11AM (#57948676)
          Again, to be clear for people, I'm advocating people inform themselves and make decisions from that. I'm not trying to tell you which side to pick or who is right/wrong. I just wanted to bring in some additional information from the other side as a starting point for that.

          Why did Unity sign a partnership with a company that was supposedly violating the ToS? It didn't. TFS left out the part where Unity changed their ToS in order to create the situation.

          From Unity's response, they were in discussions with Improbable 2 years ago. Improbable went ahead with their plans without coming to an agreement with Unity. Unity has been trying to get them to reach an agreement, or stop, for the last year. Unity also says the recent change to the terms was only to provide clarification.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by SirAstral ( 1349985 )

        Unity "Changed" terms mid-way through and is wrecking a businesses viability. That is some pretty harsh action right there. I have very little desire to place my financial risk with a company willing to damage business like this. Unity should have "grandfathered" in businesses already doing something they do not like or gave them a reasonable grace period. The way Unity handled this was not okay in any reasonably objective way in my opinion.

        • by Xenx ( 2211586 )
          I don't know all the details, but Unity said they've been working with them for a year to resolve it.
          • This may be true, but I was not aware of it until now. I don't begrudge people that get screwed, I only begrudge them when they continue to allow the screwing to keep going on.

            I also have other reasons for considering leaving Unity, but now that I learned this it helps to confirm my decision to move to a different platform before I am also in their shoes as well.

        • Unity claim that they gave, in effect, Improbable several months of warning. But even so, I wonder if this sort of retroactive license change is legal at all. We might yet see a lawsuit over this.

          But I think there was also pretty gross negligence on the part of Improbable when they
          1) agreed to a license contract that did not require mutual agreement to change the TOS
          2) used a system where Unity could just revoke the keys and in effect shut down their business

          For comparison, bot

      • after the fact, likely as a money grab for future cloud gaming profits? I'd thought Unity normally charges per developer fees. It looks like they want to start charging per user or per processor fees like Oracle & IBM do.
      • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday January 12, 2019 @09:57AM (#57949504)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • How does Improbable make money? Does anyone know? Their website offers no clue.

  • It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jastiv ( 958017 ) on Saturday January 12, 2019 @12:17AM (#57948556) Homepage
    Proprietary software has no place in game development or anywhere else. Soon people will see see the light the way Torvalds did after the Bitkeeper fiasco. Sooner or later, those proprietary licenses will come to bite your in the rear, whether you are an individual or a corporation. Its better to just spend the money upfront for a free software replacement than have to deal with proprietary licenses. With free software, once you have the software written, you can do whatever you want with it. For those who don't already know. I am one of the developers of the the free software game Wograld. (a 2d multi-player rpg not based on unity(obviously))
    • Re:It's about time (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SirAstral ( 1349985 ) on Saturday January 12, 2019 @12:39AM (#57948614)

      I agree, but keep in mind that developing a game engine is a lot of work, and while I have decided to stop using Unity myself, it has helped a lot of indies get their work out there as well.

      In many ways some people feel like they have little choice in the matter and wind up making a deal with the devil.

      Unity is quickly becoming a bad business model for many of the reasons you mentioned. Open source has its own problems too, but greedy platforms are starting to to hurt the environment enough to encourage a switch to it.

    • You do realise that you sound like a preacher of a cult?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      We don't know, nor do we care about your shitty little irrelevant game that on Googling it looks so utterly terrible, that you should be ashamed not proud to put your name to it, even your website is literally fucking terrible. Everything you've put forward has highlighted why open source is often a joke in some areas; the problem is I could spend about £100 and knock up your entire game in a weekend in Unity and still have it much better, and it looks like you've put years into it.

      Have any open

      • by bigmacx ( 135216 )

        You sir, win the Internet with that comment. I hope the OP of your reply has a strong constitution.

        Dropping the mic with "year of Linux on the desktop" shows your age. That's been the White Whale of Slashdot for decades

        • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

          No (s)he absolutely doesn't. (s}he is clearly an complete dick and nothing more. And (s)he already knows it. I'm fed up of these gutless idiots that think they're "big men" because they snipe acidic rhetoric at someone else's well-intentioned efforts while hiding behind AC. Where's the much better game that AC wrote then?

          Slamming someone's community project just because it doesn't have the same standard as a game that takes millions of dollars of professional man-hours and resources, is nothing more than ut

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Working...