23 minutes ago, Septopus said:

Otherwise I'll be brushing up on my c++ too.... 

Godot has had C# (via Mono) since late 2017. Microsoft sponsored adding that with $24k. I don't know how good Godot or its C# integration is but at least it's all MIT licensed so no one can ever pull the ToS rug from under you (unless they steal code from someone or violate patents or something else crazy).

https://improbable.io/company/news/2019/01/10/an-update-on-todays-events

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/epic-games-and-improbable-working-together-for-developers

And I still don't get what's Unity's problem.

And some comments on Reddit and Unity forums are so factually wrong it's not even funny.

1 hour ago, FRex said:

 

*Ignore*

6 hours ago, FRex said:

And Unity is the only one not saying which clause, being vague and only engine vendor having this problem. Keep that in mind.

There will be on going, and potential legal issues, from this which would limit what could be said - this is part of why the reply took 9 hours to happen as everything had to be vetted. (The other parts being the timing of the initial hit piece was such that SF, who deals with this stuff, was asleep and the employees at Unity also chimed in on the wording/direction of the reply blog.)

2 hours ago, FRex said:

https://improbable.io/company/news/2019/01/10/an-update-on-todays-events

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/epic-games-and-improbable-working-together-for-developers

And I still don't get what's Unity's problem.

And some comments on Reddit and Unity forums are so factually wrong it's not even funny.

It's worth keeping two things in mind with those blog posts above; 

1. The 'update' was posted before Unity's reply... probably because it was late UK time and people wanted to go to bed. The "can't we all get along?!?" line is clear manipulation designed to clear them of wrong doing and at odds with the 2nd entry...
2. A 'fund' doesn't just appear from no where - this would have been planned in advance with Epic, who obviously want Unity out of the market and more money from developers. 

Unity's problem remains the same it has been for a year; the EULA was broken and an agreement wasn't reached. Improbable have keep their customers in the dark and used the twitter outrage factory to their advantage on this. (and, tbh, I'm applaud them, this is some top quality PR/emotional manipulation/outrage generating stuff to make them look like the victim here - which also takes good planning.)

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, by Epic and Tim over this too, but business gotta business I guess... although clearly everyone has forgotten the time when Epic also changed their EULA to screw over Xamarin *after* Xamarin had already done most of the integration work... because the internet remembers; https://forums.unrealengine.com/unreal-engine/feedback-for-epic/25346-i-want-feedback-from-epic-about-mono-for-unreal-engine/page2?54595-I-want-Feedback-from-Epic-about-Mono-for-Unreal-Engine=&viewfull=1

1 hour ago, _the_phantom_ said:

There will be on going, and potential legal issues, from this which would limit what could be said

Where did you get that information from?

Both Unity and Improbable act as if this is a completely done story (break ToS = lose license because it was given under that ToS) and disagree on the details (whether it was Improbable breaking ToS and spitting on hand Unity extended to try make a special deal about it a year ago or if it was Unity wanting more money for allowing a 'platform' to exist and updating ToS to kill it when they didn't get it).

Improbable doesn't claim that it was illegal for Unity to retroactively update the ToS (just mean) and doesn't seem to want to sue/arbitrate and punishment for a ToS violation is revoking a license (as stated in the very ToS), not "legal issues".

And if Unity is so sure and there was a violation a year ago then how would saying which point Improbable violated affect that?

1 hour ago, _the_phantom_ said:

this is part of why the reply took 9 hours to happen as everything had to be vetted.

And despite that and claims by Unity that lawyers helped write the blog post there's tons of contradictions between the ToS and the blog post. Even using SpatialOS is forbidden by the ToS but allowed by the blog post.

1 hour ago, _the_phantom_ said:

The other parts being the timing of the initial hit piece was such that SF, who deals with this stuff, was asleep and the employees at Unity also chimed in on the wording/direction of the reply blog.

Unity's piece is the only one that sounds like a hit piece here to me.

Improbable is based in the UK so why should they care about day schedule of a company that is so hostile to them and based in SF? And Unity has like 5 or 6 branches in the EU!

And it's Unity's license key revoking and ToS change that triggered this post about how using SpatialOS in your Unity game makes you violate the new 2.4.

Did they expect Improbable to just stay silent and then planned to go after the developers of Unity SpatialOS MMOs one by one for violating new 2.4?

On 1/10/2019 at 3:07 PM, Rutin said:

I have a commercial game in production

See now this has me all sorts of curious.  But I also respect if someone prefers their anonymity. 

On 1/11/2019 at 9:01 AM, FRex said:

Where did you get that information from?

I know far more about what is going on behind the scenes than I can tell unfortunately.