Advertisement Jump to content
  • Advertisement

FRex

Member
  • Content Count

    186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FRex

  1. Happening today/tomorrow (in 13 hours):
  2. Yes, if xor is fine then that's a great and simple idea actually, just wrap around whatever reading from file function you use to add xoring read buffer with your key to it. Set key to all 0s to disable it when developing the game (so you can use and edit plain files).
  3. PhysFS is just a library for reading archives, it doesn't create them. It doesn't care about file extensions but anyone who looks at your file in a hexeditor or right click open it with 7zip will instantly know if it's zip, 7z, iso, etc. It also only (AFAIK) handles passwords for zips with "Traditional PKWARE Encryption" but you need to put "$your_password" at the end of the path you give to PHYSFS_openRead which is annoying to do and documentation doesn't even mention that. The last version of PhysFS is also badly busted on Windows 10 (fails to initialize and doesn't set any PHYSFS error code) so you need to take code from their Mercurial when building it, not the latest stable release from 2017: http://icculus.org/pipermail/physfs/2018-October/thread.html You could also write own custom file format and code to work with that or implement/use one of: PHYSFS_Archiver, PHYSFS_Io, PHYSFS_mountHandle with encrypted zip storing the actual archive (I'm not sure how well it'll perform), PHYSFS_mountMemory (for small files). But in any case a determined hacker would still find out how you store and/or decrypt it and dig your key out of your exe. Even real commercial DRM gets cracked all the time and extractors or at least format descriptions exist for most any semi-common bundle format. Security through obscurity is most that you can get. Edit: I'd honestly say to just use a zip or 7z with reasonable settings (non-solid archive with reasonable compression level), rename it to hide its extension from total casual observer who doesn't know what a hex editor is and don't worry about it that much. For when you develop your game you can use a loose folder for convenience and only pack it all up for distribution or when making content patches (that's the point of PhysFS).
  4. So, you want to use C# for runtime scripting instead of Lua? Mono has a C# repl called csharp in its distribution (or at last used to years ago) so it is possible. Apparently both Mono and .NET allow you to programmatically access the C# compiler. Do these two links help at all? https://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/languages/csharp/#compiler-service https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/304655/how-to-programmatically-compile-code-using-c-compiler
  5. FRex

    Question on which engine should I use

    Don't be afraid to use their forums too, they/we (I'm not a developer myself) are very friendly. That's true and why they dropped '3D' from their name a while back but I do not recommend Unity to anyone for anything due to their ToS and attitude (current SpatialOS drama and July 2018 email drama) regardless of its quality.
  6. Did you take a look at these two pages (second seems specific to Unity Analytics but lol @ "Unity Analytics Data Privacy Plug-in" not supporting Linux)? https://unity3d.com/legal/privacy-policy https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/UnityAnalyticsDataPrivacy.html
  7. Since the GDPR was brought up: they're very diligent with it. Deleting my account took them 80 days. I never user support, forum, asset store, made any games, not even compiled any exes and only ever ran editor for 2-5 hours once to check examples out one day a months ago. They've mentioned GDPR ("Your request has been received and is being reviewed by our GDPR taskforce.") when confirming my request for deleting my account on 6th of August via email. I'm guessing it's because I am an EU citizen and live in the EU. Then on 31st of August I got this: I was doing this in response to the July email drama so the "unusually high volume" part gave me a chuckle (or maybe it was just a complex task to delete an account that never did anything ). I got two more copies of the above email (which I assume to be a mistake) on 26th of October and this email, all within same minute:
  8. Unreal EULA says snippets of up to 30 lines are fine to put on public forums where non-licensees can see them, within a few (reasonable) limits.
  9. @Hodgman Exactly. And Unity is actually more restrictive than GNU in that regard. Let that sink in. Edit: And by that I mean bison, GCC and other tools from GNU that all have an exception (out of pragmatism to not scare people away) to let you make non-GPL or even proprietary software despite GNU project being philosophically very against it.
  10. You should turn on the 'show hidden folders' (and turn off the 'hide known file extensions' one too). There's literally no reason not to and it avoid many silly situations situations like this one. If you ever (by accident) open a directory in VS using the context menu this hidden .vs folder will be made too, even if you instantly quit VS. Git on Windows creates .git folder and marks them as hidden in explorer too. There are also tools that can summarize contents of disk or folder by sizes, file types, etc. for you if you're ever confused what's taking up space on your disk or in some folder. I use WinDirStat because it's FOSS and I'm used to its looks but there are many newer ones that work the same but much faster by reading the NTFS master file table.
  11. FRex

    Question on which engine should I use

    Is an 'engine' or C# a hard requirement? If not then did you ever take a look at SFML? https://www.sfml-dev.org/
  12. FRex

    Havok Physic Engine sold for $75 M

    IIRC Intel made Havok free to use for commercial uses and this had something to do with CPU vs. GPU physics debate or with trying to undermine NVidia's PhysX back in the day. It was big news when this happened. Microsoft has apparently ended this? There's a few FOSS physics engines like Bullet and Newton Game Dynamics. Bullet is kinda more famous of these two since it's in a few AAA games and many others engines and such like Blender, GTA 4 and 5. Newton Game Dynamics is used by Frictional in their own HPL Engine (for Penumbra, SOMA, Amnesia). First Penumbra game caused some hype due to how they used physics for doors, drawers, combat, etc. (it's a horror game so it made sense to let you slowly open the door partly or make you scramble to rummage through drawers). PhysX got open sourced for non-console platforms very recently too (proper BDS license, the 3 clause one, which has huge implication, no backsies or EULAs). I've no idea how hard it is to implement a physics engine personally but it's clearly not that easy and depends on its features like does it have fluids, soft bodies, cloth, etc. anyway. And it doesn't have to be on the GPU necessarily. And we're spoiled for choice these days, there is no reason for someone (who isn't a huge company with a good reason) to write own physics or do it from scratch, there's no catch with a FOSS library. I'm not sure if Square Enix's Crystal Tools engine has its own custom physics and that engine as a whole had very mixed results. Ahh.. It happens sometimes but more often the acquisitions make some sense in other way like Oracle buying Sun or Ksplice or Atlassian buying Trello, IBM buying Red Hat, Red Hat buying JBoss, etc. I can think of tons of ones like these but not of many that are like you said (Intel kind of wasn't IMO for reason I said above). Maybe Facebook buying Occulus or Microsoft buying Mojang would fit these "get something just because it's hot".
  13. The way middle part of 2.4 sounds right now open sourcing the GDK or having others provide SpatialOS-like cloud doesn't help since it's still integrating something into your project that lets you manage deployment. This whole thing is like a pro-FOSS PSA.
  14. @swiftcoder That fits more than live LCD picture frame, yeah. It's still funny to run across such an artifact or that they have it as a ToS point instead of some 'Unity Embedded - X dollars for every 1000 devices'. This comment's second paragraph from the bottom says no to retroactivity: https://blogs.unity3d.com/2019/01/10/our-response-to-improbables-blog-post-and-why-you-can-keep-working-on-your-spatialos-game/#comment-399879 Section 1.4 in this link says yes (edit: I just noticed the call all sub-ToSes collectively an 'Agreement' and say they can update this 'Agreement' at any time so 1.4 applies to everything) : https://unity3d.com/legal/terms-of-service ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  15. @Septopus I don't know the details either but they DO have generic C#, C++ and Java SDKs and claim that any engine works with them, they just pre-made few 'GDKs' as they call them to support two popular engines. And yes - they say they use the engine, not provide own physics or anything. I mean - it'd be crazy and inaccurate between your machine and their server if they ran own physics in a different engine and so on. But they only seem to use your exe. If no one ever wanted to run a Unity MMO they'd never execute a single line of Unity Runtime on their clouds. So the way they made it sound it's like if you build a single exe of your game in any language using their SDKs or GDKs, then give it to your players to run normally (which will run no physics, show graphics, etc.) and that connects to SpatialOS cloud running the exe launched in some special way/with other argument where they will cooperate to make seamless worlds, do run physics, do not show graphics, etc. for the players. And their Unity Editor license was to let them maker their Unity GDK? I mean - SpatialOS games keep working so it can't be needed for that since Unity voided them. Edit: I also wonder if Unity would consider it a ToS violation to use S3 or DynamoDB in your game and then host on AWS? Edit 2: I guess it'll all be clear on Monday or Tuesday or so, as Joachim promised a new ToS 2.4 to come soon...
  16. If you're getting that mid 2018 change date from me posting a mid 2018 then you're wrong. I said 'this was that way in mid 2018' because that was snapshot of their ToS I found in Wayback Machine. The date on that snapshot says February 21, 2018 (so still after 'over a year ago we told them in person' date Unity claims but before 'six months ago in writing' one). That anti-cloud 2.4 was there in 2016 already too. I just added 'mid 2018' 2.4 in last thread to show what it looked like before they changed it in December to add these 'no SDK + cloud bundle'. Sorry for that misleading if that was it but it doesn't change much in the he says she says argument they're having. And 2.4 always sounded vague and like it's against almost any-MP. It looks bad they still have Unity on their website too. Zero mention that it's against ToS (which they agree with themselves) or that Unity okay'd it only for (seemingly) ongoing developments in their blog post. It's like they want to pressure Unity into backing off. Maybe they knew Tim Sweeney is a huge pro-openness nerd (after those op eds he had out about UWP or how UE4 gutted itself to get rid of all the too proprietary bits to let everyone have the source code) and that he'd jump in to defend them but that sounds a bit too conspiracy theorist. It's also a bit sad they have this tech where you get an SDK but only they have cloud workers code and you are locked into their cloud but at least they have something unique enough and are upfront on their website about it. But is that what SpatialOS did? To me it sounds like they just give you a lib, you have to build your exe and use that lib in it and then when they execute it on their cloud it does its cloud balancing seamless worlds magic. And they made a convenient Unity 'GDK' to generate C# classes for your game stuff instead of forcing you to use their generic for-all-engines-ever SDKs. It doesn't sound like they let anyone use Unity editor itself (I mean - despite their Editor keys being gone SpatialOS 'works' still and people can develop in it and Unity okay'd that too). Joachim Ante made some comments under their blog post saying that Steam, itchio, etc. is fine but he also says 2.4 doesn't restrict game devs which (IMO) it does with it's "do not use cloud providers we didn't give an official blessing to". This also makes no sense since what would happen is I used SpatialOS's generic for-all-engines SDK in Unity, wrap it myself, upload exe - who is then in the wrong? They never even used Unity. Am I? But I'm the 'game developer' so ??? You do not put a 'yes' in any eula.txt file, or pass an option agreeing with and ToS when running a Unity made game exe (some software does it in CLI only installers since it can't pop up a window to tell you the license).
  17. I have no insider knowledge of any kind either and after going through all the blog posts this is my conclusion for now. The timeline is: Improbable makes SpatialOS and a pre-made convenient GDK for it for Unity and gets lots of funding. Unity approaches Improbable to either tell them they are breaching the ToS or to try get them to become a partner. (Optional: only if Unity did tell them they breach the ToS) Improbable claims they don't breach the ToS and lawyers up. "Negotiations" (friendly or not, that doesn't matter) occur and fail. Unity updates the ToS to make it clear SpatialOS is in breach and revokes the keys they use to make their Unity GDK. Improbable writes a piece outing this move and to tell developers to not use SpatialOS with Unity since it's against new ToS. Unity claims no wrong doing and that it's okay to use SpatialOS for ongoing games as an exception given via their blog post. Unity promises to update the ToS soon again and makes claims on its blog that directly contradict it right now. This actually fits all the claims in all the blog posts. Unity says they said Improbable breached the ToS - maybe they did and Improbable disagreed with that interpretation? Maybe for last six months it was a slow lawyer letter exchange until Unity said fcuk it and updated the section 2.4 to kill them off. Points 5, 7 and 8 reflect poorly on Unity in various ways. Point 8 also gives more credibility to Improbable because it's like if Unity doesn't understand its own ToS. Unity didn't do anything illegal of course (I never said they did) but no matter how I slice it it makes them look bad in my eyes.
  18. Unity claims that with no other details or explanations given, not even quoting the section that was violated or why it was violated. Improbable claims they weren't violating it and were negotiating (for whatever reason). Then new anti-SpatialOS 2.4 dropped and Unity revoke those keys and now Unity is angry Improbable pointed out new ToS forbids SpatialOS. What did Unity want Improbable to do? New 2.4 (and Unity claims old one did too) literally bans game developers (but Joachim Ante says the 2.4 doesn't restrict game developers at all) from using SpatialOS. The only reason SpatialOS games are okay for now is because Joachim Ante said they are giving them an "exception" to the ToS on the blog. Would that happen if not for this entire drama that Improbable started in the media or would Unity go around revoking keys of developers of those games or demand more money from them silently? The "out of nowhere" part seems to refer to abrupt end of negotiations from Unity's side and revoking of keys and updating the ToS. Unity also claims they approached Improbable first soon after they got that investment which just looks HORRIBLE from the outside. And Unity is getting into cloud too now. So the ToS is so broad it's extremely easy to violate it and they do not enforce it until they see someone who gets big or competes with them. Joachim Ante right now claims that section 2.4 "doesn't apply to game developers" despite this section literally saying to everyone: "do not use managed services we do not approve". Seriously - go look at their blog comment to see what he says, then go read the ToS - they contradict. This looks very shady for Unity so far. This is literally dictatorial tactics of overly broad laws that literally everyone breaks but that get used only to imprison opposition. The "don't worry, you don't make millions of dollars so they won't target you" point that some people (and you, kind of) make is insane and no way to license anything. I'd expect more of an engine that was described as "democratizing game development". The way I understand what SpatialOS does (and maybe I'm wrong) - they give you a generic SDK, you build an exe that uses it, you upload it to their cloud and they execute it many times and handle networking/seamless worlds. They just happened to have 'GDKs' for two/three popular engines, including Unity, and now Unity killed keys they used to develop their GDK for Unity because 'negotiations failed'. And Unity added anti-SpatialOS language to 2.4 last December so it's now completely forbidden (but Joachim Ante claims that section 2.4 doesn't apply to developers who can do anything they want and is giving out "exceptions" in comments on blog right now?). If old ToS had a loop hole then Improbable didn't break it. That's the definition and point of a loop hole. Even in real life there are loop holes like double jeopardy and jury nulification and tax havens. And now new 2.4 abruptly closed that loop hole (that Unity never even claimed exists, just you do) and let Unity revoke keys for breaking it. Any moral, ethical or friendly arguments are long out the window since Unity uses purely legal/ToS arguments for its point and justifications, never even claims there was no loop hole, says that old ToS was broken and revoked keys. Joachim Ante says right now that it "doesn't apply to game developers", which makes no sense since the responsibility is on developer to not use non-Unity approved managed clouds/services. This literally makes no sense to me. And Unity is going to claim whatever they can that makes them look better, like breaking of old ToS, or defending game developers or that new section 2.4 was a total coincidence so why side with Unity instantly? You keep parroting Unity's talking points about how ToS was broken, sorry for vague 2.4, Improbable lies, Improbable knew, but you gave me 0 concrete answers. Improbable also has less holes in their story and Epic/TS (and most people online really) on their side. And by that logic every two party dispute is instantly invalid because it's always two sides that both make themselves out to be in the right. "A thief stole your stuff? That's just your claim! They claim you gave it to them for free! You're gonna claim anything to make yourself look good! I side with them!". Then they should do that first before revoking any licenses or doing anything at all. If Improbable didn't attack first with such efficiency then would anything change at all or what was Unity planning to do with those games that are in breach f ToS by using SpatialOS? Right now we have blog comments deeply contradicting the ToS with a promise on blog that ToS will soon change again.
  19. Then what is the distinction and which point of old ToS was broken? Unity won't say other than saying very vague stuff in blog post that also contradicts the ToS and then literally say "oh, we made an exception for now, keep using it all". And I'm not sure where did you pull itchio from, they aren't a cloud hosting or SDK maker. It's irrelevant who they are or how much money they have. This is about Unity's attitude and supposedly Unity breaking negotiations and updating ToS and cancelling keys out of nowhere, seemingly because their patience ran out during the negotiations. If Unity can't get their ToS clear and then interprets all vague stuff in its own favor that reflects badly on them. Improbable was paying for licenses with which they made their SDK and people who made games in Unity had to pay for it or qualify for free tier as they always do with any store or cloud. Then why was it changed literally a month ago, just before this started and why does it look like it targets Improbable's SpatialOS specifically with what was added and why does Improbable claim that Unity said that's what they broke now? I'm still waiting to know which part of Unity's ToS Improbable broke over a year ago with SpatialOS. Unity has not said yet and Improbable claims they didn't break the old ToS. I think so too and I don't see Unity's point. I agree they break new 2.4 since it's literally aimed at them. Like I'm not an idiot, my M. Eng. of CS included patent, copyright and trademark class and I'm fairly well versed in these from own reading. I'm an amateur and if I make some shitty 2D game I use only FOSS tools. Unreal, Unity, Epic and Improbable could disappear tonight and I'd not care. So why am I not siding with Unity on this if this is so clear cut? What am I missing?
  20. I'm SO curious how this all will end for Unity and what the new ToS is gonna say. Some somewhere have pointed out how Unity3D approached Improbable about their alleged ToS breaking soon after they got the $500 million investment. Investment was in May 2017 and Unity approached them 'over a year ago'. Someone also pointed out that maybe part of 25 millions comes from Improbable's money that they have stashed away planning to pay Unity for becoming a partner so now that negotiations died they use it for anti-Unity pro-Unreal PR budget instead. Sounds reasonable but it's not like Epic couldn't bankroll that themselves and it's essentially an Unreal advert in every tech media outlet done on the cheap. OTOH Improbable still lists Unity GDK on their website and if you didn't know from elsewhere you'd think it's fine to use which is very misleading since Unity's blog post exemption (see below) is only for existing developers using it. They had it up there even when their doomsday "pull the plug on your game cus it violates new 2.4" post was up and before Unity responded. Unity also updated their blog post twice so far: And there's a comment under it by Joachim Ante from Unity (he also wrote the blog post but he is posting from his 'personal' account so his comments aren't blue like other employee's comments are) that 2.4 isn't intended to apply to game developers (the "morphing Unity into a different game engine" part sounds especially strange to me): And here's the (still up on their website) 2.4 from December (they didn't update it yet): I still don't get why Unity is such a control freak (e.g. 2.3 above 2.4 pretty much prevents mass made physical digital art pieces, LCD picture frames and embedded appliances UI from being made in Unity): This all also doesn't explain who would get in trouble and how for you uploading a game to streaming platform (the ones that get input over the network to cloud from user and send user the graphics and audio, like PS Now, but that one is approved) other than the four they approve. The cloud gaming platform never agreed to any ToS, they just run your exe (or is this what's forbidden or assumed to be agreeing to a ToS, but you do not get prompted with any pop up or told to pass some --agree-to-tos option to the exe like some software tells you to do), and Joachim said 2.4 doesn't apply to game developers. Twitch isn't listed as approved so it'd be curious to see if Unity would shut down (or claim they could due to ToS violation, since they apply it unevenly already but seem to claim they could shut down all SpatialOS games right now if they didn't give them an exemption) a Twitch plays Pokemon style even if it was a game made on Unity that's being played. And if 2.4 doesn't apply to game developers at all then why did current developers running and making games on SpatialOS get an exemption from it (or is it a temporary fix until they add language to 2.4 saying that it doesn't apply to developers). And people thought GPL was limiting and viral.
  21. The idea is neat and I've never heard it before (I'm not a web designer though). It reminded me of this 'Japanese' 3-column style that looks cramped and retro but is very functional (so as not a web designer I like it). Have you considered making it more HTML + CSS and less JS? Zooming in and out makes it flicker/shift a little for a second or two. I assume due to some JS rerunning? And did you ever consider making it a two column style PDF scan (when you view two sides of a PDF side by side, many readers can do that) where first two pages that you'd show would be the cover page with basic info as left page and the table of contents page as right page with links to other pages or ids to jump to 'scanned pages' below, etc.? Plus on a 1920x1080 screen in a maximized browser at 100% zoom your website has horizontal and vertical scrollbars and the left portion of the text is cut off with no way to scroll to it in both Chrome and Firefox (maybe you were designing it on a 1440p or 2160p screen) :
  22. I think this is PR money with added benefit of some developer conversions. This might pay for itself if few million copies of these games get sold but it doesn't need to. Epic's been burning money recently for PR and investment. Their store fee is always 12% (even if you use Unreal) but other engines are welcome and they give out one free game every two weeks. It's not even that much between them considering the investment that Improbable got and how loaded Epic is due to Fortnite. And Tim Sweeney seems genuinely against walled gardens (his UWP reaction), he was bashing Unity on his Twitter for this. Unity is scribbling around in their ToS during a riot and these two just announced they'll throw money at people.
  23. 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? 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. 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?
  24. 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.
  25. 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).
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!