Support us on Patreon to keep GamingOnLinux alive. This ensures all of our main content remains free for everyone. Just good, fresh content! Alternatively, you can donate through PayPal. You can also buy games using our partner links for GOG and Humble Store.
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. See more here.

The current saga of Unity is not quite over yet, as they're still trying to clean up developer concerns after the botched announcement of the Runtime Fee. One bit currently in the spotlight is their Terms of Service and how they previously pulled the rug from developers.

In a previous article I touched on their TOS but to refresh - in 2019 they told developers very clearly:

When you obtain a version of Unity, and don’t upgrade your project, we think you should be able to stick to that version of the TOS.

In practice, that is only possible if you have access to bug fixes. For this reason, we now allow users to continue to use the TOS for the same major (year-based) version number, including Long Term Stable (LTS) builds that you are using in your project.

Moving forward, we will host TOS changes on Github to give developers full transparency about what changes are happening, and when. The link is https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/TermsOfService.

They later removed that GitHub, stopping their transparency and entirely replaced their TOS with a newer version that completely removed that protection for developers to stick with the terms they accepted for their current version of Unity.

Now they are telling developers as of their latest announcement, that again:

We will make sure that you can stay on the terms applicable for the version of Unity editor you are using – as long as you keep using that version.

And they have now restored that GitHub page but the history on it is gone, as they've started fresh with the current terms, although we can still see previous history on it thanks to the archive on the Wayback Machine.

So why did they really remove it? Their newer terms came in on October 13, 2022 so it was quite some time before the newer Runtime Fee announcement. So likely not directly related. The problem is with their promises, the "trust me bro, we really won't do it again, promise" argument they're giving. What assurances do developers actually have that they won't change the TOS on them again to remove protections? There's not really anything.

Making matters worse, on X/Twitter when replying to a developer asking for a clear answer on how they will guarantee this their questionable and rather laughable reply was:

I totally hear your frustration!❤️
Just to echo what Marc said, we are so sorry for our earlier actions.

Genuinely disappointed at how our removal of the ToS has been framed across the internet. We removed it way before the pricing change was announced because the views were so low, not because we didn't want people to see it.

And we have heard the concerns from the community about ToS loud and clear. This new Runtime Fee policy will only apply beginning with the next LTS version of Unity shipping in 2024 and beyond. And Marc's response is true, you can stay on the terms applicable for the version of Unity you are using as long as you keep using that version.

We do have a fireside chat ongoing with Marc where he will answer some Q's live, if you aren't happy with my answer, we welcome your attendance and questions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyLcI5O9iUY

I honestly can't believe this is a real post from Unity, but it is. They removed a clear, public and transparent legal document they weren't even hosting directly because the views were low. This isn't a YouTube video, this is legal documentation. It absolutely wasn't because they didn't want developers to clearly see the terms being changed to remove the protection of sticking with the terms of each Unity version was it? No, it can't be that of course, it's because views were low.

Don't worry, just trust Unity, they're totally not going to pull any of this again.

Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Tags: Game Dev, Misc, Unity
31 Likes
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly checked on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly. You can also follow my personal adventures on Bluesky.
See more from me
The comments on this article are closed.
All posts need to follow our rules. For users logged in: please hit the Report Flag icon on any post that breaks the rules or contains illegal / harmful content. Guest readers can email us for any issues.
24 comments Subscribe
Page: 1/2»
  Go to:

ElectricPrism 23 Sep 2023
Unity nuked their Terms of Service on GitHub as 'views were so low'

Genuinely disappointed at how our removal of the ToS has been framed across the internet. -- Unity

The Toxic Gossip Train takes another victim! LMAO

edit: Everyone should watch this intro -- it's Peak Unity.


Last edited by ElectricPrism on 23 Sep 2023 at 10:32 am UTC
elmapul 23 Sep 2023
nice excuse, LOL
elmapul 23 Sep 2023
this excuse is so absurd that i cant... i have to put it in words...

1)github offers free storage even for larger files, but they removed.
2)its simply a text, come one! its one of the most cheap things to host, even if github refused to host it for some reason, they could host it thenselves.

3)they dont need to host ads nor github need to put ads on it to make hosting it profitable.
4)even if there was an cost to host it, considering no one is accessing the cost would be quite low.
5)if an contract in text is so big that many services would refuse hosting the file because of how large it is, then, it should be an illegal contract, i mean, who can expect any lawyer to read terabytes of legal documents and still be able to process and understand the clausles to ensure you and your company that you arent doing anything ilegal with how you are using an product or service?


things like this makes me want to void their terms of service with an violation so big that they are forced to try to sue me and i act like "404" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
kuhpunkt 23 Sep 2023
Views were so low, we removed it so that the amount of views wouldn't get lower. Sure.
StalePopcorn 23 Sep 2023
If you thought we think you're stupid—lemme hold my own beer…!
Termy 23 Sep 2023
I really hope they aren't really expecting anyone to buy this sorry excuse of an explanation?!
Avehicle7887 23 Sep 2023
They just keep digging their own grave it seems.
RamenJunkie 23 Sep 2023
Shoot no one looks at anything on my Github, that doesn't stop me. It's free to keep it there.
Lofty 23 Sep 2023
Regarding the online requirement, i feel sorry for the Unity executives here. They just wanted to objectively fabricate a fully tested web-readiness environment that globally communicates impactful niche markets and competently mesh alternative values with their professionally scaled competitive content, and holistically incentivize real-time web services.

what the frick is so hard to understand about that.. geez


Last edited by Lofty on 23 Sep 2023 at 9:53 pm UTC
TheSHEEEP 23 Sep 2023
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
An odd way of communicating, that's for sure.
Purple Library Guy 23 Sep 2023
Wow. It's kind of impressive when someone makes an excuse so bad they would have been clearly, definitively better off just ignoring the issue and saying nothing.

Actually gives me new respect for myself as a kid--often, when my parents were on my case about something I'd done that was kind of bad, and they'd be asking me why and stuff, I'd just stonewall and say nothing. And I'm realizing now that you know, trying to make excuses really would have been worse--my instincts weren't so bad.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 23 Sep 2023 at 6:05 pm UTC
elmapul 23 Sep 2023
breaking news guys!
as part of the deal with Uk in order to be able to purchase activision blizzard, microsoft agreed that ubisoft should have streaming rights to call of duty, and be able to sub licence it to any cloud provider.
and guess what ubisoft requested? proton support!
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/16pdpm1/ubisoft_may_also_request_that_microsoft_perform/
as for ubisoft having rights to distribute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kaOOFvcS_Y


Last edited by elmapul on 23 Sep 2023 at 6:54 pm UTC
ridge 23 Sep 2023
Their social media damage control tone is so nauseating. At the same time as they're using this totally infantilising speak, they have the balls to say "we are soo disappointed and upset by this 😭😭😭 we're victims too here"
TheSHEEEP 23 Sep 2023
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
I feel that lately, I've seen a lot of cases of PR teams clearly needing PR teams.
Smoke39 23 Sep 2023
It really hurts my feelings when people badmouth my bad behavior.
pb 23 Sep 2023
breaking news guys!
as part of the deal with Uk in order to be able to purchase activision blizzard, microsoft agreed that ubisoft should have streaming rights to call of duty, and be able to sub licence it to any cloud provider.
and guess what ubisoft requested? proton support!
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/16pdpm1/ubisoft_may_also_request_that_microsoft_perform/
as for ubisoft having rights to distribute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kaOOFvcS_Y

Ubisoft games worked amazingly well on Stadia and I am pretty sure they licensed Stadia software for their own use, likely they will offer it as a part of Ubi+ subscription, so if they get the streaming rights to CoD, I am not surprised they want to ensure it works well on Linux machines.


Last edited by pb on 23 Sep 2023 at 9:23 pm UTC
WMan22 24 Sep 2023
The reason this sounds so bad is because I believe this excuse is the honest truth when they say it.

After all, if so few people are reading it, who's gonna notice when you delete it to fuck people over, right? I mean that's how I'd think if I was an evil CEO like John Riccitiello.

so really, no matter which way you slice this post, whether you approach it from the angle of "A LEGAL DOCUMENT ISN'T A YOUTUBE VIDEO YOU HAVE TO PROMOTE IN THE ALGORITHM TO JUSTIFY IT'S EXISTENCE YOU ABSOLUTE CRETINS" or "So you deleted something important because you thought there weren't enough people to raise hell about it", it's a bad excuse.
Nim8 24 Sep 2023
I mean that's how I'd think if I was an evil CEO like John Riccitiello.
Your comment reminds me of this quote from a previous round of controversies last year:
https://www.pcgamer.com/unity-ceo-sparks-fury-by-saying-developers-who-dont-consider-monetization-are-fing-idiots/ :
Come on Game Dev twitter; why are we pretending that we're only just now realizing John Riccitiello is the evil CEO that he is? We've known this for *Decades*, the dude ran EA. EA! Do better!July 14, 2022

I really hope they aren't really expecting anyone to buy this sorry excuse of an explanation?!
If you thought we think you're stupid—lemme hold my own beer…!
Also
John Riccitiello thinks I'm an idiot. I think he's a little greedy capitalist pig who only cares about money. I'm so tired of people like him ruining things I love.July 14, 2022


Last edited by Nim8 on 24 Sep 2023 at 8:02 am UTC
TheRiddick 24 Sep 2023
The entire front cover of the company is being handled by corporate CEO's. That is the only way you can get PR this bad, from sociopaths.
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.

This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
The comments on this article are closed.
Buy Games
Buy games with our affiliate / partner links: