AppLovin’s attempts to acquire Unity last year turned sour when Unity opted for a  merger with rivals ironSource instead . Now, in the ongoing shockwave of Unity's unpopular introductio...

AppLovin’s attempts to acquire Unity last year turned sour when Unity opted for a merger with rivals ironSource instead . Now, in the ongoing shockwave of Unity’s unpopular introductio…

  • gilaEnglish
    3•1 year ago

    It’s allowed by a specific clause in their TOS which assigns a EULA version dependent on the engine version. The EULA itself is different for different versions.

    The point is that devs choosing to stay on an old version would not be good for Epic, so they are unlikely to directly create the circumstances where that is the logical result.

    • 📛MavenEnglish
      11•1 year ago

      Unity also had that clause

      In fact, they tried to delete it after their announcement

      • @halcyoncmdrEnglish
        7•1 year ago

        Yup, they actually removed the entire GitHub repo that they made specifically to track those changes for transparency.

      • gilaEnglish
        4•1 year ago

        The clause is:

        If we make changes to this Agreement, you are not required to accept the amended Agreement, and this Agreement will continue to govern your use of any Licensed Technology you already have access to. However, if we make changes to this Agreement, you will not be allowed to access certain Epic services or download the Licensed Technology unless you have accepted the amended Agreement.

        My understanding is this is fundamentally different to the Unity clause you’re pointing out.

        Another thing is that Unreal is open source source accessible. If there’s a bug in 5.0 that is resolved in 5.1 but you don’t want to accept the amended terms for 5.1, it’s possible to fix the bug and build the engine yourself. In the event of a significant change like the one with Unity, I imagine some dev group would just fork it and maintain it themselves.