Kubikus
New member
Hey::lol:
What's really funny is the only two people who seem to be behind this grand idea of yours absolutely refuse to find out for themselves the legality. You've spent far more time positing and debating than it would have taken to, I dunno, ask somebody from the asset stores in question and get a definitive answer one way or the other.
Spider created this thread with the phrase "What do ya think?" directly in the title, and almost invariably, people including content creators AND a game dev. have said they think that it's probably not a good idea.
You guys do you, just don't ♥♥♥♥ up everybody else's ability to be able to import custom assets due to your hubris.
https://forum.unity.com/threads/legal-question-about-the-usage-of-assets.578605/
I agree with you do you and such. But, I mean, look at this thread. All the personal remarks, the attacks. Those who don't like the idea are all over the place.
- - - Updated - - -
I mean it's nice that you try to explain things, but I need this to be deducted from the EULA. This is just an explanation of your interpretation or your understanding. How do you conclude that option 2 is not legal? How do you conclude that I cannot mod a mod? Which passages in the EULA forbid this? And, as I said before, if it is forbidden to mod a mod, why can I mod a game? Where is the essential difference?Okay, so I think I have a way to explain the issue in a manner that will make sense. I'm going to make 1 assumption and use my own mod as examples.
Some things people complain about in this game are the plants. So let's assume the "master mod" is actually going to be a "Total Overhaul." That means it'll be replacing the billboard plants with actual models, maybe change some of the player "hand" items (like better stone axe models, better gun models, improved bow models, etc). For lack of a better term, it would be a graphics overhaul just to make the game "look" better and maybe even perform a little better if low-poly models are used. I use this as an assumption/example because that is a totally valid use of the asset store and models in a mod, without the master mod being hugely complicated (which I believe is the intent).
So we now have a master mod called "Total Overhaul". It's just models and XML to make the game look pretty. All legal and above board.
I'm working on Darkness Falls and I see this mod. I think it's a great idea, and thus have 2 options to integrate it.
1) I distribute my mod in it's current form, but have edited versions of items.xml and blocks.xml so folks can go and download the Total Overhaul, apply the edited XML files I have included and my mod would work in conjuction with the Total Overhaul.
2) I edit the items.xml and blocks.xml and tell people that Total Overhaul is REQUIRED in order to play Darkness Falls.
Option 1 is legal, because they are two seperate projects, by different people that have the option to be merged together.
Option 2 is NOT legal, because my project REQUIRES the other to function and I don't own the licences to those assets. It doesn't matter that I am not distributing them, I am integrating that project into mine when I don't have the licences to do so.
That's why the master mod needs to stay away from asset stores and hire artists/modelers to create custom content. Either use case would then be 100% legal. Using the asset store would just put extra work on the moderators of this forum to check that every single mod is using option 1, and taking down anything that's using option 2 to prevent any legal issues. Any modifications to Total Overhaul that people release as "patches" would have to be very small. As an example, someone released a bigger backpack mod for Starvation, which was literally just edited UI and a patched DLL. Totally legal in terms of asset store EULA, but any massive edits to that mod might end up being considered either a separate mod, or a derivative work and those are NOT ok by the EULA.