The fuss and furore that has surrounded Unity's decision to require studios behind gambling games to sign an additional license agreement illustrates the value in developers speaking out.

If nothing else, the situation is certainly a lot clearer than it was a few weeks ago.

It now appears that the change to Unity's end-user license agreement won't impact the majority of studios – CEO David Helgason has already gone on record to claims that 99.9 percent of developers using the engine won't be effected by it.

However, in an exclusive interview with PocketGamer.biz designed to further clarify the issue, Helgason has admitted that the way the story was initially handled by Unity was a "mistake".

So, is this a case of all's well that ends well? Read on to find out how Helgason believes the gambling industry requires additional moderation, and how Unity will charge gambling devs in the years ahead.

Pocket Gamer: Firstly, what's your take on the real money gambling scene as it stands? Is this a sector with big potential?

David Helgason: Gambling is a mature industry that takes in literally hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide.

Indeed, with the potential of online gambling to legalised in the US, the gambling industry will enjoy growth in a major new market - or should I say a return to an "old market", because there was a lot of online gambling in the US until it was shut down in April 2011.

Why did Unity take the decision to issue a new agreement for gambling games? What about the genre sets them apart from the rest of the industry from Unity's perspective?

Gambling companies have special requirements and operate in a highly regulated industry.

To serve this market, we recruited and hired a dedicated team to support this large international industry. As such, it requires that we do business differently in this market space.

You said in your initial statement to us that games will be evaluated on a "case by case basis". What does this mean in a practical sense? Do developers need to seek out the additional agreement from you if their game features gambling, or will you approach them when you spot games with gambling in them?

We'll keep this very simple: If your game requires a gambling license from a regulatory body, then the company holding the license and planning to distribute the content for gambling should contact Unity directly.

The EULA change will not apply to 99.9 percent of Unity users.

Is there a flat fee or set revenue share you're looking to take from gambling games? Are you willing to put a figure on it, or will this too vary depending on the game in question?

We are building a business out of this, not trying to limit high quality projects from being created. Therefore, though the details vary in most cases it's simple flat yearly fees.

Finally, do you understand the reaction of some sections of the development community to your approach on gambling? Would it have been better to make an official announcement about the additional agreement when Unity 4.0 was launched?

Yes. The fact that our blog post about this was delayed was a mistake.

We're happy to have caught up now and intend to better keep our users in the loop as this evolves.
Thanks to David for his time.