There are a lot of things to dislike here, but it's particularly unbelievable to me that Unity would try to retroactively apply this change to games that were i

There are a lot of things to dislike here, but it's particularly unbelievable to me that Unity would try to retroactively apply this change to games that were in development or released before the change to the licensing model. I've never worked in the games industry, but in every field where I've worked, that would be a company-ending poor decision. Imagine Sony suddenly trying to impose a per-playback fee on all existing and future factory-produced Blu Ray discs. Imagine Lockheed spending 5-10 years developing a jet fighter, then a year before it's finished, TI tells them that there will be a monthly usage fee for every TI chip used in the aircraft. Imagine a retailer spending hundreds of millions of dollars to roll out a new Fujitsu point-of-sale platform, then a year later Fujitsu says they're updating the license terms to require a flat fee for every customer transaction. Or worse, imagine that the Fujitsu platform runs on Windows, and Microsoft tells the retailer that the Windows licensing terms have been updated to require a per-transaction fee for every Windows device that has point-of-sale software installed. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm completely failing to see why any business would continue to use a product that requires a long-term commitment when the vendor has acted this way. Is it a last-ditch cash grab to appease Unity investors? i.e. do they know that it will kill their platform, but they're hoping the tail end of Unity-based games[1] will generate enough licensing fees to recoup some of the investment money? [1] i.e. games already released, but still for sale, as well as games still in development but too far along to switch to another engine.