> I think you don't understand what revenue is. It's entirely possible for a revenue based percentage system where you lose money on every sale. In that sense t

> I think you don't understand what revenue is. It's entirely possible for a revenue based percentage system where you lose money on every sale. In that sense this system is the same - under some circumstances you can lose money on a sale. I perfectly understand what revenue is, thank you. I am not talking about a revenue based percentage system where you lose money on every sale. Please explain to me how a developer can owe more than their revenue in a system where they owe a percentage of their revenue. You literally stated "but since you are making money on these sales this is functionality identical to perfentage of revenue". How can this situation happen in such a system? > I agree that Unity shouldn't be charging per install if the dev can prove all installations were done by the same user. But that is exactly the issue. Unity is charging per install, even if the dev can prove all installations were done by the same user. So why are you saying: > From my perspective it seems like a lot of complaining is being done by people on Unity Personal licences who are now upset they will have to pay to use the engine if they actually make money if you yourself agree with the point people are making, which is that Unity should not be charging per install?