> entirely reassuring It's reassuring in the sense that some theoretical problem (costly installs) can be avoided. Otherwise, not really. The big selling poin

> entirely reassuring It's reassuring in the sense that some theoretical problem (costly installs) can be avoided. Otherwise, not really. The big selling point with Unity was that you pay per seat, and that's that. You don't owe them anything beyond that particular fee, no money, no confidential information, nothing. The change of terms is a not-so-tacit admission that their business model does not work and that the whims of the MBA-types are going to dictate the future of the platform. Unreal Engine has basically the same revenue share type of deal (but no per-seat cost), but then its leadership has a proven track record in developing actual games. > The net effect is that the current crop of near-completion Unity-based games may be completed and supported with the now current version. Of course, in the short term nobody is going to switch engines mid-flight. However, in a few years time, when we ask ourselves "How did Unity die?" this change of terms is likely to be identified as the point of no return.