Public statements can be a lot of hot air too. We’re operating with a lot of unknowns here, because obviously not every company wants to immediately play with open cards and threatening to leave for the competition is a rather popular negotiation tool.

Agreed, but it's also economically sound option., so that bolsters the validity somewhat, but you never know.

I fear the same may eventually be true for the ongoing boycotts of Unity. Ultimately, the companies with existing Unity products still need cash flow, no matter the long term repercussions of breaking strike.

I think the difference here is the potencial debt for these companies if nothing changes. On Reddit it was only affecting potencial revenue instead of having to pay more than you earn.

Were those infosec / science microbloggers the majority? Did their followers all transition along? Otherwise we’re back to the aforementioned minority issue.

Pretty much. And true engagement (comments/boosts) has been higher than on Twitter from a few anecdotal tests I seen as there is no value in liking something and moving on like on Twitter.

These two are a specific issue of community cohesion, however, and the observation probably doesn’t apply to the Unity customer base. I simply tried to illustrate how predicting the death of something isn’t always as easy (a point I find we agree on).

I agree. It's always a guess based on information known at the time.

On the other hand, the selling point you mentioned (free and without royalties) may have an impact on the financial calculations of the game, and switching to a different (potentially not-free) engine may throw off those calculations. My knowledge here is limited to class I took some years ago on the topic, but things like running costs obviously get factored into the minimum viable price of a given product.

There are other royaltee free engines to consider and even with non-free most wouldn't be affected as caps are a lot higher than what Unity proposed. But it's definetely not an easy choise as once you again the studio has to commit to someone else in hopes of it staying true long tem.

Without sufficient financial backing, they might not be able to afford removing their games either. Choosing between assured bankruptcy by taking down all your revenue and the possibility of retaining at least some revenue to tide you over until you’ve had time to port your games or publish new moneymakers, they might elect to “try to make it”, spurred by hustle culture.

Particularly if the game or studio is a passion project for them, they have an emotional bias that may cloud their judgement to swallow the bitter pill and risk bankruptcy and debt rather than giving up, and up until they’re actually bankrupt, there is at least a little to squeeze still.

I would hope that analitical minds would prevail. But that's my bias. I see your point.

On the other hand, they may be pursuing the strategy of announcing drastic changes, then yielding to public pressure and agreeing to a more reasonable solution. Sure, in the short term trust will be hurt, but with today’s news culture, there’s no guarantee the whole affair won’t be swept under the rug and forgotten by the majority in a few weeks.

In short term, sure, but I don't think that even full reversal would help in long term. Staking your companies future on someone that already tried to backstab you once never goes well.

Thank you for the discussion, it always nice to hear well thought different perspectives. And sorry for the late response.