No, which is why they aren’t saying they’ll do that.
The lifetime revenue and downloads are only used to see determine what rate to charge the devs for their new monthly installs. Nothing in the blog linked in the first post said or implied that they would charge for historic downloads/installs.
I know I’m an accountant and somewhat used to parsing this kind of thing but to me it’s fairly clear.
Android Wilson? No, he’s still at EA.
They changed their ToS to be able to do so in theory. Then again peoplewith a brain had a contract on paper with the old ToS so F Unity ^^.
Last news I got about this matter is they will charge games no matter how old they are that’s why they changed their ToS. Back in the day there was a section that made sure you can’t be charged more and this is gone with the paragraph that made sure the conditions of the contract stay as they were when the contract was made.
in theory and Unities fever dreams they can bill people from back in the day.
Things spiral out of control anyway. A few hours ago the police was in a Unity office because an employe made death threads to a higher up. The whole situation is cray cray.
I’m a fan of bible like punishments… do it once but do it so they never forget. 
I’ve underlined the pertinent bit. They charge for new installs per month, the lifetime installs threshold & rolling 12 monthly revenue threshold are to see if they can charge you, not a basis for how much they will charge you.
If their ToS says different, could you link it?
'Course, this could just be a language thing & you’re not saying that if a game had 1,000,000 historic installs then they’d charge $200,000 per month.
They explicitly clarified the charges are for installs after a certain date.
Yeah, that’s what the screenshot I posted above says. New installs (on a monthly basis), not charging for installs that have happened prior to the change.
Indeed.
That’s also only the listed fees, before any discount applied for usage of their other services or through standard licensing negotiations.
Preaching to the choir I bet
Nau Engine
Hi everyone, just a general cautionary note with regards to this topic. There is a ton of misinformation floating around out there. I’m seeing several mistakes in this thread too. The situation is also still unfolding.
So, if you are interested in the topic, I recommend doing a little deeper dive before reacting.
Just remember to keep things generally respectful.
Thanks 
I guess we have both seen this unfold from different points in time, there were some vids catching traction out there talking about that little gem being in the updated EULA. Regardless, it would not stick if took to court, and furthermore, EULA’s just need to fuck off in general. Any changes that would rattle the world for a large amount of people, like this, should be in the form of a undisputable, new, contract. Editing a EULA then saying pay me aint it chief.
edit
Im sorry I got a bit heated. I promise to cut my curse words and insults in half moving forward in this topic!
I would really like to see something like that being tested in court (& hopefully having the company doing have their arses handed to them) so that there’s a bit more clarity with what can & can’t be done via a EULA.
I’m not entirely sure I would go that far. I think they have their place (ie, to tell the user what they can & can’t do with whatever the EULA is attached to), but if you have a particularly litigious society (yes, I’m thinking of the US, being sued over coffee being too hot) then it’s probably inevitable that a EULA would end up being written in stupidly legal language with any & all possible edge cases included “just in case”.
but what is an “initial” install? It would not be hard for someone to spoof such a thing.
To detect an initial install they need to write code to detect the system, and that means the code can be countered by spoofing the details of the system, or worse, just altering said code to count it as an install no matter what
The US is certainly overly litigious, but it’s an unfortunately common misconception that the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit is an example of that. I recommend reading up on the details: Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia
From Unity…
Hmm…I feel like they should have done those things BEFORE announcing these changes and worked with their partners/customers in the creation of any new pricing policy. Hopefully the updated policy is an improvement over the old, but I assume the damage is already done for a lot of developers.
Yes, the coffee was too hot. But it still boils down (no pun) to someone putting a cardboard coffee cup between their knee, and squeezing hard enough for coffee to shoot out and cover their legs.
The soup I ordered the other night was a bit hot as well. But, if I turned the bowl over to wear it as a hat, and burned my face… that’s me being a dumbass, and I wouldn’t be demanding the temperature of the soup pot be checked.
It’s a before and after screenshot in one of the bazzillion videos I watched. I look if I find the right one and link it.
Then again this bit shares the information as well even when it is about the removal of GitHub data collection. The ToS changes are mentioned in there. Devs discovered that Unity removed GitHub repo to track license changes and updated its TOS be retroactive | Game World Observer
Yeah that’s right as well and this piece of information changed as well in all the newer articles what makes the whole thing a non issue. They can change the prices however they want for the future.
Still this shouldn’t change old contracts but it does.
They did but they are unable to even track how often games are installed to beginn with. Unity has no built in “Call home” function that tells a unity game was installed. When you look at Twitter and some videos of devs who reached out to Unity they all seem unpleased because they didn’t get meaningfull information on the topic.
On top of it right under the post is the old information they hid and changed .
That’s pretty much it. If you look at it today it just seems like they change the pricing of future games. When you look at it a few days back it looked like they want to charge anyone who looked at unity since 2005 .
That’s depended on what information from unity you use. Old information = reinstalls are a new install as well. They changed it into new installs are only counted once… I just loosly use words here. Then again they said they use some system to guess how much unites have been installed. When they were asked how this works they haven’t answered it.
I’ll just watch how this unfolds but honestly i was never fond of the unity engine and I don’t think any revenue they make will make the engine a better product and simply make the share holders richer. Or they simply go bankrupt ^^.
edit
Here is a sum up of the ToS changes Reddit - Dive into anything
Oh dear, that’s not going to end well if it’s true. I’d be surprised if their auditors were happy with an estimate of revenue being put through the statutory accounts…
@BroncoCollider yeah, it’s interesting how the details get (mis)reported over time & abroad…
Which is why it was only 80% McD’s fault. Coffee hot enough for 3rd degree burns is too hot. She also started out just asking for her medical bills to be paid for and it was McD who forced going to court over it.
They use more fancy words for sure but to me it sounds like they simply want to disguise their inabilty to get the numbers correct on their own.
In their FAQ Changes to pricing and Unity plans 2023 FAQ | Unity you can find their wording. On top of it it’s fun they only care about CCPR and GDPR. Maybe it’s enough to oblige to the laws where the company is from then again I don’t think the CCPA will hold up in the EU or in Asia. To me this looks like regulations foreign companies to look after in california.
Again I have no clue about laws and less about foreign laws (Outside of the law that prohibits pregnant wifes to skydive on sundays in texas) so this might hold up or not but the last time I checked I always have the right to see what I was billed ^^.
Yeah, how they handled it was pretty shatty. But, I still say putting hot coffee between your knees and squeezing is up there among the best ‘stupid people tricks’…
No, but GDPR will.
True, but it’s probably fairly common if you don’t have something to hold the cup and you need both hands for something else.