Doesn't really matter if they're mostly indie game devs that weren't contributing major revenue to Unity anyway.
Most A/AA devs I follow are planning to switch to another engine when they can (e.g. not mid-project), but I know a few who immediately started porting to Unreal/Godot. Most AAA devs I know already don't use Unity.
Unreal lets users stick to a license with predictable fees.
By using Unity you are still agreeing to a liability with no limit that can change at any time and your only recourse is to cease development or stop selling your already-complete game.
1. https://forum.unity.com/threads/unity-plan-pricing-and-packa...
The bigger issue is that Unity is trying to assert (again) that they can retroactively change your licensing agreement at any time, and for any reason -- and have explicitly said they reserve the right to increase these fees (which, yes, are less than competitors right now) in the future.
> Unreal is even more expensive and requires reporting your revenue to pay for it. How is that a better option than Unity?
With their new changes, Unity also requires reporting your revenue/installs. In terms of the cost difference, the consensus seems to be that people will pay a little more to lock into a predictable license that can't infinitely add unpredictable fees later, even on games for sale that are no longer in development.
This is why Microsoft doesn't care if people pirate Office tools for private use, because if they get to a position where they can decide what tools to use for a company, they'll pick what they know. Office.
The same works for Unity, if an indie company becomes a AAA level studio, they'll use what they know and what they have been using for years.
Now there's a risk that it'll be something that's not Unity.
- John Riccitiello