[mjr00]

> One of Unity's spokespersons actually said that Unity could add fees at any time, and customers could not do anything about it. Aside probably being illegal in most jurisdictions, this mentality shows a complete lack of integrity and an abundance of power-drunkenness.

Part of me really wanted this to happen just to put it to the legal test. So many modern sales, especially digital, are actually an indefinite license rather than ownership. Imagine the fun possibilities of:

* iTunes/Amazon/Google/etc charging an additional "viewing fee" any time you listened or watched music, movies, or TV you previously paid for.

* Tesla charging a network access fee any time you start your car.

* Your smart TV getting a firmware upgrade that starts invoicing you for minutes watched. These charges can be offset by advertisement credits that you earn by shouting "McDonald's!" at your television.

I suspect with the death of ZIRP, Unity won't be the last company who tries to pull something like this.

[Guvante]

I have heard someone said the runtime wasn't covered by the agreement it was just technically free.

However Unity also said the terms came into effect as part of license renewal. Requiring a new fee structure as part of a renewal is bog standard.

The main thing people were pushing back on was it was promised that old titles could preserve the existing terms.

If anyone cut ties with Unity and Unity went after them anyway would have been what you mention.

[Semaphor]

At least in EU, what they did could be legal while your suggestions wouldn’t. Because there are different laws for B2C and B2B. B2C is far stricter.