If they tried to enforce that on previous version they'd get sued from all directions for contract violations. It was never going to work like that, there's no way Unity could have even afforded to defend themselves against such a barrage of lawsuits.
So the only question remaining is this: Did they announce these changes with the intent to walk them back to something else, or are they really that stupid?
During the initial kerfuffle, a Unity employee did quote one of their lawyers saying the following[1]:
> Our terms of service provide that Unity may add or change fees at any time. We are providing more than three months advance notice of the Unity Runtime Fee before it goes into effect. Consent is not required for additional fees to take effect, and the only version of our terms is the most current version; you simply cannot choose to comply with a prior version. Further, our terms are governed by California law, notwithstanding the country of the customer.
The communication around this rollout was absolute rubbish. Even employees were trying to get clarity, and they were forced to figure it out and real time.
> Further, our terms are governed by California law, notwithstanding the country of the customer.
So presumably if you’re a customer in the EU you’re still doing business directly with their CA HQ and not an office registered in Ireland/Luxemburg/etc. (pretty much how every other major company does it?)?
Then again why wouldn’t you say stuff like that as a lawyer? The fees from all the lawsuits would’ve been pretty immense (regardless of who wins..)
So the only question remaining is this: Did they announce these changes with the intent to walk them back to something else, or are they really that stupid?
My bet is on the latter, honestly.