It directly addresses it: the single-digit % cash difference in profit-sharing between Unity and Unreal's programs aren't what most people are worried about with Unity's changes.
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.
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.