So what's particularly funny about this is that Unity has since clarified that transmission of the runtime over the web via streaming or browser plays counts as an install, and your nine-figure sales compared to tens of billions of sessions would have been impossible to do profitably under these terms. And yet you're still on here defending them and somehow forgot that the F2P genre existed when doing your math.

If this is your background then this conversation is even more ridiculous; you should understand what it means to have more installs than profitable users because that was literally your business model. So why are you having trouble connecting the dots here about why developers would be concerned about these changes? By your math you were making pennies per-session. How are you having trouble understanding why even a 2-3 cent additional cost for each session would be a problem for that model?

So in the same situation where you lambast mobile games for not meeting profitability, you admit you've worked on games that would've fallen into that same situation.

And despite your belief that you were not dependent on any sort of intermediary platform I believe many games on that platform including Gold Miner were made using Adobe Flash, so you were in fact using a platform that could've been nickel and dimed just as much as Unity is now. Except you had the advantage of those games being made at the advent of the internet before rent seeking companies clawed their way into the middle.

The fact that you've been spreading misinformation or being downright disingenuous about many of the points you've been making makes me believe that many of your points are false.