That is... certainly a way to phrase the conversation we've had and it is certainly a way to characterize the complaints that developers have with Unity's changes, as if they're simply looking for charity handouts.

I would suggest that part of the free market and part of Capitalism and part of business is that when platforms make decisions that hurt a lot of developers, sometimes those platforms get criticized publicly for those decisions. That's part of how business works; bad publicity is one of the penalties businesses pay for bad PR decisions.

----

Of course you don't have to sympathize with developers, but it's disingenuous for anyone to claim that these changes won't impact developers or that critics of these changes are just ignorant of actual game development practices.

> It's an absolute punch in the throat that Unity has decided to apply these fees retroactively and with so little advance notice

is a pretty different phrasing from how you talked about those developers in your other comments, and it's ironic that you seem to hold such disdain for them given that your own industry experience would not have been possible under the same terms that you dismiss in other comments above as having virtually no impact on the majority of games.

Again, I'm not trolling for sympathy here, I really don't care if you care about developers. It's just not good for you to spread misinformation about the potential impact of the changes or to act like the pushback to the changes is based on inexperience or ignorance rather than legitimate grievances about their potential impact on whether or not Unity is usable for entire segments of the market.