I'd like to clairfy that I generally agree with your assessment. My entire set of responses is an attempt at dialectically challenging and refining that understanding by considering alternate possibilities. I personally feel that nuanced examination of issues is an important critical thinking skill.

I agree with hard. It's purely based on my understanding on economics and public statements from companies I seen.

Public statements can be a lot of hot air too. We're operating with a lot of unknowns here, because obviously not every company wants to immediately play with open cards and threatening to leave for the competition is a rather popular negotiation tool.

That idea [of Reddit dying] died the minute the blackout ended. It was clear that the changes affected minority users and majority could't care less that moderating would become harder and all thw other quality of life stuff be lost. Majorify of the internet still consumes ads.

I fear the same may eventually be true for the ongoing boycotts of Unity. Ultimately, the companies with existing Unity products still need cash flow, no matter the long term repercussions of breaking strike.

[Regardint the end of Twitter:] It kind of did. Like the people I follow from infosec or science all transitioned to alternative platforms. The only 3 active areas on Twitter are politics, entertainment and porn. So while platform still operates it's usefulness is limited.

Were those infosec / science microbloggers the majority? Did their followers all transition along? Otherwise we're back to the aforementioned minority issue.

I recently chatted with someone who remarked that their engagement hadn't taken much of a noticeable hit, and since their favourite people were also still there, there was little incentive to leave either.

These two are a specific issue of community cohesion, however, and the observation probably doesn't apply to the Unity customer base. I simply tried to illustrate how predicting the death of something isn't always as easy (a point I find we agree on).

[Regarding investors buying in:] Sure, but without a clear plan on user growth that is very unlikely. It would be different if they were a monopoly, but alternative engines exists and they offer better deals. They lost their main "selling" point of being free and without royalties.

That is a valid point. Professional investors probably will see the writing on the wall, and private ones may not have enough buying power to make a significant difference here if they don't (or risk it anyway, since the stock thing seems to be a form of gambling for certain people I know).

[Regarding the difficulty of porting games to different engines:] I agree with new projects, but porting your existing games to the new engine is the real goal. So that you can get revenue again without possibility of going bankrupt or in debt and then start transitioning to the new engine.

Assuming you can pull it off in time or have the financial leeway to bear the hit for long enough, absolutely. My point, taken from acquaintances working in the industry, is that such a port isn't always trivial. Engines tend to have their unique quirks that you eventually learn to work around, and a direct 1:1 translation isn't always possible. As soon as you come across anything that isn't a straight replacement, you risk (re-)introducing bugs and problems.

That said, such an existing game may be the perfect live example to learn from, and with the right communication strategy I imagine it may be possible to placate eventual frustration at such issues.

On the other hand, the selling point you mentioned (free and without royalties) may have an impact on the financial calculations of the game, and switching to a different (potentially not-free) engine may throw off those calculations. My knowledge here is limited to class I took some years ago on the topic, but things like running costs obviously get factored into the minimum viable price of a given product.

[Regarding the avility to squeeze money from the product:] [S]mall studios who are the most affected, will be forced to remove their games or risk going bankrupt or in debt

Without sufficient financial backing, they might not be able to afford removing their games either. Choosing between assured bankruptcy by taking down all your revenue and the possibility of retaining at least some revenue to tide you over until you've had time to port your games or publish new moneymakers, they might elect to "try to make it", spurred by hustle culture.

Particularly if the game or studio is a passion project for them, they have an emotional bias that may cloud their judgement to swallow the bitter pill and risk bankruptcy and debt rather than giving up, and up until they're actually bankrupt, there is at least a little to squeeze still.

Of course it's always possible some close door deals will be made with existing users and changes will only apply to new users. Which really should have been the original announcement.

On the other hand, they may be pursuing the strategy of announcing drastic changes, then yielding to public pressure and agreeing to a more reasonable solution. Sure, in the short term trust will be hurt, but with today's news culture, there's no guarantee the whole affair won't be swept under the rug and forgotten by the majority in a few weeks.

All that said: Yes, it probably spells doom for smaller customers. Either they to jump ship before it sinks, or they may be forced to choose between drowning and paying extortionate fees for lifeboats. But if they weren't the most well-paying customers so far, odds are the ones looking to make money won't miss them anyway.

And sinking the ship to sell it for parts unfortunately isn't an entirely new phenomenon either.