Ok so if they are now only charging for the first install, why aren't they just charging an extra fee per sale? Wouldn't that accomplish effectively the same thing? (And actually work out in unity favour since not everyone who buys a game downloads it)
The main difference is that if you built your product on their platform, you don't have the option to pick a different vendor for what you've already built like you would for subscriptions or eggs. It feels much more akin to extortion to me.
You built your product on their platform and agreed to the terms they set. Thats a level of commitment you put in. Them changing it afterwards is forcing you to agree to new terms that you wouldn't agree to if you weren't forced.
If the issue is using their servers, or keeping the runtime code updates, there should at least be the option of self hosting or locking into an older version.
Having said all that, I know very little about vendor contracts and don't doubt you when you say legally its the same as any other price change. It feels different because of the lack of choice.
It doesn't seem right that they can retroactively change their terms and just decide you owe them money. I'm guessing this is legal since they are doing it anyways?
I've done it with an old cheap tv and it sucked and i got ghosting and choppy refresh rate.
I'm sure if you get a decent modern tv would be fine though. I'd also want to check latency.
Interesting, I didnt think the lcd would have supported hdr