@acarson @wiljames @treehousedarren I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear. Of course, all that matters in business is the numbers. My point is that people seem to be saying that the price originally paid was low, and therefore the moving of previous purchasers to a subscription doesn’t matter. They also seem to be saying that the price of the subscription is not unreasonable, and therefore the moving of previous purchasers to a subscription doesn’t matter. Both the price being low originally and the reasonableness of the subscription are legally irrelevant. That’s all I meant, I didn’t mean that the numbers didn’t matter for the company, of course they do. The argument I’m trying to head off is the emotional one that “we paid a low price so there is some sort of moral need to pay more”. Similarly, I want to head off the emotional argument that “the subscription is reasonably priced and therefore the breech of contract should be somehow forgiven”. That’s all I meant by the numbers not mattering, they matter to the customer emotionally but not rationally and I’m trying to make sure the more emotional arguments don’t bleed into reasoned judgments. There have been allot of emotional arguments about caring about the community, that developers need to eat, that the business is just interested in money… I just want to avoid this thread descending into those. Again, sorry I wasn’t clear.