Even if you're just a windows only developer, so you've suffered a price increase... assuming you're doing gamedev as a full-time job, Unity is still far cheaper than Unreal...
Care to elaborate?
Given that not every developer out there will make millions in revenue, yet Unity charges a flat cost PER SEAT, I think this not something where you can make a broad statement like.
Sure, still Unity is cheaper for many devs in the lower ends of the revenue scale. It certainly is cheaper for devs that are moving into the higher regions of revenue. Yet there are many scenarios, especially in the lower end revenue area, where Unreals model just makes more sense.
FAR cheaper is too strong a word unless you are getting into territory where you NEED to pay for a full Unreal license to avoid paying through the nose for those royalities.
I made the assumption that you're doing it as a full-time job -- not an "indie dev" who does it part time as an expensive hobby, but an "indie dev" as in self employed businessman who does it to pay their mortgage and feed and clothe their children, or pay their rent and fund their vacation savings account.
Below is the transition point where one is cheaper than the other, given some more assumptions:
A "starving artist" indie dev has expenses of about 30k a year, which with ~30% income tax we'll say is $43k gross. That'll cover their San Francisco sharehouse and their hipster coffee habit.
An "average developer" in the US expects a salary of $80k a year. They've quit their job at EA because they want to actually profit from their work instead of some executive earning millions.
They're making a Windows game and selling on Steam, who take a 30% cut.
The aim is to break even, by making at retail the salary cost divided by 0.7 in order to cover Steam's cut... but the cost of the engine isn't taken into account yet.
Unreal takes 5% of the retail price. Unreal also gives you a $3k threshold per quarter, but we're going to assume that your game gets 95% of it's sales within the first month of launch, and I'm ignoring the 5% "tail" sales that would extend into the next quarter - so I'm only applying that threshold once per game. In reality, if you're making less than one game per quarter, the threshold will apply to your "tail" sales too, so you'll save a bit more than what I've shown here.
Unity costs $125 multiplied by number of staff and number of months.
The table below is the cost of the engine, given that you've made your sales target of barely enough to cover owed wages.
e.g. 2 "average" devs for 12 months is $160k. Unity costs a flat $3k, but the retail take in order to earn that $160k is ~$229k, so Unreal's 5% is ~$11, minus the $3k threshold, which comes to $8428. So in that situation (shown at the 12 month, average, 2 staff cells), Unity is $5k cheaper.
Orange situations have Unreal as the cheapest option, blue situations have Unity as the cheapest option.
Unreal is only really cheaper in the cases where you don't expect to make a (USA) respectable wage, and either are a lone starving artist, or a group of them pumping out a new game every quarter... or where you're not actually running a business, and are just making games as a hobby. In almost every other situation, Unity is far cheaper.
And "millions in revenue" isn't actually all that much for an independent game these days. If 8 experienced developers want to quit their jobs spend a full year making a game, then $1M at retail is probably around their "break even" point. With minimal expenses (it's likely they'd have spent considerable money on rent, HW, SW, utilities, marketing, exhibiting at PAX, etc...), they'd make about $80k each, which is the average US gamedev salary. Given the huge likelyhood that they fail to make any money at all, it's a much safer bet to just keep their jobs and not "go indie" :(
