3 ms·

We can assume that this would mean running the game at a loss, because the author didn’t say that. A better assumption would be that they're likely to clea

We can assume that this would mean running the game at a loss, because the author didn’t say that. A better assumption would be that they're likely to clear the $100k/mo, but as they said "not guaranteed" to do so. I suspect that if the author would have intensified the statement to "they would go out of business with the new scheme" if they were certain to lose money.

jrflowers 3y ago
> A better assumption would be that they're likely to clear the $100k/mo, but as they said "not guaranteed" to do so. It’s funny that the vague $100k/mo figure is meant to evoke some sort of response from the reader. The implied assumption seems to be that Unity should not charge anyone this fee because free-to-play exists as an optional business model that a developer can choose to maximize revenue. Like the boogeyman lurking in the closet is that any indie developer could wake up one day and their game is EVE Online