3 ms·

It sounds like the WebGL initialization thing is ridiculous. They better fix that. But aside from that, collecting a minimal fee seems fair enough to me. If p

by ilaksh 3y ago

It sounds like the WebGL initialization thing is ridiculous. They better fix that. But aside from that, collecting a minimal fee seems fair enough to me. If paying 20 cents per sale of your successful game is ruining your life, maybe consider investing in some of the open source game engines.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
teraflop 3y ago
Charging a fee based on sales would be reasonable. That's what Unreal Engine does (5% of gross revenue after the first $1 million). Charging a flat fee per installation, even for games that have already been developed and released (many of them for free), is insane.
izzydata 3y ago
It would be more sane if it was per sale, but they are talking about per install.
MrLeap 3y ago
You don't understand, the language says _per install_ not per sale. This seems to include re-installs, multiple devices, new computers. I wouldn't have batted an eye at 20 cents per sale. Per _install_ is catastrophic.
yetanotherasian 3y ago
Getting fee isn't wrong maybe, but getting a fee by install is. They should instead ask for a percent of revenue. So if 1 billion people install my flappy bird clone but I only make $300k I don't owe them $15 million dollars.
oefrha 3y ago
Per sale would still be very problematic because they consider sale as part of a deeply discounted bundle/subscription a sale, unless it’s a charity bundle. A fixed fee like that also effectively kills popular $1 games.
anonymousab 3y ago
Per install, not sale, which includes demos, pirated copies (yes, really) and, say, a web browser spinning up the browser version of a game. Or a cloud service running it in a VM (each executable startup in that case is an "install"). Or any download from a service like gamepass. Above all, a single player/user redownloading the game on their device counts as a separate install. They've now said that they're using proprietary "fraud detection" and IP address uniqueness to prevent fraud, and seemingly requiring devs to reach out if they think they've been overcharged.

by ilaksh 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

teraflop 3y ago

Charging a fee based on sales would be reasonable. That's what Unreal Engine does (5% of gross revenue after the first $1 million). Charging a flat fee per installation, even for games that have already been developed and released (many of them for free), is insane.

izzydata 3y ago

It would be more sane if it was per sale, but they are talking about per install.

MrLeap 3y ago

You don't understand, the language says _per install_ not per sale. This seems to include re-installs, multiple devices, new computers. I wouldn't have batted an eye at 20 cents per sale. Per _install_ is catastrophic.

yetanotherasian 3y ago

Getting fee isn't wrong maybe, but getting a fee by install is. They should instead ask for a percent of revenue. So if 1 billion people install my flappy bird clone but I only make $300k I don't owe them $15 million dollars.

oefrha 3y ago

Per sale would still be very problematic because they consider sale as part of a deeply discounted bundle/subscription a sale, unless it’s a charity bundle. A fixed fee like that also effectively kills popular $1 games.

anonymousab 3y ago

Per install, not sale, which includes demos, pirated copies (yes, really) and, say, a web browser spinning up the browser version of a game. Or a cloud service running it in a VM (each executable startup in that case is an "install"). Or any download from a service like gamepass. Above all, a single player/user redownloading the game on their device counts as a separate install. They've now said that they're using proprietary "fraud detection" and IP address uniqueness to prevent fraud, and seemingly requiring devs to reach out if they think they've been overcharged.