3 ms·

Well, that kinda makes sense then. If they weren't profitable, then this could be seen as a last-ditch survival strategy.

• gs17 3y ago
  This strategy is still pretty awful. If 2.5% revenue share after $1,000,000 would be enough to survive on, they probably could have opened with matching Unreal's 5% instead of all the bullshit and won people over.
  • kevingadd 3y ago
    Yeah their new pricing model is quite literally more expensive than Unreal for many of their customers (mostly the ones who make less money - for massive studios it's cheaper) and it's ALSO more complex to comply with. A simple "we're doing revshare now, and the per-seat fee is going away" would have been viewed more favorably I think.
    • tetha 3y ago
      I mean in my naive world, you'd slap some minimum revenue onto the rev-share and you'd have a clear separation between hobbyists, unsuccessful indies, indies, and huge successes. It'd be muddled in the middle, sure, but if some companies hits jackpot with a unity project, you'll know and could act on it.
      • TylerE 3y ago
        That's what they did though. It was several hundred thousand dollars in revenue before any of it kicked in.