3 ms·

Surely better than this engineer having to pay $100k upfront which would likely mean he never made the game at all. 5% over a million seems pretty reasonable to

Surely better than this engineer having to pay $100k upfront which would likely mean he never made the game at all. 5% over a million seems pretty reasonable to me. I guess it'd be an issue if profit margins were thin, but that wouldn't be the case here.

ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
Sure as long as we acknowledge that this isn't really free it's just deferred payment
- master-lincoln 3mo ago
  Not deferred payment for most devs as they do not reach the 1 million revenue
  - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
    For "the best train sim ever made" they probably reach it.
    - CamouflagedKiwi 3mo ago
      Sure, and then he can afford it, because he's making over $1M/year revenue on this sim, and taking a very reasonable 5% off the top of that. So it blunts the profits a bit at that point, but it hardly seems like such a terrible thing at that point.
      - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
        By that logic we should be OK with Adobe's subscription model. It makes it affordable to people who can't otherwise use it. Ultimately it means we can't own it (and just like we can't own UE, we owe Epic income reports for life). I'm not saying it's a terrible model and it's great that games are made with it but let's be honest it's not all rainbows.
        CamouflagedKiwi 3mo ago
        I don't know anything about Adobe's model - I have (pretty happily) never bought anything from that company. But the two are not very similar, and I don't buy the argument that you're trying to make - I think you're trying to bring in dislike of Adobe's model as an argument against Epic's, despite the two being pretty fundamentally different. "it's not all rainbows" - I would also not let perfect be the enemy of the good here.
        ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
        > I don't know anything about Adobe's model You do, becaude I explained... It's subscription based. It's fundamentally the same because in both cases you don't own it. Epic's is just with the added element of freebie at first weird how HN is up with pitchforks against that but OK with Epic's.
- infecto 3mo ago
  But it is free up to $1mm in revenue. Anyone can go and download the engine and use it as much as they want free. It is really smart and honestly $1mm is a generous entry point to capture a royalty for everyone involved.
  - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
    They could have just sold the engine, even a subscription is better than royalties. If my game sells more it doesn't cost Epic any more money.
    - infecto 3mo ago
      I know you’re trolling but come on. The entry price for what you are suggesting would never be obtainable for folks like this kid. You can absolutely negotiate pricing if you are a big enough studio but for hobbyist they let you use it for a royalty. It’s great because it opens it up for everyone. If they charged a fixed fee it would have to be at a very high price.
    - wrsh07 3mo ago
      You misunderstand the business model. Unreal is like venture capital or a book advance (or the equivalent in music record deal) Can you self publish? Sure, of course, have fun. But if you want the support and infrastructure of a company that understands the business of books, you take a deal and it is just like this: if a bunch of authors get book advances, that is generous to the ones who are unsuccessful, and they can only do that _because they capture the upside of those that are successful_. Without that, you don't get advances for anyone. So the point I'm making here: unreal provides variance reduction for all game publishers and yes that disproportionately benefits the ones who make under a million. But they're the ones who need the help! And in exchange, if you're one of the lucky few, you pay a shockingly reasonable 5% in perpetuity.
      - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
        I don't think it's a good analogy. You don't have to "self publish" (go without a game engine). You can choose a game engine, just a different one that doesn't require you to report your income etc.

ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago

Sure as long as we acknowledge that this isn't really free it's just deferred payment

master-lincoln 3mo ago
Not deferred payment for most devs as they do not reach the 1 million revenue
- ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
  For "the best train sim ever made" they probably reach it.
  - CamouflagedKiwi 3mo ago
    Sure, and then he can afford it, because he's making over $1M/year revenue on this sim, and taking a very reasonable 5% off the top of that. So it blunts the profits a bit at that point, but it hardly seems like such a terrible thing at that point.
    - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
      By that logic we should be OK with Adobe's subscription model. It makes it affordable to people who can't otherwise use it. Ultimately it means we can't own it (and just like we can't own UE, we owe Epic income reports for life). I'm not saying it's a terrible model and it's great that games are made with it but let's be honest it's not all rainbows.
      - CamouflagedKiwi 3mo ago
        I don't know anything about Adobe's model - I have (pretty happily) never bought anything from that company. But the two are not very similar, and I don't buy the argument that you're trying to make - I think you're trying to bring in dislike of Adobe's model as an argument against Epic's, despite the two being pretty fundamentally different. "it's not all rainbows" - I would also not let perfect be the enemy of the good here.
        ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
        > I don't know anything about Adobe's model You do, becaude I explained... It's subscription based. It's fundamentally the same because in both cases you don't own it. Epic's is just with the added element of freebie at first weird how HN is up with pitchforks against that but OK with Epic's.
infecto 3mo ago
But it is free up to $1mm in revenue. Anyone can go and download the engine and use it as much as they want free. It is really smart and honestly $1mm is a generous entry point to capture a royalty for everyone involved.
- ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
  They could have just sold the engine, even a subscription is better than royalties. If my game sells more it doesn't cost Epic any more money.
  - infecto 3mo ago
    I know you’re trolling but come on. The entry price for what you are suggesting would never be obtainable for folks like this kid. You can absolutely negotiate pricing if you are a big enough studio but for hobbyist they let you use it for a royalty. It’s great because it opens it up for everyone. If they charged a fixed fee it would have to be at a very high price.
  - wrsh07 3mo ago
    You misunderstand the business model. Unreal is like venture capital or a book advance (or the equivalent in music record deal) Can you self publish? Sure, of course, have fun. But if you want the support and infrastructure of a company that understands the business of books, you take a deal and it is just like this: if a bunch of authors get book advances, that is generous to the ones who are unsuccessful, and they can only do that _because they capture the upside of those that are successful_. Without that, you don't get advances for anyone. So the point I'm making here: unreal provides variance reduction for all game publishers and yes that disproportionately benefits the ones who make under a million. But they're the ones who need the help! And in exchange, if you're one of the lucky few, you pay a shockingly reasonable 5% in perpetuity.
    - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
      I don't think it's a good analogy. You don't have to "self publish" (go without a game engine). You can choose a game engine, just a different one that doesn't require you to report your income etc.