4 ms·
Except you are constrained by obligations. The obligation to pay a % of revenue. I mean I think the model is great. But calling it free is ridiculous.
by nightski 12y ago
Except you are constrained by obligations. The obligation to pay a % of revenue. I mean I think the model is great. But calling it free is ridiculous.
- adventured 12y agoIt's hardly ridiculous when you consider where we just came from, the era of $250,000 - $500,000 source access engines. You're not constrained by obligations if you choose not to make money with your product. So yes, it can be free of charge and free of obligations. Developers have to earn money somehow, unless you want Unreal to cease to exist. This model not only makes perfect sense, the product can absolutely be free in every sense of the word. People whining about this are being ridiculous.
- fuzar 12y agoIt's conditionally free. If it were unconditionally free that would permit you to use the term without question or having people call bullshit. When they do call bullshit, which is to be expected, it's absurd to go around accusing them of whining and being ridiculous. Get a grip.
- pushrax 12y agoIsn't "conditionally free" still free?
- nightski 12y agoTell you what. I'll come work for your company for free except any revenue over 3k I'll take 5% of.
- fuzar 12y agoYes, but when you don't explicitly state the conditionality, and particularly so in the ad-line, then it's a version of free that one should expect to incite calls of bullshit. Think of it this way: it's on par with false advertising which companies do get sued for. That's why companies make signs like "up to 30% off" and not just "30% off" (when only some items are 30% off). It is considered, by most, a mis-representation or false hood; a lie if you will.
- nightski 12y agoI wasn't whining. Just stating that it wasn't free - because it surely is not.