RWarehall: You reply to almost every single post anyone makes in your vain attempt to supposedly correct them. You refuse to discuss any of the content of those posts.
=============================
For example, you accuse me of slander rather than dispute anything about what I said, that it's completely stupid of you to simultaneously say storefronts have a right to 10%-15% profit, yet also argue that siding with Epic and their 12% before expenses is reasonable. Pick a lane!
=============================
But the truth is, you have done no research, you don't listen to anything anyone else says and just spout off your uninformed stupidity that complaining from a position of total ignorance is complete okay.
============================
Epic games and Tim Sweeney are playing you. Just because they claim 12% can still be profitable doesn't mean it is true. Furthermore, there are a lot of legitimate reasons to believe it is not true. Namely that no other storefront has found a profitable way to go substantially under the 30% standard, but Epic Games says it can be done for 2.5x less. That Epic Games is clearly biased as a competitor. And that even Epic Games admits they will be taking a loss this year with their barren storefront which lacks forums and features.
You talk about "weasel words", you are the fool calling a 2.5x cut in revenue "a bit less money", the same as going from making $20 an hour down to $8 an hour would be "a bit of a pay cut"...but we are being "hyperbolic"? Do you know what that word even means?
============================
What do you do for a job? Can't you do it for "a bit less"? How about you take a 60% pay cut and tell me how minor a change that is...that is the problem here. It's not Epic undercutting the competition, it's Epic trying to blow up the pay structure. And why would they want to do that? Oh yeah, they "just happen" to also be a developer who would profit greatly off that...
1. I reply mostly because I find posts others write to be interesting and I want to reply/add my two cents. Some of these are me providing a counterpoint to other's points. In doing so, I often provide my views on each post section in turn & try to discuss what they contain when possible/applicable.
2. I believe I accused you of a few things: Weasel words(using certain terms when talking about me/my opinions to paint them in a worse light), personal criticisms(as in attacking my integrity/character for saying what I say in some parts of your posts instead of sticking solely to what I actually said), and possibly overreacting to what I said/using hyperbolic statements.
I wasn't trying to slander you, but show you the poor debate style you seem to be employing and trying to urge you to stay on topic while not getting too emotionally invested(taking it so personally) when you reply.....all so the debate/discussion between us can be as productive as possible.
As for "siding with epic": I was trying to say/meant to infer that I agree with the CORE/basic principle epic is trying to say(not the percentage they quoted perse)...that ALL stores should get a fair cut and no more. I didn't side with epic or agree with their percentage in any way/shape/form, or try to. 3. You say i've done no research, so I guess that means I cannot and should not have an opinion on it because why? Just because someone else says so? If anything is silly, that is.
I never claimed I knew much on the subject, btw, but it doesn't take a genius level intellect to comprehend/support such a concept as I posited earlier(several times)....and everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you like how things are now, fine, but just because someone else says something different doesn't mean you have to become so upset over it. You do you, and I do myself, and we each have our own opinions while agreeing to disagree.
Heck, if it weren't for my ocd addled need to reply to things I wouldn't even be replying this much on this reply chain.
4. Who said I advocate for epic/Tim Sweeney? And as for the cut: How do we know if the figure I quoted(10-15% AFTER overhead) isn't what they make AFTER their overhead while still getting a 30% share? We don't know as we(either of us) don't have the financial data.
5. There's a difference between a person working a job getting a massive pay cut and a corporation losing net(after overhead) profit to a small-middling degree,imo.
Also, again I wasn't saying they should take a massive pay cut, just that they should only get a certain amount AFTER overhead(depending on store size/scope/amount of overhead/etc). I never singled out a particular store(so no epic fanboyism here), and again only posted it as an opinion. Not as fact.
In the end, we agree on something: Variety of stores is good to a degree, and we both want those stores we like to remain around as long as possible. We just disagree on how much they should be paid/if they should take a pay cut or not(and if they should, to what degree.). This doesn't mean we don't/can't agree on other things, or that we should let this one disagreement get so far out of hand.
amok: FYI: Humble and Itchi.io takes less. Itch substantially so.
RWarehall: Humble takes out 25% AFTER deducting for processing fees which they say is about 5%. That leaves 71.25% for developers...not substantially any better. It's less but hardly less. Unless you are confused about the Humble Widget...
For all intents and purposes, it's still 30%...
Itch.io hardly counts as a real storefront...they suggest 10% again AFTER processing fees and do none of the work...
So since itch hardly counts as a storefront, would that mean you wouldn't mind if they took a pay cut? :|