- Aug 3, 2017
- 969
- 1,991
Did you actually read ANY of what you posted? Seriously any of it?View attachment 3754994
You must be registered to see the links
View attachment 3754996
You must be registered to see the links
View attachment 3754904
You must be registered to see the links
View attachment 3754906
You must be registered to see the links
View attachment 3754908
View attachment 3754910
You must be registered to see the links
View attachment 3754912
You must be registered to see the links
View attachment 3754923
You must be registered to see the links
Your first link
You must be registered to see the links
Is about indie studios and publishers it's literally in the first line
" When you go with a publisher on an independent game, one of the most critical parts of the equation has to be the Revenue Share "
It discusses the funds after the investment and the article is using numbers like
" Consider the following: if you have a project that costs US$200,000 (including service costs) and the Publisher is recouping at 70%, that means the developer will be at approximately US$85,000 developer revenue if the game performs well enough to hit US$200,000 revenue for the publisher, which is at US$460,000 revenue total (assuming a 30% platform fee, which is the most common platform fee). For irony, note that at this point, the platform is making more revenue from the title than the developer (at this point, they'd have made US$122,000). "
Also of you actually bothered to read the link YOU provided you would see he had other links in the article
You must be registered to see the links
" Too high a budget at worst looks arrogant - too low a budget at best looks incompetent. "
Your second link
You must be registered to see the links
Turns out your "it's common in the industry, with artists and with coders" is so common NO ONE is using it and a handful of people are complaining.....
Your third link
You must be registered to see the links
Sadly I did actually read all the comments, so your third source of "it's common in the industry" is a bunch of people arguing over art vs code, people pointing out 50/50 of $0 is $0 and people can't even agree on whether the thread is giving good or bad advice....
Your forth link
You must be registered to see the links
It is also an article directed at established companies, if you read the article it clearly covers LTV and CLV and starts it's example with " When you’re considering the direction your company is taking, " and as you can see above it clearly says it is NOT for everyone and best implemented a supplemental income.
Your fifth link
You must be registered to see the links
19 ads and only 1 closed the oldest is from jan 09 2021, highlighting how hard it is to even find someone to fall for..i mean go for the idea.... (context)
sixth link requires login so skipping
seventh link
This is the only one that even comes close to what you were saying but is at least honest unlike you.
So when you said common in the industry, common for freelancers and coders, what you actually meant was not common at all, not used by ANY major sites and not applicable to your "get an experience artist"... and from the same reddit thread as aboveBut hey, I guess if you can't find it, it doesn't exist.
Also I never said it doesn't exist, I said it's NOT common place.
I said educate yourself, not collect links to fuel your confirmation bias and then come back to mislead others into believing you would actually know how the industry works.
Google it up.
For someone accusing others of making assumptions.... so please tell me, what exactly is my personal experience in the field because I never mentioned it.For someone who just had to Google things due to a lack of personal experience, you're presenting your opinion far too confidently.
What exactly did you disprove? Half your links are unrelated to the topic, the other half prove only that there are a handful of people using this method and even among them some say it's a bad idea.... (context)Now you wasted even more of my time because I had to disprove the false claims you made.
Of course you did, your reading has been top notch so far...I won't bother with the rest of your post, as I spotted numerous other mistakes and logical fallacies that aren't worth going through.
Would you like to tell us again about the time you linked an article about an established indie studio rev-sharing with a publisher...
I also find it funny that you accuse me of
When you refuse to add the posts that go against your claims.collect links to fuel your confirmation bias
Well let's see,You should just stop trying to educate others about fields you clearly have no experience in. You may ask for clarifications, you may express that this model wouldn't be something for you personally, but please stop spreading nonsense about alleged 'misinformation' just because you're unfamiliar with the topic.
Have you proven that rev-share is common in the industry, common with freelancers, common with coders? No
Have you proven your knowledge of the market in terms of payment models? No
Have you proven your knowledge of the salary of those you have mentioned? No
Have you proven your knowledge of the industry as a whole? No
You have pitched an idea that has only worked for a handful of people (in the context you are using it in), even your links show AND say it is NOT for everyone and that MANY requests go unanswered. Your links also prove that it is NOT a viable option on a large scale (option for many dev's to use) and yet that is included in your pitch.
Your views are unrealistic at best and the fact that you have managed to get so many details, facts and information wrong even with your own examples and links just shows that your pitch should be ignored.
If you can't be trusted to fact check your claims or sources then how can people trust your information?