You're wrong. If a game is not profitable, then there's no reason for any sane person to keep pushing it, and if they happened to mix their Patreons then there wouldn't be a way for them to know which one is making the dough.
Devs are real people (believe it or not), and they need to eat and make a living. Making games is both hard and expensive. So, if you actually value their work, you might aswell acknowledge it by pleading on the game you enjoy, and not to the faces behind it.
So, what you're saying is:
If, as in the example I just gave, a developer creates two games under a single Patreon account, the assumption is that the support funds would also double. Did I understand that correctly?
They either
1. Develop two games under a single account and increase the support funds proportionally,
or
2. Split into two accounts and receive support funds separately for each.
If the argument is based on choosing between these two scenarios, then I have nothing more to add.
I was naturally assuming there would be no change in the support funds.
If the assumption is that support funds increase in proportion to the number of games developed under a single account, then what you're saying makes sense. you're right
But the reason I thought that way is that, at least among the developers I support, the only one who split their Patreon account because they were developing multiple games was Inceton Games. However, even in their case, they develop 2~4 games under a single Patreon account, so it was understandable that they decided to split their accounts.
