if this means better games for their bundles, i don't mind. besides, people were suggesting for this when they removed the sliders anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think they're getting greedy, moreso just reasonable. I reckon the majority of people modified the sliders to give to the devs or charity, and I mean, they gotta make money somehow. If you're buying the bundles with the intent to give to charity, you can always give to charity without Humble Bundle as the middleman, so personally I don't see any issue at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
Every corporation is "greedy", that's just how it works. No company is in business to lose money. That said though, there's a such thing as reasonable greed, and I think this counts as reasonable. If you set Humble to zero, they get no money, and they need at minimum enough to pay their bills and their employees. 15% - 30% to Humble doesn't seem unreasonable, and the rest still goes to charity and the devs, which is still more than can be said about many other sellers of games.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll decide on exactly how greedy they are when I see the default for the slider. Currently it's at 40%, which IMO is very greedy.
I have no problem with Humble taking a minimum cut, but Epic led the market with 12%, Microsoft will also be moving to a 12% cut on Windows, and Apple and Google reduced developer cut to 15% for many cases. 15% seems fine to me, but 15%-30%, without describing the specific cases where the 30% minimum will be applied to, does seem greedy to me when other companies are dropping their cut.
Comment has been collapsed.
it seems like one of those sales titled -99% off where 1 product is discounted at 99% and the rest get 5-10% off
Comment has been collapsed.
At least it's 15%-30%, not 15%-95%. :)
We'll have to see over time what kind of percentage Humble takes.
By the way, Humble was the one who led the way with a small cut in their store. Humble took just 5% for sales through the Humble widget, and I think that their store started with 15% + 10% to charity. It's a pity that a store that led the way in taking a smaller cut is now becoming one of the worst.
Comment has been collapsed.
In my book, thats a change from the old "too good to be true" towards a new "totally fair".
Comment has been collapsed.
honestly, I'd think a 15/15 for dev/humble minimum would actually be okay to me, compared to the usual presets humble does
Comment has been collapsed.
While what you say is true, they allow everything, it's not really any more evil than it was. Yes, they take their cut, which is an issue, but not giving anything to devs was always possible. It's not "screwing devs" any more than it was. People were always given the choice to allocate everything to charity, or charity + humble, and give devs nothing. The only difference is that Humble will now always take a cut. Yes, it's somewhat of an issue, but it's also not related to whether devs get anything.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh I'm not one of the "IGN is evil" people.
I was just noting that they make sure people can't screw them anymore but they don't have plans (or they don't mention them) to make sure there's a minimum for the devs.
But since there are still sliders and only theirs will be locked to a minimum, it is directly related to what the others get, although I suspect the IGN slider was the one most often slid to zero.
I never did that but I think that if one is set with a minimum value (the one for the people who are setting it all up), they should all be set with minimum. If they don't, it falls right into the unfair business practice category. IGN should get a cut but so should the guys making the games.
Comment has been collapsed.
They could in theory put minimal values on both devs and charity, but I don't think it's really unfair business practice. The devs that sign up do allow that they money will go completely to charity. I don't know if by law that counts as a donation, but that's possible. If it does, the developers / publishers are already getting something from it.
From a consumer standpoint it will be even worse. There are enough people who see buying Humble bundles as giving to charity, and would not be happy if their ability to do this is reduced even further.
Comment has been collapsed.
But it's already reduced. If anyone should see their money reduced, it's the intermediary.
If IGN didn't want to raise money for charity with bundles, they shouldn't have bought Humble Bundle.
The devs are trying to make a little money for the games they made and get their games known.
You can't buy a store who's in the charity business and let others bear the cost.
Comment has been collapsed.
I found this message confusing.
If Humble takes a minimum of 30% to itself in a bundle, suppose it also put a 30% minimum on the dev cut. This means that a person can only give 40% to charity, as opposed to 70% to charity if there's no minimum cut for devs. Obviously that'd be worse for people who want to give to charity.
I understand the ethical problem with the idea of a store cut, but it's not that different than running an actual charity. When a charity takes money from people, or from, say, selling or auctioning stuff that was donated to it, part of the money goes to sustain the charity. People working for the charity are allowed to make money even though it's taken from donations.
So I'd say that IGN could be within the letter of the law even if these bundles are viewed as charity (though I do think there's a difference, and it would be interesting to know if there's a legal case here). It would be up to devs and consumers to reign them in, and if devs and consumers feel that they gain more by continuing to offer games and to buy them even with IGN taking a cut, then IGN could continue with this.
tl;dr: Yes, they can own a store that's in the charity business and let others bear the cost. That's normal. Forcing a minimum dev cut would only make it worse for consumers who are interested in the charity aspect, as less will go to charity. Devs should still make money on the assumption that they also made money previously, they will just make a little less due to the store cut.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is much better than I thought they were going to do. They've had to do this by sacrificing the point of the company tho
Comment has been collapsed.
also its ign, soo take what they say with a grain of salt
Comment has been collapsed.
I can live with this. Just hope they keep the option to choose your charity. I don't want to give to the crap they generally push.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the bundles get better, I´m definitely fine with it. 15-30% to Humble sounds totally fair for me, the rest still goes to charity and the devs.
It´s definitely better than the short time without a slider and I´m really happy that humble still has the charity option in general.
Comment has been collapsed.
52 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by eldonar
863 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by DaveFerret
640 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by CalamityUP
30 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by TinTG
902 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by InSpec
1,051 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by sensualshakti
16,452 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by Shanti
515 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by timmyfromspace
39 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by AiKirika
3,501 Comments - Last post 27 minutes ago by Mhol1071
143 Comments - Last post 32 minutes ago by Eigan123
74 Comments - Last post 40 minutes ago by Butterkatt
102 Comments - Last post 41 minutes ago by Golwar
89 Comments - Last post 57 minutes ago by eldonar
Link
Well, no more 100% charity on all bundles but
What do you think? Is IGN getting greedy?
Comment has been collapsed.