Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Unity Plus Target Audience?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by SprinkledSpooks, Jun 2, 2016.

  1. SprinkledSpooks

    SprinkledSpooks

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Posts:
    117
    After reading about the new pricing plans and discussing them vigorously, I can't seem to understand who UT is marketing Unity Plus memberships to. The features of Plus are not enough to get Personal users to upgrade or to tempt Pro users to downgrade. Thus this new pricing option seems pointless to me. I guess I find myself wondering how the rest of the Unity community feels about the target audience of Plus?
     
  2. ShilohGames

    ShilohGames

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Posts:
    3,015
    I had the same reaction when I read about the new Plus plan. It seems to be a plan for people who want to pay something to get the same features and limitations they had with the Personal/Free version. I initially figured the Plus plan would be for Personal/Free users who were willing to pay something to remove the splash screen, but then I saw the Plus version still has a Unity splash screen.
     
    frekiidoochmanz and Kiwasi like this.
  3. SprinkledSpooks

    SprinkledSpooks

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Posts:
    117
    Exactly! The only real improvement seems to be the dark UI skin, which is not worth near $35 a month. If UT actually added features that asthetically improve your game (notably the removal of the splash screen), I would be very interested in purchasing.
     
  4. N1warhead

    N1warhead

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Posts:
    3,884
    I read somewhere that they are thinking of making it a little different with the Splash, like a Semi-Editable kind. That's not the word for word what they said, but the same point lol.

    They didn't say it was official, just they were thinking about it.

    Now what this means, I do not know.
     
    Kiwasi likes this.
  5. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    I'm also confused. When I heard there was a cheaper paid version coming out I was keen to jump on it. However the plus version still has the revenue cap and the splash screen.

    Maybe its aimed at that vocal minority that keep harping on about bleeding eyes and dark screen?

    Perhaps its intended to replace some of the less talked about options, such as the educational licenses?

    I really don't know.
     
    Teila, Martin_H and N1warhead like this.
  6. arkon

    arkon

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Posts:
    1,122
    When I read the initial tweet from the conference I was elated and thought it was aimed at me! I publish to Android, IOS and Standalone Mac, I make More than zero revenue but much less than 100k, I used to be a Pro perpetual 4.x user just to get rid of the Splash Screen and I had high hopes of earning over 100K in the beginning. For new stuff I downgraded to free, put up with being treated like a child with the inability to change the skin and tried out letting my new stuff have the splash screen (reluctantly).

    So after the initial euphoria of thinking a USD $35 AUD $50 per month plus plan was just exactly what I needed because I fill some middle gap, single dev low revenue person who could justify a subs at that level, I then came to this forum via a link on twitter where I was greeted with an image of all the tiers and realised the plus didn't actually give me anything I wanted for a subs. Major disappointment followed by a download of an alternate engine at the feeling of betrayal. So no, the plus level is not for me, can't see why free users would want it and anyone currently Pro with over 100k can't use it so I have no idea who they think it was aimed at. Maybe they were hoping some muppets with a false sense of loyalty to Unity would buy it, I don't know.
     
    Devil_Inside and Kiwasi like this.
  7. neoshaman

    neoshaman

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Posts:
    6,493
    That's what they said, it's basically an incubator for baby pro
    Splash screen still bad idea.
     
  8. neoshaman

    neoshaman

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Posts:
    6,493
    Basically it void the middle ground
    - It's cheaper for successful multiplatform pro
    - free version is fully featured

    But the middle ground is modestly commercial indie with financial difficulty that don't go multiplatform.
    - splash screen is still there
    - monthly price mean there is an unknown financial threat every month
    - pro price is bloated by unnecessary features
     
  9. arkon

    arkon

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Posts:
    1,122
    Seriously look at each item in turn over what you get for free with the free version.
    - Asset store packs? Just buy exactly what you need not what someone else thinks you might need far cheaper in the long run.
    - Flexible seat management? You can download the free version and put it on as many dev PC's as you like already.
    - access to Performance Reporting? This is available for free on many alternate services already and if it's really needed do what I do and add some code to your game to ping data to your own web server.
    - higher tier of Cloud Build? Do what I do, develop on a Mac with Parallels windows on it, build to the only few platforms that actually generate income locally on that. Cloud build is only for someone that wants to deploy to IOS but doesn't have a Mac.
    - Analytics? Nowadays you will be lucky to get more than a few hundred downloads of your game, this is another service that is free from elsewhere and easy to incorporate into your projects.
    - Multiplayer? Also free from elsewhere with similar or better CU
    - Certification courseware? Who for? Why would an indie or small dev team want this?
     
    StarGamess and Skolstvo like this.
  10. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    Talking to the local devs it is surprising me how much the unknown part of this is bothering people. But it really makes sense. If your primary currency is something other then USD then subscription fees can vary quite dramatically over the course of a project. Its one reason perpetual is seen as a much better deal.

    Or anyone who wants to build to WebGL without dying of old age. ;)
     
  11. schmosef

    schmosef

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2012
    Posts:
    852
    I started a Pro subscription about a year before Unity started offering the fully featured "Personal" version.

    I've kept up my Pro subscription after the mandatory 12 months because I like the dark UI (I have big monitors), I like UCB and I want to support Unity.

    I still like the idea of UCB but I've stopped using it because it's just too slow. I hope it will get better over time.

    I plan to change to a Plus subscription as soon as I can.

    I'll get to keep the dark UI and save about 50% on the monthly fee.

    It seems like Unity created the Plus subscription just for me and that makes me feel special. :)
     
    Martin_H and Kiwasi like this.
  12. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    Thread closed. We've found the target audience. ;)

    Glad it's going to work for someone.
     
  13. neoshaman

    neoshaman

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Posts:
    6,493
    It's not working for people using unity for NOT making game, or work on a customer based production (freelancer, archviz, etc ...), the splash screen hurt them so much.
     
    frekiidoochmanz likes this.
  14. goat

    goat

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Posts:
    5,182
    It's not in Unity's interest to make Unity such that big businesses with a lot of money can outsource to freelancers using Unity Free for peanuts. Not only do Unity Tech loose lots of revenue from big businesses themselves such a pricing plan encourages big businesses to hire freelancers working for peanuts.

    That's not good for Unity or freelancers but only good for those big businesses. That's why even for $35 a month the Unity splash will only be editable to be different but still have the Unity logo which should be enough for everyone that wants that.
     
    zombiegorilla and Kiwasi like this.
  15. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    You're forgetting the best feature of all. Clearly the dark skin is without equal and the only valid reason to buy Plus. :p

    Sadly I'm probably spot on for the reason they actually made Plus. After all some did say they'd subscribe for it.
     
    Martin_H, schmosef and Kiwasi like this.
  16. neoshaman

    neoshaman

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Posts:
    6,493
    @goat
    If only there wasn't a competent competition for paying customer who shelled happily 1500€ or 75€/month and provided community cement by freely creating values with free tutorial, free help, etc ... if only among them there wasn't influencer who will evangelize other to switch, if only those big business where tied only to unity without any alternative.
     
  17. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    Yeah, but this group doesn't really change much. Most of those in this group still fall into the must buy pro due to revenue cap area.

    It does suck trying to use Unity a peripheral tool. I tried to pitch using it for some project simulations. However if you are just going to pick it up for one small part of your business the cost is pretty prohibitive.
     
  18. neoshaman

    neoshaman

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Posts:
    6,493
    What do you mean by doesn't change really much? their price has gone from manageable to unbearable with the relative price increase, they were willing to paid the old price JUST to remove splash screen. Anyway those will shift to another soft now (mostly unreal).
     
  19. JasonBricco

    JasonBricco

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Posts:
    956
    I'm certainly not a fan of the pricing changes. As a desktop-only user, it's purely a price increase on the pro subscription. Plus doesn't have anything interesting to me as probably the only valuable thing pro offered before was the removal of the splash screen. (And that wasn't even justification for paying the 75, given I won't be releasing for a while. I felt a bit ripped off when they made all the engine features available to free users... being stuck on the 12 month contract isn't so nice.) I have no interest in cloud build, their multiplayer service, their flexible seat management, the asset store packs, or any of that. So all that would change for me is going from 75/month to 125/month for no real benefits. For that reason, I'll probably stop paying.

    One thing is for sure, though, I won't be going to unreal. I've found making my own engine for my game to be easier than working with that engine.
     
    Aiursrage2k and Kiwasi like this.
  20. GarBenjamin

    GarBenjamin

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Posts:
    7,441
    Well democratizing game dev is a cool goal and all that but at the end of the day if they don't make enough money to pay their (what is it now? 900) employees and other expenses Unity goes away. Bottom line it is a business and has grown into a big business with multiple offices and a lot of employees. Maybe they are raking in the cash. I dunno. Typically when something like this happens it is a result of some people brainstorming to figure out how to increase revenue asap.

    I'd pay them $20 per year for Personal Edition. :)
     
    Meltdown likes this.
  21. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,631
    It's targeting people that really don't know what to do with the 35 dollars they have lying around each month.
     
  22. Steve-Tack

    Steve-Tack

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Posts:
    1,240
    That got me thinking. What if today's Personal Edition they did charge a little bit for and they had a free version that was more of a traditional "trial" version?

    Something like this seems fair:

    $0 - Unity Trial Edition. Fully functional for desktop (including dark UI, yeesh), but with a "Unity Trial" watermark in the corner of the screen at all times and a forced "Unity Trial Edition" splash screen. Can't publish on any platform. No iOS or Android support at all.

    $99 / year - Unity Personal Edition. Same as today's Personal Edition (can publish on iOS, Android, and desktop), but with a 25K revenue cap. It'd have the forced "Made with Unity" splash screen.

    $299 / year - Unity Plus, same as the planned Unity Plus, but you can turn off the splash screen. 100K revenue cap.

    $1499 / year - Unity Pro, same as the planned Unity Pro. (includes iOS and Android, no revenue cap)
     
    GarBenjamin likes this.
  23. orb

    orb

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Posts:
    3,037
    It should be mentioned that Unity's analytics go far beyond just telling you how many users downloaded your game. There's no third-party service which gives you scene analytics, like they demoed at some previous event.

    So there's at least that - find out where the traffic bottlenecks in your maps are :)
     
  24. darkhog

    darkhog

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Posts:
    2,218
    Only I can see the obvious? It's obviously famous Unity DarkSkin Edition!
     
  25. GarBenjamin

    GarBenjamin

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Posts:
    7,441
    @Steve Tack That seems reasonable to me living in USA with my current financial situation. However, I think it would turn away a huge number of people who are living in other countries and even some folks in USA may find it hard to come up with that $100. And not being able to publish anything until they pay removes one of the main ways folks would be trying to get that money to begin with. Something like $20 I think most can do because as I understand it even to publish on mobile they have to pay $25 or so to that platform?
     
    Teila likes this.
  26. Steve-Tack

    Steve-Tack

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Posts:
    1,240
    I was thinking $100 per year, since that's what it cost to publish to the Xbox with XNA, and I don't recall that being a major barrier to entry even across regions. $20 a year might not be significant enough to Unity to even mess with.

    To publish on iOS, it's an additional $99/year to Apple anyway. On Android it's a one-time $25 fee.
     
    ShilohGames and GarBenjamin like this.
  27. JasmineJas

    JasmineJas

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2016
    Posts:
    9
    I’ve got to admin I’m having a hard time seeing the benefits of Plus as it has both the mandatory splash screen and revenue limit of Personal. Are the additional features really worth $35pm over Personal? If Plus kept the revenue limit of Personal but allowed for custom splash screens that would be a compelling reason for a me to buy Plus, but right now I’m struggling to see what I’d benefit from in Plus.
     
    ShilohGames likes this.
  28. neoshaman

    neoshaman

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Posts:
    6,493
    And plethora useless options while we still need out of the box:
    - good terrain features
    - good input
    - nested prefab
     
    Aiursrage2k, Player7 and schmosef like this.
  29. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    Unity Personal used to be a paid tier too. It was about $400 if I remember correctly.
     
  30. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    That sort of structure would drive me to some other engine. I'd imagine a large portion of hobbyists would also disappear. It's hard to justify spending that much money on a hobby when there are plenty of free alternatives.

    I'm currently saving up to buy a sword. I'm not interested in paying for software I can get elsewhere for free.
     
    Teila likes this.
  31. Steve-Tack

    Steve-Tack

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Posts:
    1,240
    Perhaps giving away so much for free isn't sustainable for the company though.

    I think plenty of hobbyists could justify $99 a year for their hobby. What platforms do you need to deploy to anyway?

    What free alternatives would you consider? Unreal? Godot? *cue a Jimmy Fallon "Ewww!"*
     
  32. Dustin-Horne

    Dustin-Horne

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2013
    Posts:
    4,568
    Just my 2 cents... I think people are missing the relationship between the offerings in Plus. Plus would actually be pretty nice for a small team working on a game together as a startup.

    Upgraded Cloud Build Teir - Not really sure what that includes, probably more "build minutes" or however they price it
    +
    Flexible Seat Licensing

    So, my guess is that this really operates as a "Team" version, where the licensee can control the other seats instead of tying them to an individual, meaning team members can be rotated in and out and still get access to the cloud build features and using a single license since it would be owned by the organization and not the individual, or transferrable from seat to seat.
     
  33. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    It's pretty steep when you consider game dev is just one of many hobbies. The budget I have across all of my hobbies is limited. And I'm a reasonably wealthy hobbyist, with a well paid, full time job. You are also going to loose all of the teenagers. And today's teenagers are going to grow up and take whatever engine they are familiar with into industry.

    All of them. Or at least all of the open ones. This week I'm playing with a PC title. A month ago I was experimenting on a android app. I started in WebPlayer, and still use WebGL heavily. I'm going to try out VR once I can get my hands on a headset.

    I often work on multiple projects across several platforms at the same time.

    Likely Unreal. One of the major strengths of Unity at the moment is its community, this is largely composed of free users. If Unity prices the free user out of the community they will go somewhere. I'm picking Unreal would quickly become as accessible as Unity is now.

    Of course Unity knows all of this. Which is why they haven't tried to extract cash from free users.
     
  34. Steve-Tack

    Steve-Tack

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Posts:
    1,240
    Compared to what? I'm curious how many hobbies people have that cost *less* than $100 a year?
     
    angrypenguin likes this.
  35. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    Most likely Unreal for my own hobbyist needs as I was using it prior to Unity and I'm reasonably comfortable working with C++. I have to admit though that GameMaker would be very tempting for a 2D-only game. One of these days I need to pick it up during a sale.

    If I'm not mistaken the difference between tiers was the frequency of builds and the size of the projects.

    Unity Personal is about as flexible as you can get though.
     
    Teila and Martin_H like this.
  36. ShilohGames

    ShilohGames

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Posts:
    3,015
    If Unity charged anything for the Personal edition, they would lose a lot of hobbyist users and that loss of users would hurt the strength of the Unity community. A useful free tier has been vital to Unity's massive user growth in recent years. For a pure hobbyist, Epic Unreal Engine and Amazon Lumberyard are both completely free. If Unity shut down the Free/Personal tier, then the hobbyists would instantly switch to one of those engines.

    What Unity could do is offer the Plus plan as a decent middle tier that appealed to many of the Free/Personal edition users. For example, if Unity left the revenue cap in place, but removed the splash screen, then the Plus plan might really take off. Unity might be able to convince hundreds of thousands of Free/Personal users to switch to the Plus plan. As the Plus plan currently is with the splash screen requirement, the Plus plan has no chance at all.
     
    Meltdown, Teila, Parallaxe and 3 others like this.
  37. sfjohansson

    sfjohansson

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Posts:
    369
    Maybe it's more of a decoy option... =D companies who have two offerings..introduces a third option that doesn't make sense in order for people to see the value of the highest priced option.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoy_effect

    you see it all the time with stuff like magazine subscriptions, the options usually offered is digital only, print only, print + digital
     
    ShilohGames likes this.
  38. GarBenjamin

    GarBenjamin

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Posts:
    7,441
    If they offered something I'd consider of real value I'd do the paid version. In 2016 that is not just to get a game dev "kit"; instead it is the important thing... promotion. Like if every paid user was guaranteed x hundred thousand/million ad impressions per game they release... via UnityAds for mobile for example and some equivalent for desktop and web. Now that would get my attention.

    But still all of that is pointless until you actually complete a game.
     
  39. Steve-Tack

    Steve-Tack

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Posts:
    1,240
    You're probably right. What if the free tier was fully featured, but had a lower revenue limit? Obviously Unreal has a pretty low revenue limit so it wouldn't take much to beat them there.

    Since Amazon Lumberyard is funded by their web services, I could see them putting Unity under. How do you compete with that?

    I do agree with you on the Plus tier. It seems to be targeted toward someone like me, yet it doesn't offer enough to go beyond free. It's just a bit odd, since I *want* to vote with my dollars, at least a bit. But only the free tier now makes sense.
     
  40. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    Plenty. I used to spend most of my free time reading books. With a free membership at the local library this cost me nothing. Gaming is also a pretty cheap hobby of you stick to old hardware and games.

    As a teenager with no income we got hundereds of hours out of tabletop RPGs, with little to no spending from most players.

    The other thing to remember is its not an instead of relationship. It's an as well as relationship. Sure I spent over a thousand dollars on LARP kit over the past year. I've spent hundreds on video and board games. If game dev were to cost money, it would be on top of this. And frankly with decent free alternatives, I'm not likely to pay.

    There probably are hobbyists that can justify paying. But I'm not one of them. So the question is, is the extra revenue worth losing users like me?
     
    Teila likes this.
  41. Steve-Tack

    Steve-Tack

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Posts:
    1,240
    If they're not going to get any money from you ever, what would they lose?
     
  42. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    My friendly face on the forums. :p

    In more concrete terms.
    • The tech support I have provided on answers and the forums
    • General forum traffic
    • Beta testing
    • Various YouTube and text resources
    Then there are the intangibles. One day I might be in a position to start my own studio. I'm likely to use the engine I'm most familiar with.

    And don't underestimate the value of having a large pool of Unity developers to businesses. Where I live one can find hundreds of developers already familiar with Unity. From a resourcing point of view Unity is a good business decision. This pool of devs would be considerably smaller without the free version.
     
  43. GarBenjamin

    GarBenjamin

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Posts:
    7,441
    These things could also be seen as expenses on the other side... posts take up space ultimately on a hard drive of some kind some where, traffic takes up bandwidth, added server stress and so forth. :) lol

    Still I do think there is a lot of value added by many free users. Some create very in-depth tutorials for example. Others write blog posts or articles or create videos about game dev that direct people to Unity. So all of these free users ultimately serve as a mass marketing campaign for Unity. I think if all of the content online linking to Unity created by free users instantly vanished it would make quite a blip on the radar as far as bringing new people in. They are just everywhere out there. Forums where people talk about getting started in game dev and someone says "Get Unity! No cost just grab the free version like I use LINK" and so forth.
     
    Teila, Kiwasi and iamthwee like this.
  44. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    I'd like to think that a partnership with Microsoft wouldn't allow that kind of activity to rub off on them.
     
  45. ShilohGames

    ShilohGames

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Posts:
    3,015
    Yeah, I think Unity could get away with lowering the revenue limit on Free/Personal, especially if the middle tier was useful. Some Free/Personal users might complain if that happened, but it would not really hurt them. For a hobbyist making zero dollars, revenue caps don't really affect them.

    As for competing with Amazon's Lumberyard, it is tough. For now, Unity can compete by having an easier to use solution. Lumberyard is built on top of Cryengine, so it is powerful but cumbersome. If/When Amazon manages to sand the sharp edges off it, Amazon could possibly position it as easy to use.

    The neat thing about Amazon funding Lumberyard with AWS is that it accomplishes a similar thing to Unity's Free vs Pro strategy. It is free for hobbyists while costing money for serious developers.
     
    Deleted User and Kiwasi like this.
  46. ShilohGames

    ShilohGames

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Posts:
    3,015
    Here is what Unity would lose if Free/Personal users left:
    1) Asset Store sales
    2) Useful forum posts (admittedly this varies a lot between users, though)
    3) Referrals (word of mouth to bring more people into the Unity ecosystem
    4) Potential future licensing fees for Unity
    5) Blogs, videos, and tutorials about Unity (many of these have been made by Free/Personal users)
     
    Teila and Kiwasi like this.
  47. ShilohGames

    ShilohGames

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Posts:
    3,015
    This is the best guess I have seen so far to explain the "Plus" plan. In it's current form, it is a textbook case of Decoy Effect.
     
  48. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    Some people are just barely staying afloat as it is. I know @HemiMG has stated a few times in the past that he's almost out of business. I don't know if he's on Personal or not but if he is it a chance like that might put him out altogether.
     
    Teila likes this.
  49. ShilohGames

    ShilohGames

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Posts:
    3,015
    What I am saying is lowering the revenue cap on the Personal edition would not affect most people. It certainly would not hurt the hobbyists who don't make any revenue with Unity. And it would not affect Pro users, since there is no revenue cap for Pro.

    Now if somebody was using Personal edition to make some money, but they were nearly out of business, lowering the revenue cap on Personal edition might affect them. If they are nearly out of business, I expect the revenue cap is not their primary problem. If the revenue cap on Personal shifted from $100k to $50k, that would still permit somebody to make up to $50k with the Personal edition before needing to buy Plus or Pro.

    I don't know HemiMG's specific situation, so I cannot say if that hypothetical situation would be an issue or not. It is possible to live on $50k per year, but it is also possible to go out of business on $50k per year of revenue. If the revenue cap on Personal was lowered to $50k, there would still be the $35 per month option for Plus with a $100k revenue cap. I am guessing that $35/month won't bust a business that is making between $50k/year and $100k/year.
     
  50. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    At some point there is a limit where it will hurt. I agree its probably less then 100k.

    The free tier is not just in the business of selling game dev tools. Its also in the business of selling dreams. That's why so many hobbyists ask about the revenue limit, even through they will never hit it.

    "You can make 100K and not pay a cent" Is a much bigger and better dream then "You can make 3K and not pay a cent."

    I have no idea how relevant this is to the free market at large. But its certainly a factor.
     
    Teila, QFSW and zombiegorilla like this.