[setgree]

I'm not sure how this addresses the fundamental problem, which is that Spotify pays a very low price per stream, so you have to be a huge star to make any money, and Spotify is taking a large part of the proceeds in the meantime.

Also there's the secondary problem that Spotify has an incentive to produce easy-to-digest content in house for which it pays lower (or no) royalties [0].

For you, the equivalent of problem #2 is your incentive to make deliberately addictive content of no artistic merit. Easy to say you won't do this, a lot harder when your backers demand growth and your analytics team demonstrates that Angry Birds For Tots will maximize engagement.

Don't get me wrong, I think you have a cool idea and I hope it works, but everything you say about your commitment to devs is cheap talk, and in my experience, such ideals tend to get discarded during, e.g., difficult funding rounds.

good luck!

[0] https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/the-fake-artists-problem-is-...

[Pedro_Magna]

Basically, we pay a higher price per player than Spotify pays per listener, which closes out with the unit economics of indie game sales. Whereas Spotify represented a huge drop in revenue per listener to artists (before piracy), we are keeping the revenue per player the same if not more (for replayable games, shorter games are still a challenge).

[htag]

> we are keeping the revenue per player the same if not more

Isn't this the same as saying players will pay at least as much as they are in existing markets?

[robswc]

>so you have to be a huge star to make any money

Forgive me if I'm missing something, however I don't understand what exactly is wrong with this. Isn't this the case with any "art-type" career?

Are there any services that pay a flat-rate per stream?