Sure, and then he can afford it, because he's making over $1M/year revenue on this sim, and taking a very reasonable 5% off the top of that. So it blunts the profits a bit at that point, but it hardly seems like such a terrible thing at that point.
By that logic we should be OK with Adobe's subscription model. It makes it affordable to people who can't otherwise use it. Ultimately it means we can't own it (and just like we can't own UE, we owe Epic income reports for life).
I'm not saying it's a terrible model and it's great that games are made with it but let's be honest it's not all rainbows.
I don't know anything about Adobe's model - I have (pretty happily) never bought anything from that company. But the two are not very similar, and I don't buy the argument that you're trying to make - I think you're trying to bring in dislike of Adobe's model as an argument against Epic's, despite the two being pretty fundamentally different.
"it's not all rainbows" - I would also not let perfect be the enemy of the good here.
You do, becaude I explained... It's subscription based. It's fundamentally the same because in both cases you don't own it. Epic's is just with the added element of freebie at first
weird how HN is up with pitchforks against that but OK with Epic's.