Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 234 posts

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#131

Post by tpxl »

AstralStorm wrote: post #106
on_and_off wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be mentioned that Steam's monopoly is assulted by new players like Epic with a 12% cut. Which might be for the best, Steam is in dire need of a serious competitor (I know GOG and co exist but sadly they have not been able to make a real dent in Steam's marketshare). Steam has dropped so many balls and the main thing going for them is inertia. Also, just because paying a large cut to various middlemen is com…

It is not even close to assaulted. It is not inertia, but network effects and completeness of package offered by Steam, as well as resale deals.

Inertia is also a thing. No way am I leaving 150 titles behind or splitting a collection of a game between different platforms (eg Far Cry 1 -> Far Cry 6).

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#132

Post by kurtisc »

nspkr wrote: post #82
DuckyC wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that there isn't free speech in the EU? What are you basing this statement on?

Many countries in the EU have blasphemy laws and the European Court of Human Rights says they are okay: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr... If someone criticised Jesus Christ in their podcast (for example), they would be putting Liberapay at risk. I don't believe Liberapay would allow that, so they'd just ban the user. That's what makes Liberapay a risky option.

All countries in the EU must follow article 11 of the CFR.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#133

Post by leereeves »

antiviral wrote: post #48
Deimorz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patreon requires you to grant them an extremely similar license: > You keep full ownership of all content that you post on Patreon, but to operate we need licenses from you. > By posting content to Patreon you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to use, reproduce, distribute, perform, publicly display or prepare derivative works of your content. The purpose…

It also states that it's for the purpose of promoting the creator's content on Patreon. For example, showing a thumbnail image of your video on another page as a recommendation would count as a 'derivative work.' Without this right, it would be virtually impossible to get permission from the creator for every instance in which Patreon wants to promote content in a new way. Also, it seems that the creator on Patreon w…

It states clearly that it's also "to allow us to operate Patreon, promote Patreon, ...".

So if your content would make a good ad for Patreon, you've given them permission to use it without compensating you.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#134

Post by hrktb »

pavlov wrote: post #77
mamborambo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But once past initial audience discovery, the recurrent billing of patronage donations is just pure service. So logically creators should only use FB for access to new audience, build a relationship with the newly acquired audience, and pivot to direct billing or Patreon for recurrent collection.

By the same logic, YouTube creators should only use YT to build an audience, then switch to hosting their own videos. Yet they want to remain on the platform.

That's a move some creators are at least seriously preparing for. And building a patreon user base is a good step for that.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#135

Post by nikeee »

Deimorz wrote: post #43
metildaa wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valve cut their fees to 15% recently for games that sell well, and reduced the normal fee from 30% iirc. Epic Games has brought serious competition to the industry, offering a broadly used game distribution channel for a low price.

No, the normal fee is still 30%, and the reduction is only for extremely high-sales games and never goes below 20%: > Starting from October 1, 2018 (i.e. revenues prior to that date are not included), when a game makes over $10 million on Steam, the revenue share for that application will adjust to 75%/25% on earnings beyond $10M. At $50 million, the revenue share will adjust to 80%/20% on earnings beyond $50M. ( htt…

I think you underestimate Fortnite. It is a game played mostly by kids and teenagers. Often, they don't have a Steam account. So if Epic catches them, Steam won't get them.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#136

Post by heavenlyblue »

kgwxd wrote: post #129
paulnechifor wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are conflating freedom of speech with the US first amendment. Freedom of speech is a principle. It applies to private companies as well. Voltaire didn't say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, so long as it's not on Twitter, Facebook, &c in which case I'll beat you to death myself because private companies are entitled to censor their own platforms". What's the poin…

Private companies can't arrest you, put you on trial, sentence you to prison, or kill you. Government can. That's the point.

But they can use their opinion in such a way that I am not accepted by the majority of other companies in the sphere.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#137

Post by commoner »

paulnechifor wrote: post #126
morganvachon wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US does have freedom of speech at the federal government level; i.e. the government is not supposed to repress speech. However, it appears the parent is intentionally conflating freedom of speech and a private entity's right to censor their own platform. One has literally nothing to do with the other; private entities in the US and abroad are largely free to run their platforms as they choose, including censoring…

You are conflating freedom of speech with the US first amendment. Freedom of speech is a principle. It applies to private companies as well. Voltaire didn't say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, so long as it's not on Twitter, Facebook, &c in which case I'll beat you to death myself because private companies are entitled to censor their own platforms". What's the poin…

An American can exercise their government-protected right to free speech on their own website. This right does not apply to someone else's website, since it would be infringing on the website owner's property rights. Freedom of speech doesn't grant the speaker the right to occupy someone else's private property.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#138

Post by heavenlyblue »

badpun wrote: post #119
sametmax wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We still have Charlie Hebdo putting drawings of Mahomet on the cover so there is a still a lot of margin. But it's good to stay vigilent.

It's not banned by law, but, especially after what happened to Charlie Hebdo (and it wasn't the first or the last incident like that, however probably most drastic), I'd say people are afraid to publicly say negative things about Islam, because the threat to their lives is very real. So, while we might have freedom of speech written into the laws and the state per se is not taking it away from us, it's also not prote…

By the same argument, we can assume everyone in the US is now afraid of going to war after 9/11?

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#139

Post by randunel »

thucydidesofusa wrote: post #68
RileyJames wrote: post #23

> But whatever cut it takes will be after processing fees and the 15 to 30 percent tax Apple and Google levy on iOS and Android in-app purchases. We’ll see if Facebook tries a workaround that pushes users to their mobile browser where it can take their subscription money tax-free. That makes it kinda ridiculous. $5 subscription. 30% to Apple: $1.5 30% to Facebook: $1.05 (of the remaining $3.50) Leaving the creator wi…

Heh, now assume the creator makes $80k/yr and lives in California. Marginal tax rate - ~38%? $5 subscription. 30% to Apple: $1.5 30% to Facebook: $1.05 (of the remaining $3.50) 38% to the Government: $.93 (of the remaining $2.45) Leaving the creator with: $1.52

> 38% to the Government: $.93 (of the remaining $2.45)

If the invoice you give your customer says "$5.00", isn't the tax taken from that? That's how things work in Europe, the gross income is taxed.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#140

Post by Semaphor »

AstralStorm wrote: post #105
lobster45 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam is a platform for video games and is by far the leader in this market. They do have some competition, and their take is 30%

About the only places I'd call actual competitors... Are none. Nobody is close to 10% of Steam sales and specialized in video games. They are a monopoly and will push the price. They cannot push it too much or a cheaper small store might overtake them, but competition is not the force setting the price. The cost of switching is. The network effect strength are. Maybe someone in China could, but they don't directly co…

Gog recently announced that they'll allow third party stores to resell gog keys (mobile, so no link). I really hope that shakes the market up a bit (and I generally really like gog and always prefer then when there is price parity)
Post reply on HN