And I think that Epic has been in the business long enough to know that the profit you declare is a pretty subjective number you can make be anything you want.
People always say this about "Hollywood accounting" but I seriously doubt that the tax authorities (for instance) just let film companies make up their profit figure.
it should reflect the marginal cost to them of providing you with the service
You are saying that because you know full well that the marginal cost to them is effectively zero, and you would therefore get it for nothing.
In business, you don't offer your products for sale at their marginal cost, for the very obvious reason that if you did you would never make any profit.
If you use their game engine to make a game that sells millions and earns you a fortune, it seems entirely reasonable that they get a proportion of that fortune. You are not being forced to use their particular game engine, after all. There are others out there, or you could roll your own.
Anything that charges a percentage is bad, fair scheme should be paid for work done, not charge rent on other peoples work.
That is up to the business who does the charging to decide.
The thing is they're not doing any extra "work" as such, simply letting you copy the game engine, source code and all, has an almost zero marginal cost to them. So no doubt you think it should cost you a flat dollar or something.
In the real world, they have had to invest a lot of money to create the game engine, so it is entirely fair that they want to make some money back on it if it is used to make a commercial product.
Releasing current software to amateurs/hobbyists is a different question entirely.
5% on Gross Revenue is horrible. When you look at advertising costs pretty much outstripping development costs 5% is a big chunk.
Add another 5% on top of your price to cover it then.
There is no law that says your wonderful game has a divine right to make a huge profit, you know.
It's a BBC story. England is the absolute worst "Not Invented Here" country on the planet. For the English, nothing exists until they've let a monsterous bureaucracy and army of know-nothing consultants design-by-committee it into atrocity.
Jesus, you did win in 1776 you know. Let it go.
It's a bit like going bungee jumping and not bothering to measure the length of the rubber band first.
The number of people killed by being sucked into tidal gates, hydro-power inlets, etc. is not zero.
Nor is the number of people killed by falling off step ladders and breaking their necks, or being electrocuted changing a lightbulb, or choking on split peas.
'It might also be wise to scrutinize the close cooperation of industry and government officials in cases like this. Bribes?' No, to give the developers credit, the attraction for the politician is employment. Job creation, one of the metrics the average politico loves to be associated with, The business case put forward to justify the development is heavily geared towards the construction, maintenance and leisure jobs that will be created. With the consumer ultimately footing the bill, what's not to like for a politically motivated decision maker?
The same thing applies to nuclear power station proposals, apart from the leisure jobs aspect. They always make a big deal of all the construction and catering jobs they will create for the local economy.
the principle is that the lagoon is filled by the moon
Now that's just crazy talk.
Why the fuck do so many people on Slashdot think they're smarter than the actual professionals who create these designs for a living and have already thought through and solved all these problems?
Because many of these actual professionals just want the investment money so they can line their pockets.
As opposed to those in favour of nuclear, coal or whatever who all work pro bono for the good of humanity?
This is a horrible, horrible idea. It will reek havoc with the existing natural tidal currents and completely change the ecosystems and natural patterns present in this tidal lagoons. Many of these species are already under heavy pressure from human activities and this could be the nail in the coffin, so to speak. Do these idiots even think before they plan these things? It's like they put ecological destruction primary in their considerations and then power production secondary. Hopefully these can be easily taken out with a boat and a proper load of high explosives.
This isn't nuclear or fossil fuel based. Therefore, it cannot possibly be a threat to any ecosystem. Haven't you learned anything in the past 10 years?
Just look at "birdmageddon" caused by wind turbines. It's like ethnic cleansing but no one's been accused of war crimes. All you can hear is the sinister whooshing of turbines and the cries of newly hatched chicks mourning for their slaughtered mothers.
Thank god the fossil fuel industry is there to try to give those helpless innocents a voice.
I really can't see it as much of an issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_barrage suggests fish mortality is quite high with this method. Considering estuaries are typically fish breeding grounds, If the alternative wasn't nuclear I'd say it wasn't worth the risk to an already depleted ecosystem.
If we were that worried about fish, we could always stop eating so many of them.
As sarcasm goes, this is pretty crude and clumsy.
I found it pretty hard to distinguish from many serious posts here on slashdot, "pinko" being the only slightly jarring note (presumably put in deliberately as a wink), as right wingers seem to just use "liberal" nowadays as their all-purpose insult.
Don't panic.
