« Still selective bombing of RMT in S. Korea. But this time, Magic Circle missile loaded | Main | Book Review: "As If" by Michael Saler »

Jun 20, 2012



Very interesting. The page is still live:


Apparently, this is seen to improve the bottom line. Maybe it's a tacit recognition that in order to run a working virtual currency, you need to be able to control part of the value obtained from that currency?


Yes, I think that's it -- the problem was that FB credits weren't a real currency in practice, they were sort of an Esperanto currency.



A wonderful term: "Esperanto currency."


30% isn't outrageous, if you view it as the cost of access to a retail channel, rather than as a transaction fee. E.g., Microsoft takes 30% of revenues for games sold through XBLA, which most developers view as a quite reasonable.


Interesting. The typical transaction fee to exchange currency is below 5%, so that was my baseline expectation. Viewed as provision of access to a retail channel, its not so outrageous, you're right.


On CompuServe, we got 8% royalty on MUD1. CompuServe seemed to think that it was unfair that they only got 92% of the income when they owned 100% of the users, but we managed to hold our ground.


How is facebook losing value ? It seems like everyone I know has a facebook profile.


It is very interesting. It seems FB will not desc soon as many expected.

The comments to this entry are closed.