• pjhenry1216@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They could easily make more money with the same image by limiting how much revenue goes to the charities. You can choose to not give them anything.

    I’m not saying they aren’t in it for the money. Most people need to make money to survive. But I think it’s disingenuous to say they don’t care at all. I think they do good and I feel many others agree.

    A corporate marketing tool that costs such a large portion of your revenue is an inefficient tool. There must be some other value in it for them.

    • chameleon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You haven’t been able to give them nothing for over 2 years now. For this particular bundle, the minimum split for Humble is 30% and the default split is an insane 45% to Humble, 50% to the company and 5% to charity.

      Humble is unfortunately still coursing by on their old reputation of being charity-friendly, but they changed to be one of the worst players around years ago. That goodwill from back then has really been depleted.

      • fraydabson@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah I almost always do minimum for humble and majority charity with a little left over for the provider.

    • raptir@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have no idea what their motivation was, but the charity angle is a great way to differentiate themselves from Steam. I would guess they would not be so successful without it.