Thread by @Mortiel

Part of what I set out to do is provide correct information to consumers so they can make informed purchases. But how do I do that?

Let's use this claim "stores extract more than half the profit" and it's context as an exercise in Critical Thinking.

First, we need to ask When... Is the info backing the claim created? Is it current? Since no source is provided to back the information, we do not have any basis on how current the claim is. Red Flag #1.

Next, we ask How... Is this info relevant to the topic being claimed? Since the store fee would be considered part of the "costs" a publisher (not the dev) pays, the claim loses applicability. Red Flag #2.

Then, we ask Who... Is the person making the claim and are they able to speak from a place of authority on the topic? In this case, the answer is Yes. Sweeney is a long time successful industry veteran.

After that, we ask Where... is the evidence? Is the info accurate? Show independent, falsifiable evidence. That is clearly not provided here. We are expected to take his (admittedly experience) word for it and nothing more. Red Flag #3

Finally, we ask the most important question: Why... Is the claim being made? What purpose does it serve? In this case, the claim and info is provided to make Tim's own competitors look less appealing, which would benefit him. This is a clear conflict of interest. Red Flag #4.

What I have done here is apple a basic Critical Thinking test. If at least 3 out of 5 of those questions returned as all good, then the information is *most likely* good. However, Tim's comment failed 4 out of 5, meaning it is almost certainly misleading.

One a statement like this fails your critical thinking test, then you research. In this case, it's not hard to see where the deception lies: Distribution fees are counted as part of the publisher's costs, and therefore cannot be taking half the profit *after* costs are paid.

Additionally, Tim misrepresents how the money flows with game sales. The publisher pays costs. The publisher makes the profit.

If it's a 1st party dev or indie published, then there is no separation in pub and dev. If it's 3rd party, pub pays dev studio royalties based on sales.

In neither case would the distro fees be considered taking "more than half the profit" from a developer. It's either taking a % of the *revenue* or the dev just makes the royalties agreed to with the publisher.

I mean, the publisher would be who I'd look at in this example.

In closing, as I notice this simple test could help people better identify misleading statements online without needing a lot of games industry tribal knowledge, I am actually going to put together a #MortielFallacy video outlining this process. Stay tuned.

@threadreaderapp unroll