It seems steam also takes 30% but doesn’t give a choice to reallocate more to the charity or humble. Seems really weird to me to be upset with a company that, at it’s worst, takes the same cut as the industry leader
It’s all about the intent. Steam is there to sell you games. Humble is there to support charities while giving you cheap stuff. In their description the charities are the first thing that gets mentioned. And then they give them 5% of the money.
What’s the opposite of Rose tinted glasses? How much do you want them to take? Would it be good if they didn’t set the default high enough to stay in business and there was no charitable option? What do you want them to do? I really can’t understand how you’re so negative on this and I’m self described cynical pessimist myself
What I’d want? For them to give at least half, not measly 5%. Come on, they’re bragging about giving to charity while really not giving them 95% of their income. Like, at this point I’d rather donate the $12 to the charity myself than support yet another parasite on the donation system.
I donate to various things regularly (mostly stuff local for my country, but some international as well from time to time), be it charity or open source projects, and I hate when everyone takes a cut out of this. But at least most of them have the decency to send most of the money further, not only 5%.
I’m negative because I don’t see anything positive on a charity gaining $0.60 when $12 was given to the one who collects the money.
It seems steam also takes 30% but doesn’t give a choice to reallocate more to the charity or humble. Seems really weird to me to be upset with a company that, at it’s worst, takes the same cut as the industry leader
It’s all about the intent. Steam is there to sell you games. Humble is there to support charities while giving you cheap stuff. In their description the charities are the first thing that gets mentioned. And then they give them 5% of the money.
What’s the opposite of Rose tinted glasses? How much do you want them to take? Would it be good if they didn’t set the default high enough to stay in business and there was no charitable option? What do you want them to do? I really can’t understand how you’re so negative on this and I’m self described cynical pessimist myself
What I’d want? For them to give at least half, not measly 5%. Come on, they’re bragging about giving to charity while really not giving them 95% of their income. Like, at this point I’d rather donate the $12 to the charity myself than support yet another parasite on the donation system.
I donate to various things regularly (mostly stuff local for my country, but some international as well from time to time), be it charity or open source projects, and I hate when everyone takes a cut out of this. But at least most of them have the decency to send most of the money further, not only 5%.
I’m negative because I don’t see anything positive on a charity gaining $0.60 when $12 was given to the one who collects the money.
That is just a wild reason to be bitter but to each their own I guess