Quick math shows that's irrelevant with a 4% revenue cap, as I pointed out in my original comment, and at best they will be paid the same as just doing a 4% revenue fee. More likely they will get some amount less than 4% from most devs.
The only reason I see for them going this route instead is to claim they are still royalty free, install fees aren't royalties. Which is BS anyway.
It works for that market too even without install fees, you just make it a percentage of revenue generated from microtransactions. It's still tied to the game.
Still trying to shoehorn in a "runtime fee". That's not going to work and with this model it's pointless anyway. Just make it a 4% revenue for sales after $1 million. Same end results (actually potentially more in fees) without all the runtime issues. Make it apply only to a specific version and later and after a certain date and then you also don't have the retroactive problem and the massive blowback.
Godot is also an alternative and it's free/open source so no worries about the company completely changing how they charge you in the future and destroying all the work you have done for years.
Technically Skyrim has also been published in the past decade, and even more recently than Fallout 4. In fact it's been released 5 times since Fallout 4.
If I game can't keep you engaged while doing that for the first 2 hours it's not a good game, at least for that person. You don't need to know everything the game has to offer if it's bored you for 2 hours.
I have about 30 hours in it now. I wouldn't say it gets any better over that time, if you didn't like it at the beginning you won't like it after 30 hours.
I think this is an accurate way to put it. I happen to like that game but if it's not what you were expecting or you're tired of it you're not going to like the game.
I have to say the best change from FO4 is ditching the voiced protagonist. That was a big mistake at the time.
You're highlighting the slower 2GB but in reality that's not used by games in the first place. They're relegated to the 8GB which is significantly faster.
The Steam Deck has essentially 2x the available memory but it's much slower. The point being "having more RAM" isn't some amazing feat. It really depends on all the involved specs. Even amount/bandwidth isn't enough. GDDR has much higher bandwidth than DDR or LPDDR but it's also higher latency. It's tuned for graphics, not system RAM depending on the work load one can be faster than the other.
Having more RAM than the series S doesn't translate to "having hardware with some oomph". The series S is memory starved. 10GB was a small amount even when it launched.