How would that even work? How would they charge a share of revenue for the use of the runtime? From both technical and legal sides?
I actually think it would be a huge hassle for development; it would cost more than those 9%: increased cost of development, less skilled developers, disasters when the complicated scheme doesn't work, sales ping-pong expensive in both time and money.
I think would especially hurt overseas developers (think Asia).
Over the net, any process that requires approval from both sides (a contract perhaps) goes hundred times slower than process that doesn't (the current distribution of flash player and tooling doesn't). Increasing the distance, in form of borders, cultural difference and raw miles, slows it down even more. And certainly Adobe would hurt their potential partners by understanding their business poorly and trying to apply the same set of expectations worldwide.
Also it seriously would not work:
Take google street view. It obviously does want the advanced 3D rendering. But what do they have to pay Adobe?
Street view itself displays no ads (does it?) but it boosts the Maps which do generate revenue, but they also boost Search which generates a lot of money. What would that 9% be calculated from? Would there be a long ping pong session between Adobe sales and the customer? How long before the customer (google in this case) decides SCREW YOU GUYS, I'M GOING HOME?
Now, imagine it's not google but some local player (think DAUM)
Adobe would naturally react to their queries as if they were some indigenous people calling. They would for no second care what's they up to. They'll cite some entirely unrealistic demands and then lose their mail; it would not end up good.
No, they would only have to pay if they used 3D rendering AND "domainMemory". I don't even think domainMemory is available for access in regular AS3 unless Adobe recently opened that up (I know Alchemy C++ and Haxe can use it). For something like Street View using domainMemory would likely give no appreciable performance gain, since StreetView would use just a few unchanging textures and vertices which would already be handled efficiently by stage3D.
The fact that they are charging only if 3D is used in conjunction with domainMemory really limits the kinds of apps that would be subject to this revenue sharing--although it's true that memory intensive games would likely want both of these features.
I'm not sure 3D graphics is a key for social games.
And more serious games like MMORPG usually have no trouble making players install a dedicated client program.
It's just me or they are targetting a pretty narrow market here?
I actually think it would be a huge hassle for development; it would cost more than those 9%: increased cost of development, less skilled developers, disasters when the complicated scheme doesn't work, sales ping-pong expensive in both time and money.
I think would especially hurt overseas developers (think Asia).
Over the net, any process that requires approval from both sides (a contract perhaps) goes hundred times slower than process that doesn't (the current distribution of flash player and tooling doesn't). Increasing the distance, in form of borders, cultural difference and raw miles, slows it down even more. And certainly Adobe would hurt their potential partners by understanding their business poorly and trying to apply the same set of expectations worldwide.
It seriously would not fly. Bye bye flash.