So I think you and I took different things away from what abbytrevor was saying there. What I took away is that arguments made that a game or game series made sufficient money to cover enough expenses that authors should get more money is inaccurate.
Ignoring the self debricating snark, at this point you are making assumptions. We cannot see behind the curtain and in the end no matter how much any collection of games has made I still feel that Dan’s statement about keeping HG and CoG at the same royalty rate makes too much sense. Any change that skews that balance risks collapsing the ecosystem of these platforms. If I was running a company with a business model like that between CoG and HG, I would find myself making that same choice.
While I know they could pay HG authors higher rates do to lower overhead. I know I would like them to pay higher royalties knowing they could afford it for the HG platform. I cannot say they should if they do it though just to make sure that CoG doesn’t suddenly look like the worse option. CoG in the end is the long term sustainability that lets HG exist.
The main question I ask myself to come to this conclusion is this: If authors slow down writing for CoG (because HG looks more lucrative or the company seems suspicious for offering higher royalties to first time writers), what happens to HG?