In a recent X post<\/a>, Carmack lays out what appears to be a pretty clear inequity: why does Meta fund third-party titles when they\u2019re just going to turn around and tax them 30% on every transaction?<\/p>\n \u201cCompanies like Meta subsidize third party developers in various ways to help grow their platforms, then take 30% of the developer revenue right back with the platform tax, which is a wasteful churn,\u201d Carmack says.<\/p>\n To avoid unnecessarily circulating money between platform and developer, Carmack points to Epic Games\u2019 fee structure, which doesn\u2019t take anything from developers for the first $1 million per year in revenue.<\/p>\n \u201cYou would still need explicit subsidies to get certain types of games \/ apps created at all, but it perfectly rewards what you actually want: increased economic activity, versus a biased pre-selection process,\u201d Carmack continues.<\/p>\n Tagging Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, Carmack muses whether Meta could even actually pay developers extra for early revenue instead of charging an initial platform fee\u2014something radically different from directly hand-picking projects and applying its usual 30% cut.<\/p>\n \u201cIf it wasn\u2019t so easily exploited by buying your own app, a negative rate \u2018earned income tax credit\u2019 for initial revenue would actually be a good incentive for a platform like Quest.\u201d<\/p>\n In response, Sweeney\u00a0says the $1 million no-fee threshold works and hasn\u2019t been abused, although that\u2019s partly because Epic\u2019s fees are relatively low to begin with\u2014a meager\u00a012% cut.<\/p>\n \u201cThere hasn\u2019t been significant gaming of the system. Thankfully there are enough benefits to curation and reputation in having one >$1M app than to breaking it up into a near-duplicate set of <$1M apps. But this assumes a modest take rate. At 30% behavior may change,\u201d Sweeney says.<\/p>\n My Take<\/p>\n PC gaming is much more flexible than Quest when it comes to sourcing games; PC users can choose from any number of store, including Steam, Epic Games Store, or GOG. This is unfortunately not the case for Quest.<\/p>\n But let\u2019s not conflate the two too much though. Meta subsidizes Quest hardware to make back money with app sales\u2014basically what console manufacturers have always done.<\/p>\n The wrinkle is that Quest users can download and install alternate app stores, like SideQuest, which uses Quest\u2019s ability to sideload Android APKs. But it\u2019s no real competitor to the Horizon Store, and I don\u2019t expect it ever will be.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/john-carmack-oculus-connect.jpg\")
<\/a>John Carmack at Oculus Connect (2018) | Image courtesy Meta<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/tim-sweeney-gdc-2016.jpg\")
<\/a>Tim Sweeney at GDC 2016 | Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/sidequest.jpg\")
<\/a>SideQuest | Image captured by Road to VR<\/p>\n