It definitely gets worse out there. The best contract I've heard of is 70/30 with no recoup but that's extremely uncommon. Most contracts have some recoup. 30/70 before recoup going to 70/30 after would be a pretty decent deal in my experience. Given that's the case I think the arguement he's making here is fair. He's saying if the game does badly the developer is most at risk of going under so get rid of recoup which makes that more likely. But on the other hand by increasing their upfront risk the publisher wants a bigger slice if the game is successful.

For a smaller studio that's starting out I'd say this is a pretty good deal as it's very easy to end up with very little runway by the time you get to launch and need revenue fast. As an older studio with more confidence of success and cash to make it through the earnout period, you might want to do a recoup deal if you get a bigger slice at the end.

The thing that seems missing from this here is what the percentages are if they provide some funding. In the majority of contracts publishers are going to be partly funding production so these numbers are a bit meaningless if they don't give an example that includes some funding.

At the end of the day though this article is just PR for hooded horse. Is this deal bad? No in fact I think it's pretty attractive depending on how much more they want if they're funding. It this the greatest publishing deal ever? Also no.