Epic direct payment on mobile(epicgames.com)
epicgames.com
Epic direct payment on mobile
https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-mega-drop-permanent-discounts-up-to-20-percent
370 comments
I'm scared of that though. Although on one end I would like to buy my kindle books straight from the app and play xcloud games, I'm thinking of the dodgier companies.
Right now I have little to worry about when I leave my kid playing a game, all the payment need to go through Apple or at least the offending app will not stay up for too long.
I want Apple to be forced to come up with a fairer solution (eg: same api, but different payment provider) rather than being strong-armed into getting rid of the current protection from dodgy apps abusing dark ux pattern.
Right now I have little to worry about when I leave my kid playing a game, all the payment need to go through Apple or at least the offending app will not stay up for too long.
I want Apple to be forced to come up with a fairer solution (eg: same api, but different payment provider) rather than being strong-armed into getting rid of the current protection from dodgy apps abusing dark ux pattern.
Payments for whatever (eg Amazon) can still go through the web browser can't they? What stops kids doing that?
I would like to play games I compiled (without asking permission)
All Apple has to do to fix this is allow sideloading. They don't need to change the App Store's rules—they can make them more stringent, actually—and you can set up your child's phone to block non-App-Store installations. Heck, Epic would probably cave and accept the cost to keep Fortnite in the App Store; they tried to go around Google Play, and it seemingly didn't work out.
From the original article, this also sidesteps google play.
I don't think that Google has the same requirements as apple, vis a vis, all payments need to go through apple app store, which includes subscriptions or coin purchases.
They do, the only difference is that unlike Apple Google just takes the money and gives the users nothing in return.
They both have very similar policies. Why do you think Epic took Fortnite off of the Play store in the first place?
Sure, I just don't think Epic has a very strong argument there. I mean, who knows what lawmakers will think, but if I was the one to decide, I would tell Epic tough luck.
Consumers can choose to side-step the Play Store with a few taps. iOS users would need to throw out their phones.
Consumers can choose to side-step the Play Store with a few taps. iOS users would need to throw out their phones.
The problem with that is that it is all or nothing. The milder approach I had in mind was that apps require you to register an account outside the app (like amazon) but the purchase is initiated inside the app and outside Apple api.
At the beginning that will be easy to simply not register and not use games that require registration. But well, micro-transaction started that way and nowadays all the major player do it that way.
Platform like XCloud that bundle various games from various studio will be used, and that basically mean you have a single app in your iPhone that can download a variety of content, all outside the control of Apple.
I'm not an idiot, I will whitelist and use the tool available in said platform, but that's one more thing to care about. One problem for which Apple just worked for me and won't anymore.
At the beginning that will be easy to simply not register and not use games that require registration. But well, micro-transaction started that way and nowadays all the major player do it that way.
Platform like XCloud that bundle various games from various studio will be used, and that basically mean you have a single app in your iPhone that can download a variety of content, all outside the control of Apple.
I'm not an idiot, I will whitelist and use the tool available in said platform, but that's one more thing to care about. One problem for which Apple just worked for me and won't anymore.
If i'm not mistaken, Apple doesn't even have a "separate wallet" requirement like Consoles do where, if you have a cross-platform game with virtual currency, you have to keep currency purchases made on one platform separate from currency purchases made on competitor's platform - Eg. in Fortnite, purchasing $10 of VBucks on the Nintendo Switch means you have to spend those VBucks in the in-game store while on the Switch, you can't go to your PC and spend them or combine them with VBucks you've purchased from Epic directly.
The main reason I use an iPhone is that it doesn’t allow side loading out side of development applications and has a curated closed store.
I want an ecosystem that works and I can rely on including knowing that little to no one can side load a malicious application onto the device.
I’m also very well aware of the fact that while Apple scalps developers it’s also the reason why my devices get security updates for 6 years while Google can’t provide updates after 2.
I want an ecosystem that works and I can rely on including knowing that little to no one can side load a malicious application onto the device.
I’m also very well aware of the fact that while Apple scalps developers it’s also the reason why my devices get security updates for 6 years while Google can’t provide updates after 2.
> I want an ecosystem that works and I can rely on including knowing that little to no one can side load a malicious application onto the device.
I don't understand this, can you explain why? As long as you don't sideload on your own phone, why would having the option be a problem?
I don't understand this, can you explain why? As long as you don't sideload on your own phone, why would having the option be a problem?
When you're stuck being the "computer person" in a family, it means you need to manage things like people's laptops that have somehow associated .exe files with MS Word or a game suddenly starting in the background and making a bunch of noise on Android (I've dealt with these first-hand). There's a market for devices that give power users some access, but not so much they can cause problems. Right now, I somewhat selfishly suggest iPhones/iPads to family members, because they live near enough to Apple stores that I don't have to be the one supporting them, and that the devices are harder to put into a state where the unpredictable starts happening.
>When you're stuck being the "computer person" in a family, it means you need to manage things like people's laptops that have somehow associated .exe files with MS Word or a game suddenly starting in the background and making a bunch of noise on Android (I've dealt with these first-hand).
The things you can do with the phone are already more dangerous and hazardous than say, manually approved, developer-mode sideloading.
Following this logic, why is the phone even allowed to get phone calls from non-Apple approved numbers?, or mail from non-Apple approved email addresses?
Like at what point does this logic actually stop, because for someone who somehow manages to install malware after having to tap on some arcane menu seven times in a row every service on that phone is a minefield
The things you can do with the phone are already more dangerous and hazardous than say, manually approved, developer-mode sideloading.
Following this logic, why is the phone even allowed to get phone calls from non-Apple approved numbers?, or mail from non-Apple approved email addresses?
Like at what point does this logic actually stop, because for someone who somehow manages to install malware after having to tap on some arcane menu seven times in a row every service on that phone is a minefield
Chromebooks also seem to fill this need fairly well—I know a lot of people in your situation choose them for family members. This appears to work despite the fact that you can unlock a Chromebook's bootloader and do whatever you like.
Presumably because app developers might choose not to go through the curated App Store route and in turn, cut corners or do shady things just because they can. Imagine if Tik Tok was only available to side load -- they'll scrape whatever they want/can and teens aren't going to risk FOMOing for that alone.
I don't think that would happen. You can sideload into Android but as far as I know no one sideloads Tik Tok, you just get it through the store. I'm not saying it can't happen, but I just don't see it as a reason for not owning a device that allows sideloading (unless you mean that one could oppose sideloading in principle and boycott devices that allow it?)
Well yeah, there's no current reason to sideload it because it's available on the store. But imagine they wanted to do something that Google wouldn't allow -- now they can do that thing and offer the app for sideloading only.
If the US ban reasons are valid and Google is forced to remove it from the store for those reasons, then sideloading TikTok would be this exact situation I'm describing.
--
Let me restate it like this. Company A wants access to iOS app market. Their app does X, Y, and Z. Z is frowned upon but X and Y are pretty valuable. In a world with no rules (i.e. sideloading), they'll do X, Y, and Z and consumers will have to put up with Z. In a world with rules (i.e. App Store), they will have to omit Z even though it's good for business because that's the only way they can do business in X and Y.
If the US ban reasons are valid and Google is forced to remove it from the store for those reasons, then sideloading TikTok would be this exact situation I'm describing.
--
Let me restate it like this. Company A wants access to iOS app market. Their app does X, Y, and Z. Z is frowned upon but X and Y are pretty valuable. In a world with no rules (i.e. sideloading), they'll do X, Y, and Z and consumers will have to put up with Z. In a world with rules (i.e. App Store), they will have to omit Z even though it's good for business because that's the only way they can do business in X and Y.
TikTok already scrapes whatever they want. How does Apple’s review process help?
Also, sideloading doesn’t necessarily mean there’s no access controls or permissions on iOS any more. Though Apple might have to step up security and fixore bugs.
Also, sideloading doesn’t necessarily mean there’s no access controls or permissions on iOS any more. Though Apple might have to step up security and fixore bugs.
Because having that options undermines the trust model of the device I am using and more importantly of the devices of others I communicate with.
And yes I do have different policies for sharing info with people on Android vs iPhones.
And yes I do have different policies for sharing info with people on Android vs iPhones.
They can, if they exploit an iOS vulnerability, as has been done many times in the past. Is this so different from using vulnerabilities to bypass a permission prompt?
Yes because on Android it’s much easier and also requires much less complicated/expensive exploits abuse including leveraging the users themselves.
[deleted]
Sorry but I'm not sure you understand how sideloading works on Android. You have to enable it explicitly for any app you want to sideload from (eg. your browser for a downloaded app, or an alternative app store like F-Droid). Afterwards, every app installation still needs to be manually approved and thus cannot be done hidden in the background. Seems pretty safe to me while still allowing more freedom to power users.
> You have to enable it explicitly for any app you want to sideload from
Problem is e.g. Facebook will immediately require side loading so they can install all manner of spyware that wouldn’t make it through the App Store’s vetting process.
Problem is e.g. Facebook will immediately require side loading so they can install all manner of spyware that wouldn’t make it through the App Store’s vetting process.
No they won't. Facebook is in the Play Store on Android, and they used the Windows 10 Store up until they abandoned their desktop client. They want the largest user-base possible, which means they want finding and installing their app to be as frictionless as possible.
Here’s a link to the Onavo app from Facebook
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onavo#Privacy_concerns
No mention of sideloading in that link, instead it mentions a Play Store and an App Store listing. It's almost as if there is a lot of dangerous crap in those stores as well...
Expand the “Facebook research” section.
I have conflicted feelings about "Facebook Research", but where I always end up is this: if citizens of a free society want to give away their data in exchange for a couple extra dollars a month, they should have that ability in a free society. People can and should be educated of the risks so they can make informed decisions, but trying to stop it is ultimately a fruitless errand (Even as Facebook is a pile a scum, don't misunderstand me.)
And it's all somewhat beside the point, isn't it? Facebook Research was usable on iOS. By the time Apple put an end to it, the backlash had become so significant that Facebook pulled the program from Android anyway.
And it's all somewhat beside the point, isn't it? Facebook Research was usable on iOS. By the time Apple put an end to it, the backlash had become so significant that Facebook pulled the program from Android anyway.
The real problem I think is that it is extremely hard to get users to understand what exactly they are signing up for when they do that…
This assumes that side-loaded applications have less restrictions than store apps. The same sandbox restrictions and permission prompts could be applied to a side-loaded app as a store app.
I have android devices too I know that all you need to do is tick a box, and there are apps on the Google Play Store that literally direct you to do that. Not to mention once that is a possibility the system is less secure, you btw can also side load apps without that tick box if you know what you are doing especially if developer options have been enabled.
...and then a ton of apps decide "screw the app store, I'm going solo!" and people start enabling sideloading so they can try those apps, then sideloading becomes normalized and malware starts to spread without Apple having the ability to prevent it. Users who have issues with apps start hitting up Apple's support lines, and they start getting pissed off when Apple says "Sorry we can't help you, go talk to the developer. Not that we know who they are, and maybe you actually don't either, but either way you're on your own."
Plus, developers lose access to a lot of Apple's functionality, like the fact that XCode can upload LLVM bytecode so that Apple can re-optimize through new or updated LLVM backends to deliver optimized versions for new platforms, etc.
Suddenly, all the goodness that's "baked in" to the iPhone experience is gone, and the whole system starts looking like an inconsistent mess compared to the way it was before.
I wonder if some kind of hybrid approach would work; for example, a workflow like this:
1. Developers develop locally as usual 2. Developers upload to Apple via XCode as usual 3. Apple does its standard automated checks (private APIs, etc) 4. The developer can file for that app to be held "off the store"; this is rejected by Apple for some reasons (like private API usage, malware, etc.) but generally approved. Apps which do this likely lose access to some system APIs (e.g. iCloud storage, IAP) but it's a tradeoff. 5. The developer can now get an App Store link which they can give to users to find their app on the store. This is the only way to find the app; it doesn't appear in lists, search, "top paid", features, or anything of the sort. 6. Users get an app that isn't (overtly) malicious and won't definitely break in future OS updates, developers get the infrastructure benefits and automatic updates, Apple can wash their hands of any downstream issues because they know for certain that the user arrived via the developer and can make that clear to the user ("if you have problems, go talk to them. If they're misbehaving, come talk to us.")
This would make the value proposition for most developers pretty clear, but for huge entities like Epic or Microsoft, they can just bypass the system because people can come to them directly.
Plus, developers lose access to a lot of Apple's functionality, like the fact that XCode can upload LLVM bytecode so that Apple can re-optimize through new or updated LLVM backends to deliver optimized versions for new platforms, etc.
Suddenly, all the goodness that's "baked in" to the iPhone experience is gone, and the whole system starts looking like an inconsistent mess compared to the way it was before.
I wonder if some kind of hybrid approach would work; for example, a workflow like this:
1. Developers develop locally as usual 2. Developers upload to Apple via XCode as usual 3. Apple does its standard automated checks (private APIs, etc) 4. The developer can file for that app to be held "off the store"; this is rejected by Apple for some reasons (like private API usage, malware, etc.) but generally approved. Apps which do this likely lose access to some system APIs (e.g. iCloud storage, IAP) but it's a tradeoff. 5. The developer can now get an App Store link which they can give to users to find their app on the store. This is the only way to find the app; it doesn't appear in lists, search, "top paid", features, or anything of the sort. 6. Users get an app that isn't (overtly) malicious and won't definitely break in future OS updates, developers get the infrastructure benefits and automatic updates, Apple can wash their hands of any downstream issues because they know for certain that the user arrived via the developer and can make that clear to the user ("if you have problems, go talk to them. If they're misbehaving, come talk to us.")
This would make the value proposition for most developers pretty clear, but for huge entities like Epic or Microsoft, they can just bypass the system because people can come to them directly.
I mean, that hasn’t been a terrible problem on macOS. Require doing a csrutil style procedure to disable code signing requirements, and that’d be enough to scare off 99 percent of people. By default, only allow App Store and Apple registered developers (or even just the App Store).
Is what you're describing common on Android though? Among the Android users I know, nobody seems to ever have installed an app outside of Google Play, and in my case there are only a handful of apps that I have installed outside of Google Play or F-Droid, and they are alpha quality FOSS apps that were only distributed from GitHub.
It's not clear to me that what you're describing is actually a problem that happens.
It's not clear to me that what you're describing is actually a problem that happens.
This isn't a problem on Android, at least from what I can see. IMO at the small scale the benefits of the play store (payment processing, discoverability, bandwidth, hosting) outweigh anything you could gain by offering your apk for direct download somewhere else.
Plus, even if you try to deploy malware you still need to get through the regular permission dialogs and other bits of Android security. I have no idea how easy/hard this is but I would be surprised if iOS performs substantially worse here.
Plus, even if you try to deploy malware you still need to get through the regular permission dialogs and other bits of Android security. I have no idea how easy/hard this is but I would be surprised if iOS performs substantially worse here.
You have situations where Samsung Store had a free subscription to the app Lifesum whilst the Play Store you have to pay.
In fact some of the apps could only be found on Samsung Store and it’s bundled in and from my recollection couldn’t be removed easily.
Some apps would even demand your contacts to start on Android to send to China, but on iOS wouldn’t because it’s a breach of the ToS to completely stop working with partial permissions.
Then you have the latest Android which crashes the sideloaded apps that ask for permission: https://bgr.com/2020/06/04/android-11-beta-sideloading-apps-...
I’m happy that the major mobile os is all about choice, but Apple shouldn’t follow in Googles fragmented, “let the user shoot themselves in the foot”-ways.
Would Apple become the most popular mobile os I’d hope they gave more freedom and fragmented the system but until then it’s the garden of eve that I feel comfortable with. I’m happy software companies for once gets some demands that cannot be rounded instead of this wild wild west.
In fact some of the apps could only be found on Samsung Store and it’s bundled in and from my recollection couldn’t be removed easily.
Some apps would even demand your contacts to start on Android to send to China, but on iOS wouldn’t because it’s a breach of the ToS to completely stop working with partial permissions.
Then you have the latest Android which crashes the sideloaded apps that ask for permission: https://bgr.com/2020/06/04/android-11-beta-sideloading-apps-...
I’m happy that the major mobile os is all about choice, but Apple shouldn’t follow in Googles fragmented, “let the user shoot themselves in the foot”-ways.
Would Apple become the most popular mobile os I’d hope they gave more freedom and fragmented the system but until then it’s the garden of eve that I feel comfortable with. I’m happy software companies for once gets some demands that cannot be rounded instead of this wild wild west.
> then sideloading becomes normalized
that is what I dearly hope for!
that is what I dearly hope for!
[deleted]
>I want an ecosystem that works and I can rely on
I've been on the Internet a long time and can't say that closed stores have led to any kind of quality of experience improvement for me. the apple store is full of misleading, garbage apps trying to exploit people.
I've been on the Internet a long time and can't say that closed stores have led to any kind of quality of experience improvement for me. the apple store is full of misleading, garbage apps trying to exploit people.
Wha? There are ways around this. Apple could just build sanctioned support for specific payment gateways (e.g Stripe/Adyen) and subject them to rules as a part of the app review process in the same way they are now. It doesn't need to be binary; it's just that they want to paint the picture as if it'll be a wild west of payments if they have to change that, even though they have the power to build safer alternatives.
That’d be an improvement over a monopoly, but still an oligopoly.
That presumes a small number of options. They could just support a large number of processors and we're all good.
If your kids tried to pay through an alternative payment system, they would have to enter their credit card info.
> I'm thinking of the dodgier companies. Right now I have little to worry about when I leave my kid playing a game, all the payment need to go through Apple or at least the offending app will not stay up for too long.
Nothing stops dodgier companies to ask your kid a credit card number.
If you trust an app and it charges you in a dodgy way, you can claim that charge with your credit company.
On-line transactions work in computers, it is not different in a phone. Phones are just computers nowadays.
A tech company that is your bank, your ID, your messaging system, your location system,... is 1984 level of scary.
Nothing stops dodgier companies to ask your kid a credit card number.
If you trust an app and it charges you in a dodgy way, you can claim that charge with your credit company.
On-line transactions work in computers, it is not different in a phone. Phones are just computers nowadays.
A tech company that is your bank, your ID, your messaging system, your location system,... is 1984 level of scary.
The App Store review process stops it.
To dispute charges that were indeed made by a member of your household, you usually have to file a police report against them.
The method of paying for things online by shared secret numbers is insane. Phones permit much more reasonable payments architectures, since they can sign transactions with their TPMs instead of spraying your credit card number everywhere. We should see phones replace credit card entry even for transactions started on desktops.
To dispute charges that were indeed made by a member of your household, you usually have to file a police report against them.
The method of paying for things online by shared secret numbers is insane. Phones permit much more reasonable payments architectures, since they can sign transactions with their TPMs instead of spraying your credit card number everywhere. We should see phones replace credit card entry even for transactions started on desktops.
> We should see phones replace credit card entry even for transactions started on desktops.
The two banks I use already have this, as many other banks. I already have to trust my bank, they literally have my money. I pay my taxes and sign them thru my bank, I do transfers, I pay subscriptions, etc. everything with my bank signature.
Apple is what is stopping more apps to use my bank signature to pay directly thru it. Apple is stopping more secure banking to able to take a piece of the cake.
> The App Store review process stops it.
No, that is not how apple review process works. Many content is server-side. Pop-ups are send from the server to your game/app. Games and app have browsers that can render anything and communicate anywhere.
The App review process may catch some obvious things, but it cannot know what an app connected to the internet is going to do.
Even malware, that should be way easier to detect and stop , way easier than to stop a pop-up asking for your credit card, pass thru their system: https://www.wandera.com/ios-trojan-malware/
The two banks I use already have this, as many other banks. I already have to trust my bank, they literally have my money. I pay my taxes and sign them thru my bank, I do transfers, I pay subscriptions, etc. everything with my bank signature.
Apple is what is stopping more apps to use my bank signature to pay directly thru it. Apple is stopping more secure banking to able to take a piece of the cake.
> The App Store review process stops it.
No, that is not how apple review process works. Many content is server-side. Pop-ups are send from the server to your game/app. Games and app have browsers that can render anything and communicate anywhere.
The App review process may catch some obvious things, but it cannot know what an app connected to the internet is going to do.
Even malware, that should be way easier to detect and stop , way easier than to stop a pop-up asking for your credit card, pass thru their system: https://www.wandera.com/ios-trojan-malware/
> Even malware, that should be way easier to detect and stop , way easier than to stop a pop-up asking for your credit card, pass thru their system
Ah yes, one of the scarier trojans to hit your phone: click-jacking for ad fraud.
> The apps communicate with a known command and control (C&C) server to simulate user interactions in order to fraudulently collect ad revenue.
I'd download this malware any day over the actually-malicious Android malware that's out there: https://forensics.spreitzenbarth.de/android-malware/
Ah yes, one of the scarier trojans to hit your phone: click-jacking for ad fraud.
> The apps communicate with a known command and control (C&C) server to simulate user interactions in order to fraudulently collect ad revenue.
I'd download this malware any day over the actually-malicious Android malware that's out there: https://forensics.spreitzenbarth.de/android-malware/
Cool. That doesn't in any way counter the arguments you replied to regarding asking kids for credit card info.
Amazon has already stepped over the line a little bit with their Audible app. Months ago they made it possible to redeem your credits in-app instead of prompting you to use a web browser to do that.
no offense but your child rearing worries shouldn’t force some rule on every consenting adult. maybe watch them or control what they do or apple can build a child mode.
but it’s not an excuse to limit our freedoms
but it’s not an excuse to limit our freedoms
Those who would give up freedom over safety something something..
Should every Apple user have to be tied down to Apple Store because kids and grannies can be dummies when downloading apps? Surely it should be easy to put parental controls and block all the dodgy apps and so forth. So things can stay the same for those who wish to remain in the App Store while having the ability to exercise your personal freedom to decide which apps you want to install on a device you own and paid good money for.
Should every Apple user have to be tied down to Apple Store because kids and grannies can be dummies when downloading apps? Surely it should be easy to put parental controls and block all the dodgy apps and so forth. So things can stay the same for those who wish to remain in the App Store while having the ability to exercise your personal freedom to decide which apps you want to install on a device you own and paid good money for.
I bet that Epic execs also talked behind the scene with other execs in the industry to garner support in case Apple cracks down hard on Epic and removes Fortnite from the app store. If more studios/developers join the cause, they can definitely apply big pressure on Apple.
Fortnite is popular enough to count as "big pressure" all on its own. I couldn't find recent numbers, but as of 2018 they had over 100M installs and were doing over $1M/day in revenue[0] and by early 2019 they'd already done more than half a billion[1].
[0]: https://venturebeat.com/2018/07/30/fortnite-clears-100-milli...
[1]: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-02-08-fortnite-i...
[0]: https://venturebeat.com/2018/07/30/fortnite-clears-100-milli...
[1]: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-02-08-fortnite-i...
Weird, I thought Fortnite was free to play. What could people possibly be spending money on?
Edit: Also I thought Fortnite was a FPS. How can you play that on iOS?
Edit: Also I thought Fortnite was a FPS. How can you play that on iOS?
They pioneered the "battle pass" model for cosmetic items, and their constant release of skins, dances, etc can create a lot of recurring revenue I imagine.
Weird, on the one hand I'm thankful to hear it's not "pay to win" stuff, but on the other, wow that's a lot of skins and dances!
Edit: Insert joke about Quantitative Easing here
Edit: Insert joke about Quantitative Easing here
Yup, I think they definitely found the sweet spot for making revenue from games — offering players sweet returns if they keep playing (you buy the battle pass for 1000 vbucks, but you can earn back 1500 just from playing casually) while still keeping it relatively competitive and not "pay to win". They did host a $30 million world cup event after all :)
Many mobile games are built on unreal. They could make this an option for developers to simply 'turn on' in their mobile games built on their engine.
If Apple removes Fortnite from the app store, it'll become a class action lawsuit in my opinion. Kids have spent hundreds, maybe thousands, of dollars on vbucks on their phones. If you just take that away..... you owe some people some money.
I don't play Fornite. Can you access your same character/account on other platforms? (can you switch to PC or PS4)?
If it’s deleted from the App Store it will still be on their phones.
Either way I don’t think there’s a legal precedent for a class action
Either way I don’t think there’s a legal precedent for a class action
> If it’s deleted from the App Store it will still be on their phones.
But you won’t be able to update any more (unless that is via side-channel? I don’t know how mobile games work), which, for a multiplayer game, is as good as deleting it.
But you won’t be able to update any more (unless that is via side-channel? I don’t know how mobile games work), which, for a multiplayer game, is as good as deleting it.
As a user, I'm torn. I want to see enough pressure put on Apple that their app store cut is reduced, and ideally (though somewhat unrelated to this) the store experience for users improves.
But I definitely don't want to see more stores or payment methods for digital goods on my i-devices.
But I definitely don't want to see more stores or payment methods for digital goods on my i-devices.
In my opinion, more competition is better for the consumer, even if these is a slight hit to convenience. That's simply the nature of more choices -- the freedom to choose results in the burden of choosing.
But obviously I cannot make a blanket statement on all consumers since many of them do value a small increase in convenience very highly.
But obviously I cannot make a blanket statement on all consumers since many of them do value a small increase in convenience very highly.
I have no problems paying through a wide variety of payment processors on the web: Shopify, Stripe, PayPal, Braintree, Amazon, whatever.
What’s the concern? All cards are zero liability, and you should be checking your statements anyway due to fraud risks.
What’s the concern? All cards are zero liability, and you should be checking your statements anyway due to fraud risks.
It's nice to have one part of my life where I don't have to figure out who to ask for a refund if things go sideways, wonder how much of a hassle that'll be, and don't even have to think about whether a transaction is reasonably safe. Do I want that to be my entire life? No. But I'm very, very happy not to have to wade through a shady bazaar to pay for commercial software on my phone and tablet. I've got enough stress navigating private bureaucracy in the entire rest of my life. Having one that's very simple is nice. I don't want it to get less simple.
You can have competition or you can have simple, you can't have both.
I benefit from competition between app providers in a variety of ways on the App Store, just not competition on payment methods. That competition is provided by Android—if that weren't around, and thriving, I'd worry a lot more about Apple's mandating a payment method on iOS. As it is, as a user, it's pretty much purely a benefit to me.
It's not. That only applies to the US & Canada. In a lot of other countries it can be extremely difficult to impossible to do something in case of credit card fraud.
Besides that, entering card info is a chore. Same as I don't want to signup for every app (which is solved by apple login mostly), I don't want to enter payment info for every app (and update it whenever the card expires lol).
Besides that, entering card info is a chore. Same as I don't want to signup for every app (which is solved by apple login mostly), I don't want to enter payment info for every app (and update it whenever the card expires lol).
Why would an additional option be a bad thing? I assume all the apps would move to something similar to what epic is doing: offer apple pay _in addition_ to another option. What is the downside to that other than pressure on apple to reduce their cut to be more competitive?
>I definitely don't want to see more stores or payment methods for digital goods on my i-devices.
Why don't you not use it or go elsewhere then? Everyone who uses iPhone to play games just got told to switch to Android. It's easy to switch!
Why don't you not use it or go elsewhere then? Everyone who uses iPhone to play games just got told to switch to Android. It's easy to switch!
I agree with most of your statement, but I have a question about this bit
> After all, Epic is not taking anything off the top here;
Apple and Google take 30% and they are giving a 20% discount if you pay directly, so isn't there a 10% difference that they would be taking "off the top"?
Or am I missing something?
> After all, Epic is not taking anything off the top here;
Apple and Google take 30% and they are giving a 20% discount if you pay directly, so isn't there a 10% difference that they would be taking "off the top"?
Or am I missing something?
That 30% includes payment processing. Taking into account the probably relatively high chargeback rate (I'm thinking of kids using their parents' card), that might make up for 5% or more. So they may be taking a little off the top, but not a ludicrous amount.
I think it would be a rough percentage that covers credit card fees in most circumstances. Perhaps they are making some small percentage but it's probably closer to 5%?
The percentages aren't quite additive like that. Say Epic gets $1 per sale, and the consumer pays $1.3 with the 30% Apple cut. A discount of ~23% (1/1.3) gets the sale price back down to $1. Include chargebacks and such for the missing ~2%.
It is already gone from the store.
Woah - so it is!
I'm glad Epic are giving this issue so much publicity - I think consumers seeing the pricing effects of the 30% App Store/Play Store cut is the only way to get people to care about this stuff.
I'm glad Epic are giving this issue so much publicity - I think consumers seeing the pricing effects of the 30% App Store/Play Store cut is the only way to get people to care about this stuff.
I on the other hand think that Epic and others have no reason to complain, if they had to give the slices that Vodafone, O2, and many other European operator managed stores used to ask for j2ME, Symbian and ringtones, then yes they would have such reason.
>If they keep Fortnite on the App Store, they're going to need to make a rule change to allow alternative payment methods within apps.
That is already allowed. It's a common misconception.
That is already allowed. It's a common misconception.
No, alternate payment methods are not allowed for selling digital goods.
This is only true for physical goods. Digital goods that will affect the app must go through in-app purchases.
It is? For digital purchases?
Amazon has a special exception for Prime video[0].
[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-vide...
[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-vide...
Right, and Epic doesn't. I think this hurts Apple's case if anything, because it means App Store rules do not apply equally!
It was an exception granted to streaming video apps starting back in 2016. Amazon Prime is just the newest entry.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203630/apple-amazon-prim...
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203630/apple-amazon-prim...
My guess is that this is a gambit to force Apple’s hand during a time when there is the most intense antitrust pressure over the App Store since it’s launch.
If Apple cracks down then it’s just more fuel for the antitrust fire, and potentially evidence in court. If they allow it then it’s precedent that others can use to employ the same tactic. Either way it seems to me Epic is taking a calculated risk to induce change.
Exactly my take on it as well. Very interested to see what happens.
Also, the legal standard in the US is laser-focused on whether consumer prices have gone up as a result of a company's practices.
What better demonstration could Epic possibly create of how the App Store leads to price increases?
What better demonstration could Epic possibly create of how the App Store leads to price increases?
Except that Epic is using the cheaper prices on consoles, where the platform owner is taking a 30% cut. Clearly Epic's pricing isn't actually driven by the app store costs on mobile platforms.
Epic doesn't pay Sony and MS 30% for console purchases, as both companies negotiate arrangements with big studios that lowers the rate.
Still, it does create a bit of a contradiction. We don't know what Sony and Microsoft charge, but we can reasonably assume it isn't zero, and it's also probably more than whatever Epic pays for their internal payment processing.
Epic could still turn around and say "well, the price would be even lower if not for Sony and Microsoft," but I'm not sure how much they want to piss off the console manufacturers, who—all things considered—probably have more power as far as Epic is concerned.
The other elephant in the room, IMO, is that V-Bucks don't actually cost Epic anything. They're just bits, and Epic could set the price to whatever they want without much consequence.
More than anything else, I see Epic's stunt as a wake-up call. It doesn't quite stand up under scrutiny—but, once you've scrutinized the situation, you can also find better demonstrations of the problem, such as Spotify.
Epic could still turn around and say "well, the price would be even lower if not for Sony and Microsoft," but I'm not sure how much they want to piss off the console manufacturers, who—all things considered—probably have more power as far as Epic is concerned.
The other elephant in the room, IMO, is that V-Bucks don't actually cost Epic anything. They're just bits, and Epic could set the price to whatever they want without much consequence.
More than anything else, I see Epic's stunt as a wake-up call. It doesn't quite stand up under scrutiny—but, once you've scrutinized the situation, you can also find better demonstrations of the problem, such as Spotify.
AFAIK Sweeney isn’t against stores taking a cut he just sees the 30% as egregious.
V-Bucks whilst costing nothing to create are exchanged for things that did cost money to create and as a means to fund the existence of the game itself.
V-Bucks whilst costing nothing to create are exchanged for things that did cost money to create and as a means to fund the existence of the game itself.
> V-Bucks whilst costing nothing to create are exchanged for things that did cost money to create and as a means to fund the existence of the game itself.
Right, but the only scarcity of the "good" is that which Epic creates. If more people have V-Bucks, then current skins are less exclusive and become less valuable. I don't think the cost of V-Bucks has an impact on consumer buying power, except in the most pedantic sense.
I don't mean to imply that The Emperor Has No Clothes; the less revenue Epic gives to Apple, the more revenue Epic has to improve Fortnite for their customers. Rather, I think this all speaks to the paucity of the US's current antitrust standard. As long as Facebook is "free", they can be as anti-competitive as they like, and prices will not increase. But consumers pay in other ways—with their data, with their eyeballs, and by missing out on products that never had the chance to exist.
Right, but the only scarcity of the "good" is that which Epic creates. If more people have V-Bucks, then current skins are less exclusive and become less valuable. I don't think the cost of V-Bucks has an impact on consumer buying power, except in the most pedantic sense.
I don't mean to imply that The Emperor Has No Clothes; the less revenue Epic gives to Apple, the more revenue Epic has to improve Fortnite for their customers. Rather, I think this all speaks to the paucity of the US's current antitrust standard. As long as Facebook is "free", they can be as anti-competitive as they like, and prices will not increase. But consumers pay in other ways—with their data, with their eyeballs, and by missing out on products that never had the chance to exist.
Epic are not Costco and the amount they charge for items is not simply designed to repay what it costs to create the items and the game - in fact by all accounts they're raking it in. I'd be very surprised if they hadn't carefully tried to optimize their pricing based on what they expected to give the most revenue, which of course would lead to a pricing model very much like the one they actually had prior to this PR stunt where the pricing is independent of whether Google or Apple or Sony are taking a cut, and the amount taken by the platform only affects how much of that price Epic get to keep.
> The other elephant in the room, IMO, is that V-Bucks don't actually cost Epic anything. They're just bits, and Epic could set the price to whatever they want without much consequence.
Can't you argue this about any software? A copy of an expensive, downloadable software is always "just bits", and the marginal cost of selling one more copy is ridiculously low, but that doesn't mean the software itself is free. In order to sell those V-Bucks, Epic had to spend millions in order to develop, market, run and support a game that people actually want to play.
Can't you argue this about any software? A copy of an expensive, downloadable software is always "just bits", and the marginal cost of selling one more copy is ridiculously low, but that doesn't mean the software itself is free. In order to sell those V-Bucks, Epic had to spend millions in order to develop, market, run and support a game that people actually want to play.
[deleted]
In the US we have such a lame standard of anti-trust.
For example, you could have two businesses with 100% market share in an industry, and have a contract between the two stating "we will not provide benefits, or salaries exceeding $X, to employees in this sector" and you have zero anti-trust issues because it doesn't increase consumer prices.
Abysmal.
For example, you could have two businesses with 100% market share in an industry, and have a contract between the two stating "we will not provide benefits, or salaries exceeding $X, to employees in this sector" and you have zero anti-trust issues because it doesn't increase consumer prices.
Abysmal.
Really? I think what happens in practice is a bit more nuanced and includes wage fixing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
I love it when big companies play abstract strategic games with each other like this. Competition at its finest.
Tim Sweeney is really interesting. He coded Unreal Engine 1 and is controlling shareholder of Epic. He gave a speech[0] January at a game conference arguing against the App/Play store 30% mark. I think he has internalized Ben Thompson's FAANG strategy concepts and created the best denunciation of the mindset, in this speech attacking the concept of "owning the customer." He joins Shopify in trying to create platforms in the Gates sense where most of the money goes to consumer and 3rd party. And a lot of his actions, in the short term, are against Epic's financial interests, commodifying and cannibalizing their own dominant market position for the sake of growing game industry TAM and a vision of future interoperability[1].
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJFO2k1-tyg
[1] https://www.matthewball.vc/all/epicprimer1
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJFO2k1-tyg
[1] https://www.matthewball.vc/all/epicprimer1
He also made ZZT!
As far as 'getting into programming' goes, Sweeney is probably second only to Anders Heljsberg. Where the latter got me into 'proper' programming, until well into my late teens I was more interested in level editing and modding and whatnot.
In the same way that it was amazing to find out that the same guy was behind Turbo Pascal, Delphi and Typescript, it was amazing to discover that ZZT and UnrealED, years apart, were also just one guy. I spent so much time with these tools!
As far as 'getting into programming' goes, Sweeney is probably second only to Anders Heljsberg. Where the latter got me into 'proper' programming, until well into my late teens I was more interested in level editing and modding and whatnot.
In the same way that it was amazing to find out that the same guy was behind Turbo Pascal, Delphi and Typescript, it was amazing to discover that ZZT and UnrealED, years apart, were also just one guy. I spent so much time with these tools!
Apple has to move against Epic here. If they are acting fairly with all developers (which was one of the questions to Tim Cook), then letting this be would be showing favoritism towards Epic.
Or...make a sudden update to their TOS
Or...make a sudden update to their TOS
If they take Fortnite down though, it's an open and shut antitrust case: Because even our broken antitrust law in the US understands consumers getting higher prices because of monopolies. This is why Epic is so loudly showcasing the price savings of bypassing Apple.
If Apple takes down Fortnite here, the DOJ takes down the App Store.
If Apple takes down Fortnite here, the DOJ takes down the App Store.
I think Apple's argument would be it's industry standard. Steam, Apple, Google all do this. Even the Epic store takes a cut, although much lower, but that's a case in Apple's favor (market competition).
Apple has, in fact, used that argument. However, it also defeated that argument in the hearing: It set the "standard" to begin with, everyone is following them. The entire point of competition is so that other players can choose to come in at a lower price, which is good for consumers.
And if Apple prevents Epic from selling direct with a much lower processing fee (note the 20% price cut is similar to the 30%/12% difference between their store fees), Apple is directly preventing competition that would lower prices for consumers.
And if Apple prevents Epic from selling direct with a much lower processing fee (note the 20% price cut is similar to the 30%/12% difference between their store fees), Apple is directly preventing competition that would lower prices for consumers.
How in the world is Apple preventing Epic from doing anything besides not following the rules of the App Store? If Epic wants to sell at a lower price they are free to do so in their own app store. Apple does not have to allow anyone on their platform. They built it, they own it, and they have the right to set it's rules. If Apple was the only mobile phone OS available then sure there is a case but iOS isn't even the most popular OS.
Actually, Apple doesn't have the right to set it's rules and decide who can and can't be on their platform. Monopolies lose that, and Tim Cook was grilled on this exact topic by the House Antitrust Committee just days ago.
Which is to say, even if the current laws allow Apple to act here, if it does, the next laws might prohibit it from doing so.
Which is to say, even if the current laws allow Apple to act here, if it does, the next laws might prohibit it from doing so.
It's not a monopoly, there is NO definition that fits for Apple being a monopoly. DOn't like Apple buy an Android. Android is more popular and has the same rules. Game Developer? Don't like Apple's rules develop for Android or Switch or PS4 or the Web or PC etc.... Apple sells a platform and it's successful but it's absolutely not the only platform around or even the biggest except in sales. Tim Cook wasn't grilled in good faith, he was grilled for political gain.
> It's not a monopoly, there is NO definition that fits for Apple being a monopoly.
Sure there is. It has a monopoly over apps that consumers install on apple phones.
That is a huge market, and one that apple has monopoly control over.
Sure there is. It has a monopoly over apps that consumers install on apple phones.
That is a huge market, and one that apple has monopoly control over.
It's not antitrust or a monopoly. I can play fortnite on a metric shit-ton of devices. Apple isn't blocking them from a market, it isn't price fixing. When you develop for Apple you sign an agreement to pay for the service the App Store provides. You might not like the price but using a bad reading of the law to get your way is bad for everyone.
Just because there is an agreement does not mean that agreement is fair or even legal. Epic is big enough to handle an "epic" lawsuit here and force the issue. And the game is popular enough that it not being available on iOS devices is a hit to the platform. This one will be interesting.
My money is on Apple cracking down hard on this. It looks clearly as if Epic remotely activated this direct payment option, thereby bypassing Apple's App Review.
Apple will not take kindly to this. Best case scenario for Epic (and Fortnite players): they invite Sweeney in for some hard negotiations. Worst case: Fortnite ends up getting removed from iOS for this.
Apple will not take kindly to this. Best case scenario for Epic (and Fortnite players): they invite Sweeney in for some hard negotiations. Worst case: Fortnite ends up getting removed from iOS for this.
I am absolutely sure this is a play to give their lawyers more ammo to claim monopolistic practices in the App Store. They want to get shut down.
It’s possible Epic are baiting the app stores, betting that the current anti-trust questions around Apple and Google support a change. Either Apple and Google capitulate to this move by Epic, and Epic wins. Or Google and/or Apple come after Epic, creating a public scene that emphasizes their monopoly-like behavior, and failed lawsuits or government action mean a win for Epic. The third option—the big guys come after Epic, Epic enjoys no support and simply lose—is relatively unlikely right now. So perhaps Epic is forcing the issue, seeing an opportunity for their own gain in the midst of societal gain.
Edit: It seems like Play Store has a category restriction on Games without exceptions.
Google doesn't force payments to go through its channels based on some conditions. A lot of app developers including Apple makes use of this.
So it might just survive on Play Store.
Google doesn't force payments to go through its channels based on some conditions. A lot of app developers including Apple makes use of this.
So it might just survive on Play Store.
Games and most apps must use Play's in-app purchases as the payment method: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
Yes, but you can sideload on android and in fact that's just what Epic did with fortnite on android.
Google at the very least can point to that, Apple cannot.
Google at the very least can point to that, Apple cannot.
Ah, didn't know that. I thought they could make the argument of Fortnite being cross platform but it seems Game as a category is disallowed.
IIRC some games in Google Play supports to apply "item code" to get item, but same game in AppStore doesn't support.
Google at least can argue that if you don't like their rules, you're free to distribute the app yourself. Whether that will convince lawmakers who knows.
Which Epic has already done. They have their own Epic Store that instructs you on how to sideload the apps, etc. They got shit on for this by Google for doing a run around and by users for security implications.
That's exactly what happened as Epic has filed a lawsuit immediately after Apple banned them today.
> It looks clearly as if Epic remotely activated this direct payment option, thereby bypassing Apple's App Review.
Is that against Apple's store terms? Because that's a common feature of ReactNative based app, you can update them by deploying new JS files without having to pass by a new app store release.
Is that against Apple's store terms? Because that's a common feature of ReactNative based app, you can update them by deploying new JS files without having to pass by a new app store release.
> Is that against Apple's store terms? Because that's a common feature of ReactNative based app, you can update them by deploying new JS files without having to pass by the a new app store release.
I think the point of contention is not that people can add new content without a full app store review. Any app that can access the Internet can do that[see rant below]. The point of contention is whether a direct payment option violates Apple guidelines.
Personally, I think adding a payment option should not violate guidelines. What should violate guidelines is if they do NOT offer Apple pay at a rate at or below their lowest price elsewhere. Yes, Apple gets a cut of the proceeds if the user chooses to use Apple pay. No, it should not against the law as long as Apple allows the user to pay using alternate means within the app.
No, the app publisher (Epic) may not
1. NOT offer Apple Pay (sorry for double negative)
2. Discourage users from using Apple Pay (rewarding people for using other payment options by means such as offering lower prices elsewhere, exclusive content, etc)
3. Make it difficult to use Apple Pay (by increasing friction as opposed to other means within the app, I'm a bit torn on this one).
I think all of these points are fair. The only thing I think Apple should allow is let people add payment method other than Apple Pay.
[rant] Unrelated rant: No third-party app (not published by Apple) should have access to the Internet by default. An app should prompt the user for the ability to access the Internet.
I think the point of contention is not that people can add new content without a full app store review. Any app that can access the Internet can do that[see rant below]. The point of contention is whether a direct payment option violates Apple guidelines.
Personally, I think adding a payment option should not violate guidelines. What should violate guidelines is if they do NOT offer Apple pay at a rate at or below their lowest price elsewhere. Yes, Apple gets a cut of the proceeds if the user chooses to use Apple pay. No, it should not against the law as long as Apple allows the user to pay using alternate means within the app.
No, the app publisher (Epic) may not
1. NOT offer Apple Pay (sorry for double negative)
2. Discourage users from using Apple Pay (rewarding people for using other payment options by means such as offering lower prices elsewhere, exclusive content, etc)
3. Make it difficult to use Apple Pay (by increasing friction as opposed to other means within the app, I'm a bit torn on this one).
I think all of these points are fair. The only thing I think Apple should allow is let people add payment method other than Apple Pay.
[rant] Unrelated rant: No third-party app (not published by Apple) should have access to the Internet by default. An app should prompt the user for the ability to access the Internet.
Requiring companies to use Apple Pay elsewhere as a condition of being in the app store is literally a textbook case of antitrust.
I've never made any real money from my apps so I can't comment too much but something similar was discussed on ATP podcast fairly recently, I think this approach would go a really long way to solving 90% of iOS developers current frustrations with the appstore.
Yes, it's directly against the terms, but in practice it's not always enforceable. I deployed multiple apps to the App Store using RN and PhoneGap in the past. Some were rejected for basically using these web based technologies. So my experience is that if you're using web-based tech and left clues in the UX that gives away the fact that you might be loading some external code, the reviewer may catch it and reject.
Depends, this is allowed to some degree, buit if you change functionality you have to go trough the review process. Changing the payment method definitely should go trough the review process.
Yes its against terms, but in practice almost every app developer I've known has used some sort of dynamic code distribution, regardless of runtime.
More fuel on the fire for the anti-competitive narrative regardless what the outcome is.
It's probably just a webpage that is loaded.
Pull it is exactly what I would do. Apple gets a cut of the paid apps, but $0 from free apps who show ads. Take away getting a cut from the paid apps then free apps suddenly cost the developers money—no more free apps.
Imagine going to Walmart and telling them what you want them to give you all the revenue. Walmart will tell you exactly what they want to pay you, or you can leave.
Maybe 30% is too much, but 0% is a terrible idea.
In the old days before the web I had to pay up to 70% for distribution for my apps. If I was lucky I might get my cut 3-6 months later, plus I had to pay for the packaging and shipping to the warehouse and take it back if they didn't sell enough. 30% seems like a bargain.
Imagine going to Walmart and telling them what you want them to give you all the revenue. Walmart will tell you exactly what they want to pay you, or you can leave.
Maybe 30% is too much, but 0% is a terrible idea.
In the old days before the web I had to pay up to 70% for distribution for my apps. If I was lucky I might get my cut 3-6 months later, plus I had to pay for the packaging and shipping to the warehouse and take it back if they didn't sell enough. 30% seems like a bargain.
My god, Apple requiring a price for apps would be best thing that's happened to the mobile environment in AGES.
I'm a mobile game dev and I would sacrifice a child to go back to the days when people would pay 0.99 for a game.
I'm a mobile game dev and I would sacrifice a child to go back to the days when people would pay 0.99 for a game.
The current mobile F2P game market of about half a dozen distinct types of Skinner box, copied precisely and rethemed a zillion times, is quite grim. (Fortnite is an actual game, to be fair)
Apple really should shake up that market, though it's hard to say how a $0.99 minimum would work out in the end.
Apple really should shake up that market, though it's hard to say how a $0.99 minimum would work out in the end.
Surely all free games currently would just be $0.01?
On Apple, the minimum price for anything is $0.99.
You can't set arbitrary prices - only price bands.
You can't set arbitrary prices - only price bands.
Except that the apps help sell the phone. Just look at Apple's marketing since the App Store came out. Having an ecosystem of easily accessible free and paid apps is a huge driver in terms of the iPhone's popularity.
Your Walmart analogy would make more sense if Walmart sold tickets for admission. For example, Costco, a store that does in fact sell memberships, does buy and resell some products for no margin or even at a loss in order to cultivate a variety of goods to incentivize people to maintain a membership.
Your Walmart analogy would make more sense if Walmart sold tickets for admission. For example, Costco, a store that does in fact sell memberships, does buy and resell some products for no margin or even at a loss in order to cultivate a variety of goods to incentivize people to maintain a membership.
> In the old days before the web I had to pay up to 70% for distribution for my apps.
In the old days it cost your distributors much more to distribute those apps. Charging $1 for 99¢ of work is okay; charging $1 for 10¢ of work is not. With competition, this is rarely a problem, but no one can compete with the App Store—short of creating an entirely new OS and getting everyone to port their apps.
In the old days it cost your distributors much more to distribute those apps. Charging $1 for 99¢ of work is okay; charging $1 for 10¢ of work is not. With competition, this is rarely a problem, but no one can compete with the App Store—short of creating an entirely new OS and getting everyone to port their apps.
Exactly, in the days before the web.
The majority of software sold for computers isn't sold through the Microsoft store or Apple store, it's through other channels with much lower costs. Apple won't let you load apps onto the hardware you own unless they go through the App store and pay the Apple tax.
Developers (and users) shouldn't settle for "better than retail, even if it's worse than the open web".
The majority of software sold for computers isn't sold through the Microsoft store or Apple store, it's through other channels with much lower costs. Apple won't let you load apps onto the hardware you own unless they go through the App store and pay the Apple tax.
Developers (and users) shouldn't settle for "better than retail, even if it's worse than the open web".
Depends on how much value Apple (not anyone else) puts on having Fortnite on the App Store. They are infamous for disregarding what customers say; sometimes with great results, other times, with less success.
Apple decided, a long time ago, that their platform would not be a gaming platform. Even though they often show off games at WWDC, they aren't really there for much more than eye-candy, to get developers thinking about using the base tech for other purposes.
I would love to be able to play better games on my Mac. I have a few games on the iPad (none from Epic), and I really only play solitaire on my phone.
For all the scorn heaped on Mac as a "toy" computer, it's a terrible gaming platform. iOS, on the other hand, is supposed to be a big gaming platform, so Fortnite might be quite important, there.
Apple decided, a long time ago, that their platform would not be a gaming platform. Even though they often show off games at WWDC, they aren't really there for much more than eye-candy, to get developers thinking about using the base tech for other purposes.
I would love to be able to play better games on my Mac. I have a few games on the iPad (none from Epic), and I really only play solitaire on my phone.
For all the scorn heaped on Mac as a "toy" computer, it's a terrible gaming platform. iOS, on the other hand, is supposed to be a big gaming platform, so Fortnite might be quite important, there.
The problem is that the app store is an artificial market. It's entirely possible to load apps on a phone without an app store or any of the infrastructure it provides.
There is no reason our phones need to be so locked down today that they only allow apps to be easily installed via the app store.
Instead the app store should be able to stand on it's own and developers should be able to decide if the exposure gained by it is worth the cost.
There is no reason our phones need to be so locked down today that they only allow apps to be easily installed via the app store.
Instead the app store should be able to stand on it's own and developers should be able to decide if the exposure gained by it is worth the cost.
Digital goods have almost zero cost other than the payment processing, compared to manufacture, distribution, warehousing, retail space... This is apples and oranges. I can sell a SaaS license thru Stripe for 3%. A subscription through the App Store takes 30% every single month.
> My money is on Apple cracking down hard on this.
Of course, but that's beside the point. This is bait. Epic can point to it later as an example of how Apple's anti-competitive practices increase consumer prices. The worst-case scenario for Epic is that Fortnite gets removed from the App Store for a few days.
...well, I guess the worst worst-case scenario for Epic is that Fortnite gets banned permanently, but I don't see Apple doing that.
Of course, but that's beside the point. This is bait. Epic can point to it later as an example of how Apple's anti-competitive practices increase consumer prices. The worst-case scenario for Epic is that Fortnite gets removed from the App Store for a few days.
...well, I guess the worst worst-case scenario for Epic is that Fortnite gets banned permanently, but I don't see Apple doing that.
>Does a new payment method on mobile mean purchases there are less safe?
>No. Thousands of apps on the App Store approved by Apple accept direct payments, including commonly used apps like Amazon, Grubhub, Nike SNKRS, Best Buy, DoorDash, Fandango, McDonalds, Uber, Lyft, and StubHub. We think all developers should be free to support direct payments in all apps. [0]
All of these services provide something physical. You can't buy Kindle Books, for example, on Amazon's app on iOS. This a bit disingenuous.
>We think all developers should be free to support direct payments in all apps.
Does this mean Epic will start allowing users of the Epic Games Store on PC to directly pay game developers and bypass the EGS cut?
[0] https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/fortnite-mega-drop-faq
>No. Thousands of apps on the App Store approved by Apple accept direct payments, including commonly used apps like Amazon, Grubhub, Nike SNKRS, Best Buy, DoorDash, Fandango, McDonalds, Uber, Lyft, and StubHub. We think all developers should be free to support direct payments in all apps. [0]
All of these services provide something physical. You can't buy Kindle Books, for example, on Amazon's app on iOS. This a bit disingenuous.
>We think all developers should be free to support direct payments in all apps.
Does this mean Epic will start allowing users of the Epic Games Store on PC to directly pay game developers and bypass the EGS cut?
[0] https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/fortnite-mega-drop-faq
> Does this mean Epic will start allowing users of the Epic Games Store on PC to directly pay game developers and bypass the EGS cut?
AFAIK they've already been allowing use of other payment processors for in-app purchases since last year, and are not taking any cut from those sales. They did actually put their money where their mouth is, on this one.
AFAIK they've already been allowing use of other payment processors for in-app purchases since last year, and are not taking any cut from those sales. They did actually put their money where their mouth is, on this one.
Epic doesn't take a cut of virtual currency bought on games in their store. Your comparison doesn't make sense.
> All of these services provide something physical. You can't buy Kindle Books, for example, on Amazon's app on iOS. This a bit disingenuous.
I don't see how it's disingenuous, the question was "are these purchases less safe". They said "No, and here are some examples".
Whether the item is physical or not, I don't see how it makes the transaction "less safe"?
I don't see how it's disingenuous, the question was "are these purchases less safe". They said "No, and here are some examples".
Whether the item is physical or not, I don't see how it makes the transaction "less safe"?
It's maybe my perception, but I don't know if 'is this cheaper form of payment directly to you less safe?' is a question many users would be having. To me anyway, it seems like an excuse to namedrop a bunch of services where direct payment is offered (again, primarily for physical goods) so users can have a list of these in their mind provided Apple cracks down on this.
That's totally possible. At the same time Apple has been pushing "We have to protect our customers, that is why everything must go through the App Store" as a reason for their policies for years.
That argument definitely implies that non-App Store methods are unsafe.
That argument definitely implies that non-App Store methods are unsafe.
Physical goods need to be shipped somewhere that a thief can receive them. Digital goods don’t. That makes it much easier and safer to make fraudulent purchases for digital goods.
Yes, and that is a valid point if you are a thief who is looking to buy something. Ie, the cardholder is not the one making the purchase.
But if you are a valid consumer, making a valid purchase with your card, the purchase being fraudulent is not the concern.
The "safety" implication is that any company that is not Apple will lose your payment information, or your payment info will be intercepted, etc.
There are many companies who are perfectly capable of handling PCI that are not Apple.
But if you are a valid consumer, making a valid purchase with your card, the purchase being fraudulent is not the concern.
The "safety" implication is that any company that is not Apple will lose your payment information, or your payment info will be intercepted, etc.
There are many companies who are perfectly capable of handling PCI that are not Apple.
Fandango does not provide physical goods. You can buy movies (not just tickets) on Fandango.
Maybe you're thinking of FandangoNOW? AFAIK Fandango does not let you 'buy movies'.
FandangoNow was once part of the Fandango app before they broke it out (at least on Android).
> Does this mean Epic will start allowing users of the Epic Games Store on PC to directly pay game developers and bypass the EGS cut?
Are you asking whether Epic will start "allowing" people to buy PC games via direct purchase or steam or twitch or GOG the way they've been doing for decades?
Are you asking whether Epic will start "allowing" people to buy PC games via direct purchase or steam or twitch or GOG the way they've been doing for decades?
No, I'm asking if they will allow people to buy digital PC titles on EGS via direct purchase to the developer and bypass the percentage EGS takes. People are bringing up digital currency or IAP, but if Epic is arguing for 'direct payments in all apps', why would this be limited solely to digital currency and not the digital item itself?
[deleted]
> No, I'm asking if they will allow people to buy digital PC titles on EGS via direct purchase to the developer and bypass the percentage EGS takes.
And why would Epic do that? Apple doesn't allow you to buy apps on the app store without the cut. Epic is not advocating that. Nobody is advocating that. Rather, Epic is allowing in-app purchases in their app without giving apple a cut.
The question would be, when you sell a game on EGS, can you allow in app purchases outside of EGS? Does somebody know the answer to this?
And why would Epic do that? Apple doesn't allow you to buy apps on the app store without the cut. Epic is not advocating that. Nobody is advocating that. Rather, Epic is allowing in-app purchases in their app without giving apple a cut.
The question would be, when you sell a game on EGS, can you allow in app purchases outside of EGS? Does somebody know the answer to this?
> I'm asking if they will allow people to buy digital PC titles on EGS via direct purchase to the developer
People can already buy PC titles anywhere they like. EGS, direct purchase, steam, GOG, twitch, whatever. There's nothing to allow.
People can already buy PC titles anywhere they like. EGS, direct purchase, steam, GOG, twitch, whatever. There's nothing to allow.
>People can already buy PC titles anywhere they like. EGS, direct purchase, steam, GOG, twitch, whatever. There's nothing to allow.
This is unrelated to them supporting their 'direct pay to developers' stance on their own storefront. And no, people can't 'buy PC titles anywhere they like' as every game is not multiplatform / storefront.
This is unrelated to them supporting their 'direct pay to developers' stance on their own storefront. And no, people can't 'buy PC titles anywhere they like' as every game is not multiplatform / storefront.
> This is unrelated to them supporting their 'direct pay to developers' stance on their own storefront.
Then they already do what you're asking for. Games on EGS can have direct payments and EGS doesn't take a cut.
> And no, people can't 'buy PC titles anywhere they like' as every game is not multiplatform / storefront.
People can buy PC titles anywhere the developer chooses to sell them. Kind of assumed that last bit went without saying.
Then they already do what you're asking for. Games on EGS can have direct payments and EGS doesn't take a cut.
> And no, people can't 'buy PC titles anywhere they like' as every game is not multiplatform / storefront.
People can buy PC titles anywhere the developer chooses to sell them. Kind of assumed that last bit went without saying.
Because then Apple would have to implement alternative payment methods into the App Store, which seems unreasonable. They're arguing that inside the app it's the developer's responsibility to handle payments however they see fit.
I don't follow this. Why would they have to implement alternative payment methods in the stpre? An app can create their own payment method within the app itself.
Yeah I don't get their point, developers can already go and release the game on their own website or through whatever channels they want without issue. If they sign an exclusivity deal with Epic that is their own choice, they were not forced to make that choice like on the Apple platform. EGS also charges a lot less than their competitors do anyway.
> Does this mean Epic will start allowing users of the Epic Games Store on PC to directly pay game developers and bypass the EGS cut?
If you follow Tim Sweeney and Epic's history surrounding "app store cuts", you'd know that they've always stood on the side of developers. The EGS stands among the lowest app store cuts of any marketplace, at 12%, and Tim has become visibly angry during public appearances concerning Apple, Google, etc and their 30% cut.
Additionally, we're talking about a platform that disallows any alternative installation and distribution mechanisms. The PC ecosystem is vibrant, unlike the forced one-app-store on iOS and the defacto-one-app-store on Android. If a developer wants to control their cut on Windows, they can sell via their own site, or itch.io (which allows developers to select what percentage itch.io receives), or Steam and their 30% cut, or wherever they'd like.
If you follow Tim Sweeney and Epic's history surrounding "app store cuts", you'd know that they've always stood on the side of developers. The EGS stands among the lowest app store cuts of any marketplace, at 12%, and Tim has become visibly angry during public appearances concerning Apple, Google, etc and their 30% cut.
Additionally, we're talking about a platform that disallows any alternative installation and distribution mechanisms. The PC ecosystem is vibrant, unlike the forced one-app-store on iOS and the defacto-one-app-store on Android. If a developer wants to control their cut on Windows, they can sell via their own site, or itch.io (which allows developers to select what percentage itch.io receives), or Steam and their 30% cut, or wherever they'd like.
"Is what's good for the (Apple) goose good for the (Epic Games Store) gander?"
"No, but we'll screw you for less than Steam."
12% may be less than 30%, but it's still the same business practice that they're decrying when it's applied to them. That's hypocrisy.
"No, but we'll screw you for less than Steam."
12% may be less than 30%, but it's still the same business practice that they're decrying when it's applied to them. That's hypocrisy.
What business practice is that? Providing hosting, distribution, payment processing, and marketing to an audience of millions of customers, then asking for some amount of revenue in return?
The core issues at play with Apple have always been: (1) there's no competition, and (2) 30% is too high. The EGS makes strides in fixing both of these issues: Game developers are not forced to release on EGS, as there are a dozen competitors on Windows, and the revenue share is now 12%. Epic does sign exclusivity deals with third-parties, which often have multi-million dollar values to them (they paid ~$10M to Remedy for one-year exclusive rights to Control); again, while we can argue about the negative impact this has on consumers, its very positive for developers.
The core issues at play with Apple have always been: (1) there's no competition, and (2) 30% is too high. The EGS makes strides in fixing both of these issues: Game developers are not forced to release on EGS, as there are a dozen competitors on Windows, and the revenue share is now 12%. Epic does sign exclusivity deals with third-parties, which often have multi-million dollar values to them (they paid ~$10M to Remedy for one-year exclusive rights to Control); again, while we can argue about the negative impact this has on consumers, its very positive for developers.
“ The EGS stands among the lowest app store cuts of any marketplace, at 12%, and Tim has become visibly angry during public appearances concerning Apple, Google, etc and their 30% cut.”
Lmfao at claiming that much moral superiority over a 2xish difference. I’m sure hes become visibly angry, John Legere was a character too, it’s a show.
Lmfao at claiming that much moral superiority over a 2xish difference. I’m sure hes become visibly angry, John Legere was a character too, it’s a show.
[deleted]
Epic is declaring war on app store fees and other monopolistic app store practices. Tim Sweeney (no relation) has been a very vocal opponent of the app store practices of Apple and Google. He views them as monopolistic and anti-competitive.
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/128961139770219724...
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/128922755043103129...
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/128852123070273945...
My inside sources tell me that this move is intended to start a legal battle with Apple and Google.
I really love Epic.
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/128961139770219724...
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/128922755043103129...
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/128852123070273945...
My inside sources tell me that this move is intended to start a legal battle with Apple and Google.
I really love Epic.
Maybe the Apple cut is too high, but I don't think it's unreasonable for them to take some cut. They are providing the distribution platform to get your app to millions of users, it's not free for them to provide that service. They have their own server, bandwidth and employee costs too.
They forbid you from using any other distribution mechanism on their device, though. The only reason Apple has to pay for App Store overhead for every single app is because Apple mandated it that way.
It's THEIR platform, they built it, they own it, and there are more popular alternatives. Don't like Apples App Store buy an Android. Don't like Apple's App Store build an app for Android, Web, Console, or PC. No one is forced to make games for Apple. If I build a store and sell goods out of it, I set the terms, no one has the right to walk into that store and tell me I can't take a cut of the profits. Just because the platform is successful doesn't mean you HAVE to have access to it at all or especially on the terms you want. I don't like that I can't just submit a game to the switch store or that they get a cut, no one is claiming it's a monopoly. There is literally no difference other then Apple has been very successful at it.
I'm just glad that Microsoft couldn't use this tactic back when the web first became popular. "Want to connect to other computers and don't like how Microsoft does it? Don't buy a Windows PC then!" Imagine if they had simply banned Netscape because it violated the rules of the Microsoft App Store.
> It's THEIR platform, they built it, they own it, and there are more popular alternatives.
A monopoly is a monopoly, friend.
> No one is forced to make games for Apple.
Monopoly laws supersede this argument.
> no one has the right to walk into that store and tell me I can't take a cut of the profits
Actually, if a business has a monopoly on a certain market, then there absolutely are things that a person can demand that they do.
A monopoly is a monopoly, friend.
> No one is forced to make games for Apple.
Monopoly laws supersede this argument.
> no one has the right to walk into that store and tell me I can't take a cut of the profits
Actually, if a business has a monopoly on a certain market, then there absolutely are things that a person can demand that they do.
You seem young and naive....
For many, their iOS device (iPad or iPhone) is their primary computing device.... it is not like a PS4, which is mainly for games.
Back in the 90's If Microsoft didn't get 'checked' with a threat to be broken up, we would have ended up with Pay MSFT 30% tax on every software you installed and purchased.
It it time to 'check' both Apple and Google on their practices... In this case, Google at least allows some sideloading, while apple doesn't at all...
So, I expect Apple is going to be the losing end of the history... but as long as they can keep doing it, and make profits out of it, they will be doing.
For many, their iOS device (iPad or iPhone) is their primary computing device.... it is not like a PS4, which is mainly for games.
Back in the 90's If Microsoft didn't get 'checked' with a threat to be broken up, we would have ended up with Pay MSFT 30% tax on every software you installed and purchased.
It it time to 'check' both Apple and Google on their practices... In this case, Google at least allows some sideloading, while apple doesn't at all...
So, I expect Apple is going to be the losing end of the history... but as long as they can keep doing it, and make profits out of it, they will be doing.
You seem condescending and annoying....
I was alive and working during the 90's and a massive linux/freebsd user then. What Microsoft was doing, forcing the hardware manufacturers to install windows or lose their business - forcing the bundling of internet explorer, is absolutely and completely different than what Apple is doing. It's their platform, the are not forcing any one to do anything.
I was alive and working during the 90's and a massive linux/freebsd user then. What Microsoft was doing, forcing the hardware manufacturers to install windows or lose their business - forcing the bundling of internet explorer, is absolutely and completely different than what Apple is doing. It's their platform, the are not forcing any one to do anything.
It's a monopoly because, for iPhone users, it's the only store in town.
What about billing this cost plus some margin to the app developers instead of taking a cut on everything?
That adds quite a bit of overhead (administration, accounting, etc.), which in turn would increase the costs even more. It is much easier to wrap it into the transaction itself instead of having to track, invoice, and collect the cost in a separate transaction.
They already bill all developers yearly.
My mistake, I assumed the "take a cut" meant from each transaction, processed at the time of transaction. If they already have the tracking, invoicing, accounting, etc. infrastructure than my point is invalid.
They're also processing payments / dealing with fraud checks / chargebacks. But I also don't think it's reasonable for Apple for force their payment option, especially when other apps can directly take payment. This idea that "in-app purchases" can only be paid for through apple is insane.
Considering the discount provided on console stores is 20% and not 30%, I think Epic probably agrees. It looks like the consoles are probably taking ~10-15% cuts compared to Apple's 30%, and Epic doesn't see this as worth challenging at the current time.
Consoles and marketplaces like Steam take 30% of digital game sales.
Valve changed their policies to provide a volume discount for big titles:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-gam...
Yes, a little over a year ago for some successful titles.
It just goes to show 30% is far from unusual - especially in the gaming industry. In fact 30% seems to be the benchmark.
Retailers like Best Buy take 30% of video game sales too.
Here's an article with a useful graphic that shows the cut through common gaming distribution channels: https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...
It just goes to show 30% is far from unusual - especially in the gaming industry. In fact 30% seems to be the benchmark.
Retailers like Best Buy take 30% of video game sales too.
Here's an article with a useful graphic that shows the cut through common gaming distribution channels: https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...
If that is true, how do you explain that they are not implementing this new payment option on those platforms?
https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...
For games, 30% is not unusual for distribution.
For games, 30% is not unusual for distribution.
That didn't really answer or even address my question. :)
Fair, I was responding only to the "If that is true..." part
Isn't this payment option for things other than the game itself?
It does provide value thats the thing, it's relatively easy to setup IAP and subscriptions, IMO they can keep the 30% but they should just allow apps to offer other payment methods.
> IMO they can keep the 30% but they should just allow apps to offer other payment methods.
Would this just result in every app being free, but using (non-apple) IAP to gain access to any content beyond the opening screen?
Would this just result in every app being free, but using (non-apple) IAP to gain access to any content beyond the opening screen?
Other than the non-Apple part, that's how it pretty much works now. Only 3% and 8% of apps in the stores are paid on Android and iOS respectively, and counted by downloads it's probably much lower. IAPs might be over 99% of revenue.
If I were Apple, I'd make my payments optional. They're so seamless that as a customer, I'd probably still use them unless I were getting a substantial discount to do otherwise, and sometimes even then. They could do something like give developers the option to sign up to use it exclusively for a reduced rate. It'd be one less bullet for the anti-trust regulators, and app store revenues are only about 4% of Apple's revenue anyway.
If I were Apple, I'd make my payments optional. They're so seamless that as a customer, I'd probably still use them unless I were getting a substantial discount to do otherwise, and sometimes even then. They could do something like give developers the option to sign up to use it exclusively for a reduced rate. It'd be one less bullet for the anti-trust regulators, and app store revenues are only about 4% of Apple's revenue anyway.
> Other than the non-Apple part, that's how it pretty much works now. Only 3% and 8% of apps in the stores are paid on Android and iOS respectively, and counted by downloads it's probably much lower. IAPs might be over 99% of revenue.
Yes, but all IAPs now go through Apple and they get their 30% cut.
> hey're so seamless that as a customer, I'd probably still use them unless I were getting a substantial discount to do otherwise, and sometimes even then
Well, every app would easily be able to offer you a 25% discount (30% - 5% to account for transaction fees), since they would not be paying the Apple fee.
Yes, but all IAPs now go through Apple and they get their 30% cut.
> hey're so seamless that as a customer, I'd probably still use them unless I were getting a substantial discount to do otherwise, and sometimes even then
Well, every app would easily be able to offer you a 25% discount (30% - 5% to account for transaction fees), since they would not be paying the Apple fee.
> Well, every app would easily be able to offer you a 25% discount (30% - 5% to account for transaction fees), since they would not be paying the Apple fee.
Since when have companies passed on fee decreases to their customers instead of accepting the effectively free higher margins?
Since when have companies passed on fee decreases to their customers instead of accepting the effectively free higher margins?
> Since when have companies passed on fee decreases to their customers instead of accepting the effectively free higher margins?
Since companies had to compete with other companies. The moment the Apple tax is lifted, at least one company will lower prices. Other companies will be forced to follow suit. I'm not saying ALL the price decrease will be passed to consumers, but some of it definitely will. Especially since a lot of these goods are currently sold at a mark up on the App Store right now.
Since companies had to compete with other companies. The moment the Apple tax is lifted, at least one company will lower prices. Other companies will be forced to follow suit. I'm not saying ALL the price decrease will be passed to consumers, but some of it definitely will. Especially since a lot of these goods are currently sold at a mark up on the App Store right now.
I think this model looks at apps as widgets too much. People don't price compare IAPs. Nobody's like "well fortnite charges X for Y, but Minecraft charges A for B." App store revenues are probably largely games or similar things that don't really have a competitor you can easily price compare against.
App developers set their prices at whatever maximizes revenue (which is often determined by testing) and the payment processing fee has no effect. It's more like Coke pricing at an airport than Coke pricing at a gas station with another gas station next door.
I expect they'd offer whatever discount maximized revenue, so the real question is how much of a discount do they need to offer to get you to switch from app store payments to some other method? Other methods are largely pretty seamless these days too, so the answer is probably not much. I expect consumers would barely benefit.
(Source: been doing games with IAPs for 13 years).
App developers set their prices at whatever maximizes revenue (which is often determined by testing) and the payment processing fee has no effect. It's more like Coke pricing at an airport than Coke pricing at a gas station with another gas station next door.
I expect they'd offer whatever discount maximized revenue, so the real question is how much of a discount do they need to offer to get you to switch from app store payments to some other method? Other methods are largely pretty seamless these days too, so the answer is probably not much. I expect consumers would barely benefit.
(Source: been doing games with IAPs for 13 years).
Yeah, they wouldn't. Marginal costs to app developers are effectively 0, so profits and revenue are synonymous.Thus prices are set to maximize revenue. If setting my IAP at $10 maximizes revenue, that's true whether the processing fee is 0% or 30%. Cost to consumer is determinant.
Now if I'm given the options of accepting App store payments at 30%, and let's say PayPal at 3%, I'm going to offer the customer a little discount to switch to PayPal. That too will be whatever discount maximizes profit. That wouldn't be too hard to determine with testing, and would depend on how easy the payment methods are and how much customers love the convenience/security of Apple's payment system.
For me as a consumer, if I got offered a 10% discount and had something comparably easy to use I'd probably go with it on small transactions. If I had to enter a credit card, I'm not going to bother on a $1 or maybe even $10 purchase for that little.
Now if I'm given the options of accepting App store payments at 30%, and let's say PayPal at 3%, I'm going to offer the customer a little discount to switch to PayPal. That too will be whatever discount maximizes profit. That wouldn't be too hard to determine with testing, and would depend on how easy the payment methods are and how much customers love the convenience/security of Apple's payment system.
For me as a consumer, if I got offered a 10% discount and had something comparably easy to use I'd probably go with it on small transactions. If I had to enter a credit card, I'm not going to bother on a $1 or maybe even $10 purchase for that little.
Right, I was just pointing out that for the consumer, there's basically no difference in app business models. It just may be a different payment processor and maybe lower prices.
My original point wasn't that there will be a visible difference to the consumers but that all app purchases and in-app-purchases will be structured so that Apple's cut goes to zero.
If Apple allows non-apple payment without major restrictions, it's revenue from app store will trend towards zero (save for inertia).
If Apple allows non-apple payment without major restrictions, it's revenue from app store will trend towards zero (save for inertia).
Right. I don't think anyone disputes that.
I think it's fine. It's a tiny part of their overall profits. Like sub 5%. If it gets antitrust regulators off their back it's well worth it.
I think it's fine. It's a tiny part of their overall profits. Like sub 5%. If it gets antitrust regulators off their back it's well worth it.
They can always require that you offer Apple Pay alongside direct payments. They're already doing this for their apple login system, if you offer facebook login etc you're expected to also offer their login system.
I think it'd have to have to caveats, e.g if offering payment you have to also offer apple payment at the same rate to the user.
Apple sells the iPhone though. You can think of this as a simple transaction where Apple is profiting off of the device sales and the app developers are providing a reason for customers to buy those devices.
There are screenshots about how this feature works in the linked article. I would super OK with this. It gives an option to use Apple Pay or their internal pay system, and it shows how much each costs so you can make an informed decision. If you value Apple Pay's security and privacy features enough, you can pay the higher price and use that option. If you don't, you can choose to use the publisher's payment option and pay a lower price.
The problem with Apple Pay is a) it is forced as the only option, and b) it is hidden from the user; you may never realize that all these years you have been paying for a service on your iPhone, you could have instead gone to the publisher's website and saved a lot of money.
The problem with Apple Pay is a) it is forced as the only option, and b) it is hidden from the user; you may never realize that all these years you have been paying for a service on your iPhone, you could have instead gone to the publisher's website and saved a lot of money.
by this logic the ISP should also get a cut, which is ridic
you're already paying ISPs effectively a monthly subscription for the bandwidth, employees, and Apple is no doubt also paying ISPs for their outbound traffic. so absolutely not.
iPhone users already pay for hardware.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with paying for the App Store or games on it. What's your point? Apple should be forced to give up control of their work?
My point is definitely not that Apple should be forced to give up control of their work, since I'm not sure which work you're referring to.
As far as I know, you can't use Apple's store without Apple's hardware. So my point is that Apple is getting paid.
As far as I know, you can't use Apple's store without Apple's hardware. So my point is that Apple is getting paid.
"providing the distribution platform" is an extremely charitable way of saying "forcing developers to relinquish control of their software to Apple and pay a tax for the privilege". Apple is not the good guy here. They are using their monopoly to impose unfair rules and extract rent from all of the software half of the people in the world want to use.
If it's a reasonable cut for the service then they should have no fear of competition from other payment services.
If this was Microsoft Windows I am sure you would have your pitchforks ready. Just rephrase your statement with Windows and you'd see the absurd of your statement.
[deleted]
Ballsy, I love it. Hopefully it can be used as evidence in any antitrust actions against Apple, in the US or abroad. It's clear that Apple's behavior negatively impacts consumer pricing.
I love how they are "passing the savings down to us" from a non existing digital item that they set the price of.
Ugh.
Anyway, this should be absolutely fascinating to watch how the antitrust cases against the app stores go!
Ugh.
Anyway, this should be absolutely fascinating to watch how the antitrust cases against the app stores go!
> a non existing digital item
That's a weird thing to read in a place populated by software people.
That's a weird thing to read in a place populated by software people.
I'm sure you don't have to look too far to find someone who believes all software should be free (and open source).
Sure, but that doesn't mean this is how all software should be…
> a non existing digital item that they set the price of.
how come you would pay for the sounds recorded off musicians, but not the pictures/animations made by game developers?
how come you would pay for the sounds recorded off musicians, but not the pictures/animations made by game developers?
That's a little myopic; it's just another business model. They could instead price an app itself at $99 or whatever is desired to support development, marketing, profit, etc costs, and not have any in-app purchases.
If anything, game companies are doing exactly the opposite by charging full price for a game (mostly ~$60) and filling them up with in-game purchases anyway. Loot boxes, skins and other cosmetics, battle passes, etc.
Are you going to work for free or minimum wage for Epic to produce their games and operate their business? Software costs money to produce (lots of it).
I'd like to hear the argument for digital things not 'existing'
Tim Cook vs Tim Sweeney, this is a serious round, with possible big implications for many developers and companies.
In the end, both Epic and Apple are big corporations that should not be blindly trusted, but my money is on Sweeney, I have greater faith in the uber-nerd vs the perfect production manager.
In the end, both Epic and Apple are big corporations that should not be blindly trusted, but my money is on Sweeney, I have greater faith in the uber-nerd vs the perfect production manager.
>I have greater faith in the uber-nerd vs the perfect production manager.
I have greater faith in the company with over $200 billion cash on hand, that can throw a ton of money at a long drawn out court battle.
I have greater faith in the company with over $200 billion cash on hand, that can throw a ton of money at a long drawn out court battle.
Finally someone stands up to the monopolists!
Right, another monopolist trying to fill their garden. Epic is literally buying the companies behind long established games, removing game support for alternative OSes, and eventually only allowing access from "the epic store".
No matter who wins between Epic and Apple human people lose. They're both walled garden monopolists.
No matter who wins between Epic and Apple human people lose. They're both walled garden monopolists.
To be fair to Epic, they are/were offering developers a better deal than Steam. And they've done far more for gaming over the past decade than Valve, which hasn't been able to successfully innovate in the last two.
However, they're not offering ME a better deal.
Let's see:
- games aren't cheaper on the Epic store, in spite of the allegedly smaller cut the store is supposed to take
- they're Windows only (and here comes the China reference, they only know about Windows in there)
- their store still doesn't have a shopping cart (i may not be current on this)... reeks of incompetence? Can you trust them with your credit card info?
- they have bribed developers to give them exclusivity, preventing me to get the games on the store of my choice.
- btw the above means Steam but also GoG. You people calling out Steam for being a monopoly, how many titles have you bought on GoG?
- Epic's only meaningful contribution to gaming since Unreal II is... a free to play arena shooter? Is that even a game? I can't afford free to play games, sorry.
Do you really think that if the Epic Store somehow manages to "win", it will be better for us customers in any way?
It's sad that the only entity fighting Apple's monopoly is... another would be monopolist.
Let's see:
- games aren't cheaper on the Epic store, in spite of the allegedly smaller cut the store is supposed to take
- they're Windows only (and here comes the China reference, they only know about Windows in there)
- their store still doesn't have a shopping cart (i may not be current on this)... reeks of incompetence? Can you trust them with your credit card info?
- they have bribed developers to give them exclusivity, preventing me to get the games on the store of my choice.
- btw the above means Steam but also GoG. You people calling out Steam for being a monopoly, how many titles have you bought on GoG?
- Epic's only meaningful contribution to gaming since Unreal II is... a free to play arena shooter? Is that even a game? I can't afford free to play games, sorry.
Do you really think that if the Epic Store somehow manages to "win", it will be better for us customers in any way?
It's sad that the only entity fighting Apple's monopoly is... another would be monopolist.
Games aren't cheaper because Valve doesn't allow them to be cheaper on other storefronts, it's part of the agreement you sign with them to be on Steam.
Windows only is fine. From a purely pragmatic point of view, other platforms are such a small fraction of the gaming market, it really doesn't make sense to support them. Companies have tried supporting OSX and Linux for years (decades?) now, but there just aren't enough players to justify it (much less than 5%).
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Epic paying developers for exclusivity. There is fundamentally nothing different about that than Valve selling their own first-party game exclusively on their own store (Half-life, Portal, DOTA, etc).
If you don't know about Epic's contributions to gaming, then you're just out of touch. Fortnite is a huge deal, but there's also stuff like Gears of War, and of course Unreal Engine 4 itself.
I absolutely do think if Epic wins, it will be better both for consumers and game developers like myself. I don't think you understand the mindset of Tim Sweeney if you think he is super monopolist.
Windows only is fine. From a purely pragmatic point of view, other platforms are such a small fraction of the gaming market, it really doesn't make sense to support them. Companies have tried supporting OSX and Linux for years (decades?) now, but there just aren't enough players to justify it (much less than 5%).
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Epic paying developers for exclusivity. There is fundamentally nothing different about that than Valve selling their own first-party game exclusively on their own store (Half-life, Portal, DOTA, etc).
If you don't know about Epic's contributions to gaming, then you're just out of touch. Fortnite is a huge deal, but there's also stuff like Gears of War, and of course Unreal Engine 4 itself.
I absolutely do think if Epic wins, it will be better both for consumers and game developers like myself. I don't think you understand the mindset of Tim Sweeney if you think he is super monopolist.
> Games aren't cheaper because Valve doesn't allow them to be cheaper on other storefronts, it's part of the agreement you sign with them to be on Steam.
Oh, TIL.
Oh, TIL.
> Games aren't cheaper because Valve doesn't allow them to be cheaper on other storefronts, it's part of the agreement you sign with them to be on Steam.
Hmm why isn't Epic the games developer suing Valve for that?
Hmm why isn't Epic the games developer suing Valve for that?
Epic's been dropping 2 free games a week on their store. Those are cheaper :)
I have ~24 games in my Epic games library from this and 6 work on Macs. Not exactly Windows only (but way way moreso than Steam)
WRT the shopping cart, I think you're reading too much into not being able to buy 2 games at once. FWIW I've NEVER bought two games at once on Steam. I buy most of my stuff on Amazon without using a cart.
Exclusivity kinda sucks, although at least the PC/Mac platforms can support both Epic and Steam and GoG! Sucks even harder for PS or Xbox players.
WRT contribution to gaming, the Unreal Engine seems like a small contribution...
Lastly, Fortnite isn't to everyone's tastes but it is IMO a very fun and unique game with the build mechanic. Free-to-play implies pay-to-win and that's not the case. Virtual goods are cosmetic not stuff like levelling up faster
PS. I do prefer Steam and appreciate Valve's contributions
I have ~24 games in my Epic games library from this and 6 work on Macs. Not exactly Windows only (but way way moreso than Steam)
WRT the shopping cart, I think you're reading too much into not being able to buy 2 games at once. FWIW I've NEVER bought two games at once on Steam. I buy most of my stuff on Amazon without using a cart.
Exclusivity kinda sucks, although at least the PC/Mac platforms can support both Epic and Steam and GoG! Sucks even harder for PS or Xbox players.
WRT contribution to gaming, the Unreal Engine seems like a small contribution...
Lastly, Fortnite isn't to everyone's tastes but it is IMO a very fun and unique game with the build mechanic. Free-to-play implies pay-to-win and that's not the case. Virtual goods are cosmetic not stuff like levelling up faster
PS. I do prefer Steam and appreciate Valve's contributions
Your only meaningful point is the first one, that games aren't cheaper.
The rest are not related to price. A shopping cart, for example, is just a feature. And the Apple and Linux gaming markets are so small that its generally not worth developing for them unless compatibility comes free with your engine. The EGS store was intended primarily as a sales vehicle for Fortnite, with support for other games being grafted on over time...the same way that the Steam store got its start. Steam used to be an utter piece of shit too, and it took years for them to get to where they are today. (Note: Epic's Unreal Engine actually does support Apple and Linux, however the anti-cheat mechanisms in Fortnite wouldn't work on either platform, and given the almost-daily updates required it would require a fairly hefty user base on those platforms to justify support.)
By they way, Epic contributed Unreal Engine to the world. Only a few thousand games are made on it, including the world's current most popular game, Fortnite. Other notable games using the current version of Unreal Engine include Crash Bandicoot, the newest Batman game, Final Fantasy 7 Remake, Gears of War 4 and 5, Hellblade, Kingdom Hearts, Minecraft Dungeons, NBA 2K, PUBG, Sea of Thieves, Star Wars JFO, System Shock remake, The Outer Worlds, and oddly enough Youshi's Crafted World.
UE3 was around long enough that all of the original Mass Effects used the engine. Other notable games on the UE3 engine include the Medal of Honor series, Mortal Kombat, Rocket League, XCOM, Tom Clancy games, Infinity Blade (one of the games credited with making iOS a gaming powerhouse), Gears of War 1-3, Devil May Cry, Borderlands 1 and 2, and the older Batman Arkham games.
The rest are not related to price. A shopping cart, for example, is just a feature. And the Apple and Linux gaming markets are so small that its generally not worth developing for them unless compatibility comes free with your engine. The EGS store was intended primarily as a sales vehicle for Fortnite, with support for other games being grafted on over time...the same way that the Steam store got its start. Steam used to be an utter piece of shit too, and it took years for them to get to where they are today. (Note: Epic's Unreal Engine actually does support Apple and Linux, however the anti-cheat mechanisms in Fortnite wouldn't work on either platform, and given the almost-daily updates required it would require a fairly hefty user base on those platforms to justify support.)
By they way, Epic contributed Unreal Engine to the world. Only a few thousand games are made on it, including the world's current most popular game, Fortnite. Other notable games using the current version of Unreal Engine include Crash Bandicoot, the newest Batman game, Final Fantasy 7 Remake, Gears of War 4 and 5, Hellblade, Kingdom Hearts, Minecraft Dungeons, NBA 2K, PUBG, Sea of Thieves, Star Wars JFO, System Shock remake, The Outer Worlds, and oddly enough Youshi's Crafted World.
UE3 was around long enough that all of the original Mass Effects used the engine. Other notable games on the UE3 engine include the Medal of Honor series, Mortal Kombat, Rocket League, XCOM, Tom Clancy games, Infinity Blade (one of the games credited with making iOS a gaming powerhouse), Gears of War 1-3, Devil May Cry, Borderlands 1 and 2, and the older Batman Arkham games.
I think you might want to read this[1] excellent series on Epic and their ecosystem. It covers most of your questions.
[1] https://www.matthewball.vc/all/epicgamesprimermaster
[1] https://www.matthewball.vc/all/epicgamesprimermaster
>games aren't cheaper on the Epic store, in spite of the allegedly smaller cut the store is supposed to take
They are literally handing out free games, Total War: Troy, a brand new game, its free today
>they're Windows only (and here comes the China reference, they only know about Windows in there)
Games will not have first class support for linux for years to come, this is not indicative of the linux platform, simply that the market is tiny and developer time is better spent on supporting platforms that are widely used.
>they have bribed developers to give them exclusivity, preventing me to get the games on the store of my choice.
Seems to be a pretty simple calculus to me. Epic is willing to pay developers and publishers to have exclusive access to their games. Steam takes a 30% cut, Epic takes 12%. I would take that deal in a heartbeat.
>btw the above means Steam but also GoG. You people calling out Steam for being a monopoly, how many titles have you bought on GoG?
plenty, they offer a useful service by providing older games with support for modern OS. They have their niche within the ecosystem but they are by and large not competing with Steam
>Epic's only meaningful contribution to gaming since Unreal II is... a free to play arena shooter? Is that even a game? I can't afford free to play games, sorry.
Besides Fortnite being an economic and cultural phenomenon, they are very generous with providing access to their Unreal Engine software, even cutting the cost of using it until they the developers are actually generating revenue.
They are literally handing out free games, Total War: Troy, a brand new game, its free today
>they're Windows only (and here comes the China reference, they only know about Windows in there)
Games will not have first class support for linux for years to come, this is not indicative of the linux platform, simply that the market is tiny and developer time is better spent on supporting platforms that are widely used.
>they have bribed developers to give them exclusivity, preventing me to get the games on the store of my choice.
Seems to be a pretty simple calculus to me. Epic is willing to pay developers and publishers to have exclusive access to their games. Steam takes a 30% cut, Epic takes 12%. I would take that deal in a heartbeat.
>btw the above means Steam but also GoG. You people calling out Steam for being a monopoly, how many titles have you bought on GoG?
plenty, they offer a useful service by providing older games with support for modern OS. They have their niche within the ecosystem but they are by and large not competing with Steam
>Epic's only meaningful contribution to gaming since Unreal II is... a free to play arena shooter? Is that even a game? I can't afford free to play games, sorry.
Besides Fortnite being an economic and cultural phenomenon, they are very generous with providing access to their Unreal Engine software, even cutting the cost of using it until they the developers are actually generating revenue.
> Games will not have first class support for linux for years to come, this is not indicative of the linux platform, simply that the market is tiny and developer time is better spent on supporting platforms that are widely used.
The fact that there are only X% of gamers on Linux/Mac OS may be justification for you, but why would I go near a store that doesn't support my platform of choice? As I said, they're not offering ME a better deal.
> plenty, they offer a useful service by providing older games with support for modern OS. They have their niche within the ecosystem but they are by and large not competing with Steam
When have you last bought a game on GoG then? They have quite a few new titles. Everything I backed on kickstarter lately came with a GoG key, for example. Except Phoenix Point - they took the Epic bribe so I won't get to play it.
> Besides Fortnite being an economic and cultural phenomenon.
I can't afford free to play games. Even if the IAPs are all cosmetic, you can't say the design wasn't affected by their presence. For example, by making cosmetic items unobtainable or very hard to obtain through normal game play. If i wanted to grind more I'd keep up my WoW subscription thank you.
Hint: all the money coming from Tencent were made via predatory free to play mobile games, mostly in the Asia region where it's even worse than in the west.
> WRT the shopping cart, I think you're reading too much into not being able to buy 2 games at once. FWIW I've NEVER bought two games at once on Steam.
I don't buy games on launch, even if i'm in a hurry i wait for a couple reviews. Also I suppose I have more money than time so I buy my games in batches on sales, since I know I won't get to play 90% of them. Yes, I need a shopping cart.
Anyway, this is all nitpicking. The main thing is that by supporting their bribing you encourage them, and their pay to win attitude will be very very bad for you as a consumer if they manage to kill their competition.
The fact that there are only X% of gamers on Linux/Mac OS may be justification for you, but why would I go near a store that doesn't support my platform of choice? As I said, they're not offering ME a better deal.
> plenty, they offer a useful service by providing older games with support for modern OS. They have their niche within the ecosystem but they are by and large not competing with Steam
When have you last bought a game on GoG then? They have quite a few new titles. Everything I backed on kickstarter lately came with a GoG key, for example. Except Phoenix Point - they took the Epic bribe so I won't get to play it.
> Besides Fortnite being an economic and cultural phenomenon.
I can't afford free to play games. Even if the IAPs are all cosmetic, you can't say the design wasn't affected by their presence. For example, by making cosmetic items unobtainable or very hard to obtain through normal game play. If i wanted to grind more I'd keep up my WoW subscription thank you.
Hint: all the money coming from Tencent were made via predatory free to play mobile games, mostly in the Asia region where it's even worse than in the west.
> WRT the shopping cart, I think you're reading too much into not being able to buy 2 games at once. FWIW I've NEVER bought two games at once on Steam.
I don't buy games on launch, even if i'm in a hurry i wait for a couple reviews. Also I suppose I have more money than time so I buy my games in batches on sales, since I know I won't get to play 90% of them. Yes, I need a shopping cart.
Anyway, this is all nitpicking. The main thing is that by supporting their bribing you encourage them, and their pay to win attitude will be very very bad for you as a consumer if they manage to kill their competition.
First, you shouldn't take this so personal. Should I be calling Epic game store or Steam bad platforms if they don't support Windows 95? Unfortunately, you are not the target audience, and expecting developers/publishers to pony up the dev time and money to placate an incredibly small portion of the market is a fantasy. Maybe this will change in the future, who knows.
I also take issue with you calling exclusive games 'bribes'. They are looking out for their own self interest, and that includes not paying Steam a 30% cut on all of their sales. It's called competition, not a bribe. If another employer contacted you and said they would offer a 30% pay raise on your current salary, are you really going to say that 1. that's a bribe, and 2. you wouldn't take it?
Also, denying that Fortnite has not made its mark on society is missing the forest for the trees. I don't play it, I have no desire to play it, but I can see how important it's been to the industry and how much it's effected society.
I also take issue with you calling exclusive games 'bribes'. They are looking out for their own self interest, and that includes not paying Steam a 30% cut on all of their sales. It's called competition, not a bribe. If another employer contacted you and said they would offer a 30% pay raise on your current salary, are you really going to say that 1. that's a bribe, and 2. you wouldn't take it?
Also, denying that Fortnite has not made its mark on society is missing the forest for the trees. I don't play it, I have no desire to play it, but I can see how important it's been to the industry and how much it's effected society.
> Unfortunately, you are not the target audience, and expecting developers/publishers to pony up the dev time and money to placate an incredibly small portion of the market is a fantasy.
... except both Steam and GoG can do it isn't it? :)
> I also take issue with you calling exclusive games 'bribes'. They are looking out for their own self interest, and that includes not paying Steam a 30% cut on all of their sales. It's called competition, not a bribe.
No, the exclusives are paid money upfront on a certain amount of estimated sales, which they don't have to return no matter what the actual sales are. They're not going exclusive just for the lower commission.
Ref: https://gamerant.com/epic-games-store-exclusive-deal/
The juicy bit: When doing the math, looking at Fig's stake (50%) and the 85% dividend rate (how much Fig gives to investors), this means that Epic Games will have had to have given Snapshot Games approximately $2,247,058 for the Phoenix Point exclusivity rights.
> Also, denying that Fortnite has not made its mark on society is missing the forest for the trees. I don't play it, I have no desire to play it, but I can see how important it's been to the industry and how much it's effected society.
I'm sure the society would have been better without IAPs. Not all the marks something leaves are desirable.
Also, it's "affected". Random ref: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Affected_vs_Effected
... except both Steam and GoG can do it isn't it? :)
> I also take issue with you calling exclusive games 'bribes'. They are looking out for their own self interest, and that includes not paying Steam a 30% cut on all of their sales. It's called competition, not a bribe.
No, the exclusives are paid money upfront on a certain amount of estimated sales, which they don't have to return no matter what the actual sales are. They're not going exclusive just for the lower commission.
Ref: https://gamerant.com/epic-games-store-exclusive-deal/
The juicy bit: When doing the math, looking at Fig's stake (50%) and the 85% dividend rate (how much Fig gives to investors), this means that Epic Games will have had to have given Snapshot Games approximately $2,247,058 for the Phoenix Point exclusivity rights.
> Also, denying that Fortnite has not made its mark on society is missing the forest for the trees. I don't play it, I have no desire to play it, but I can see how important it's been to the industry and how much it's effected society.
I'm sure the society would have been better without IAPs. Not all the marks something leaves are desirable.
Also, it's "affected". Random ref: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Affected_vs_Effected
I don't believe you are willing to discuss anything in good faith if you are unwilling to read or begin to understand what I wrote.
1. As I have said, 99% of games do not provide linux first class support. A compatibility layer using existing libraries is not the same thing,
2. What you call bribing is actually competition. If you believe that there is criminal bribery going on, I'm sure the Feds would be more than happy to look at the evidence. Publishers and developers do not owe you anything, and I would rather they take the extra cut and either pay their employees/shareholders, or develop better games.
30% is unconscionable, and I cannot wait until the App Store is forced to be spun off or forced to lower their margin, and Steam is being out competed by Epic.
1. As I have said, 99% of games do not provide linux first class support. A compatibility layer using existing libraries is not the same thing,
2. What you call bribing is actually competition. If you believe that there is criminal bribery going on, I'm sure the Feds would be more than happy to look at the evidence. Publishers and developers do not owe you anything, and I would rather they take the extra cut and either pay their employees/shareholders, or develop better games.
30% is unconscionable, and I cannot wait until the App Store is forced to be spun off or forced to lower their margin, and Steam is being out competed by Epic.
> Publishers and developers do not owe you anything
Right? I'm not a potential paying customer? They owe me everything.
I don't understand this publisher worship going on.
Right? I'm not a potential paying customer? They owe me everything.
I don't understand this publisher worship going on.
> Games will not have first class support for linux for years to come, this is not indicative of the linux platform, simply that the market is tiny and developer time is better spent on supporting platforms that are widely used.
Before EGS rolled around, Linux momentum on getting games support was amazing. Steam lets you run the vast majority of games on Linux now.
Before EGS rolled around, Linux momentum on getting games support was amazing. Steam lets you run the vast majority of games on Linux now.
Sure, but that's not first class support. It requires a compatibility layer called Proton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(software)).
Most developers will not spend time on supporting Linux natively. It's a shame, but that's the economic of it.
Most developers will not spend time on supporting Linux natively. It's a shame, but that's the economic of it.
> And they've done far more for gaming over the past decade than Valve, which hasn't been able to successfully innovate in the last two
Uhm, what?
Epic has delivered Unreal Engine 4 – good for them. They've also released a successful battle royale, piggybacking off of other developers' success and rolled out a crappy store/launcher, a straight downgrade from every single competitor, that they actively force on people by literally buying their portfolio. Nobody would ever install EGS if the monopolist didn't bully their way onto the market.
Meanwhile Valve has been pushing VR, extending Steam (with Proton, Remote Play etc) to the point where it's actually an added value over the games you buy on it, attempting (successfully or not, depending on who you ask) to revolutionize gaming controllers... what exactly did Epic do for gaming, other than release the next iteration of their already successful engine?
Uhm, what?
Epic has delivered Unreal Engine 4 – good for them. They've also released a successful battle royale, piggybacking off of other developers' success and rolled out a crappy store/launcher, a straight downgrade from every single competitor, that they actively force on people by literally buying their portfolio. Nobody would ever install EGS if the monopolist didn't bully their way onto the market.
Meanwhile Valve has been pushing VR, extending Steam (with Proton, Remote Play etc) to the point where it's actually an added value over the games you buy on it, attempting (successfully or not, depending on who you ask) to revolutionize gaming controllers... what exactly did Epic do for gaming, other than release the next iteration of their already successful engine?
I mean we can debate this until the cows come home, but Unreal is much more significant to the development of new gaming (and recently, other) content than anything Valve has ever done. Valve is a middleman, Epic creates values.
For example, there's no VR for them to "push" without companies like Epic giving out engines to develop VR content for free.
Personally this statement:
> a straight downgrade from every single competitor
I strongly disagree with. Steam is awful on every machine I have it installed on, and it does everything worse than other programs. Browsing the store is faster and has fewer bugs in Firefox than it does in the Steam client. All my chat is in discord. I play several games that don't play well with a 4k resolution available and have to change my display resolution pretty regularly in between launching games, for this to work in steam one must manually kill all the background processes and relaunch steam. Never mind that in 2020, they're shipping a 32 bit binary.
Proton is cool and admirable. Steam is not. Origin, Epic, etc are all pieces of software that "just work." I can browse my library, buy new games, and launch them just fine. Everything else is better handled by other programs anyway, and Steam is so bug ridden that they don't need to buy exclusives for me to pick Epic over them.
For example, there's no VR for them to "push" without companies like Epic giving out engines to develop VR content for free.
Personally this statement:
> a straight downgrade from every single competitor
I strongly disagree with. Steam is awful on every machine I have it installed on, and it does everything worse than other programs. Browsing the store is faster and has fewer bugs in Firefox than it does in the Steam client. All my chat is in discord. I play several games that don't play well with a 4k resolution available and have to change my display resolution pretty regularly in between launching games, for this to work in steam one must manually kill all the background processes and relaunch steam. Never mind that in 2020, they're shipping a 32 bit binary.
Proton is cool and admirable. Steam is not. Origin, Epic, etc are all pieces of software that "just work." I can browse my library, buy new games, and launch them just fine. Everything else is better handled by other programs anyway, and Steam is so bug ridden that they don't need to buy exclusives for me to pick Epic over them.
> I can browse my library, buy new games, and launch them just fine. Everything else is better handled by other programs anyway
That's part of my point – EGS (and Steam, arguably) does nothing that you actually need for gaming itself. It may have some extra features, but that's not the core idea. We've been buying and launching games forever without them.
Now they're forced upon us however, and it's worth looking into what kind of value they give us. When I buy a game on Steam I can refund it if I don't like it, I can share it with my family when I'm not playing (not as good as a DRM-free copy, but closer than others still), play it on Linux even if it's unsupported, play it remotely from a weaker computer or a phone.
EGS in comparison provides me with a negative value. Not only it doesn't provide anything worth paying for (it's 2020 and "it's a downloader" is not really a selling point anymore), it's actually a negative value imo – were I to pirate the game I'd at least not have to install any additional crapware on my computer and open yet another account which will probably hoard my personal data forever.
I'm not saying Steam has the best client as a software – yes, it absolutely sucks. Galaxy or itch.io (and possibly EGS) have built far better working software – but it's still the software I don't need. With Steam the extras are at least compelling enough to justify using it over the alternatives. You do actually get more from it than you do from piratebay – something I can't say about EGS.
> Valve is a middleman, Epic creates values
I'd put it differently – Valve innovates, while Epic iterates. Epic built another engine. Another successful BR game. They're forcing yet another launcher. Their only positive impact on gaming is their engine – making them the "middleman" you mentioned. I'm excited for VR, and what HL:Alyx will inspire people to create. I'm not excited for yet another game on Texture Popping Engine 4.
That's part of my point – EGS (and Steam, arguably) does nothing that you actually need for gaming itself. It may have some extra features, but that's not the core idea. We've been buying and launching games forever without them.
Now they're forced upon us however, and it's worth looking into what kind of value they give us. When I buy a game on Steam I can refund it if I don't like it, I can share it with my family when I'm not playing (not as good as a DRM-free copy, but closer than others still), play it on Linux even if it's unsupported, play it remotely from a weaker computer or a phone.
EGS in comparison provides me with a negative value. Not only it doesn't provide anything worth paying for (it's 2020 and "it's a downloader" is not really a selling point anymore), it's actually a negative value imo – were I to pirate the game I'd at least not have to install any additional crapware on my computer and open yet another account which will probably hoard my personal data forever.
I'm not saying Steam has the best client as a software – yes, it absolutely sucks. Galaxy or itch.io (and possibly EGS) have built far better working software – but it's still the software I don't need. With Steam the extras are at least compelling enough to justify using it over the alternatives. You do actually get more from it than you do from piratebay – something I can't say about EGS.
> Valve is a middleman, Epic creates values
I'd put it differently – Valve innovates, while Epic iterates. Epic built another engine. Another successful BR game. They're forcing yet another launcher. Their only positive impact on gaming is their engine – making them the "middleman" you mentioned. I'm excited for VR, and what HL:Alyx will inspire people to create. I'm not excited for yet another game on Texture Popping Engine 4.
>Origin, Epic, etc are all pieces of software that "just work." I can browse my library, buy new games, and launch them just fine
Try to buy more than one game at a time on EGS
Try to buy more than one game at a time on EGS
They've launched the Epic game store which cuts distribution fees significantly. How is that not beneficial to consumers?
I don't see how that's relevant to the cut a company takes for running a game store. Epic is only able to offer such a low % take on sales since they're subsidizing their store with the money they get from UE and Fortnite; Valve is already running their store sustainably and at a profit, much like how Epic would be if they weren't "angel investing" into their own product.
It's more a reflection on the reaction gamers have towards Epic's recent behavior.
Steam hasn't improved or fixed serious bugs for years because they have had no serious competition, all while taking a massive cut from developers' sales. On top of that, their game development stagnated and they really haven't given much back to gamers or game developers aside from a common store front and launcher (both of which suffer from numerous technical failures and poor engineering).
Meanwhile, Epic has developed kickass games and licensed the kickass engine behind it to game devs for pretty reasonable terms, and recently removed them wholesale for games under $1mm in revenue and waiving the license fee for release on their store (so they're not double dipping on the same games' revenues).
Epic has consistently worked to deliver better products cheaper to consumers and to make them easier to create for developers.
If we take a holistic view of what Epic has done versus Valve, we can excuse them a bit for buying an exclusive here or there to kickstart adoption. It's baffling to me that they even need to, because their software runs laps around Valve's.
Steam hasn't improved or fixed serious bugs for years because they have had no serious competition, all while taking a massive cut from developers' sales. On top of that, their game development stagnated and they really haven't given much back to gamers or game developers aside from a common store front and launcher (both of which suffer from numerous technical failures and poor engineering).
Meanwhile, Epic has developed kickass games and licensed the kickass engine behind it to game devs for pretty reasonable terms, and recently removed them wholesale for games under $1mm in revenue and waiving the license fee for release on their store (so they're not double dipping on the same games' revenues).
Epic has consistently worked to deliver better products cheaper to consumers and to make them easier to create for developers.
If we take a holistic view of what Epic has done versus Valve, we can excuse them a bit for buying an exclusive here or there to kickstart adoption. It's baffling to me that they even need to, because their software runs laps around Valve's.
GoG is my store of choice, and unfortunately I can't get Epic exclusives there. I'd also say that Valve's contribution to the gaming ecosystem (VR, Proton / Linux work, Remote Play Together) is comparable to Epic's (Unreal Engine).
For a monopolist they provide pretty compelling terms compared to Steam. If anything they are a healthy competitor to Steam, not only for developers but for consumers as well.
> a healthy competitor to Steam, not only for developers but for consumers as well
I'm not sure I agree here.
As a consumer, competition is good for me if I either get something I didn't already, or if I get the same but cheaper. EGS provides neither: it has less features than its competitors, and the prices are either the same, or the games are exclusives, making comparisons impossible. Exceptions, like Outer Worlds, cost exactly the same on Microsoft Store as it does on Epic Store.
The consumer gets nothing. They just get another meaningless alternative, another scavenger for their attention, loyalty and wallets.
I'm not sure I agree here.
As a consumer, competition is good for me if I either get something I didn't already, or if I get the same but cheaper. EGS provides neither: it has less features than its competitors, and the prices are either the same, or the games are exclusives, making comparisons impossible. Exceptions, like Outer Worlds, cost exactly the same on Microsoft Store as it does on Epic Store.
The consumer gets nothing. They just get another meaningless alternative, another scavenger for their attention, loyalty and wallets.
Well you could view it as a net win for the consumer in that developers are getting more of a cut from sales, thus funding future development and patches for their games.
Isn’t that usually how monopolies start? They don’t lure you in with the slogan “you can only get it from us now”... The competition today is great, but they could easily become the next App Store tomorrow.
I don’t personally have a problem with Apple taking a cut - they are doing work, after all, but I think it should be more along the lines of covering the transaction fees and less “we’re taking a third of your hard work”.
I don’t personally have a problem with Apple taking a cut - they are doing work, after all, but I think it should be more along the lines of covering the transaction fees and less “we’re taking a third of your hard work”.
The competition is broken, Steam still has a large majority of the marketshare, and they abuse it just like Apple does. Taking a cut is fine, but 30% margin is unconscionable and I applaud anyone that tries to break that paradigm.
Steam's monopoly is very different from Apple's since they only operate on already-open platforms. You can easily distribute your x86 game via any other store or your own launcher/website with little issue (only having to deal with the Oligopoly that is EV Code Signing, which you still might need to do while on Steam/Epic/etc). On Apple's platform, you have to go through them no matter what, making it impossible to put an app on iOS devices without their approval.
>they abuse it just like Apple does.
But on my PC I can buy games at other places too, I just prefer Steam due to convenience. It's very different than having to buy your games on a platform from someone specific.
But on my PC I can buy games at other places too, I just prefer Steam due to convenience. It's very different than having to buy your games on a platform from someone specific.
> Epic is literally buying the companies behind long established games, removing game support for alternative OSes, and eventually only allowing access from "the epic store".
What are the examples where that happened?
They rarely buy game companies. With Psyonix they are making Rocket League free to play and won't be able to download it on Steam, but will still be on a bunch of platforms.
What are the examples where that happened?
They rarely buy game companies. With Psyonix they are making Rocket League free to play and won't be able to download it on Steam, but will still be on a bunch of platforms.
Not sure about buying established companies, but they bribed quite a few succesful kickstarter projects to go Epic exclusive for at least a year, including one I backed and had high hopes for.
No, you're wrong. The key difference you're missing is that Epic is not forcing any developers to do anything. They can do whatever they want, but IF and only IF they want some funding they need to sign a deal that benefits both parties. Gamers don't lose anything because they can still play the game, if anything it's better because now the game developer was able to polish or finish a game with the additional funding they have.
> They're both walled garden monopolists.
Is "monopolist" now just used to mean "big"?
Is "monopolist" now just used to mean "big"?
Epic has no "walled garden". The PC is an open platform. An iPhone is not. If I don't like the Epic store, I can install software from other sources just fine. Good luck with that on iOS.
> I can install software from other sources just fine
Not when Epic paid the devs to make them exclusive (either permanently or time-limited): https://www.gamewatcher.com/news/Epic-games-store-exclusives
Unless you are referring to warez as the other source, of coursse
Not when Epic paid the devs to make them exclusive (either permanently or time-limited): https://www.gamewatcher.com/news/Epic-games-store-exclusives
Unless you are referring to warez as the other source, of coursse
I can install software from other sources just fine. Doesn't have to be the same software. But why is having the Epic store such a problem?
You seem to be moving the goalposts here.
> Epic has no "walled garden".
Epic is explicitly a walled garden regarding the games it has paid to be exclusive within that walled gardren (Permanently or temporarily).
> The PC is an open platform. An iPhone is not.
You are conflating hardware / software here. PC hardware is an open platform. The software is running on it is not necessarily. You could be running Linux or Windows for example. (Of which only Windows has an official Epic Games Launcher client).
> If I don't like the Epic store, I can install software from other sources just fine.
We are talking about the context of games so "software" means a particular game of which there is only one. Not "Any random note-taking application". Therefore, in the context of games, no you cannot get that software (game) legally from any other source if Epic paid for it to be exclusive.
> Epic has no "walled garden".
Epic is explicitly a walled garden regarding the games it has paid to be exclusive within that walled gardren (Permanently or temporarily).
> The PC is an open platform. An iPhone is not.
You are conflating hardware / software here. PC hardware is an open platform. The software is running on it is not necessarily. You could be running Linux or Windows for example. (Of which only Windows has an official Epic Games Launcher client).
> If I don't like the Epic store, I can install software from other sources just fine.
We are talking about the context of games so "software" means a particular game of which there is only one. Not "Any random note-taking application". Therefore, in the context of games, no you cannot get that software (game) legally from any other source if Epic paid for it to be exclusive.
That is not what a walled garden is. If the developers have a choice of where to sell their software, and choose to make it exclusive, that is totally fine! It's their software, they can choose how it is sold.
It's only a walled garden if there is no other option to distribute your games but with that company... so either an enforced monopoly (Apple) or de-facto monopoly (Steam, but this is arguable).
It's only a walled garden if there is no other option to distribute your games but with that company... so either an enforced monopoly (Apple) or de-facto monopoly (Steam, but this is arguable).
Developers have a choice when it comes to Apple as well. They make their software, and they chose to sell it on Android and iOS devices. Is it just because Apple is “big” and has cultivated themselves a valuable customer base the reason they are now... mandatory? No one is forcing you to release on iOS.
Replied to sibling comment in a bit more detail but I think we are looking at it form different viewpoints. "customers" vs "developers"
> Epic is explicitly a walled garden regarding the games it has paid to be exclusive
That's not what walled garden means. PC game developers can sell their games any number of ways - if they choose one way instead of others that's up to them. For iOS there's no choice - either you sell through Apple or you don't support iOS. Hence "walled garden".
In short: if you have to pay people to come into your garden, it's not walled. ;)
That's not what walled garden means. PC game developers can sell their games any number of ways - if they choose one way instead of others that's up to them. For iOS there's no choice - either you sell through Apple or you don't support iOS. Hence "walled garden".
In short: if you have to pay people to come into your garden, it's not walled. ;)
aha, I think we are coming at the term "walled garden" from opposite ends.
For a developer I agree with you, it is not a walled garden, they can sell games however they want, epic is one option who happen to be the only one that pays, out of all the stores, 3rd parties for exclusivity.
For a customer it is a walled garden for those exclusive games in that I cannot play those games without having to install and sign-up for the Epic Games Store because they paid to make them exclusive (again, permanently or temporarily).
For a developer I agree with you, it is not a walled garden, they can sell games however they want, epic is one option who happen to be the only one that pays, out of all the stores, 3rd parties for exclusivity.
For a customer it is a walled garden for those exclusive games in that I cannot play those games without having to install and sign-up for the Epic Games Store because they paid to make them exclusive (again, permanently or temporarily).
As a customer, if the game I'm about to buy was able to be polished because of additional funding/saving, I'm interested in the game being exclusive.
As a customer, if the game company has better chances of surviving paying their employees a decent wage, making quality games that I can enjoy, I'm interested in the game being exclusive.
As a customer, if the market could have more store options other than Steam so prices can be more competitive and developers can choose better deals, I'm interested in games being exclusive.
Also as a customer I can decide to just not play the game because of exclusivity and move on.
Why is Mario not on Steam? Why is The Last of Us or Uncharted not on PC? Yeah it sucks games are not ubiquitous but it's not always in the best interest of game developers to distribute their games everywhere and I think it should be perfectly understandable from the point of view of customers.
Also, from the point of view of Epic, I guess it's expected they want something in return for funding projects.
I don't get the anger people direct towards Epic when in fact they are doing a good thing for the market that very few companies would have the power to do.
As a customer, if the game company has better chances of surviving paying their employees a decent wage, making quality games that I can enjoy, I'm interested in the game being exclusive.
As a customer, if the market could have more store options other than Steam so prices can be more competitive and developers can choose better deals, I'm interested in games being exclusive.
Also as a customer I can decide to just not play the game because of exclusivity and move on.
Why is Mario not on Steam? Why is The Last of Us or Uncharted not on PC? Yeah it sucks games are not ubiquitous but it's not always in the best interest of game developers to distribute their games everywhere and I think it should be perfectly understandable from the point of view of customers.
Also, from the point of view of Epic, I guess it's expected they want something in return for funding projects.
I don't get the anger people direct towards Epic when in fact they are doing a good thing for the market that very few companies would have the power to do.
> I don't get the anger people direct towards Epic when in fact they are doing a good thing for the market that very few companies would have the power to do.
I guess it comes down to if you think having another game store & launcher installed in your PC is free (not speaking just monetarily here) or not. If you think it is free then there is no downside.
If you think it is not free: * Another app to manage * Another company to syphon data * Another place you you have to register a credit card * Another place where you have to add your friends or hope there is cross-store play
Then you will be annoyed that they have artificially restricted access to a game you could otherwise have bought directly or on your store / launcher of choice, e.g. Steam, GOG, with the only limitation being what the the developer wanted to release on.
Now I think EGS is mostly time-based exclusivity (I think there are maybe single digit permanently exclusive games on EGS) but the point still rankles. You can argue "Short term pain" (exclusives, assuming that stays short-term) for long term gain (more store competition) but that is not a guarantee.
> Yeah it sucks games are not ubiquitous but it's not always in the best interest of game developers to distribute their games everywhere and I think it should be perfectly understandable from the point of view of customers.
Many people, myself included, do not want the console exclusivity wars to be something that migrates to PC where there is 0 need for it (i.e. you are not developing your game on two completely different console architectures which adds to cost, maybe adding some store integration code only.) Especially paid exclusives.
I guess it comes down to if you think having another game store & launcher installed in your PC is free (not speaking just monetarily here) or not. If you think it is free then there is no downside.
If you think it is not free: * Another app to manage * Another company to syphon data * Another place you you have to register a credit card * Another place where you have to add your friends or hope there is cross-store play
Then you will be annoyed that they have artificially restricted access to a game you could otherwise have bought directly or on your store / launcher of choice, e.g. Steam, GOG, with the only limitation being what the the developer wanted to release on.
Now I think EGS is mostly time-based exclusivity (I think there are maybe single digit permanently exclusive games on EGS) but the point still rankles. You can argue "Short term pain" (exclusives, assuming that stays short-term) for long term gain (more store competition) but that is not a guarantee.
> Yeah it sucks games are not ubiquitous but it's not always in the best interest of game developers to distribute their games everywhere and I think it should be perfectly understandable from the point of view of customers.
Many people, myself included, do not want the console exclusivity wars to be something that migrates to PC where there is 0 need for it (i.e. you are not developing your game on two completely different console architectures which adds to cost, maybe adding some store integration code only.) Especially paid exclusives.
I understand your position, but that's not what the term means. A walled garden is when one party controls the media or distribution of content on a given platform. If you make a PC game, EGS has no control at all over how you distribute it. If you then decide to sell it exclusively through them, that doesn't make them a walled garden - you had control of how your game got distributed, not them.
Fair enough, looks like my understanding of the term was not the common one.
There is no difference between Epic or any other game store in this regard. The PC is no monopoly and no walled garden.
I am not sure in which regard you think there is no difference based on what I said. So to confirm where I think there is a difference:
Epic is the only PC store that will pay developers to restrict consumer choice by limiting distribution to their store (temporarily or permanently) only on what would otherwise be a competitive marketplace of stores on the PC platform. No other game store does this.
Epic is the only PC store that will pay developers to restrict consumer choice by limiting distribution to their store (temporarily or permanently) only on what would otherwise be a competitive marketplace of stores on the PC platform. No other game store does this.
>You seem to be moving the goalposts here.
No, you are.
>Epic is explicitly a walled garden regarding the games it has paid to be exclusive within that walled gardren (Permanently or temporarily).
That doesn't make the PC a walled garden. And we compare PC with iPhones here. Not Apple Appstore vs. Epicstore.
No, you are.
>Epic is explicitly a walled garden regarding the games it has paid to be exclusive within that walled gardren (Permanently or temporarily).
That doesn't make the PC a walled garden. And we compare PC with iPhones here. Not Apple Appstore vs. Epicstore.
He wasn’t saying the store was a problem, he was saying that having the store with titles you have an exclusive license to is a problem.
>No matter who wins between Epic and Apple human people lose. They're both walled garden monopolists.
This was the comparison, which is obviously wrong. Apple has a monopoly and a walled garden. Neither does Epic have a monopoly with their store, nor a walled garden, as the PC is not a walled garden.
So, no. There was nothing said about exclusives.
This was the comparison, which is obviously wrong. Apple has a monopoly and a walled garden. Neither does Epic have a monopoly with their store, nor a walled garden, as the PC is not a walled garden.
So, no. There was nothing said about exclusives.
Epic has signed a significant number of games as Epic Games exclusives [0], making them not part of the open platform but only available via the Epic Store.
How is that not a walled garden?
[0]https://www.gamewatcher.com/news/Epic-games-store-exclusives
How is that not a walled garden?
[0]https://www.gamewatcher.com/news/Epic-games-store-exclusives
> How is that not a walled garden?
Huh? When people talk about iOS being a walled garden they're referring to the fact that iOS apps can only be bought and sold via Apple. Consumers on that platform have no alternatives, and if Apple doesn't want a given app sold then it can't be bought.
EGS exclusives are nothing like that - anybody can sell PC games any way they like. If some particular developer chooses to sell their game via EGS and not other stores, that's up to the developer.
It's not a walled garden if people can enter and exit any time they like.
Huh? When people talk about iOS being a walled garden they're referring to the fact that iOS apps can only be bought and sold via Apple. Consumers on that platform have no alternatives, and if Apple doesn't want a given app sold then it can't be bought.
EGS exclusives are nothing like that - anybody can sell PC games any way they like. If some particular developer chooses to sell their game via EGS and not other stores, that's up to the developer.
It's not a walled garden if people can enter and exit any time they like.
I think most if not all are time limited exclusives.
Epic is conveying that the 30% cut on App Store was raising the prices. But Xbox and PlayStation has the same cut, yet Epic has lower pricing on these platforms.
Are you sure Epic hasn't negotiated some sort of deal with Xbox and playstation to lower the cut to a more reasonable rate given their volume of transactions.
That I’m not sure. Do you have any sources?
To clarify, I work in the gaming industry and I've heard rumors of large publishers negotiating better terms when they get to a certain magical number of transactions/gross rev. I'm not sure I've read any reporting on it. The sources I heard this from would have been in a position to know but, I can't really point to any hard data. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were true. I've heard it can be as low as 10-15% but again I don't have any evidence on that.
I don't think it's realistic to assume that 30% of all Fortnite revenues on xbox/playstation is still going to the platform holders. Valve already offers a 20% cut to large-volume titles on Steam, so it's plausible that Epic would have a custom deal with the console vendors.
Large game have a different cut, imagine Fifa paying 30% on all the FUT transactions ...
How are they justifying this? A linked blog post goes into more detail: https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/announcing-epi...; but it seems like they are extending the payment processing tools which they built for web to mobile. There are loopholes but not clear which one they're claiming to use (if any).
Fixed URL: https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/announcing-epi...
The ; at the end of yours breaks it
The ; at the end of yours breaks it
It looks like Apple has already pulled fortnite from the app store
Source?
https://mobile.twitter.com/markgurman/status/129398406972263...
Their app store link doesn't work https://apps.apple.com/us/app/fortnite/id1261357853
Their app store link doesn't work https://apps.apple.com/us/app/fortnite/id1261357853
Yeah I wonder they did a backroom deal with Apple and Google. These backroom deals that Apple/Google are doing is so anti competitive for small app developers and they keep on stressing that they are helping millions of developers. If this is not unfair I don't know what is.
Even if they did this is now an argument that the app store review process is not "fairly applied" which will be noticed in the current environment.
That seems unlikely considering the way that UX looks? They are actively pushing people away from the App Store flow.
Curious how this will play out because they explicitly bypass both Google and Apple
Oh they knew this way before they activated this.
Probably pushing it intentionally given the recent antitrust discussions. Worst case for them, they get banned from the store for a bit until they take that option down.
Sadly, it's gonna take a while before actual legislation is enacted.
If Fortnite gets banned, they'll stay that way for a long time unless they remove direct payment.
If Fortnite gets banned, they'll stay that way for a long time unless they remove direct payment.
That’s the point right? It’s a direct swing at a topic Tim Sweeney has been very vocal about.
From the announcement, V-Bucks are 20% cheaper (... when purchased from epicstore I guess...).
So, you use your browser, login to epicstore with your account, purchase v-bucks at 20% discount and you use those v-bucks in all Epic Games regardless the platform.
So, you use your browser, login to epicstore with your account, purchase v-bucks at 20% discount and you use those v-bucks in all Epic Games regardless the platform.
It's not an issue that [insert digital good here] is cheaper on the seller's website than in the Apple App Store. What Apple prohibits you from is telling your client that the [insert digital good here] is available for purchase somewhere else or that there's a special kind of a markup on the App Store option.
I don't think that's entirely true. Apps can use SMS or open the OS browser to accept payments and not be in direct violation of the guidelines.
>Apps can use SMS or open the OS browser to accept payments and not be in direct violation of the guidelines.
Which apps are allowed to open the browser for payments? I don't think even Netflix isn't allowed to do it. They just say "You can't make an account in the app" (paraphrasing) on the sign in page.
Which apps are allowed to open the browser for payments? I don't think even Netflix isn't allowed to do it. They just say "You can't make an account in the app" (paraphrasing) on the sign in page.
I'm under the impression anything done outside the app doesn't really fall under App Review territory. Embedding a UIWebView is considered in-app, and an embedded SFSafariViewController has slightly different rules.
No if you have a payment method setup you can pay using it directly from the apps themselves:
https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/announcing-epi...
Then in the app the Apple/Play payment method is explicitly not discounted.
Then in the app the Apple/Play payment method is explicitly not discounted.
Fortnite has been removed from the App Store as a result.
Things are about to get interesting.
Things are about to get interesting.
Meanwhile, other apps get banned for having donation buttons.
If you squint, this is kind of like the deal that Apple made with Amazon so that you can use your card-on-file with Amazon to rent videos via Prime Video: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/01/apple-agreement-with-amazon-...
> PERMANENT DISCOUNTS
That's a bold promise if Apple shuts the practice down. Will need to go back on the promised permanency or take the loss.
That's a bold promise if Apple shuts the practice down. Will need to go back on the promised permanency or take the loss.
It's their own virtual currency they're selling, which can only be used in a store they control. I wouldn't be surprised if they raise the prices of items sometime in the future.
Also, if a significant amount of purchase volume comes from iOS users, this could save them money.
Also, if a significant amount of purchase volume comes from iOS users, this could save them money.
No they don't, cause the discounts don't apply when buying through apple.
They're doing this because they can afford to take the loss. Fortnite brings in a tremendous amount of money and their margins are good.
Tencent will pay to fight this in court forever. Sad to be hoping for epic/tencent to succeed but apples policies are worse.
Epic: Apple employs anti-competitive, anti-consumer practices, and we're fighting against that!
Also Epic: We'll be locking as many games as we can afford behind Epic Store exclusive contracts since our store isn't good enough to compete with Steam on functionality or price.
Also Epic: We'll be locking as many games as we can afford behind Epic Store exclusive contracts since our store isn't good enough to compete with Steam on functionality or price.
EDIT: interesting, I just found this tweet (https://twitter.com/ballmatthew/status/1293903865557979136) that mentions other companies like McDonalds and Starbucks are also exempt
Indeed this is huge, well it will be huge if the app is still in the store by tomorrow ... I wonder what apple will do? I wonder if apple greenlighted this? If they didn’t get this greenlighted, I wonder how they bypassed the Apples app review process (in app updates instead of a store update?)?
I can’t wait to see how all of this unfolds, years ago I was part of a team that built a music app that got refused in the app store because we had included payments via a credit card processor, bypassing the 30% apple tax and today I’m in the process of building another app which is impacted by this … I also imagine companies like spotify are following this very closely
Indeed this is huge, well it will be huge if the app is still in the store by tomorrow ... I wonder what apple will do? I wonder if apple greenlighted this? If they didn’t get this greenlighted, I wonder how they bypassed the Apples app review process (in app updates instead of a store update?)?
I can’t wait to see how all of this unfolds, years ago I was part of a team that built a music app that got refused in the app store because we had included payments via a credit card processor, bypassing the 30% apple tax and today I’m in the process of building another app which is impacted by this … I also imagine companies like spotify are following this very closely
There's a difference between offering physical goods (like McDonalds and Starbucks) vs. digital goods. Both Google and Apple don't allow circumventing their payment mechanism for anything digital (e-books, music, etc.), while showing some lenience for physical ones.
> Update 2
> Fortnite is currently unavailable on Google Play. More information will be forthcoming soon.
> Update 1 > Apple has blocked your access to Fortnite on iOS devices! Take Action! #FreeFortnite
... well that answers a some of my questions ;)
> Update 1 > Apple has blocked your access to Fortnite on iOS devices! Take Action! #FreeFortnite
... well that answers a some of my questions ;)
Per the App Store Review guidelines: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#una... If payment is taken IN the app, not using Apple Pay, and not to an approved non-profit, it's in direct violation and should be removed.
I've had to update multiple apps that took donations, in order to pay for development work, and Apple absolutely won't let that fly anymore. On Apple's behalf, this unacceptable, illegal, and infuriating. I might consider joining a class-action lawsuit like this one: https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/apple-dev/201...
I've had to update multiple apps that took donations, in order to pay for development work, and Apple absolutely won't let that fly anymore. On Apple's behalf, this unacceptable, illegal, and infuriating. I might consider joining a class-action lawsuit like this one: https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/apple-dev/201...
This looks great for the future, balsy for sure, but like Hey did. Change is on the way!
If fortnite had an alternative payment method that wasn't exposed in the iOS app (e.g. only on the web, but you would buy credits that you could use in the app) then I don't see how Apple would have a leg to stand on.
Epic already had a lawsuit ready for this:
https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293994211621167105
https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1293994211621167105
The Apple/antitrust angle has been covered, but this Direct payment bypass also affects Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and Google. Won't they take issue with it as well?
Apparently the cuts that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo take are already acceptable to Epic. The announcement says that those users are getting the discount automatically without taking any action.
Starting today, any V-Bucks or real-money offers you purchase on PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Nintendo Switch, PC, and Mac are now discounted by up to 20%. You don’t need to do anything!
Starting today, any V-Bucks or real-money offers you purchase on PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Nintendo Switch, PC, and Mac are now discounted by up to 20%. You don’t need to do anything!
Additionally, there's two lines in the article:
> If Apple or Google lower their fees on payments in the future, Epic will pass along the savings to you.
and
> Do you play Fortnite on Android, but don’t purchase through Google Play? No problem! You’ll find that V-Bucks and real-money offers are now discounted by up to 20% through the Epic Games app at epicgames.com and the Samsung Galaxy Store.
Both of which strongly hint to the idea that its specifically the rates the Play/App Store charge at issue here, and they likely received discounted rates on competing storefronts by default.
> If Apple or Google lower their fees on payments in the future, Epic will pass along the savings to you.
and
> Do you play Fortnite on Android, but don’t purchase through Google Play? No problem! You’ll find that V-Bucks and real-money offers are now discounted by up to 20% through the Epic Games app at epicgames.com and the Samsung Galaxy Store.
Both of which strongly hint to the idea that its specifically the rates the Play/App Store charge at issue here, and they likely received discounted rates on competing storefronts by default.
And Fortnite just got removed from the App Store.
If I'm a small developer, how can I process payments directly without having to pay the fee to another provider?
Isn't the cut 70% for inapp purchases? I'm all for this, but there seems to be a 10% gap?
Right, the implication to me is that Epic believes a 10% fee is reasonable since they say on their website they'll lower prices if Apple lowers its fees.
So if Apple reduced fees to 10%, the price to pay with Apple would be the same as it is through Epic direct pay. In other words, Epic doesn't expect a 0% fee.
So if Apple reduced fees to 10%, the price to pay with Apple would be the same as it is through Epic direct pay. In other words, Epic doesn't expect a 0% fee.
This lines up well with their model for the Epic Games Store on PC - Epic keeps 12% and for games based on Unreal Engine they waive royalties when the copy is sold through their store.
[deleted]
I wonder if the only reason for having "both" payment systems in place, is some kind of unwritten rule (or secret handshake between Epic Games and their Apple account manager of some sorts) that will allow them to keep Fortnite on the app-store!
Reminder: Tencent owns 40% of Epic.
https://www.pcgamer.com/every-game-company-that-tencent-has-...
Their dumping power can be almost limitless.
https://www.pcgamer.com/every-game-company-that-tencent-has-...
Their dumping power can be almost limitless.
Is it against Apple terms to be offering multiple payment methods?
Couldnt the title be "Epic Direct Payment" on Mobile?
Shots fired. Optimal time to strike right after the hearings.
Apple ain’t gonna like this!
If they remove Fortnite from the App Store, Apple will probably be seen as the bad guy. After all, Epic is not taking anything off the top here; they make the same amount of money whether consumers choose to purchase through the App Store or through Epic's direct payment system.
If they keep Fortnite on the App Store, they're going to need to make a rule change to allow alternative payment methods within apps. One of Apple's main defenses during antitrust hearings was that App Review applies rules fairly and consistently. If they don't change the rules, that argument falls dead in the water.
Epic leadership knows that this is going to cause a firestorm. I'm happy that a large company with market power decided this was the right time to do this. I doubt Apple and Epic worked together on this; there's no way that this doesn't completely embarrass Apple and its App Store policies.
It will be exciting to see how this plays out, but my bet is that this is going to lead to a huge win for Apple developers.