And so it begins….

I expect a HUGE fight over Apple's restrictive practices about apps and payments.

3dcandy
And so it begins….

I expect a HUGE fight over Apple's restrictive practices about apps and payments.

You get the beer, I'll make the popcorn. This should be interesting. :)


Seriously though, I'm a bit divided on this one. I mean, yeah, most ‘platforms’ take an unhealthily large cut off the back of someone else's hard work. But then, without the platform existing, there probably wouldn't be, in this example, a Fortnite in the first place.

It's a bit like releasing a book via Amazon, especially “Unlimited”. The authors get a very small payment, mainly because books done that way usually don't sell in serious volumes. But without the Unlimited platform existing, it's unlikely the books would sell at all, because getting published the conventional way requires significant investment and most ‘want-to-be’ authors get piles of rejection letters and that, very frequently, is that.

It's a cart and horse thing. Without the digital platform, most of the products on them wouldn't have made it out the door in the first place.

They're going after google for the same thing AND supposedly ‘blocking’ with a business deal with oneplus to have it pre-installed etc.

Epic wants to keep pricing, and costs, consistent across all platforms and the only way they can really do this is to be able to use their own payment merchant, apple (and I think google, at least via the store) force usage of their payment system which in turn takes 30%.

I've always found it a bit ‘off’ that companies such as apple should be able to get 30% ‘just because’ it's being accessed essentially via their hardware with their ‘forced’ usage of in house payment tools. Now I don't think epic would be complaining (as much) if it was a ‘fair’ amount similar to what they charge on the epic store (13% iirc) but when you make 1.5BILLION from fortnite per year you're going to be fighting to get the prices lower where you feel they're excessive.

Now I know that mobile isn't the only place the income comes from but even if it's just 25%, and that's a reasonable assumption imo, you're looking at around 112 MILLION in fees… I'm pretty sure most companies would be after reducing that, it's not like Apple (and I assume google) haven't played dirty/sued to get prices lower.

Epic are already earning billions from this garbage game, I'm surprised it took them this long to try make more in this way.

Epic knew the Ts&Cs before they signed-up to sell Fartnite on the App and Play stores, then they openly break them. Rather like breaking the speed limit, then sueing the police for catching you.

LSG501
They're going after google for the same thing AND supposedly ‘blocking’ with a business deal with oneplus to have it pre-installed etc.

Epic wants to keep pricing, and costs, consistent across all platforms and the only way they can really do this is to be able to use their own payment merchant, apple (and I think google, at least via the store) force usage of their payment system which in turn takes 30%.

I've always found it a bit ‘off’ that companies such as apple should be able to get 30% ‘just because’ it's being accessed essentially via their hardware with their ‘forced’ usage of in house payment tools. Now I don't think epic would be complaining (as much) if it was a ‘fair’ amount similar to what they charge on the epic store (13% iirc) but when you make 1.5BILLION from fortnite per year you're going to be fighting to get the prices lower where you feel they're excessive.

Now I know that mobile isn't the only place the income comes from but even if it's just 25%, and that's a reasonable assumption imo, you're looking at around 112 MILLION in fees… I'm pretty sure most companies would be after reducing that, it's not like Apple (and I assume google) haven't played dirty/sued to get prices lower.

Google has their own in-app payment system, but there are big loopholes where this isn't necessary. These loopholes are specifically closed for games however.

Epic likely has a valid case, I'd argue that Google's policy of requiring their system when the benefits can only be used within the android app is fair, however requiring all games to even when this isn't the case is not.

Friesiansam
Epic knew the Ts&Cs before they signed-up to sell Fartnite on the App and Play stores, then they openly break them. Rather like breaking the speed limit, then sueing the police for catching you.

Should Epic have cut a deal with Apple to bypass the tax, like Amazon did?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/3/21206400/apple-tax-amazon-tv-prime-30-percent-developers

Ttaskmaster
Should Epic have cut a deal with Apple to bypass the tax, like Amazon did?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/3/21206400/apple-tax-amazon-tv-prime-30-percent-developers

Amazon had the economic clout to cut a special deal with Apple, Epic didn't. Such is life these days.

I'm pretty glad they're doing this. 30% of the sales is pretty high for a basic virus scan (hopefully) and serving the downloads, so it's nice to see someone with the clout to get somewhere tilt at the app store windmill.

Saracen999
You get the beer, I'll make the popcorn. This should be interesting. :)


Seriously though, I'm a bit divided on this one. I mean, yeah, most ‘platforms’ take an unhealthily large cut off the back of someone else's hard work. But then, without the platform existing, there probably wouldn't be, in this example, a Fortnite in the first place.

It's a bit like releasing a book via Amazon, especially “Unlimited”. The authors get a very small payment, mainly because books done that way usually don't sell in serious volumes. But without the Unlimited platform existing, it's unlikely the books would sell at all, because getting published the conventional way requires significant investment and most ‘want-to-be’ authors get piles of rejection letters and that, very frequently, is that.

It's a cart and horse thing. Without the digital platform, most of the products on them wouldn't have made it out the door in the first place.

Fortnite had a big following on PC before mobile, so it's not like it only exists because it could get on the play store.

This is different to the unlimited platform - I agree that taking a higher cut for smaller apps helps covers the fixed costs of whatever review process is needed to get onto the stores (even if it does look like screwing the little guy, but if you're covering the same fixed cost from a smaller number of sales then it'll have to be a bigger percentage), but with published books there's the option of a normal publisher for something that'll sell as many copies as fortnite has. If you have written a book that can sell in higher volumes, then you can expect to get a higher fraction of the sale price

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v96QyJczIi4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v96QyJczIi4

CAT-THE-FIFTH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v96QyJczIi4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v96QyJczIi4

I saw this too and was thinking the same. One mega corp fighting another, and you (the person fighting for Epic) won't see a penny of it.
Just more capitalism at play. Nothing to see here… move along.

Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo all charge 30% fee for hosting on their stores. Whilst you could argue Apple is different in that there are no competing third party stores as you get with the physical sale of games, google let the user install apps from other sources. Plus if you were a parent and your kid wants to buy an in-app purchase for a game you've never heard of, would you trust the app or would you rather just pay through the apple/play store?

Whilst it's a nice twist on Apple's Orwell advert, it's laughable to think Epic want anything other than to squeeze more money out of their products.

CAT-THE-FIFTH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v96QyJczIi4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v96QyJczIi4

Hah “There's tone f*cking deaf, then there's Tim f*cking Sweeney” made me laugh.

Scryder
I saw this too and was thinking the same. One mega corp fighting another, and you (the person fighting for Epic) won't see a penny of it.
Just more capitalism at play. Nothing to see here… move along.

chj
Hah “There's tone f*cking deaf, then there's Tim f*cking Sweeney” made me laugh.

Jim Stirling does not hold back. I can still remember Tim Sweeney moaning about MS and its game store,saying they would push exclusives and screw over competitors. The irony.

chj
Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo all charge 30% fee for hosting on their stores. Whilst you could argue Apple is different in that there are no competing third party stores as you get with the physical sale of games, google let the user install apps from other sources. Plus if you were a parent and your kid wants to buy an in-app purchase for a game you've never heard of, would you trust the app or would you rather just pay through the apple/play store?

Whilst it's a nice twist on Apple's Orwell advert, it's laughable to think Epic want anything other than to squeeze more money out of their products.

They told our MPs that Fortnite makes no money.

CAT-THE-FIFTH
They told our MPs that Fortnite makes no money.

I suppose ‘technically’ they're right, fortnite is ‘free’, it's the vbucks (is that the right currency) that makes the money and they just happen to be able to spend that in fortnite :P

I'd like to think the final outcome is that developers can either “publish for a low/free cost and get charged 30%” or “pay a ‘proper’ fee, in the 100s of thousands, per year and pay no fee to Apple”.

It's not an uncommon method, just look at game engines and dev kits that do the same, “small sale” companies, like less than 100k sales, can use it royalty free, where as others that use it for large incomes have to pay fees.