Epic explains why it hasn't sued Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft over 30% fee
Epic explains why it hasn't sued Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft over 30% fee | Epic vs Google
Nintendo does not sell hardware at a loss and, IIRC, has done so since the Wii. It was a huge deal back when they said they were going to make a profit off the hardware. Given how abysmally the Wii U did, I’m struggling to find coverage of that from 15yr ago that I only vaguely remember. However, that’s been a major point from Nintendo since the Wii, so it’s ridiculous that Epic wouldn’t know that and is clearly just an attack on Google (please don’t read that as me supporting Google or Epic).
PlayStations are not sold at a loss either.
They usually start out selling for a loss, but Sony reduces costs and scales production so they're usually profitable (or at least even) after a couple of years. As far as I can tell the PS3 took the longest, releasing in 2006 and not breaking even until 2010, still 3 years before the PS4 launched.
It seems Xbox has always sold at a loss though.
So if Google sold its phones at a loss then Epic would have no problem paying the fee? Sure.
The more interesting part of the argument is saying that people will contact Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony for technical support with a game and expect them to help while Apple or Google would send you to the developer.
google isn't the only company selling android phones.
google isn’t the only company selling android phones.
Other Android OEMs are allowed to ship whatever store they want in addition to Google Play. The Epic Games Store is on the Samsung Galaxy Store: https://galaxystore.samsung.com/detail/com.epicgames.portal
Honestly, they should sue Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. The fact that we allow such restricted computers that can land you in prison for manipulating them is just absurd.
More realisticly Epic is just choosing their battles where they can see that they can make progress but they can't say that.
They only need one big win. If they manage that, the rest would be much easier. As arguments will have been made and ruled. They can refer to the case against Google as precedent, making the subsequent court cases short, cheaper and/or not be necessary. If Google loses apple, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will all examine changing policy or settling any disagreements earlier.
Precisely, it would be a stupid waste of money to launch simultaneous lawsuits against everyone. Get one victory, then use that precedence to get settlements from the rest.
I mean don't get me wrong, it's absurd how locked down their stuff is, but I'm not aware of prison time for opening up consoles yet. You can get sued, like Sony vs Hotz, and get ordered to pay some outrageous restitution, but that road ends in bankruptcy, not prison. Still complete bullshit that they can bankrupt a person, but there's no prison....yet.
They're trying to get John Fortnite into Smash and are trying to impress Nintendo by knocking Google and Apple off-screen, saved you a read.
Wow, this is complete bullshit.
And I am saying that even though I have zero love for the mobile gaming market, while I do own and like consoles. There is just no reason to consider they're doing things any differently on this matter.
30% seems quite a lot, no matter the platform, especially for small indie studios. I'd care more about these than whatever the Fortnite machine has to pay.
30% seems quite a lot, no matter the platform,
I’ve been developing mobile apps since before the iPhone was a thing. I remember when the App Store was announced, including the 30% cut for Apple. There was a lot of excitement around the fact that developers could keep 70%.
Before app stores, this is how you distributed and charged for a mobile app: customers would send a text message with a keyword to a so called shortcode, depending on country this was a 4 or 5 digit phone number. For example, you would send ‘NAMEOFGAME’ to 12345. The user would then get a text message back with a link to download the game. The message they got back was a so called reverse-billing SMS (also known as premium SMS). This message would be billed to the customer, at a certain rate that you as the sender of the SMS could configure. This basically meant customers paid for games through their phone bill.
How this worked from the developer’s side:
Note that there was no store, no way for users to discover your game, so you had to advertise it as well. The telco’s took 50% for billing the customer, while you had to everything else. Of course the development tools for mobile apps were absolute shit as well.
So when Apple announced that they would let you keep 70%, would take care of hosting, payments, would provide a nice user friendly app store where people could actually find your app and provide decent development tools for you to build apps in, that was a fucking huge win.
Honest question: how is it possibly "complete" bullshit, when we know for a fact that console makers are taking like a hundred dollar wash on every console sold whereas Apple and Google make substantial profit on every device sold?
I mean I would love to see consoles forced to allow sideloading and alternate app stores too, but I can't fathom how you cant see the difference in business models....
Someone linked to it already, but yeah, about that...
Note that it was 1 year ago. So the hardware is probably less expensive now and the exceptions are at the very least not as marked.
And of course, it was never true for the Switch to begin with.
30% fees are insane. Those cost are passed down to us the consumer. We get shittier game because a third of the profit goes to these marketplaces.
I get the epic hate bandwagon but what the fuck is up with the constant bootlicking? Google sucks for doing this and all the other platforms as well. They ALL employ monopolistic tactics to keep their moats, stop defending them because the circle jerk tells you too.
30% fees are insane. Those cost are passed down to us the consumer. We get shittier game because a third of the profit goes to these marketplaces.
Whilst that may be the case, every single day one launch on EGS and other stores (GOG, Microsoft, Steam) launch at exactly the same price on Epic despite the lesser cut. Not one single title I’ve seen launch at a lower price on EGS.
I feel it’s naive to think that is, the consumer would ever benefit from a lesser cut, the fat shits at the top would just keep more.
And they're hemorrhaging money
The price is the same because of a Most Favored Nations clause in Steam's ToS. Publishers have to sell it at the same or higher price on other platforms to keep their product on Steam, which is the lion's share of the market. This is part of the accusation in the lawsuit: https://programming.dev/comment/5159579
Now you could argue that even if it were removed, publishers would still sell at the same price and keep the extra profit, but that's just hypothetical at this point.
The consumer would benefit from a higher quality of games, since they would become more lucrative to make and the available budget after a successful title would be higher.
There's also the indie scene that would benefit from every dollar. A 30% middleman tax can affect a lot more than just the price.
Cutting ceo pay is a good idea too but one problem doesn't forgive another and regulating soft monopolies would be a first step in that direction anyways.
They don't set the prices.
The 30% covers storage, distribution, discovery, and probably more. If you had to implement that yourself you'd wind up with a shittier version for probably more money.
This is horseshit. Apple is making billions of dollars a year on the app store.
Setting a CDN and a document search service take like 5min on Azure / AWS / GCP, and get you 90% of the way there, and your annual bill for them might push into the hundreds of thousands, but nothing close to approaching the amount of money that Google and apple are taking in through the app store.
People really need to stop defending this horseshit behaviour. If it's so hard to run an App store then why won't Google or Apple fairly compete against any?
I'll happily pay these 30% if it means I get quality services for them:
(using Steam as an example here)
People always act like those are to be taken as granted, but if you have ever worked in dev/devops, you would know that there's a lot of work maintaining each one of them.
Also, you can use these services for as long as you want, despite paying for them with a single one-time purchase.
Of course, if the platform doesn't provide any services or benefits, your point stands. In that case just avoid it.
Responsive support? On Steam?
Apart from the forums, Epic offer all those things and take only 12%. Microsoft offer most of those things and also take 12%.
Hosting a forums platform costs almost nothing. Moderating them like Valve, expecting the game creators to do the work and doing an extremely poor job, with each big game hub filled with toxicity and people earning points for racism and other forms of bigotry, is certainly not worth 18%.
Except even without the fees games generally get released at the same price
You're just licking someone else's boot. Epic is by no means pro-consumer.
And yes, google is evil. But that doesn't imply there's someone good in this situation.
