stinhamboTrue but Epic aren't the gatekeepers to the PC platform are they? There are multiple methods of marketing and deploying your game to millions of PC owners. The same can't be said for iOS.

Right & what gives them the godforsaken right to make money off of iOS & Android, without paying a dime to Apple, Google who maintain their stores & actually put billions developing the iOS & Android? It is a game after all, entertainment at its core & AFAIK EPIC isn't paying a dime for the game to be listed to the App store & Play Store! What gives EPIC the right to bypass Apple, Google & mint billions themselves? It's like saying I have a right to (sell in) the most glamourous mall in the town because it's the only place where I can make billions, instead of millions elsewhere, & you know what I don't want to pay a dime to the mall owner because that's my right!

As for Apple, Google being monopolies ~ I'll reiterate this they're not because there's literally a billion other potential users on other platforms! If you're skewing the definition of a monopoly how about including every walled garden as one, like EGS?

The flippant arguments favoring EPIC are truly EPIC & just as an aside, I'm all for Socialism in fact in the other thread I did virtually advocate for that but then I also say all corporations are evil not just the one offering me cheaper products!

Vayra86Okay. How did MS get fined for not offering all browsers on a Windows OS install? They have a dominance that disturbs a fair market. So no, its not all that simple as you think it is and these walled gardens that own the market between just two big players, are definitely eligible for the same antitrust approach. With great power comes equal responsibility.

Its not really about greed. Its about a level playing field and that is something consumers benefit from. Why even argue against it, and for monopolies?

Ok, that's not even remotely comparable. Yes & again not comparable, do you think Opera, FF then Chrome became popular just because the EU forced MS to install other options for a (default) browser?

Yes it does but tell me at what point does this become about my choice or rather my self interest? With EPIC doing this BS they wouldn't have to pay Apple, Google a dime for IAP won't they? How come Apple & Google then basically have to subsidize showcasing a popular game on their platform, which btw literally makes millions if not billions from users worldwide, without getting anything in return? EPIC don't pay a cent for just using the App or Play stores AFAIK.

The part about China, which again brings me to the self interest point ~ they've kept (foreign) internet players out of their walled garden & actively hamper efforts to showcase anything not approved by the CCP over there. Like sanitized games & movies, or banning the likes of Google, Twitter, FB entirely over there. How about slave labor i.e. Uighurs or their concentration reeducation camps?

It really isn't that simple & unlike you I want everything that is wrong in the world today to be talked about & corrected. EPIC not getting $200 million extra in their pockets because Apple, Google are more greedy than them doesn't register on the Richter scale for me!

Like I said earlier it's all greed, or none of it is! You can pretend there's less important things than a profit making company trying to reach a billion other potential bankrollers, or we can agree that "gaming" or fortnite already has at least nearly half a dozen alternatives on other platforms like PC & consoles!

I'd be fine if EPIC would pass on all the costs directly to gamers, which they obviously aren't so no I'm not in the least bit interested in the flippant argument how they enjoyed a good run on the App store for what 2 years & then suddenly decided they couldn't fit the bill anymore because <reasons> :rolleyes:

stinhamboTrue but Epic aren't the gatekeepers to the PC platform are they? There are multiple methods of marketing and deploying your game to millions of PC owners. The same can't be said for iOS.

Then why are they suing Google?

CrackongThen why are they suing Google?

Because you could technically get your own access to the platform. But reality says you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of survival.

As far as Epic having to get their free lunch... NO, I don't think they should get it for free. But the industry push they have made with a substantial lowering of distribution cost, in a healthy market, would suggest others are forced to follow. With the current market reality though, that is not really the case - and Epic is unable to offer a store 'equivalent' on Apple's IOS and likely won't on Android either. You can rest assured Google will create some sort of technicality to stop that even if it does gain traction.

This isn't really about Epic, to me. Its about breaking up the power of tech companies that have enjoyed far too large margins in a growth market, and have consolidated to an extent that they are way, way too influential.

ImoutoThere is no possible lawsuit against Google because it allows alternative stores on Android and manually installing .apks. Then you see the Apple market share an realize that they have a 15% that is nowhere near a position that would warrant an antitrust lawsuit. So I am honest here: What the hell are you or Epic complaining about? That a private run business doesn't want to have anything to do with you without the consent of both parties? Because this argument seems as moronic as it sounds.

You can't force a private business to sell the goods from a third party if they don't want to. And to make things worse at a lower cut. Hilarious. Playing Fortnite isn't the same as a utility or being able to afford food.



With great freedom comes great responsibility.



Yes, 30%. The industry standard. Does that reduction to absurdity work on this forum? Because that's the same as claiming you don't deserve to be paid for your work because most of the time you are breathing. See? We both can play this stupid game.



I couldn't care less about developers if they are going to bag all the earnings from a better cut and I still have to pay $60 for new games. If the EGS was half as good for the developers as you and other supporters claim, the publishers wouldn't put their games in Steam within the same day the exclusivity ends.

So far the only thing Epic has done with the EGS is to make it rain and that should impress only the most simple minded of the common people.



I will say it again, there's no case here and will never be because there are alternatives for one player and the other one is nowhere near a position of dominance.

Given the timing of Google's ban you could easily say Apple and Google have had an informal call on this and decided this was a good idea. Or they just looked over the fence, saw Apple and responded immediately because its obviously, strategically the best move. They share interests and with that, together, they pretty much own the market.

I've already gone over the difference between how it is perhaps technically possible but in the current market reality, pretty pointless to offer another entry point to Android or even a workable alternative mobile OS. You won't get share. Others have tried, and not even a giant like MS could see it work. Google has played the game well.

It makes absolute sense that Sweeney is trying this, to see if he can make a dent. If the legal route is definitively blocked, I have little doubt he will play the game differently. In terms of Android, maybe he'll even move to that separate platform after all and try to make it work. Its not like Play store is a great place to be, IMHO.

Vayra86Okay. How did MS get fined for not offering all browsers on a Windows OS install? They have a dominance that disturbs a fair market. So no, its not all that simple as you think it is and these walled gardens that own the market between just two big players, are definitely eligible for the same antitrust approach. With great power comes equal responsibility.

Its not really about greed. Its about a level playing field and that is something consumers benefit from. Why even argue against it, and for monopolies?



I sincerely hope so, but console is a different one altogether. Mobile and being connected has taken up a prominent position in our everyday lives, it could be considered as essential as internet access itself. App Stores have worked diligently and with active enforcement to pull all apps through that one funnel both Apple and Google desired. Now that they own the market, they start swinging the banhammer, they continuously buy up startups and anything that could pose them a threat. The fact Apple and Google have the same policy and are fought in the same way should tell you enough. Together they own 90%+ of the smartphone market.

Epic's approach is wholly different, and it is also a platform on an entirely different level. NO, they cannot offer their own funnel for data to end up as secure and verified on phones. If a user does not tick a box in settings to allow apps outside the Stores, which also opens them up to any kind of malicious software, they simply won't be able to use Epic's service.

This is not a level playing field and in the context of users of mobile phones having app access, Apple and Google have monopolized the distribution market. Thát needs a counterbalance and a good one is setting a fixed or very low maximum rate on any percentage of sales, in-app or of the app itself. 30%, as it is with Steam, is straight up criminal and to even enforce it over all the money streams INSIDE apps is next level. 30% for some curation and moving a few bits around the globe. For real?

Either Epic will win this, or they actually should and might still win in the future. The current situation has made these tech giants way too powerful as it is for doing way too little work. When EGS started off combating Steam with much lower rates, people said it would never benefit us. This is what you've missed, right here; this is the battle EGS is fighting on our behalf. Lower price of distribution = higher cut towards developers = better software or at least bigger margins to do more. Do you really want to pay 3 dollars out of every 10 to Apple for the software of others? That's 30% of a paycheck - perhaps even YOUR paycheck, directly if you build your own apps.

And let's be honest. Isn't this how the market SHOULD work? A competitor offers a way more competitive distribution channel for software, but gets roadblocked from doing so. How should that NOT be fought, aside from the technicalities of outdated law and fast technological progress? Rules can and will have to be changed, sometimes, or the situation needs to be placed in the right perspective. I think the latter is what most people here are missing, and they fail to realize they damage themselves and keep an unhealthy balance of power in play.

This "leveled playing field" idea is exactly what EPIC wants you to think and to justify their actions. Again I don't disagree that 30% is a steep cut for the app developers, but isn't this is the terms in which EPIC agreed and allowed to sell their wares on either app store. Just imagine that you agreed to help someone on the condition that they fulfill certain T&C from you. Now you fulfilled your part to help, but the person did not live up to the bargain down the road. Instead of apologizing to you, he/she sued you instead, and now trying to get people's support to justify that you are a villain and why helping you is a bad idea.

In the first place, why would EPIC want to join the app stores? Isn't it because of the amount of traffic on them, and in the case of iOS, I am pretty sure they are selling well for them to make it such a big deal for them to sue Apple. So if they are selling well on it, then isn't it fair to pay for use of the store? Its like you want the human traffic in a high end shopping mall, but don't want to pay rental. To add on to the insult, they are rallying gamers to come and support their wrongdoing on the pretense of offering a "leveled playing field". In fact, you should consider if you want to buy anything from a company that does not honor their T&C.

This is absolutely poor business practice from EPIC. I feel even the 3 game console makers should just ban EPIC because at some point, they are going to turn around and bite the hand that feeds it.

Let me try to simplify this: Epic may be guilty of drug trafficking and it still wouldn't invalidate their suit against Apple and Google.

(Personally, I think distribution should be handled independently, neither publishers nor OS providers should have a hand in that. Failing that, they cannot be granted a distribution monopoly.)

watzupkenThis "leveled playing field" idea is exactly what EPIC wants you to think and to justify their actions. Again I don't disagree that 30% is a steep cut for the app developers, but isn't this is the terms in which EPIC agreed and allowed to sell their wares on either app store. Just imagine that you agreed to help someone on the condition that they fulfill certain T&C from you. Now you fulfilled your part to help, but the person did not live up to the bargain down the road. Instead of apologizing to you, he/she sued you instead, and now trying to get people's support to justify that you are a villain and why helping you is a bad idea.

In the first place, why would EPIC want to join the app stores? Isn't it because of the amount of traffic on them, and in the case of iOS, I am pretty sure they are selling well for them to make it such a big deal for them to sue Apple. So if they are selling well on it, then isn't it fair to pay for use of the store? Its like you want the human traffic in a high end shopping mall, but don't want to pay rental. To add on to the insult, they are rallying gamers to come and support their wrongdoing on the pretense of offering a "leveled playing field". In fact, you should consider if you want to buy anything from a company that does not honor their T&C.

This is absolutely poor business practice from EPIC. I feel even the 3 game console makers should just ban EPIC because at some point, they are going to turn around and bite the hand that feeds it.

Epic 'wants me to think' things now? Is Sweeney running for President?

Please. This implicates there are sides to be taken or votes to be won, but there is only one side, and that is the consumer side, I just look at the market and I see what I've said I see. That was also the case, and will be the case, prior to and beyond Epic's existence. Don't turn things around here because you've just woken up to that fact - I'm pretty aware of it for several years now and it happens in more than just entertainment. This is the same shitty new economical reality we see from the likes of Uber, Just-Eat and a number of other digital platforms. its destructive to local markets, destructive to entrepeneurship and level playing field in commerce, and it is a fast-food approach that is also destructive to our psyche. Its pretty healthy to not get things delivered to your door effortlessly and not funnel all content through these platforms. Its the same paradox as a search bubble when we find everything with Google: you will get directed and controlled by it, and you can barely escape it. You'll always quickly find what you need... but never anything else. The same paradox also exists on social media, with its constant self-acknowledgment whole swarms of idiots have taken to a myriad of conspiracy theories and every day is a new round of new nonsense flying around those networks. Unsurprisingly, those same people think they're reading credible sources. Its dangerous, it damages us, and malicious actors get free reign because of it. Again, supported by daily examples. You just need to be able to see them.

Meanwhile, wealth is divided unequally and fat cats in the top of the tree are now almost exclusively from tech giants. I wonder what happened? :ohwell: Please just let go of the completely ridiculous anti-Sweeney/EGS idea and take a step back. Because shit, some of you are so knee-deep in Reddit Reality that you've lost sight of what's really happening right under your nose, in your pocket. Your comment underlines that, and that alone.

Its about time you - and many others - wake up to all of this and start connecting the RIGHT dots. The power of big business and its lobby has permeated our systems, our governments and even some of our minds, and you are blindly stumbling into it 'because they're playing by the rules'.

The game is rigged, though, and its not some stupid illuminati (or China) idea... its the economy and the players right in front of you. Imagine that. Hiding in the open and you still can't see them, even when you say 'gosh 30% is rather steep'. How come nobody undercuts them, is the logical next question. Another logical question is how such a large sales tax is acceptable.

Vayra86Given the timing of Google's ban you could easily say Apple and Google have had an informal call on this and decided this was a good idea. Or they just looked over the fence, saw Apple and responded immediately because its obviously, strategically the best move. They share interests and with that, together, they pretty much own the market.

So what? It is like the town drunkard being banned from one bar and the one on the other end of the street doing the same because he keeps making trouble. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the bars in town would be wary of such a customer. Not really surprising that you see a conspiracy here anyway.

Vayra86I've already gone over the difference between how it is perhaps technically possible but in the current market reality, pretty pointless to offer another entry point to Android or even a workable alternative mobile OS. You won't get share. Others have tried, and not even a giant like MS could see it work. Google has played the game well.

Microsoft with their mobile efforts, Intel trying to get into the mobile chip market, Amazon with their tablets or Epic with the EGS are perfect examples of corporations with too much money and very little sense. You can't try to enter a market with your wallet first, hurrying, bullying people left and right and no plan. They all were bound to fail.

Vayra86It makes absolute sense that Sweeney is trying this, to see if he can make a dent. If the legal route is definitively blocked, I have little doubt he will play the game differently. In terms of Android, maybe he'll even move to that separate platform after all and try to make it work.

No, this is bad business and anyone with a little common sense can see it. You don't go trying to force the hand of the people you want to make business with, badmouthing them, then making a one sided change to your partnership and expect them not to retaliate. Funniest part is that when the partnership is broken because there is no agreement Epic is trying to force them to do business on Epic's terms alone. This is so messed up I don't even know how anyone expects these lawsuits to succeed. These lawsuits are just a publicity stunt and I bet Epic will launch their own store for Android by the end of the year.

Taking in mind the failure that the EGS is, only succeeding in giving games away for free, I don't know why Epic is burning bridges like this. Well, I do know. They are scared shitless that the Fortnite money stops flowing with no "greatest next thing" in the chamber and they are so desperate that they don't see this route is a dead end.

Vayra86Its not like Play store is a great place to be, IMHO.

I don't think you realize how much of a fanboy you sound saying such a thing. There are corporations several times bigger than Epic like Netflix doing more than fine in the Play Store. This is just Epic being a greedy little shit and worrying about its future.

ImoutoSo what? It is like the town drunkard being banned from one bar and the one on the other end of the street doing the same because he keeps making trouble. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the bars in town would be wary of such a customer. Not really surprising that you see a conspiracy here anyway.



Microsoft with their mobile efforts, Intel trying to get into the mobile chip market, Amazon with their tablets or Epic with the EGS are perfect examples of corporations with too much money and very little sense. You can't try to enter a market with your wallet first, hurrying, bullying people left and right and no plan. They all were bound to fail.



No, this is bad business and anyone with a little common sense can see it. You don't go trying to force the hand of the people you want to make business with, badmouthing them, then making a one sided change to your partnership and expect them not to retaliate. Funniest part is that when the partnership is broken because there is no agreement Epic is trying to force them to do business on Epic's terms alone. This is so messed up I don't even know how anyone expects these lawsuits to succeed. These lawsuits are just a publicity stunt and I bet Epic will launch their own store for Android by the end of the year.

Taking in mind the failure that the EGS is, only succeeding in giving games away for free, I don't know why Epic is burning bridges like this. Well, I do know. They are scared shitless that the Fortnite money stops flowing with no "greatest next thing" in the chamber and they are so desperate that they don't see this route is a dead end.



I don't think you realize how much of a fanboy you sound saying such a thing. There are corporations several times bigger than Epic like Netflix doing more than fine in the Play Store. This is just Epic being a greedy little shit and worrying about its future.

We get it now, you don't like Epic. Bad business, in that we agree. Just in different ways ;)

For some insight, try to apply your statements to Apple versus its "independent" ( :roll: ) resellers and how it deals with repair centers. About 'good business and being nice', and all that. Or about how both companies have been buying up startups and app makers that had a good idea, or just not buy them up and copy the idea regardless. Going to sue Google or Apple for that? Good luck buddy! I can pull open another can of worms if you want, but I'll save you the three page monologue on that. 'Being nice' is not going to work against those who control the market. The same applied to Steam. Common sense says you also take a long look at that before you piss over Epic who is really just a tiny player in relation to what it is fighting.

You are right in that they might very well attempt to push their own platform on Android in the end - and if they do, don't they have every right to? But that still doesn't answer or solve the IOS problem, and it also makes sense to explore the legal side before taking such a risk, this is what Epic is actually doing here. Not 'worrying about its future'. Mobile is extra, and a growth market. They have their PC venture nonetheless and it is booming.

ImoutoI don't think you realize how much of a fanboy you sound saying such a thing. There are corporations several times bigger than Epic like Netflix doing more than fine in the Play Store. This is just Epic being a greedy little shit and worrying about its future.

Netflix is fixed rate subbing (and a vast majority of it is not paid through the app stores but from other devices), no shit they're doing fine. This is about in-app purchasing, are you paying attention, or?

I'll refer to my earlier comment about separating A from B / making the correct comparisons here. This is failing at it pretty hard.

hatI'm not sure about iOS, but on Android, you can easily install anything from an "unverified source" or whatever by ticking the option in Security Settings.

This, and this alone is already proof enough Epic should win because this is not a level playing field. Consumers have to know about and actively opt in to even access them. The solution to that really doesn't have to be that Apple or Google change their 30% to something else... but it does mean they will have to be forced to create some path onto IOS and Android that would allow ANY competitor to run something similar to a Play Store on Android. On IOS, the solution is some sort of sandbox in which Epic can run its platform and games, where Apple only needs to 'vet' the launcher, but even that wouldn't be entirely level.

Vayra86We get it now, you don't like Epic. Bad business, in that we agree. Just in different ways ;)

For some insight, try to apply your statements to Apple versus its "independent" ( :roll: ) resellers and how it deals with repair centers. About 'good business and being nice', and all that. Or about how both companies have been buying up startups and app makers that had a good idea, or just not buy them up and copy the idea regardless. Going to sue Google or Apple for that? Good luck buddy! I can pull open another can of worms if you want, but I'll save you the three page monologue on that. 'Being nice' is not going to work against those who control the market. The same applied to Steam. Common sense says you also take a long look at that before you piss over Epic who is really just a tiny player in relation to what it is fighting.

You are right. That chihuahua is all bark and no bite. Valve didn't even look their way when Epic launched the EGS, started buying developers, gave away games for free, bought temp exclusivities and threatened them. Wonder why? Because all those don't move them an inch closer to compete with Steam.

Vayra86You are right in that they might very well attempt to push their own platform on Android in the end - and if they do, don't they have every right to? But that still doesn't answer or solve the IOS problem, and it also makes sense to explore the legal side before taking such a risk, this is what Epic is actually doing here. Not 'worrying about its future'. Mobile is extra, and a growth market. They have their PC venture nonetheless and it is booming.

No, it is not booming. The EGS is deliberately left out of any financial bragging because it is costing Epic an arm and a leg and not growing at all. What did you expect when the only reason to use the EGS is claiming free games that make a dent on your balance?

Vayra86Netflix is fixed rate subbing, no shit they're doing fine. This is about in-app purchasing, are you paying attention, or?

I'll refer to my earlier comment about separating A from B / making the correct comparisons here. This is failing at it pretty hard.

It is the same thing. Netflix, and plenty of other apps, bypassed the Apple and Google tax by removing all the paying options from the app and making it available on their website but Epic can't or doesn't want to. Maybe it is you who should do a bit more research about the subject you are discussing. This is just another big pointer to the launch of a store of their own and these lawsuits being just a publicity stunt. But you seem to eat Epic propaganda three meals a day so maybe it is I who's in the wrong by discussing this with you.

$ReaPeR$You do understand that the duopoly of Apple and Google is the only way to get into the mobile space right? You also do understand that that is the whole point of EPIC, to brake that duopoly. For their own gain of course but it so happens to be beneficial for the consumer in the long run. So all the bs comparing it to rents and taxes is at best laughable, compare it to the mafia, because that is exactly what it is. Btw American law is so.. I'll be kind and say disgusting, because the lobbyists write it. The "invisible hand" ladies and gentlemen. And even though I despise EPIC, in this case I really hope they win.

What you wrote may be true, but it doesn't make it right. If you use a service, you pay for it, it's that simple. Besides, I really don't think Epic is doing all this for the consumer. All they want is to sell everything on the same price, and keep all the profit. Their current communication might suggest otherwise, but look at what they did on PC: they opened their own store and made their games exclusive (at least initially). I'm 100% sure they would do the same on mobile as well if they could. It is the exact opposite of "promoting more open ecosystems". They want a monopoly not by being better, but by destroying the competition which disgusts me to no end.

ImoutoEpic can't or doesn't want to.

That is exactly what is happening. Maybe Epic could but they don't want to, because even if THEY might be able to create their own little garden or solution, others are going to find it pretty troublesome. Especially independent developers who focus mainly on whatever they develop. Epic isn't in big trouble or anything like you want to make it seem. They are trying to create a precedent, to see if it sticks, and if it does, all developers benefit. Not just EGS. The reasons they use for that are pretty reasonable, to me. That is this discussion in a nutshell, free from all the underlying 'oh Epic is evil' sentiment. In the end, the result won't just affect Epic and there is simply no denying that, so its not just Epic's battle, and like Steam, you don't force your way into markets by playing nice. If Apple and Google are indeed going to find more watchful eyes on their services through app stores, that can only work out positively. Attention is drawn to the fact they shovel the money in at 30% per sale which is a mentally high number for what they're doing for it. And.... wasn't that exactly what Epic was doing with Steam's cut? Epic knows it can be profitable with a much lower distribution cut, and it is using that cost effectiveness to make dents. That is commerce, competition, right there, as you would want it.

You don't always need to win a case to enforce a change in the industry. If you look at the shifts in PC publishers and studios they own, you can see consolidation among publishers that want to keep bringing quality games (and not 'chase the carrot' style DLC-infested crap alone, or those silly streamed services with zero guarantees) and those almost all find their way to EGS. With (timed) exclusive content, but also with freebies. Every freebie is also a promotional tool, so it's a win-win. The net result is that these publishers are getting a larger share of the 100% pie of a sale and this allows them to throw those freebies out. Customer wins.

I'm sure you have your personal feelings on that approach, but I've frankly read enough of it, its getting old.

We can leave it there, just like this, which evidently shows us a company in big, big trouble ;)

www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/01/14/epic-games-store-has-hit-680-million-in-revenue-108-million-customers/#1770af364b99

Vayra86www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/01/14/epic-games-store-has-hit-680-million-in-revenue-108-million-customers/#1770af364b99

That statement was thoroughly laughed at when they presented it as it only shows how utterly pathetic the EGS is. The key number here is the $251 million spent on third party games. If we do a little math and multiply it by 0.12 it leaves a $30 million cut for Epic. Little later they brag about giving away $23 million in coupons and discounts leaving it at $7 million. If you take into account the free games (I bet the recent Total War wasn't cheap) and the exclusivities the EGS is making a massive hole in Epic's pockets even at the 100 million accounts landmark.

Vayra86We can leave it there, just like this, which evidently shows us a company in big, big trouble ;)

In this we agree. To the ignore list you go.

DimiMaybe Epic should ask music artists how much they earn per sold song/album. Pretty sure they get LESS than 20% of the sales.

Whiners gonna whine. I hope Epic goes down and under. Move to China while you're at it.

Apple is also pro-China. LOL

hmmmm

I really wish I would have went to school for tech litigation lawyer instead of an engineer...................sigh.............

"Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store and has informed Epic that on Friday, August 28 Apple will terminate all our developer accounts and cut Epic off from iOS and Mac development tools. We are asking the court to stop this retaliation."

mechtechhmmmm

I really wish I would have went to school for tech litigation lawyer instead of an engineer...................sigh.............

Imho, any decent engineer would hang themselves sooner than finishing law school. Though I think the school is not as bad as the practice itself.

bugImho, any decent engineer would hang themselves sooner than finishing law school. Though I think the school is not as bad as the practice itself.

I have recently (in the last 6 months) been hooked on this channel:
Legal Eagle You Tube channel
in it the guy explains how the US law works and goes through various movies, scenes, real life events, etc. explaining how the law would be applied to a certain situation.
And I really love it; mind you this comes from a hardcore engineer (software).
It just shows you that just like in engineering where you need to follow the rules (thermodynamics, statics, boolean algebra, etc.), the same goes for Law and it's practice.

In other words, if you were to explore a little bit and educate your self regarding the law, you'd be surprised, may even like (or love) it, like I did.

mahirzukic2I have recently (in the last 6 months) been hooked on this channel:
Legal Eagle You Tube channel
in it the guy explains how the US law works and goes through various movies, scenes, real life events, etc. explaining how the law would be applied to a certain situation.
And I really love it; mind you this comes from a hardcore engineer (software).
It just shows you that just like in engineering where you need to follow the rules (thermodynamics, statics, boolean algebra, etc.), the same goes for Law and it's practice.

In other words, if you were to explore a little bit and educate your self regarding the law, you'd be surprised, may even like (or love) it, like I did.

Yeah, I took a couple of introductory courses and at least the basics made sense. But when you look at how it's actually applied, that's another story. Of course, it doesn't help that I live in a country with rampant corruption.

Vayra86That is exactly what is happening. Maybe Epic could but they don't want to, because even if THEY might be able to create their own little garden or solution, others are going to find it pretty troublesome. Especially independent developers who focus mainly on whatever they develop. Epic isn't in big trouble or anything like you want to make it seem. They are trying to create a precedent, to see if it sticks, and if it does, all developers benefit. Not just EGS. The reasons they use for that are pretty reasonable, to me. That is this discussion in a nutshell, free from all the underlying 'oh Epic is evil' sentiment. In the end, the result won't just affect Epic and there is simply no denying that, so its not just Epic's battle, and like Steam, you don't force your way into markets by playing nice. If Apple and Google are indeed going to find more watchful eyes on their services through app stores, that can only work out positively. Attention is drawn to the fact they shovel the money in at 30% per sale which is a mentally high number for what they're doing for it. And.... wasn't that exactly what Epic was doing with Steam's cut? Epic knows it can be profitable with a much lower distribution cut, and it is using that cost effectiveness to make dents. That is commerce, competition, right there, as you would want it.

You don't always need to win a case to enforce a change in the industry. If you look at the shifts in PC publishers and studios they own, you can see consolidation among publishers that want to keep bringing quality games (and not 'chase the carrot' style DLC-infested crap alone, or those silly streamed services with zero guarantees) and those almost all find their way to EGS. With (timed) exclusive content, but also with freebies. Every freebie is also a promotional tool, so it's a win-win. The net result is that these publishers are getting a larger share of the 100% pie of a sale and this allows them to throw those freebies out. Customer wins.

I'm sure you have your personal feelings on that approach, but I've frankly read enough of it, its getting old.

We can leave it there, just like this, which evidently shows us a company in big, big trouble ;)

www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/01/14/epic-games-store-has-hit-680-million-in-revenue-108-million-customers/#1770af364b99

You really don't get it ? Knowing you a bit, I'm confused :confused: (see below)

Epic had choices : sells their stuff on THEIR platform (they have one, you can't say otherwise) and not directly in-app. Because if they want that kind of exposure / publicity, whatever term you prefer, they have to give 30% of their earnings to the platform they are selling on. It's freaking simple.

When Acer, LG, MSI or others want to display a product at your supermarket, they even have greater restrictions : having to prove it's worth it and give a percentage to the seller. They can't come into the store, add a table and try to sell their stuff freely and without permission and not giving a tip to the store at the end of the day. Don't you agree ? If not, I strongly advise you to ask a local supermarket employee about that.
You're not a stupid person, I've seen your posts before, and you don't speak not knowing what you're talking about and it's quality posts you write. Don't get me wrong on that :)

I just think, that on this one, you're not able to get the necessary distance (I don't know why, truly). Even the ones against Apple policy (me included), agreed that Epic is going too far. And they act like paragons which is quite disturbing.
Want to compare to Netflix ? No in-app payment, only handled by Netflix servers.
Want to compare to Spotify ? No in-app payment, only handled by Spotify servers.
Want to compare to any app on the store ? No in-app payment means you pay elsewhere on the internet.


Epic just want a way to channel impulsive act of buying stuff, but they don't want to pay for that.
Do you imagine a kid having to go to a safe computer to buy it's new skin, just to play with his friends on their phones after ? It's stupid, so you add in-app purchase. THIS have a cost.
They can attack Apple on the fact that they don't allow any kind of workaround. But good luck with that, because Android exists.
They can't attack Apple nor Google for charging in-app purchase, based on a policy they agreed on.

Sure we can argue that this cut is big, and should be tiered by income (increasing with higher income, like taxes). This is a fight worth it. I agree with the "goal", not the way nor the company doing it.
Bullying your way of income and betting that they won't refuse you is a lame move, and pretty risky (Google backed up Apple in a way, they didn't need to do it that fast), especially with their position (having a store that ask for a cut).
Take the action of Wube (Factorio) against G2A, selling illegally bought keys : they fought about it, because what G2A did was illegal, not because they were not gaining money. And they went to Steam, knowing they had to give money to the platform, but also knowing the increase of exposure going with it.


In an other matter, @btarunr or others can confirm what @AleksandarK said that you "support Epic decision" on behalf on the TPU team ?
Reading these 5 pages don't show that TPU Team and TPU community are in sync on this one, and by far, which is rare (of course we don't have to agree or be right on everything, we still have free will).
I was a bit surprised to see such a strong position on the matter.

RenaldYou really don't get it ? Knowing you a bit, I'm confused :confused: (see below)

Epic had choices : sells their stuff on THEIR platform (they have one, you can't say otherwise) and not directly in-app. Because if they want that kind of exposure / publicity, whatever term you prefer, they have to give 30% of their earnings to the platform they are selling on. It's freaking simple.

When Acer, LG, MSI or others want to display a product at your supermarket, they even have greater restrictions : having to prove it's worth it and give a percentage to the seller. They can't come into the store, add a table and try to sell their stuff freely and without permission and not giving a tip to the store at the end of the day. Don't you agree ? If not, I strongly advise you to ask a local supermarket employee about that.
You're not a stupid person, I've seen your posts before, and you don't speak not knowing what you're talking about and it's quality posts you write. Don't get me wrong on that :)
...

Except that, at least with Apple, there's only one supermarket. Android theoretically offers more, but realistically, if you're not in China or rocking a Huawei phone, it's all about Play Store anyway.

bugExcept that, at least with Apple, there's only one supermarket. Android theoretically offers more, but realistically, if you're not in China or rocking a Huawei phone, it's all about Play Store anyway.

I would have said "sadly" instead "at least", but I think this is what you mean.
Indeed, what many are stating about it's that :
- you need the device to test (and you have to test on many devices....)
- you need a macbook to develop
- you need to pay the fees for purchase
- you can't make your app public, you're forced to using their store

This is a lot to take, but the market behind it is far greater than Android, because if you can afford an iPhone or iPad, you surely don't mind about a 5$ app, which is clearly not the on Android.

You know, taking a 30% cut isn't unusual. Isn't that how much Valve takes from sales on Steam? Is Valve just as evil for doing that?

All I'm saying is, is that there is a cost to running these services which includes, but isn't limited to, staffing, computation costs, storage costs, network costs, and so on. It costs money to provide those services and run these portions of these much larger organizations, so sure, they're going to want to take a slice of the pie to cover costs and keep management and investors happy. The real question is if 30% is too much.

AquinusYou know, taking a 30% cut isn't unusual. Isn't that how much Valve takes from sales on Steam? Is Valve just as evil for doing that?

All I'm saying is, is that there is a cost to running these services which includes, but isn't limited to, staffing, computation costs, storage costs, network costs, and so on. It costs money to provide those services and run these portions of these much larger organizations, so sure, they're going to want to take a slice of the pie to cover costs and keep management and investors happy. The real question is if 30% is too much.

Iirc that only applies to the games themselves and dlc, there are many games that bypass steam with in-game purchases and Valve isn't throwing a fit and giving them the boot.

Vya DomusSomething else must have happened, this game has been on Android and iOS for what, 2 years ? Did they realize that purchases through the most popular game on Earth were made directly in the app just now ?

They decided they were not getting payed enough.

TotallyIirc that only applies to the games themselves and dlc, there are many games that bypass steam with in-game purchases and Valve isn't throwing a fit and giving them the boot.

They probably should though because it's used as a mechanism to make up for the fact that the game is "free". The issue is that it's not free for Valve, Apple, and Google to maintain their services to make said game available. So a free game with DLC that doesn't take a cut of in-game purchases means zero revenue for services (like the App Store and Google Play Store,) that the game is taking full advantage of.