Fortnite Gets Kicked Out From Google and Apple App Stores, Epic Games Files a Lawsuit

[Vayra86]

It really isn't that hard.

When you sign an agreement, you state that you have read, understood and agreed to its terms. If you don't like the terms, you can try to negotiate, however there is no guarantee satisfying terms will be reached. In which case no agreement is made. You don't get to sign agreemen,t with which terms you don't agree with, then cry about it later.

What makes Epic exempt from this?

There is theoretically a possibility that terms of agreement violate existing laws, making it automatically null and void. Let me ask you however, what are the odds that two separate multi billion dollar corporations at the same time failed to notice this and formulate terms accordingly and this has not been noticed or brought to light by anyone for multiple years, when there were multiple parties signing agreement over that timespan?

You signed so you are screwed generally doesnt work at this scale. Other considerations matter suxh as preserving a healthy and fair market and some sort of balance in power. Simply because unhealthy markets will crash and burn at some point. And we are paying that.

 

[AusWolf]

I totally understand Apple and Google's policy of every payment having to go through their system. What I don't understand is why this is enforced now, and not when Fortnite launched on these platforms.

 

[mbeeston]

hmm.. so epic says it's "fighting for all developers" by making a lawsuit over their own game being pulled, because they wanted to take all the money for themselves and apple/google's rules wouldn't let them and they got pulled...

looks like another manufactured " we're doing to right thing for all of you" publicity stunt to me.

 

[lightofhonor]

I totally understand Apple and Google's policy of every payment having to go through their system. What I don't understand is why this is enforced now, and not when Fortnite launched on these platforms.

It's because their latest update is the one that broke the rules. And the Google store version is fairly new.


Either way, in Google (and Steam's) case, it's kinda like complaining about paying taxes. Everyone likes complaining about them, but if you point out they are free to move somewhere else with lower taxes they suddenly think that's ridiculous. I understand the Apple lawsuit since that is more about a dictatorship (i.e. don't like the price of bread? Well starve.) whereas on Android it's kinda like suing because the closest McDonald's to you is more expensive than the one 10 miles away.

 

[AusWolf]

hmm.. so epic says it's "fighting for all developers" by making a lawsuit over their own game being pulled, because they wanted to take all the money for themselves and apple/google's rules wouldn't let them and they got pulled...

looks like another manufactured " we're doing to right thing for all of you" publicity stunt to me.

There is no right thing in the business world. Only money.

It's because their latest update is the one that broke the rules. And the Google store version is fairly new.


Either way, in Google (and Steam's) case, it's kinda like complaining about paying taxes. Everyone likes complaining about them, but if you point out they are free to move somewhere else with lower taxes they suddenly think that's ridiculous. I understand the Apple lawsuit since that is more about a dictatorship (i.e. don't like the price of bread? Well starve.) whereas on Android it's kinda like suing because the closest McDonald's to you is more expensive than the one 10 miles away.

This case sounds to me more like subscribing for an internet connection, not paying a penny for it, and crying that the ISP has shut it down.

Epic are basically trying to fish their way out of paying for the services they use (and of course shut down every competitor by establishing a monopoly with their game distribution services, but that's a different story), all that in the name of free trade. If I can't win with what I offer, I'll win by crying louder. Absolutely disgusting.

 

[Nater]

Epic Mobile, in 5,4,3...

 

[Totally]

I'm not sure how I feel about this one. If you want to use someone's service, you play by their rules. Google and Apple have the right to operate as they see fit within the boundaries of the law. The question is whether or not Google and Apple are breaking the law by imposing these rules.

If they are harming the consumer, yes they are. Looking at the screenshots payment screen yes they are.

It's no different than installing GPU-Z, which you downloaded from TechPowerUp, instead of installing it from the Microsoft Store, or whatever it's called.

No it isn't, not even close. On a PC, I just open up a browser and navigate to a website and click download and run install.exe. I don't have to go into my setting and find the buried almost hidden toggle "Enable Developer Options" and then from there go to a submenu to enable install .apk from unverified source. You think this is something the average user cares or knows how to do? In iOS, it isn't even an option unless the the user turns to jailbreaking. Next is exposure, the average consumer has been conditioned to turn to the app store whenever they want to install an app and no where else. So even if it was just as simple as a PC, the number of downloads via store vs. via elsewhere would pale in comparison.

 

[KrazedOmega]

"We want to express our support for Epic Games for going in the right direction, as we do need more open ecosystems."

lol, this is rich. Epic, the company that buys up exclusive deals with developers to lock games to their platform under some BS guise that they're the champion of developers and consumers.

 

[mbeeston]

If they are harming the consumer, yes they are. Looking at the screenshots payment screen yes they are.

no, that is a fee to keep the service running, the epic one is them taking all the money while trying to get the apple and google services for free.
this really does paint them as a thief that got caught honestly. trying to take bandwidth, store space, and public advertisement without giving the store anything for it since it a "free" game.
but hey, everyone's so fixated on the number rather then what it's for.

 

[Crackong]

Counterpoint: if the app stores didn't take such a high percentage of in-game payments, there wouldn't be nearly as much of an incentive for game devs to bypass those stores' built-in payment mechanisms. In short, if the stores were less greedy, this wouldn't be a problem.

So it is just the percentage not the practice itself then.

It is not a counterpoint, you agreed to the practice.

 

[DemonicRyzen666]

The simple fact is that OS platforms are marketplaces, not stores. The store is the app store, and Apple is illegally restricting the market place to one store. Allow an Epic game store on iOS is the start. Time to fix this nonsense that only got started with the iPhone and is completely different from every other OS for the last 50 years.

This is bigger than Epic. Apple is fighting this battle on in-app purchases in a broad sense. And Google happily tags along, after all, why not, you get double the weight to rake in more cash on a regular basis. This is like Steam extending its contract beyond the game purchase and applies the tax over all in-game purchases as well, I wouldn't be surprised if they follow suit. And note: they're not doing anything more for it than they always have. Its like free money!

Its greed. Pure and simple, and because technically they 'can'. The bigger their share of whatever pie, the more they can take over in the future. Apple does the same with start ups as Google in that sense. Its all business and we're suffering for it, in terms of creative landscape and fair play. We sure as hell don't benefit from it.

I believe they where planning the law suit... they implemented the alternative payment option to get banned from the store and leverage that to start the law suit.
View attachment 165525

If they don't, then everyone will be putting their apps "Free" and everything are in-app purchases.

Mentioning steam is quite an example.
Imagine if every game is Freemium and steam does not benefit from in-game purchases.

Are they doing a charity or something ?
Just let you profit from their platform and use the server bandwidth for $0 ?

How do you figure? The prices directly from Epic are lower than going through said stores. So clearly they are passing the savings on to the customer.

It really isn't that hard.

When you sign an agreement, you state that you have read, understood and agreed to its terms. If you don't like the terms, you can try to negotiate, however there is no guarantee satisfying terms will be reached. In which case no agreement is made. You don't get to sign agreement, which terms you don't agree with, then cry about it later.

What would make Epic exempt from this?

There is theoretically a possibility that terms of agreement violate existing laws, making it automatically null and void. Let me ask you however, what are the odds that two separate multi billion dollar corporations at the same time failed to notice this and formulate terms accordingly and this has not been noticed or brought to light by anyone for multiple years, when there were multiple parties signing such agreement over that timespan?

Many of you have very valid points here.
I agree and disagree with some of them.

This will end up in consumer law court, because the way the platforms works.

They best way to look at this like. Buying food in grocery store eating it and realizing on the side of the package. you can buy it directly from the manufacturer for 20% off the price. The grocery store can't sue the manufacturer for your buying it some place else. People will still go to the grocery store to buy the food. The grocery store here ends being the platform people use, because they are familiar with it and it's convenience to have more inside off it.


Edit: it's why people who use Apple stay with Apple they're familiar with it and it's services.

 

[Crackong]

They best way to look at this like. Buying food in grocery store eating it and realizing on the side of the package. you can buy it directly from the manufacturer for 20% off the price. The grocery store can't sue the manufacturer for your buying it some place else. People will still go to the grocery store to buy the food. The grocery store here ends being the platform people use, because they are familiar with it and it's convenience to have more inside off it.


Edit: it's why people who use Apple stay with Apple they're familiar with it and it's services.

In this EPIC case,

The "manufacturer" is setting up his own store inside the grocery store , enjoying the grocery store's A/C , plugged into the its wall, then offer 20% off the price of the same product to you, and not letting the grocery store benefit from it.

 

[DemonicRyzen666]

The "manufacturer" is setting up his own store inside the grocery store , enjoying the grocery store's A/C , plugged into the grocery store's wall, then offer 20% off the price of the same product to you, and not letting the grocery store benefit from it.

FREE SAMPLE!
.......
Yeah not being "sold" but it's still consumer law thing.
Happens all the time.

edit sorry I had too. lol

 

[wahdangun]

In this EPIC case,

The "manufacturer" is setting up his own store inside the grocery store , enjoying the grocery store's A/C , plugged into the its wall, then offer 20% off the price of the same product to you, and not letting the grocery store benefit from it.

The difference is, the manufacturer can't set up their own grocery store.

 

[Crackong]

The difference is, the manufacturer can't set up their own grocery store.

iOS, Yes
Android, NO

Look at Samsung, or Huawei.
They had their own app store.
EPIC could do their own app store and offer apk on website.

Popularity will be trash tho.
But don't say you can't do it on your own.
They are just trying to cheese from "pro-consumer" act again for their own greed.

 

[watzupken]

It really isn't that hard.

When you sign an agreement, you state that you have read, understood and agreed to its terms. If you don't like the terms, you can try to negotiate, however there is no guarantee satisfying terms will be reached. In which case no agreement is made. You don't get to sign agreement, which terms you don't agree with, then cry about it later.

What would make Epic exempt from this?

There is theoretically a possibility that terms of agreement violate existing laws, making it automatically null and void. Let me ask you however, what are the odds that two separate multi billion dollar corporations at the same time failed to notice this and formulate terms accordingly and this has not been noticed or brought to light by anyone for multiple years, when there were multiple parties signing such agreement over that timespan?

This I agree. I think if we take a step back and consider why would EPIC launch Fortnite on the AppStore, isn't it because there is an opportunity to make money? Now they get into the App Store by agreeing to the terms and conditions, then create a way to try and circumvent having to pay Apple or Google anything is just not right. In this case, I don't know the whole story but my question is if they even tried to negotiate with Apple and Google before pulling such a stunt that got themselves kicked out. And again, EPIC runs their own store on Windows and they are getting a cut out of every game or DLC sold on it, which I find ironic.

In this EPIC case,

The "manufacturer" is setting up his own store inside the grocery store , enjoying the grocery store's A/C , plugged into the its wall, then offer 20% off the price of the same product to you, and not letting the grocery store benefit from it.

Not sure about the analogy here, but EPIC is riding on the success and user base of both iOS and Android to peddle their goods. While I agree that 30% is a very steep cost to developers, finding a way not to pay a single cent to them is dirty business practice. In this case, I am disappointed with EPIC.

 

[hat]

Hmm... what if Epic just put an "Epic Launcher" on mobile and handled everything from there?

 

[R0H1T]

Which option?

The option to bypass EPIC for games exclusive to them on say PC, Total War Troy for instance. I don't like Epic Store & I don't like the (limited) payment options they have, I also don't like the cut they take from the actual game developers & that's anti competitive IMO ~ restricting user choice remember? Or do you think EPIC's not a middleman between the game (maker) & owner i.e. me? App store complaint is somewhat justified, but when they dragged Play store into this it's pretty clear what their intentions are. The 30% cut is indeed steep but then it's a "service fee" so they're not a charity & I doubt this case will be entertained. You don't like the cut, you go off simple as that. Do you go to Walmart, to sell your products, negotiate a contract & then say a year later hey don't like to pay this commission anymore? What do you suppose Walmart will do

Now in terms of legal precedent there's none AFAIK, so let's assume EPIC wins where does this lead other markets or marketplaces? Like I said I don't like EPIC's payment options & now I want EPIC to give me COD or cheaper options for payment, what do you think EPIC's response would be? What about Amazon, Alibaba, Steam?

Yes, you pick steam. You seem to have an issue separating A from B.

Right & you do?

The more "user choice" is just a smokescreen, it's all about the money!

 

[Frick]

"We want to express our support for Epic Games for going in the right direction, as we do need more open ecosystems."

Nope. This makes it an editorial.

 

[xtreemchaos]

the Apple mafia at work and others, in the end its the player who loses out with higher costs, if steve Jobs was alive "bless him" id like to kick him in the apple logo.

 

[Vayra86]

The option to bypass EPIC for games exclusive to them on say PC, Total War Troy for instance. I don't like Epic Store & I don't like the (limited) payment options they have, I also don't like the cut they take from the actual game developers & that's anti competitive IMO ~ restricting user choice remember? Or do you think EPIC's not a middleman between the game (maker) & owner i.e. me? App store complaint is somewhat justified, but when they dragged Play store into this it's pretty clear what their intentions are. The 30% cut is indeed steep but then it's a "service fee" so they're not a charity & I doubt this case will be entertained. You don't like the cut, you go off simple as that. Do you go to Walmart, to sell your products, negotiate a contract & then say a year later hey don't like to pay this commission anymore? What do you suppose Walmart will do

Now in terms of legal precedent there's none AFAIK, so let's assume EPIC wins where does this lead other markets or marketplaces? Like I said I don't like EPIC's payment options & now I want EPIC to give me COD or cheaper options for payment, what do you think EPIC's response would be? What about Amazon, Alibaba, Steam?
Right & you do?

The more "user choice" is just a smokescreen, it's all about the money!

When you can run your own app store on android and Ios, please pick up your thoughts and continue... until then, yes, I do and you clearly repeatedly fail to see the distinction between EGS and Apple or Google. Its not even a little bit the same thing either.

You are now even mixing in per game exclusivity to underline your point while that is the choice of a publisher and not EGS.

 

[R0H1T]

Right, I'll ask you again you as see the distinction between how a game can be installed on Android, even iOS, without the need for a "play store" though to be fair iOS is a lot more restricted. Heck in China, the world's largest market, you don't even have a Play Store! Why are you discriminating against user choices here? I want China to open up their internet for outside world as well, do you not have an "opinion" on that?

I do and you clearly repeatedly fail to see the distinction between EGS and Apple or Google. Its not even a little bit the same thing either.

You're not making a (valid) point about the platforms either, because that's what you're saying basically! The platforms are a "showroom" & you can't force them to sell anything & everything at rates which the client, Epic is both a client to Apple & Google as well as a middleman here, is asking for!

When you can run your own app store on android and Ios, please pick up your thoughts and continue

That's not a right guaranteed under any constitution, until it is please take this argument elsewhere.

It's either all greed, or none of it is. You can't pick & choose a % cut where one company is greedy & the other isn't!

 

[RoutedScripter]

Honestly, many anti-epic people are just Steam fanboys, I couldn't care less for a launcher, it's about games, I don't care about social features, I don't use any steam features either, there may have been when I posted some technical question of the forum or pulled a mod from the system. That's about it, most of the launcher features are gimmicks for kids.

 

[Crackong]

Honestly, many anti-epic people are just Steam fanboys, I couldn't care less for a launcher, it's about games, I don't care about social features, I don't use any steam features either, there may have been when I posted some technical question of the forum or pulled a mod from the system. That's about it, most of the launcher features are gimmicks for kids.

lols it is not about steam.
Read the topic plz.

 

[AusWolf]

"We want to express our support for Epic Games for going in the right direction, as we do need more open ecosystems."

1. How does Epic's practice promote more open ecosystems? They're only unwilling to pay for a service that they use, and agreed to the terms and conditions of.

2. Why does a news site take sides in a legal/business matter? Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions without any influence from the article's writer. One-sided news articles are against the idea of media neutrality, which hurts "open ecosystems".