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
Games signed to exclusivity deals with Epic have driven the majority of revenue on the platform.
www.forbes.com
You really don't get it ? Knowing you a bit, I'm 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.