Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Epic direct payment on mobile

epicgames.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 371 posts

Re: Epic direct payment on mobile

#361

Post by m463 »

gutnor wrote: post #102
theli0nheart wrote: post #9

This puts Apple in a very tough spot. Last week, Tim Cook was questioned in an antitrust hearing re: Apple's anticompetitive practices (along with Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai). The spotlight is already pointing right at them, so any move they make here is going to be noticed by lawmakers. If they remove Fortnite from the App Store, Apple will probably be seen as the bad guy. After all, Epic is not…

I'm scared of that though. Although on one end I would like to buy my kindle books straight from the app and play xcloud games, I'm thinking of the dodgier companies. Right now I have little to worry about when I leave my kid playing a game, all the payment need to go through Apple or at least the offending app will not stay up for too long. I want Apple to be forced to come up with a fairer solution (eg: same api, b…

I would like to play games I compiled (without asking permission)

Re: Epic direct payment on mobile

#362

Post by danielscrubs »

seszett wrote: post #259
danudey wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and then a ton of apps decide "screw the app store, I'm going solo!" and people start enabling sideloading so they can try those apps, then sideloading becomes normalized and malware starts to spread without Apple having the ability to prevent it. Users who have issues with apps start hitting up Apple's support lines, and they start getting pissed off when Apple says "Sorry we can't help you, go talk to the develo…

Is what you're describing common on Android though? Among the Android users I know, nobody seems to ever have installed an app outside of Google Play, and in my case there are only a handful of apps that I have installed outside of Google Play or F-Droid, and they are alpha quality FOSS apps that were only distributed from GitHub. It's not clear to me that what you're describing is actually a problem that happens.

You have situations where Samsung Store had a free subscription to the app Lifesum whilst the Play Store you have to pay.

In fact some of the apps could only be found on Samsung Store and it’s bundled in and from my recollection couldn’t be removed easily.

Some apps would even demand your contacts to start on Android to send to China, but on iOS wouldn’t because it’s a breach of the ToS to completely stop working with partial permissions.

Then you have the latest Android which crashes the sideloaded apps that ask for permission: https://bgr.com/2020/06/04/android-11-beta-sideloading-apps-...

I’m happy that the major mobile os is all about choice, but Apple shouldn’t follow in Googles fragmented, “let the user shoot themselves in the foot”-ways.

Would Apple become the most popular mobile os I’d hope they gave more freedom and fragmented the system but until then it’s the garden of eve that I feel comfortable with. I’m happy software companies for once gets some demands that cannot be rounded instead of this wild wild west.

Re: Epic direct payment on mobile

#363

Post by nottorp »

u10 wrote: post #277
nottorp wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, you are not the target audience, and expecting developers/publishers to pony up the dev time and money to placate an incredibly small portion of the market is a fantasy. ... except both Steam and GoG can do it isn't it? :) > I also take issue with you calling exclusive games 'bribes'. They are looking out for their own self interest, and that includes not paying Steam a 30% cut on all of their sales.…

I don't believe you are willing to discuss anything in good faith if you are unwilling to read or begin to understand what I wrote. 1. As I have said, 99% of games do not provide linux first class support. A compatibility layer using existing libraries is not the same thing, 2. What you call bribing is actually competition. If you believe that there is criminal bribery going on, I'm sure the Feds would be more than h…

> Publishers and developers do not owe you anything

Right? I'm not a potential paying customer? They owe me everything.

I don't understand this publisher worship going on.

Re: Epic direct payment on mobile

#364

Post by dogma1138 »

fomine3 wrote: post #356
dogma1138 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do, the only difference is that unlike Apple Google just takes the money and gives the users nothing in return.

Actually Google provides reword program (Play Points) but Apple doesn't.

I’ll take 6+ years worth of updates for my devices instead, Google drops support even to their own Pixel line within 2 years.

Re: Epic direct payment on mobile

#365

Post by danmur »

gutnor wrote: post #102
theli0nheart wrote: post #9

This puts Apple in a very tough spot. Last week, Tim Cook was questioned in an antitrust hearing re: Apple's anticompetitive practices (along with Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai). The spotlight is already pointing right at them, so any move they make here is going to be noticed by lawmakers. If they remove Fortnite from the App Store, Apple will probably be seen as the bad guy. After all, Epic is not…

I'm scared of that though. Although on one end I would like to buy my kindle books straight from the app and play xcloud games, I'm thinking of the dodgier companies. Right now I have little to worry about when I leave my kid playing a game, all the payment need to go through Apple or at least the offending app will not stay up for too long. I want Apple to be forced to come up with a fairer solution (eg: same api, b…

Payments for whatever (eg Amazon) can still go through the web browser can't they? What stops kids doing that?

Re: Epic direct payment on mobile

#366

Post by indymike »

jaegerpicker wrote: post #269
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they take Fortnite down though, it's an open and shut antitrust case: Because even our broken antitrust law in the US understands consumers getting higher prices because of monopolies. This is why Epic is so loudly showcasing the price savings of bypassing Apple. If Apple takes down Fortnite here, the DOJ takes down the App Store.

It's not antitrust or a monopoly. I can play fortnite on a metric shit-ton of devices. Apple isn't blocking them from a market, it isn't price fixing. When you develop for Apple you sign an agreement to pay for the service the App Store provides. You might not like the price but using a bad reading of the law to get your way is bad for everyone.

Just because there is an agreement does not mean that agreement is fair or even legal. Epic is big enough to handle an "epic" lawsuit here and force the issue. And the game is popular enough that it not being available on iOS devices is a hit to the platform. This one will be interesting.

Re: Epic direct payment on mobile

#367

Post by nottorp »

MattRix wrote: post #113
nottorp wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, they're not offering ME a better deal. Let's see: - games aren't cheaper on the Epic store, in spite of the allegedly smaller cut the store is supposed to take - they're Windows only (and here comes the China reference, they only know about Windows in there) - their store still doesn't have a shopping cart (i may not be current on this)... reeks of incompetence? Can you trust them with your credit card info?…

Games aren't cheaper because Valve doesn't allow them to be cheaper on other storefronts, it's part of the agreement you sign with them to be on Steam. Windows only is fine. From a purely pragmatic point of view, other platforms are such a small fraction of the gaming market, it really doesn't make sense to support them. Companies have tried supporting OSX and Linux for years (decades?) now, but there just aren't eno…

> Games aren't cheaper because Valve doesn't allow them to be cheaper on other storefronts, it's part of the agreement you sign with them to be on Steam.

Hmm why isn't Epic the games developer suing Valve for that?

Re: Epic direct payment on mobile

#368

Post by rurounijones »

fenomas wrote: post #247
rurounijones wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

aha, I think we are coming at the term "walled garden" from opposite ends. For a developer I agree with you, it is not a walled garden, they can sell games however they want, epic is one option who happen to be the only one that pays, out of all the stores, 3rd parties for exclusivity. For a customer it is a walled garden for those exclusive games in that I cannot play those games without having to install and sign-u…

I understand your position, but that's not what the term means. A walled garden is when one party controls the media or distribution of content on a given platform. If you make a PC game, EGS has no control at all over how you distribute it. If you then decide to sell it exclusively through them, that doesn't make them a walled garden - you had control of how your game got distributed, not them.

Fair enough, looks like my understanding of the term was not the common one.

Re: Epic direct payment on mobile

#369

Post by rurounijones »

gsich wrote: post #278
rurounijones wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

aha, I think we are coming at the term "walled garden" from opposite ends. For a developer I agree with you, it is not a walled garden, they can sell games however they want, epic is one option who happen to be the only one that pays, out of all the stores, 3rd parties for exclusivity. For a customer it is a walled garden for those exclusive games in that I cannot play those games without having to install and sign-u…

There is no difference between Epic or any other game store in this regard. The PC is no monopoly and no walled garden.

I am not sure in which regard you think there is no difference based on what I said. So to confirm where I think there is a difference:

Epic is the only PC store that will pay developers to restrict consumer choice by limiting distribution to their store (temporarily or permanently) only on what would otherwise be a competitive marketplace of stores on the PC platform. No other game store does this.

Re: Epic direct payment on mobile

#370

Post by rurounijones »

binthere wrote: post #268
rurounijones wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

aha, I think we are coming at the term "walled garden" from opposite ends. For a developer I agree with you, it is not a walled garden, they can sell games however they want, epic is one option who happen to be the only one that pays, out of all the stores, 3rd parties for exclusivity. For a customer it is a walled garden for those exclusive games in that I cannot play those games without having to install and sign-u…

As a customer, if the game I'm about to buy was able to be polished because of additional funding/saving, I'm interested in the game being exclusive. As a customer, if the game company has better chances of surviving paying their employees a decent wage, making quality games that I can enjoy, I'm interested in the game being exclusive. As a customer, if the market could have more store options other than Steam so pri…

> I don't get the anger people direct towards Epic when in fact they are doing a good thing for the market that very few companies would have the power to do.

I guess it comes down to if you think having another game store & launcher installed in your PC is free (not speaking just monetarily here) or not. If you think it is free then there is no downside.

If you think it is not free: * Another app to manage * Another company to syphon data * Another place you you have to register a credit card * Another place where you have to add your friends or hope there is cross-store play

Then you will be annoyed that they have artificially restricted access to a game you could otherwise have bought directly or on your store / launcher of choice, e.g. Steam, GOG, with the only limitation being what the the developer wanted to release on.

Now I think EGS is mostly time-based exclusivity (I think there are maybe single digit permanently exclusive games on EGS) but the point still rankles. You can argue "Short term pain" (exclusives, assuming that stays short-term) for long term gain (more store competition) but that is not a guarantee.

> Yeah it sucks games are not ubiquitous but it's not always in the best interest of game developers to distribute their games everywhere and I think it should be perfectly understandable from the point of view of customers.

Many people, myself included, do not want the console exclusivity wars to be something that migrates to PC where there is 0 need for it (i.e. you are not developing your game on two completely different console architectures which adds to cost, maybe adding some store integration code only.) Especially paid exclusives.

Post reply on HN