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

Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

cdn.vox-cdn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#41

Post by gizmo686 »

s279 wrote: post #38
DethNinja wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, Apple is completely in the wrong here and in any country with a sane justice system they would lose this case due to blatant anticompetitive behaviour. However, Apple is also one of the largest companies of USA and a quite successful one. At that size they must have considerably good lobbying efforts, political class might also have connections to Apple through shares etc. They might go and say that enab…

Why should a court intervene in the contracting of two private parties? Epic started this fight by intentionally breaching an existing contract with Apple, only so they can get better terms. Microsoft does the same as Apple, it makes money off micro-transactions and the ability for its competitors to sell on Xbox/Microsoft store, use trade dress, and be included in those hideous green media cases. Last I checked Epic…

The entire purpose of civil courts is to mediate disputes between private parties. Courts are also the mechanism that give private contracts any authority.

Civil suits are also one of the mechanisms by which government regulation is enforced. The alternative to that would be the government inserting itself into private relations even when there is no dispute between the parties; which is even more heavy handed (albeit somewhat justified).

It is a weird quark that you often have to violate the terms of a contract in order to get standing to challenge it; but that is the procedural rules we have.

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#42

Post by Voliokis »

anoncake wrote: post #35
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone making this "general purpose computer" argument is disingenuously taking care to define the term specifically to rule out game consoles while covering the iPhone. The fact is that modern gaming consoles are general purpose computers complete with media center capabilities, operating systems, application stores, multitasking, networking, web browsing, streaming, etc. Just like the case of the iPhone, the only…

Why do people even feel the need to defend consoles? The fact consoles are also artificially restricted doesn't mean it's okay for the Iphone to be, it means they need to be fixed as well.

While I do want the iOS situation fixed, I don't want the Switch or Playstation platforms to be affected in any way. Sony and Nintendo are the only publishers still making decent AAA games with the patience to sink a crazy amount of money and time into their projects. We'd all be worse off without games like Last of Us or Mario. Changing the status quo could turn them into another Ubisoft (devoid of all risk or creativity, and with a massive emphasis on microstransactions and games as a service).

And frankly, anybody bringing up consoles in this context is arguing in bad faith. The similarities are purely surface level.

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#43

Post by WorldMaker »

gizmo686 wrote: post #41
s279 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should a court intervene in the contracting of two private parties? Epic started this fight by intentionally breaching an existing contract with Apple, only so they can get better terms. Microsoft does the same as Apple, it makes money off micro-transactions and the ability for its competitors to sell on Xbox/Microsoft store, use trade dress, and be included in those hideous green media cases. Last I checked Epic…

The entire purpose of civil courts is to mediate disputes between private parties. Courts are also the mechanism that give private contracts any authority. Civil suits are also one of the mechanisms by which government regulation is enforced. The alternative to that would be the government inserting itself into private relations even when there is no dispute between the parties; which is even more heavy handed (albei…

The weird quirks are acerbated by Arbitration clauses designed to keep disagreements from ever going to court and instead being handled by "closed door, opaque third party negotiators". Until Apple closed the contract indicating a breach, Epic would have been forced to go to Arbitration to settle the matter, rather than get their day in court.

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#44

Post by WorldMaker »

ppseafield wrote: post #13
shrewduser wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Microsoft get a 30% cut of all subscriptions and items bought via apps on Xbox?

AFAICT yes. From what I could find, it seems they dropped the Microsoft App Store from 30% to 5%, but their % take for games is still 30%, including in-app purchases. [0] https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/06/microsoft-store-revenue-share... [1] https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2019/03/06/update... [2] https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut... [3] https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/a…

30% for base level developers with little to no publisher support, anything beyond that is intentionally shrouded in industry secrets.

Rumors are some publishers get the 5% deal (or better?), at least for digital-only sales, as some of those publishers have indirectly mentioned higher profit margins on Xbox versus PlayStation, but who knows how accurate the rumors are (or if there are other confounding factors for higher margins on Xbox such Microsoft subsidies or Microsoft's increasing "economy of scale" with keeping PC and Xbox in closer API sync these days) because Xbox keeps a tight lid on publisher specific deals, unlike the rest of the App Store which tries to be much more transparent. The fact that Epic isn't complaining so much about Xbox sales seems to indicate a favorable position on Xbox as well, but again any such details are probably closed room deals we can only guess at from the outside (and probably in constant flux with Xbox marketing as Microsoft wanders between incentives based on favoring Marketing tools/projects like Xbox Play Anywhere, Xbox Game Pass, xCloud, Xbox Smart Delivery, etc).

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#45

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

Voliokis wrote: post #42
anoncake wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people even feel the need to defend consoles? The fact consoles are also artificially restricted doesn't mean it's okay for the Iphone to be, it means they need to be fixed as well.

While I do want the iOS situation fixed, I don't want the Switch or Playstation platforms to be affected in any way. Sony and Nintendo are the only publishers still making decent AAA games with the patience to sink a crazy amount of money and time into their projects. We'd all be worse off without games like Last of Us or Mario. Changing the status quo could turn them into another Ubisoft (devoid of all risk or creat…

> The similarities are purely surface level.

They really aren't. If you'd care to offer some reasoning behind your assertion that they are, I'm listening.

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#46

Post by nodamage »

sixothree wrote: post #33
nodamage wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except you can't get your game on the shelf without Microsoft's explicit (contractual) approval, and (of course) paying them a royalty for each copy sold.

Isn't that a different argument?

What argument is that?

If the problem is Apple doesn't allow you to sell apps without going through their approval process, Microsoft does the same.

If the problem is Apple doesn't allow you to sell apps without collecting a commission on each sale, Microsoft does the same.

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#47

Post by Terretta »

EricE wrote: post #3

If they feel so strongly about it let Epic open a store inside the Xbox. What? Didn’t think so.

Yes. If iPhone as appliance doesn’t stick, Xbox as appliance shouldn’t either. Both are vertically integrated and curated experiences on digital rights managed “consoles”.

Epic may have thrown Unreal Engine under the bus, but Microsoft needs the law to recognize it and Apple compete as fully integrated experiences not unbundled hardware separate from app stores.

That said, a lot of games money is going to iOS that used to funnel to consoles. So they’re of two minds.

The PR move is support Epic. The business move is keep consoles vertically integrated and own curation.

/2c

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#48

Post by mikro »

jbverschoor wrote: post #27
hnick wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The letter is only in regards to the Unreal Engine being blocked. It will directly impact Microsoft and other game developers not directly involved in this fight. They did not mention Fortnite or alternate stores at all.

That's 100% at Epic's fault. First of all, they willingly put their customers at risk. Second of all, they could've put the engine business in a different entity, keeping it safe from their games business

They did put the engine business into a separate entity, a Swiss company called Epic Games International S.à r.l. Apple is threatening to cut off access for both entities.

https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-pi-tro-08-23-2020-8198711...

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#49

Post by swiley »

quelsolaar wrote: post #11

I'm extremely surprised that Apple would engage in something that could in court be perceived as retaliatory against someone who is filing a complaint regarding anti competitive behavior. The definition of anti trust is to use your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in an other market. By denying Epic access in the game engine market, Apple is trying to get Epic to fold in the game distribution market…

It’s good for iPhone users though. Hopefully we’ll finally be allowed to compile apps ourselves and install them without approval (and without having to reinstall them every few days.)

Re: Microsoft Statement in Support of Epic [pdf]

#50

Post by misnome »

I still don't understand what "Denying access to the SDK" is supposed to mean. Aren't the iOS and Mac development tools free to download without a developer account? Isn't publishing on the app stores the only thing that not having an active corporate account prevents? Apple haven't said that they'll block anyone using Unreal Engine, right? I thought this was just about signing keys, in which case other people using the engine should be fine...

In fact, does anyone else who deliberately tries to sneak things past the review process get to keep their developer account _and_ the offending version of the app available? Couldn't this just be Apple going "see, we treat them the same as everyone else"?

Post reply on HN