Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#181

Post by falcolas » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:13 PM UTC

devit wrote: post #63

luastoned wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? He explicitly forces users to use his/the Epic store, smh.

Why is that a problem? You can just install all game stores on Windows and there is no downside to doing so, and no real difference between installing the Epic store and purchasing a game there and buying the game on the game publisher's website. Also currently Steam has a dominant position and 30% cut, and if the Epic store succeeds it will result in a more competitive situation with at least two game stores probabl…

How does that benefit me, Joe Customer? I’m not getting a lower price by going to EGS. I’m just getting more friction in finding a game I want to play.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#182

Post by ctvo » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:14 PM UTC

isodev wrote: post #168

_coveredInBees wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erm... that's because that's always been baked into the price of software/apps on the app store since inception. Not sure how higher prices for consumer is great for the consumer. I get the convenience argument, but not every consumer is willing to pay higher prices just for that. There is a huge difference between a 2-5% fee like CC merchants charge and a 30% across the board fee on the app store.

I've never made my users pay the difference. The App Store is also a service for distribution. If it wasn't there, I would be forced to invest much more in marketing, cloud services and all kinds of "small things" which are not the primary purpose of my apps. If anything, my apps would be more expensive outside the store.

The parent comment stated the best solution was to allow both an app store and consumers the choice on how / where they get their apps.

If the default app stores provides as much value as you claim, developers would continue to distribute there, pay the fees, and consumers would go there for discoverability and convenience. Let consumers decide.

With options, consider maybe someone could provide those services even better / more cheaply and you also benefit as a developer.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#183

Post by falcolas » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:15 PM UTC

pharke wrote: post #82

sokoloff wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not inconsistent. Users can choose to use the Epic store or not. If they choose not to use it, they can’t buy games from that store, just like I can’t buy Trader Joe’s food if I decide to not use the TJ’s store.

Exactly, people are having a hissy fit over exclusive content that has no further price than downloading a free store app. It's like whingeing about driving to another store to get the brand of ice cream that you like. I have no problem with that as long as the device manufacturer doesn't limit me to a single store. Preferably I'd like to be able to choose any store or independent content. More choices, more freedom,…

Having to go to the EGS for a given exclusive game is not choice. It’s not freedom. It’s definitely not competition.

Even if I buy a game broadly available on multiple platforms, I’m not getting a discount on it for going to EGS, despite their lower cut.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#184

Post by mirthflat83 » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:16 PM UTC

enragedcacti wrote: post #171

mirthflat83 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the "best case scenario" for developers and Epic, but not for me as a customer. I vastly prefer the iPhone model where I can go to a single place to download all the apps that I need with a single payment method. I don't have to go to a specific url in the browser, download an executable, install a separate store for each game I want, and then finally install the game from that separate store. I don't know who w…

> all the apps that I need Correction: all the apps that Apple thinks you need, regardless of whether or not it aligns with what you need or want.

Please give me examples of apps I’m missing out on as an average consumer because I’m all for missing out on malwares

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#185

Post by coldpie » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:16 PM UTC

KitDuncan wrote: post #19

Microsoft is apparently not one of the monopolies he wants stopped, because he is incredibly hostile towards Linux and Linux support for games. I can't stand this dude and his ramblings.

Hey there, I work in the Linux gaming space. Epic and Tim Sweeney are not hostile towards Linux. The worst you can say is they're indifferent (and can you blame them, given the size of that market?), but even that is not true. Epic's game engine supports Linux. Could they do more to support Linux gaming? Sure. But that's not the same as being "incredibly hostile."

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#186

Post by toyg » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:17 PM UTC

anoraca wrote: post #147

trabant00 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. He's just using keywords like monopoly and stuff to gather support. And overall I don't understand why people take sides in corporate battles like any of those mega corporations stand for morals or the greater good or anything like that.

Because some corporations actually do make efforts towards improving society: https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/ https://www.apple.com/environment/

Some corporations are shamed into doing the right thing, typically after an extensive period of morality-free cash-hoarding. Apple was just fine with their supply chain until news emerged of conditions down there (and Cook being a logistic guy, he’s clearly always known), at which point they hd to save face. Similarly, they keep saying they are green but have no qualms pushing out billions of unrecycleable and un-serviceable electronics every year, without taking any real responsibility for disposing of them.

Corporate ethics are hypocrisy all the way down.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#187

Post by parasubvert » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:17 PM UTC

tempodox wrote: post #144

Since this war is about making money from controlling access to the users, I don't feel like siding with either Apple or Epic on this. Letting the sheep decide by which wolf they will be eaten isn't that great of a choice. From my own personal perspective, I would like to be able to permanently install an app that I developed myself, on my own Mac, on the iOS devices that I own without having to go through the app st…

You can already install your own software on your own iOS device without review. You can even install it on 3rd party devices (up to 100) without review!

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#188

Post by Slartie » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:17 PM UTC

mirthflat83 wrote: post #132

madeofpalk wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Windows/Epic situation really is the "best case scenario". You can download and install software from anywhere. Plus, there's an "app store" from the OS vendor, plus a few specality competing ones for things like games, where both consumers and developers have the choice of where they download/publish. Epic competing with Steam has been a great success for everyone I think. Developers get secure funding for games…

It's the "best case scenario" for developers and Epic, but not for me as a customer. I vastly prefer the iPhone model where I can go to a single place to download all the apps that I need with a single payment method. I don't have to go to a specific url in the browser, download an executable, install a separate store for each game I want, and then finally install the game from that separate store. I don't know who w…

I as a customer like the Epic Games Store. I even more like the GoG store. And I kind of like the Steam store, but least of these.

When I shop for games, I never pay the list price - ever. Well, maybe once every few years when I buy a game in the GoG store made by CD Projekt Red, which run the store but are also a publisher of AAA titles I really, really love. I pay full price for them because they really deserve it, and they get 100% of the well-deserved money if I buy in their store.

All the other games? I'll happily wait for a sale in one of the aforementioned stores, of which there are plenty and with huge rebates, because they must compete for me as a customer. First sales are usually coming just a few months after a games' release, and with lots of games to play still in my pipeline and less time to actually play them due to work, family and all that real-life stuff, I can usually muster the patience to wait for reduced prices.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#189

Post by danShumway » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:17 PM UTC

tpxl wrote: post #118

madeofpalk wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Windows/Epic situation really is the "best case scenario". You can download and install software from anywhere. Plus, there's an "app store" from the OS vendor, plus a few specality competing ones for things like games, where both consumers and developers have the choice of where they download/publish. Epic competing with Steam has been a great success for everyone I think. Developers get secure funding for games…

You mean consumers need to download yet another gaming service collecting god knows what to get the same games they used to get on Steam? I've no problem with the Epic store, but their exclusives are a cancer and they cost game devs money in lost sales from me.

> and they cost game devs money in lost sales from me.

I don't think the exclusives are good for users, but from a developer perspective this is an oversimplification. Epic is essentially pre-funding games.

If you're an indie dev who's been working on a game for 3-5 years, literally everything you have is riding on that release going well. It's incredibly stressful.

So suddenly this billionaire shows up and says, "no content changes, no interference, we'll just guarantee up front that your game is profitable. We'll just give you the money to justify the last 5 years of your life, and after 6-12 months you can sell wherever." Of course developers take that. Suddenly you have the freedom to be experimental, to make games that are personal and niche without worrying about going broke.

There's a real sense in which PC exclusives are bad for the industry overall, I don't like the direction the market is headed. But from a developer perspective Epic has been pretty objectively good for indie games. The lost revenue from not being on Steam means nothing if Epic is willing to fund your game upfront. Think about how much peace of mind that means as a developer, to not have everything riding on a single launch, to not have to spend months leading up to launch getting sick worrying about what's going to happen.

And also let's be real, from a user perspective we had Steam exclusives, even if Valve didn't directly require them. I buy my games exclusively DRM free, I won't use Steam or Epic. The number of games that refuse to release outside of Steam, or who tie their multiplayer and modding communities to Steam's servers have been a pain in my side for over a decade. There are games on GoG that are missing patches and that will never get multiplayer, because Steam just happened to release frameworks encouraging devs to make themselves utterly dependent on Valve's infrastructure.

I won't install the Epic game store on my computer. But at least a game that's exclusive to Epic games store eventually becomes non-exclusive -- on average, I'll end up getting access to it later. Most of the games that get released exclusively on Steam never get ported off and I never get access to them. It's a little bit irritating to hear people pine for the day when most devs were still effectively releasing store exclusives, just without any extra compensation and to a storefront that more people happened to use.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#190

Post by tokamak-teapot » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 1:17 PM UTC

dageshi wrote: post #127

tokamak-teapot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the current system for protecting iOS and its users could easily be split in two. There could be two exit points from the review process. One would be for apps that don’t want to be on the App Store. They could be cleared as free from malware, egregious behaviour, etc. and allowed to be installed through any independent means. The higher level would be for apps that should be on the App Store. This means th…

Apple wouldn't want to be responsible for something not in their store. They have all the downsides of verifying an app is safe but none of the upsides, worse they will inevitably be the ones who have to handle support.

Yes, this is not something that directly benefits Apple. Without external intervention, I don't believe any system which opens up iOS at all will be introduced.

What I'm looking for is - given external intervention, what would be a workable compromise that:

* Frees developers enough that they can produce applications without the full weight of Apple's process - and its rather hazy and inconsistent application - being a constant frustration or absolute block.

* Allows Apple (and its customers) to continue to benefit from their App Store model and its safety guards, protecting their security and (most of their) revenue.

I'm sure some customers would attempt to deal with Apple support for non-App-Store apps, but my expectation is that this would be a minority case and there are plenty of ways for Apple to head this off.

I don't know that it's a 'downside' for Apple to verify that apps are safe. This is a mostly automated process and one that they don't need to build from scratch. It's a cost for them - without an associated App Store revenue, but I believe it's reasonable to ask Apple to contribute at least this much to allow more open development for their platform.