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

Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#361

Post by fooey »

eertami wrote: post #138
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…

Epic games exclusives are not the kind of competing I want, and they're not a win/win/win. I'm happy to buy games on GOG or the Humble store for instance, but I will never in a million years install the privacy and security nightmare that is the Epic Game Store on a PC I own. Sure, steam is not perfect but they've not had issues on the scale of Epics software. I've played thousands of hours of Rocket League, but stil…

Epic "exclusives" are really just Epic purchasing customers.

The publisher sells their fan base to Epic, and Epic gets a list of potential people they can sell their own crap to, and gets a big install base number they can leverage to convince more publishers to sell them more fan bases.

#1 the publisher wins because they don't like risk in the first place, and free money is free money

#2 epic wins because they build legitimacy and reach, and they sell more fortnite MTX to their burgeoning install base

#3 the developer loses because their brand is tarnished and their potential for future titles is damaged due to lower sales numbers and shredding their fan base

#4 the players lose because they lose choice and have their library locked in a 2nd rate predatory ecosystem

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#362

Post by gruez »

falcolas wrote: post #337
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will never in a million years install the privacy and security nightmare that is the Epic Game Store on a PC I own. It turns out that in a surprising number of cases, you don’t have to. Control, Journey, and Beyond Two Souls (as of this writing, it launched with Denuvo) are all completely DRM Free and will run without EGS. You can download them via the open-source “Legendary” unofficial client, or even in a Virtu…

Control, as an example, is free of third party DRM on Steam. Ditto Journey and BTS. Compare Control with Doom Eternal's pages: https://store.steampowered.com/app/870780/Control_Ultimate_E... https://store.steampowered.com/app/782330/DOOM_Eternal/

>Control, as an example, is free of third party DRM on Steam

This statement sounds like the "no sugar added" label that you see slapped on high sugar beverages. Yes, there's no added sugar (or DRM), but there's still sugar. It's completely different to no sugar (or no DRM), as is the case with egs (as in, you can launch the executable without egs running), according to https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Control

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#363

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

nanidin wrote: post #358
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…

I don’t want to maintain a games collection across several game stores. If a game isn’t available standalone or on Steam, I’m not buying it. I may still play it, but in that case the developer and publisher are not gaining anything - case in point, Untitled Google Game.

That's fine! What we want is for Epic to be able to compete. We don't think that every consumer should be required to use the Epic store. If the multi store model doesn't work for you, voting with your dollars to that effect is fine.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#364

Post by VikingCoder »

smnrchrds wrote: post #352
VikingCoder wrote: post #289

Mr. Sweeney is welcome to make his own mobile operating system and charge whatever rate he wants. He's personally worth $5.3 billion. Surely that's enough to take Android Open Source Project and make his own version. It's easy to burn down a store that you think charges too much. It's harder to make a new store that people will like. Maybe take the high road, Mr. Sweeney.

And you are welcome to build your own underwater fibre optic cables and network infrastructure if you want net neutrality. ISPs should be allowed to block any website for any reason or no reason whatsoever, including asking website owners for a cut of their revenue and block them if they refuse. /s

Android is literally open source, and any rooted phone can get a new operating system. Can you name a lower barrier to entry in any industry?

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#365

Post by tutino »

Traster wrote: post #22

I think a lot of people have short memories. When Apple launched the iPhone computer security was a disaster, the security of the AppStore was a massive benefit and the fact that we don't have massive botnets of mobile phones is in no small part down to the massive effort that was put into security. But they seem to have solved this problem so well that people have forgotten it was even a problem to begin with.

SandBoxing != AppStores

You could have good security with sandboxing without AppStore.

On the other hand the AppStore is full of spyware/malware (TikTok, FB, etc.) and Apple is of course doing nothing about it as it brings more user and revenues.

Not saying the situation is any better on other platform though

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#366

Post by JamesSwift »

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 really dont understand this argument. What about allowing alternatives forces the current state to go away? Why would other stores create a scenario where you _cant_ go to the Apple App Store and use your Apple pay and get your Apple approved apps?

I saw the same thing come up when people talked about wanting to maintain status quo for in-app payment options. Because, again, adding additional choices does not just make your current choice go away. You can still choose that apple-blessed option if thats what you want. Unless, of course, it turns out that theres a lot of unnecessary margin being added on and its actually not a profitable business model when faced with competition.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#367

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

fooey wrote: post #361
eertami wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epic games exclusives are not the kind of competing I want, and they're not a win/win/win. I'm happy to buy games on GOG or the Humble store for instance, but I will never in a million years install the privacy and security nightmare that is the Epic Game Store on a PC I own. Sure, steam is not perfect but they've not had issues on the scale of Epics software. I've played thousands of hours of Rocket League, but stil…

Epic "exclusives" are really just Epic purchasing customers. The publisher sells their fan base to Epic, and Epic gets a list of potential people they can sell their own crap to, and gets a big install base number they can leverage to convince more publishers to sell them more fan bases. #1 the publisher wins because they don't like risk in the first place, and free money is free money #2 epic wins because they build…

The players experience a first order loss but may achieve a long term second order gain as increased competition leads to better profits in game development, therefore encouraging more investment in games and potentially better games. I don't really agree that the developer loses. They need to get paid and presumably they are making rational decisions about which publishers to work with and transitively about their sales model.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#368

Post by r00fus »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #205
coldtea wrote: post #21

> Since then, Sweeney, an iconoclastic executive who owns enormous farms and dabbles in fast cars And overworks his employees to exhaustion, while stomping on their unionizing...

I think Epic has miscalculated the optics on this. There is no underdog in this story. It's just two enormous companies, run by very wealthy men, who put corporate profits and stock options above employee welfare, squabbling over how much of the pie they get to eat, when neither one can finish their first slice. I want them both to lose.

Interesting take - what would both of them losing look like?

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#369

Post by Bekwnn »

tpxl wrote: post #206
danShumway wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I know the dev gets a good deal out of it (probably more money than all the lost sales). It's still bad for the consumer (except if the title would never get released otherwise). If a developer chooses to only publish on steam, that's not really the platforms fault, is it? I dislike that some games use steam login/servers as well, but there is a trade-off: those steam servers will probably exist 10 years from now, wh…

As far as my consuming goes, I've gotten a dozen or more quality free games off the epic store and in some cases steeper discounts on games than steam offers. It's only really a "consumers lose" thing if you're boycotting and "unable" to play those exclusives.

As far as devs go, EGS gives a better cut, offers stability with timed exclusivity deals, and arguably are the ones who forced steam to lower their cut to 30/25/20 on high sales figures.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#370

Post by jefftk »

mirthflat83 wrote: post #184
enragedcacti wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

You can't have real Gecko-based Firefox on iOS because Apple only allows competing browsers as thin wrappers around Safari.
Post reply on HN