Sign in to follow this  
Dcubed

Epic VS Apple 3 - Fate of Two Worlds

Recommended Posts

On 05/05/2021 at 10:19 AM, Dcubed said:

Epic just released the Itch.io app on EGS last night... Yes, really.  A store within a store; that they're not taking commissions from.  Now I wonder why they would bother doing something so pointless and stup...

... oh.

Apple have thrown this back at Epic by pointing out that itch.io hosts games that have sexually explicit content and pointing out that because Epic themselves don't allow those kind of games, they're being hypocritical. Apple's lawyer referred to them as "Unspeakable games that can't even be shown in court"

Meanwhile, at itch.io.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, nice morning! God I was busy yesterday, let's see what I missed from yesterda... OH GOD!

unknown.png?width=732&height=287

Ps "Moonshot" and "Unspeakable Games" are absolutely hilarious.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Glen-i said:

Meanwhile, at itch.io.

 

 

On 05/05/2021 at 2:19 PM, Ashley said:

Although shout out to itch for being the best store front

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, at least Epic are honest in that this case is for themselves, instead of lying and painting of as a problem for the consumers when it's all about lowering fees for companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cube said:

You know, at least Epic are honest in that this case is for themselves, instead of lying and painting of as a problem for the consumers when it's all about lowering fees for companies.

They did try to present themselves as having the moral high ground in the beginning, the ones sticking by developers' rights, both big and small.

But once court proceedings start, they're under oath. If asked "Was that done for your company's benefit?", they have to say yes. If asked "Were you certain smaller/indie developers were on board with this action?", they have to say no.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here's something a bit different... ... here's what we're NOT getting leaked out!

Nintendo's pricing with Epic may harm Sony you say?  Oooh...

Edited by Dcubed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dcubed said:

Nintendo's pricing with Epic may harm Sony you say?  Oooh...

I'm really confused at how that might be the case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Economy is weird. The mere presence of information heavily shifts prices around. For example, if three competing gas stations are scattered through the same road, and aren't privy to each other's prices, they'll likely do their best to have prices as competitive as possible for their fuel... but if they all learn of each other's exact pricing for that week/month, then the cheapest one will see how underpriced they are, and raise their price to almost match the middle-priced one. The middle one will then notice their own status as second-cheapest has become pointless (no longer a significant selling point), and just decide to raise it. Then the cheapest one will, for the same reason, raise again to match the competitors. And thus, merely knowing how each other operates made everybody raise their prices.

So regarding this situation, all of this information becoming public is likely affecting how negotiations with developers, publishers, and other such partners will go from now on. It stands to reason that, if any more information were made public, then it could indeed harm Sony's long-term business prospects (just as it could harm Microsoft, Nintendo, Epic, Apple, or any given Indie looking to do business with them). Sony's likely looking to stabilize the ripple effect that this juicy info-dump is having on their gaming business.

(Do note that this is all conjecture, my knowledge of economics is very limited. But the gas station example is a real-life thing I've seen happen. Prices became public knowledge, and they suddenly sky-rocketed very quickly. I'm just assuming a similar principle is at play here)

Edited by Jonnas
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh?

Nintendo are up to their redacting shenanegans again... but this still gives us a hint that Nintendo & Microsoft are in negotiations regarding Game Pass on Switch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone @ me when the Netflix docuseries drops please.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/05/2021 at 9:15 AM, Dcubed said:

Basically, Nintendo will not do business with you if you have direct ties with the Yakuza... which is a thing within the Japanese video game industry.

Saw on Twitter someone point out that Sega will release Yakuza on a "console no one has heard of" (that Amazon Luna thing) but not Switch and someone responded, seemingly earnestly, that it's because of this 🤦‍♂️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I received Fortnite spam. I posted it here, but I forgot we actually had a Fortnite thread, so I moved it there.

In short: like I said, I received mysterious Fortnite spam, not sure if I explicitly saved my address on my Epic account (I doubt it), and I don't appreciate it, so I'll be deleting it.

Edited by Sméagol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judgment is in and Apple will not like it

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be nice to see apps like ComiXology actually be able to start selling comics again instead of having to go through the browser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More details are in and it seems like Epic lost pretty much everything (including money) but that concession above is a loss for Apple which I'm sure they'll appeal and then not really implement in earnest. 

Everyone loses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ashley said:

 and then not really implement in earnest. 

I'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure they already have in one country.. I think in South-Korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oof! Apple aren’t gonna like this…

Potentially very abusable for console makers too.  What’s to stop 3rd parties from charging £1 for the “base game” and then £58.99 for unlocking the “full game” with a link to an outside website where the platform holder gets zilch from?

Edit: Actually not!

Edited by Dcubed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly console makers charge licenses to sell games on their console and then get a percent of digital storefront sales so slightly different from Apple who I believe just get App Store percentages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Summary of results...

Apple wins

  • Apple is not an illegal monopolist
  • The relevant market is mobile gaming, not iOS
  • In-app purchases are not a separate product illegally tied to the App Store
  • The walled-garden model does provide pro-consumer security benefits
  • Apple can mandate the use of IAP
  • Apple is entitled to a commission or license fee even if alternative payment methods are used
  • iOS is not an essential facility
  • Android phones, cloud gaming and devices like the Switch and Steam Deck are competing with Apple devices
  • Apple can ban Fortnite, Epic and all of its subsidiaries from the App Store
  • Epic has to pay Apple 30% of the money it made through the direct purchase option


Epic wins

 

  • Apple can no longer forbid apps from linking to external payment systems or notifying users of alternative payment options
  • The lack of other app stores on iOS does stifle innovation

Ahh, from having a further look at things, it looks like Apple still get to charge the same 30% commission; even when the outside payment method is used (basically the same way Sponsored Links work on websites).  This wouldn't affect console makers at all then, even if it was used.

So... basically, Epic just got epically dumpstered in this lawsuit. Not only did their little coup attempt fail, but Apple get to ban not just Fortnite, but Unreal Engine as a whole; AND Epic have to pay back the outstanding 30% commission fees that they owe Apple too? Ouch!

Edited by Dcubed
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I really think Apple needs to be bought down a peg or two (or twenty), they were the lesser of two evils as far this particular court case goes.

Epic were trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, claiming to be fighting "for the little companies", when anyone with half a brain could tell they just wanted to set up shop wherever they like. It got even more brazen when they started that whole "Free Fortnite" thing to try and turn that fanbase on their side.

I'm glad it backfired so spectacularly! Anyone who forces me to actually have to side with Apple deserves it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another loss for Apple I was happy to see; the judge slapping down their lawyers argument that itch is a haven of filth and corruption. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I see how close I was to this thread whilst posting in the other -.-

I'm reading the court document atm because I'm weird like that, but can anyone who knows kinda explain what this means?

 

Quote

Creative mode allows players to create their own content in Fortnite.40 According to
Epic Games’ website: “Included free with Battle Royale, Fortnite Creative puts you in charge of
your own Island . . . . Creative is also a great place for just creating your own scenery. . . .”41
Content generated in Creative mode can be more broadly shared by other Fortnite players.42
With the aid of avatar Agent Peely, an anthropomorphic banana man,43 and Mr. Weissinger’s
testimony, the Court was walked through different gaming and experiences islands within the
Creative mode hub, including “Prison Breakout,” “Rockets vs. Cars,” “Cars Now With Snipers,”
and “Creative Mayhem Regional Qualifier.”44

43 With respect to the appropriateness of Peely’s “dress,” the Court understood Apple merely to be “dressing” Peely in a tuxedo for federal court, as jest to reflect the general solemnity of a federal court proceeding. As Mr. Weissinger later remarked, and with which the Court agrees, Peely is “just a banana man,” additional attire was not necessary but informative. Trial Tr. (Weissinger) 1443:17.

From what I saw in a quick google it's a BananaMan in a suit - but I feel like the Apple reference in the footnote should refer to Epic? Ofc I do see the irony of a banana appearing for court in a suit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this