Epic Games is being countersued by Google

Armenius

Extremely [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
34,412
Tables have turned on Epic, with Google now suing them for developing and utilizing their own payment system in the Google App Store version of Fortnite. This breaks Google's terms of service. Fortnite was removed from the App Store back in August, but millions of players who obtained the game from Google's store still continue to use Epic's payment system. Google is seeking to recoup the lost commission from all the transactions that players have made through the game if it was obtained through the App Store. This is a counterclaim against Epic, who initiated a lawsuit against Google that is very similar to their lawsuit against Apple after Google banned Fortnite from the App Store.

Google's counter claims include Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Quasi-Contract/Unjust Enrichment.

Source:
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/g...ng-its-own-payment-mechanism-in-fortnite.html

Legal filing of Google's response and counterclaims:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364325/gov.uscourts.cand.364325.182.0.pdf

In my opinion Epic's case against Google is even more shaky than their case against Apple, given that Android users are more free to choose where to purchase their apps.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,486
I mean, I have no love lost for either Epic nor Google, but in this case I hope Google absolutely FLATTENS Epic.

I would love to see that smug shit eating grin wiped off of Tim Sweeney's face.
They will, Epic was forced to pay Apple their 30% cut for the week or two that they were using their own payment system when they "won" their lawsuit with Apple, which completely opened the door for Google to go after them for the same thing.
 
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
674
I mean, I have no love lost for either Epic nor Google, but in this case I hope Google absolutely FLATTENS Epic.

I would love to see that smug shit eating grin wiped off of Tim Sweeney's face.
I mean, it would be great for them both to lose. I think walled gardens, restrictions, and legal psuedo-contracts that big corpo can use to hold down the little guy (small business and consumer) are just too much. Going for Epic on this one. Epic isn't a little guy, but if they win the little guys probably win. Or better yet a ruling both google and epic would hate.
 
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
674
They will, Epic was forced to pay Apple their 30% cut for the week or two that they were using their own payment system when they "won" their lawsuit with Apple, which completely opened the door for Google to go after them for the same thing.
I guess that's fine, as long as Google loses the other lawsuit
 

Eymar

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
322
Lol, this reminds of the scene in Billy Madison about Business Ethics. Now I imagine it with Tim Sweeney. I mean Epic should be totally fine with apps being hosted in Epic Game store for free as trial, but developer can use own payment system to unlock.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,486
Lol, this reminds of the scene in Billy Madison about Business Ethics. Now I imagine it with Tim Sweeney. I mean Epic should be totally fine with apps being hosted in Epic Game store for free as trial, but developer can use own payment system to unlock.
Epic does..... with a catch, they changed their TOS back in 2019 to allow the use of 3'rd party payment vendors but they will not support it and they do not support all payment processors. Currently, they only support the Russian-backed, but American-owned Xsolla to process 3'rd party payments.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,025
I mean, it would be great for them both to lose. I think walled gardens, restrictions, and legal psuedo-contracts that big corpo can use to hold down the little guy (small business and consumer) are just too much. Going for Epic on this one. Epic isn't a little guy, but if they win the little guys probably win. Or better yet a ruling both google and epic would hate.

I hear you, but IMHO Epic has been one of the worst offenders in later years when it comes to abusing this shit, with all of their paid exclusives and other nonsense.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,486
I hear you, but IMHO Epic has been one of the worst offenders in later years when it comes to abusing this shit, with all of their paid exclusives and other nonsense.
I don't really begrudge them for their exclusives, they aren't the first to implement the process and they won't be the last and it really is their only viable way to take customers away from the other platforms if they want to grow their user base. My biggest issue with them is their actual business plan, they make a lot of claims about how they are charging less and why everybody else should charge less too, but Epic is operating at a loss and their numbers show that their own business model isn't viable unless they are 3-4x larger than they currently are which can only be done by pulling customers from Steam which would shrink them to the size where they would struggle with that same 12% unless they started doing first-party titles again. So their business plan is less of a plan and more of a threat.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,025
I don't really begrudge them for their exclusives, they aren't the first to implement the process and they won't be the last and it really is their only viable way to take customers away from the other platforms if they want to grow their user base. My biggest issue with them is their actual business plan, they make a lot of claims about how they are charging less and why everybody else should charge less too, but Epic is operating at a loss and their numbers show that their own business model isn't viable unless they are 3-4x larger than they currently are which can only be done by pulling customers from Steam which would shrink them to the size where they would struggle with that same 12% unless they started doing first-party titles again. So their business plan is less of a plan and more of a threat.

I did not realize that about their business plan. Thanks for the info.

I hate all forms of exclusives, lock-ins and lock-outs though, and I will hold it against them. I consider them market manipulations, and wish that they were illegal.

I know this will never happen, in an ideal world, developers would be required to provide their titles neutrally to all platforms that want to carry it without any manipulative tactics like forcing the install of another launcher, or tying it to a user account in the developers cloud, or anything like that, all at the same price. (there would have to be some provisions to prevent abuse of transfer pricing so that developers can't say they charge a 0% markup in their own store and use this to screw over other stores, but that a minor detail to be solved)

You'd wind up with a Glass-Steagall kind of separation between developers and retailers that would benefit the consumer and the market as a whole.

Also, there should be a provision that allows users to transfer their already purchased platforms from platform to platform should they want (for a fee determined by the platform you are transferring TO)

This way we let the consumer decide which store wins. The store that charges a higher markup, will have to sell games at a higher price, and consumers will have to decide if they think the services and platform that store provides is worth the extra markup.

This way the market determines the winner. You don't have a free market if the consumer doesn't have a choice.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,486
I did not realize that about their business plan. Thanks for the info.

I hate exclusives though, and I will hold it against them.

I know this will never happen, in an ideal world, developers would be required to provide their titles neutrally to all platforms that want to carry it without any manipulative tactics like forcing the install of another launcher, or tying it to a user account in the developers cloud, or anything like that, all at the same price. (there would have to be some provisions to prevent abuse of transfer pricing so that developers can't say they charge a 0% markup in their own store and use this to screw over other stores, but that a minor detail to be solved)

Also, there should be a provision that allows users to transfer their already purchased platforms from platform to platform should they want (for a fee determined by the platform you are transferring TO)

This way we let the consumer decide which store wins. The store that charges a higher markup, will have to sell games at a higher price, and consumers will have to decide if they think the services and platform that store provides is worth the extra markup.

This way the market determines the winner. You don't have a free market if the consumer doesn't have a choice.
I mean the best way would be a closed source version of Github, where developers upload their software and independent stores could then access and authorize back through a strictly controlled API. But yeah not likely to happen any time soon.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2017
Messages
759
I did not realize that about their business plan. Thanks for the info.

I hate all forms of exclusives, lock-ins and lock-outs though, and I will hold it against them. I consider them market manipulations, and wish that they were illegal.

I know this will never happen, in an ideal world, developers would be required to provide their titles neutrally to all platforms that want to carry it without any manipulative tactics like forcing the install of another launcher, or tying it to a user account in the developers cloud, or anything like that, all at the same price. (there would have to be some provisions to prevent abuse of transfer pricing so that developers can't say they charge a 0% markup in their own store and use this to screw over other stores, but that a minor detail to be solved)

You'd wind up with a Glass-Steagall kind of separation between developers and retailers that would benefit the consumer and the market as a whole.

Also, there should be a provision that allows users to transfer their already purchased platforms from platform to platform should they want (for a fee determined by the platform you are transferring TO)

This way we let the consumer decide which store wins. The store that charges a higher markup, will have to sell games at a higher price, and consumers will have to decide if they think the services and platform that store provides is worth the extra markup.

This way the market determines the winner. You don't have a free market if the consumer doesn't have a choice.

You can have a free market if the consumer does not have a choice. That's the funny thing about all this. The free market is essentially laissez faire or just straight capitalism. So very low taxation and regulation. The problem is that this always leads to shady shit and the first few companies out the door to get rich either buy up everyone else, use market share to crush them, or simply operate at a loss until they go away. The corruption is also spectacular. So if you have walled gardens, operating at a loss for years, buying up the competition, paying off others not to use your competition that's not anti free market. That's is exactly the outcome the free market is designed to produce and will produce everything single time.

In just the US we've had this with the steel industry, railroad industry, telecom, over and over and over again. Google, apple, Microsoft, intel, nvidia, facebook, amazon you name it. What's needed is regulation and regulated markets. Claiming "you're just free marketing wrong" is falling into the trap because nope they are free marketing exactly right.
 

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
19,339
I just signed up for Jury Duty next year I got your back Epic I'm sick of Google just like Epic is.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
3,824
I have a buddy that's a corporate lawyer who started explaining this hubub to me.

WAY over my head.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,943
lol, EPIC, maybe they should have some bribe money stashed away, as in lots of it. Basically EPIC wants to dictate how Google runs their store while not the only store in town where people have choices. I just don't see good things happening for EPIC in this case but what do I know.
 
Top