Epic Games Sues Apple

noko said:
Exactly, Steam improved constantly, added more features, set the standard of a good online game distributor. API's, hooks, customer service, forums, support for Linux, really key player in VR and even supported Macs somewhat. EPIC I don't see bringing anything new to the table or even a good table to eat from.
Click to expand...
See, I find Steam's store front to be a big steaming pile of shit. Finding games I want to play usually involves digging through a pile of crap I don't want to maybe find the few that I do. Everything for them exists in a big ass bucket and filtering is done by whatever tags someone applies to the game. If people want their game to be seen they tag it with everything they think is even remotely applicable. This means that unless you know the name of the specific game you're doomed to go scrolling through buckets of crap. If they could quickly allow me to separate random cheap indie games from AAA games I'd be more than happy but the interface makes that not the easiest thing in the world.

Now, that doesn't mean I find anyone else's alternative particularly fantastic either but I simply object to the concept that Steam is somehow doing it right. Definitely not.
 
Ididar said:
See, I find Steam's store front to be a big steaming pile of shit. Finding games I want to play usually involves digging through a pile of crap I don't want to maybe find the few that I do. Everything for them exists in a big ass bucket and filtering is done by whatever tags someone applies to the game. If people want their game to be seen they tag it with everything they think is even remotely applicable. This means that unless you know the name of the specific game you're doomed to go scrolling through buckets of crap. If they could quickly allow me to separate random cheap indie games from AAA games I'd be more than happy but the interface makes that not the easiest thing in the world.

Now, that doesn't mean I find anyone else's alternative particularly fantastic either but I simply object to the concept that Steam is somehow doing it right. Definitely not.
Click to expand...
Do not follow your logic, you want less games to go through? Steam to automatically know what you like? I have no problems separating games out using tags, like VR, Top Sellers, New Releases, read ratings, publishers etc. do that with EPYC. Well you can also give them your mastermind winning feedback how to do it. Steam is about the only store I don't have too much problems with but that is just me.
 
Well, Steam's "related games" algorithm is pretty bad. I find a lot of good books on Amazon through the related feature. On Steam it seems mostly random.

The "what to try next" does seems to work, and uses a newer algorithm, so that is great. But it only seems to apply to games you own.

In any case, Steam is not perfect, but it's the best we have right now.
 
noko said:
Do not follow your logic, you want less games to go through? Steam to automatically know what you like? I have no problems separating games out using tags, like VR, Top Sellers, New Releases, read ratings, publishers etc. do that with EPYC. Well you can also give them your mastermind winning feedback how to do it. Steam is about the only store I don't have too much problems with but that is just me.
Click to expand...

Steam wants users to browse past as many games as possible hoping that browsing turns into sales. They hope that eyes on goods turns into sales. Steam's goal isn't to make it stupid easy for me to find the specific type of game I'm looking for it is to get maximum eyes on maximum numbers of games hoping for sales. As long as there isn't a bigger/better store out there with better algorithms they'll keep that approach going. I found Steam better to use as a store years ago before their catalog grew to such large proportions. When you have large amounts of data and you need to search it then algorithms are key to making that work. Steam's game catalog can be considered a big chunk of data. As long as their search methodology returns lots of junk results it isn't really doing its job overly well.

How do I find new games coming out? I generally hit up Google, not Steam. Do a search for an article that lists off some upcoming games and look at the information there. Then I actually have a name of a game to search for on Steam, and other platforms. Finding those games on Steam on their own means scrolling past tons of trash.
 
Flogger23m said:
Why did you post a quote that agrees with what I just wrote?

They're not demanding that everyone side loads their apps or creates their own installer, just to give everyone the option.

Obviously an unrealistic hope because Apple will never let that happen unless there is legal action, and that is slim to none.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/nickstatt/status/1389644367846121476

1620498915764.png
 
Last edited:
kirbyrj said:
If Epic wins, Apple's whole app store is in trouble.
Click to expand...
Eh, that's overstating the case a bit.

You'd certainly see developers rushing to either implement direct payments in their apps or releasing versions that exist outside the App Store. But look at how Google Play has fared despite sideloading being a common option. Most people still gravitate toward the official store because convenience and security are still quite important. Apple might take a hit to revenue, but not enough for the company to writhe around in pain.
 
Aurelius said:
Eh, that's overstating the case a bit.

You'd certainly see developers rushing to either implement direct payments in their apps or releasing versions that exist outside the App Store. But look at how Google Play has fared despite sideloading being a common option. Most people still gravitate toward the official store because convenience and security are still quite important. Apple might take a hit to revenue, but not enough for the company to writhe around in pain.
Click to expand...

I think it really depends on exactly what happens. A very broad ruling saying that Apple is abusing a monopoly could result in every other developer filing suit and essentially ruining the entire revenue stream. That could be a very big deal.
 
Aurelius said:
Eh, that's overstating the case a bit.

You'd certainly see developers rushing to either implement direct payments in their apps or releasing versions that exist outside the App Store. But look at how Google Play has fared despite sideloading being a common option. Most people still gravitate toward the official store because convenience and security are still quite important. Apple might take a hit to revenue, but not enough for the company to writhe around in pain.
Click to expand...
And it’s not like setting up and securing a payment gateway is cheap. Cheaper than 30% sure but not free.
 
Even if Epic wins, and alt stores are allowed, they will probably be blocked by scary settings (like on Android): "Are you sure you want to allow viruses and porn on your phone?"
 
I hope Epic does win, and I hope it will change everything. But it won't even if they win, because many people even here, validate automated greed in a transaction. Everything these stores does, Valve included is highway robbery. Good on Xbox (Microsoft) for lowering their cut; it's about damn time; and hope it sets a precedent. 33% is too high. 20% is too high. 11% sounds reasonable. Forced monopolies suck.

I'd rather have no refunds be possible and have valve collect 11%. Refunding a game seems ridiculous anyways; but at 33% fee, its hardly a privilege. Developers could actually earn more of the hard work they put into a game, instead of a company who's gatekeeping the sale of the product; seems like a win win to me. Maybe Valve might make games again if this were the case instead of living off their greedy monopoly model granted by past success?

On average, people download any single game maybe 5 times. That doesn't cost much money in bandwidth, so they can cry me a lake. For games that you download more; they're typically mobas like DoTA/CS that thrive on skin sales anyways.
 
Last edited:
kirbyrj said:
I think it really depends on exactly what happens. A very broad ruling saying that Apple is abusing a monopoly could result in every other developer filing suit and essentially ruining the entire revenue stream. That could be a very big deal.
Click to expand...
If the courts uphold a ruling that Apple was engaging in monopolistic behavior, those other devs won't need to file suit — Apple will effectively be required to change its model.
 
Mystique said:
Refunding a game seems ridiculous anyways; but at 33% fee, its hardly a privilege.
Click to expand...

Then devs/publishers are going to have to lower prices or get used to dropping prices quickly with sales in such a competitive market. This isn't 2005 or 2010. But then, if devs weren't so cheap or worried demos would lose them sales they might win over more customers with demos for games. Most of the time they just have "beta test" weekends now. Though I thank them for that sometimes as it saves money, well despite me using around 10% of my monthly bandwidth allotment from my ISP to download the test (100GB for ghost recon breakpoint).

Also, if bandwidth is so cheap why have so many companies tried to pawn off patches and downloads to bit torrent like sharing systems (Blizzard, MS) in the past 10 years?
 
Ranulfo said:
Then devs/publishers are going to have to lower prices or get used to dropping prices quickly with sales in such a competitive market. This isn't 2005 or 2010. But then, if devs weren't so cheap or worried demos would lose them sales they might win over more customers with demos for games. Most of the time they just have "beta test" weekends now. Though I thank them for that sometimes as it saves money, well despite me using around 10% of my monthly bandwidth allotment from my ISP to download the test (100GB for ghost recon breakpoint).

Also, if bandwidth is so cheap why have so many companies tried to pawn off patches and downloads to bit torrent like sharing systems (Blizzard, MS) in the past 10 years?
Click to expand...
I don't think the absence of demos can be pinned solely on cheapness or fears of lost sales. Keep in mind that demos take time to package and release these days; I've heard devs more than once complain about E3 demos taking time away from finishing the game, and those demos require less polish than the ones that reach everyday gamers.
 
Mystique said:
I hope Epic does win, and I hope it will change everything. But it won't even if they win, because many people even here, validate automated greed in a transaction. Everything these stores does, Valve included is highway robbery. Good on Xbox (Microsoft) for lowering their cut; it's about damn time; and hope it sets a precedent. 33% is too high. 20% is too high. 11% sounds reasonable. Forced monopolies suck.

I'd rather have no refunds be possible and have valve collect 11%. Refunding a game seems ridiculous anyways; but at 33% fee, its hardly a privilege. Developers could actually earn more of the hard work they put into a game, instead of a company who's gatekeeping the sale of the product; seems like a win win to me. Maybe Valve might make games again if this were the case instead of living off their greedy monopoly model granted by past success?

On average, people download any single game maybe 5 times. That doesn't cost much money in bandwidth, so they can cry me a lake. For games that you download more; they're typically mobas like DoTA/CS that thrive on skin sales anyways.
Click to expand...

11% seems low IMO. Credit card fees start around 1.5% and increase to almost 3% if using Paypal.

Then you also have the cost of maintaining the database and infrastructure. All games have to be hosted pretty much indefinitely. For the speeds Valve provides, it can't be cheap.

When you buy things from a convenience store like a gas station, it is not uncommon for the markup to be 100% and is typically at least 50%. 30% is pretty cheap in comparison, and 15% is almost nothing.

It's not a forced monopoly when no competitor decides to step in, which was the case on PC for many years. The only plausible forced monopoly is the App store on iOS devices, but it is an arguable one as there are non-iOS devices that can fulfill all the same functions.
 
I don't understand why consumers care about the cut, if it wasn't economical developers would not be using the platform.

The root of this case isn't freedom for iOS its greed being sold to people as freedom or security.
 
So now the arguments between Epic and Apple have branched and their legal arguments have opened up a case against Valve which has been shown to control more than 75% of PC game sales and is being called out as a Monopoly who is actually abusing their position to maintain the 30% norm.
 
Yeah, they are dragging everyone in on this. Not sure if Sweeny thought this through, it could be a huge shakeup.

Maybe it will be for the better. I don't have an issue with the 30%, but I do find fault with some of the other things, like the price fixing.
 
Yeah, I mean, why would you care that the developer prices 20% increase in sale price because of the cut? That doesn't effect you does it? o_O
 
Aireoth said:
I don't understand why consumers care about the cut, if it wasn't economical developers would not be using the platform.

The root of this case isn't freedom for iOS its greed being sold to people as freedom or security.
Click to expand...
This can affect the price of an in-app subscription (many companies charge extra in-app to compensate for the 30 percent cut), but I do agree that a lot of this is more behind-the-scenes than meaningful to everyday people.
 
Aurelius said:
This can affect the price of an in-app subscription (many companies charge extra in-app to compensate for the 30 percent cut), but I do agree that a lot of this is more behind-the-scenes than meaningful to everyday people.
Click to expand...
You know for the vast majority it won't, apps have already established the price the market is willing to pay, companies will be happy to collect that themselves.
 
Newbie_52 said:
Yup, just like all the exclusives on epic stores, those all came out at a lower price because of the 12% vs 30%.....
Click to expand...
EPIC has lost 330m$ giving away games to compete with Steam this year. My EPIC Game catalog is full of 40+$ games and I haven't paid a cent. Clearly, they're not using their money to discount exclusives, they're using their money to battle steam.

Are you actually serious? Lmao. The cut the middleman takes does effect the bottom line, this is basic economics 101. It impacts it in ALL facets of every single store. What could -possibly- make you believe that this is somehow the exception? What's funnier is that the middleman in this case isn't even in charge of freight, distribution, movement, logistics. It's basically just an API on the other side of a put/post http request; so basically no human interaction ever takes place or is needed, by design.

Do you know why French wine is expensive? It's because it actually has to get TO America. French wine costs 5$ when in France. It may still suffer taxes on import, but a lot of goods are priced up based on middlemen.

Saying your prices didn't go up is basically even more ridiculous than saying "Global warming isn't happening because it's snowing outside my window."
 
Last edited:
Newbie_52 said:
I never said any of that, only that it has not lowered prices for consumers.
Click to expand...
and it won't the only thing this will do is go towards improving margins, and will likely actually increase costs to the consumer, as studios work to maintain that improved margin while offsetting costs of maintaining their own purchase gateways.
 
cybereality said:
I think the point is for developers to earn more profit from their creations, not to lower prices.
Click to expand...
Right, which was the point of the comments that started this whole thing: there is zero reason for consumers to care what storefronts cost as it hasn't affected the bottom line pricing.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Right, which was the point of the comments that started this whole thing: there is zero reason for consumers to care what storefronts cost as it hasn't affected the bottom line pricing.
Click to expand...

There have been games that launched on EGS for cheaper than expected and the developers stated it was specifically because Epic gives them a bigger cut.

And even if you don't believe them there have been multiple coupon events millions of people took advantage of to get brand new games for cheaper.
 
Ididar said:
See, I find Steam's store front to be a big steaming pile of shit. Finding games I want to play usually involves digging through a pile of crap I don't want to maybe find the few that I do. Everything for them exists in a big ass bucket and filtering is done by whatever tags someone applies to the game. If people want their game to be seen they tag it with everything they think is even remotely applicable. This means that unless you know the name of the specific game you're doomed to go scrolling through buckets of crap. If they could quickly allow me to separate random cheap indie games from AAA games I'd be more than happy but the interface makes that not the easiest thing in the world.

Now, that doesn't mean I find anyone else's alternative particularly fantastic either but I simply object to the concept that Steam is somehow doing it right. Definitely not.
Click to expand...
I agree with what your saying, however steam is definitely the gold standard of how it should be done. Was top shelf right from the get go. I even got over the fact my 256mb of ram didn't want its stupid launcher running ALL THE TIME, dafuq.
 
sharknice said:
There have been games that launched on EGS for cheaper than expected and the developers stated it was specifically because Epic gives them a bigger cut.
Click to expand...
There have been zero AAA games that I know that have done this. Certainly not any of the games that Epic has paid to get exclusivity over. If it's all just indie devs, then indie devs for a long time have priced under the AAA $60 price.
sharknice said:
And even if you don't believe them there have been multiple coupon events millions of people took advantage of to get brand new games for cheaper.
Click to expand...
They also give 1-3 games a month away for free. As in zero cost.

As has been noted in this thread, everything that EGS is doing has been coming from subsidies. Epic isn't $300 million in the red from nothing. The problem with Epic and their war and way of doing things is it's not sustainable. Epic is just betting on the long game that after they get people converted to their store, they can hopefully make money after they stop giving said subsidies.
 
The only AAA game that got a discount that I know of was Metro Exodus on release. It was $50 in the USA only though.
 
Mystique said:
I hope Epic does win, and I hope it will change everything. But it won't even if they win, because many people even here, validate automated greed in a transaction. Everything these stores does, Valve included is highway robbery. Good on Xbox (Microsoft) for lowering their cut; it's about damn time; and hope it sets a precedent. 33% is too high. 20% is too high. 11% sounds reasonable. Forced monopolies suck.

I'd rather have no refunds be possible and have valve collect 11%. Refunding a game seems ridiculous anyways; but at 33% fee, its hardly a privilege. Developers could actually earn more of the hard work they put into a game, instead of a company who's gatekeeping the sale of the product; seems like a win win to me. Maybe Valve might make games again if this were the case instead of living off their greedy monopoly model granted by past success?

On average, people download any single game maybe 5 times. That doesn't cost much money in bandwidth, so they can cry me a lake. For games that you download more; they're typically mobas like DoTA/CS that thrive on skin sales anyways.
Click to expand...
You mean publishers can actually earn more of the hard work their developers put into a game, while keeping the status quo on how much of that profit is given out to the development team.

Microsoft isn't decreasing their share on consoles. It's all hypocritical since they would like to see Steam's market dominance on PC evaporate as much as Epic would, and they're conspiring together to make it happen.

Have some data on that last point about the number of times the average person downloads a game? And the bandwidth cost to a hosting company that has users downloading games millions of times per month.
Lakados said:
So now the arguments between Epic and Apple have branched and their legal arguments have opened up a case against Valve which has been shown to control more than 75% of PC game sales and is being called out as a Monopoly who is actually abusing their position to maintain the 30% norm.
Click to expand...
Market dominance does not establish a monopoly, though. There is a legal standard and I don't believe that Valve is peddling in any business practices that specifically preclude developers and publishers from selling games on other marketplaces. The only thing they do is say that the Steam price must match the lowest price on other storefronts, which is another standard business practice in other market segments. If Epic wants to muscle in on the PC games market then all they have to do is meet the standards of a modern platform to do it instead of doing the bare minimum and enticing publishers for exclusive deals instead.

Sweeney said that publishers are their customers, not gamers. Well, they're not amassing paying gamers, so mission accomplished I guess?
 
Armenius said:
Market dominance does not establish a monopoly, though. There is a legal standard and I don't believe that Valve is peddling in any business practices that specifically preclude developers and publishers from selling games on other marketplaces. The only thing they do is say that the Steam price must match the lowest price on other storefronts, which is another standard business practice in other market segments. If Epic wants to muscle in on the PC games market then all they have to do is meet the standards of a modern platform to do it instead of doing the bare minimum and enticing publishers for exclusive deals instead.

Sweeney said that publishers are their customers, not gamers. Well, they're not amassing paying gamers, so mission accomplished I guess?
Click to expand...
The Epic Games vs. Apple lawsuit is impacting the gaming industry dramatically as the topic of what constitutes as a monopoly comes center stage. Earlier this morning, we shared how Sony is being sued over PlayStation Store exclusivity, and now Valve is being sued for the same regarding Steam.

https://www.gameinformer.com/2021/05/06/valve-is-being-sued-over-steam-monopoly-accusations
 
Lakados said:
The Epic Games vs. Apple lawsuit is impacting the gaming industry dramatically as the topic of what constitutes as a monopoly comes center stage. Earlier this morning, we shared how Sony is being sued over PlayStation Store exclusivity, and now Valve is being sued for the same regarding Steam.

https://www.gameinformer.com/2021/05/06/valve-is-being-sued-over-steam-monopoly-accusations
Click to expand...
I can see the comparison of Apple to the console makers where there is a vertical integration and control of the platform by one party, but that analogy doesn't hold for Steam/Valve. Valve/Steam is dominant, but not a monopoly. The Windows PC ecosystem is open, which thereby makes it difficult if not impossible to gain monopoly advantage (outside of the OS).

I don't think HumbleBumble or whoever will be too successful in this fight.
 
sc5mu93 said:
I can see the comparison of Apple to the console makers where there is a vertical integration and control of the platform by one party, but that analogy doesn't hold for Steam/Valve. Valve/Steam is dominant, but not a monopoly. The Windows PC ecosystem is open, which thereby makes it difficult if not impossible to gain monopoly advantage (outside of the OS).

I don't think HumbleBumble or whoever will be too successful in this fight.
Click to expand...
Maybe maybe not, but the case is built off the data they had to submit for the Epic/Apple case. All they need to prove is that they use their market dominance to punish challengers to that dominance. To defend themselves they will have to make yet more information public, it's going to be a shit show, and the only thing I see coming from it is more data breaches and spam campaigns.
 
Armenius said:
Market dominance does not establish a monopoly, though. There is a legal standard and I don't believe that Valve is peddling in any business practices that specifically preclude developers and publishers from selling games on other marketplaces. The only thing they do is say that the Steam price must match the lowest price on other storefronts, which is another standard business practice in other market segments. If Epic wants to muscle in on the PC games market then all they have to do is meet the standards of a modern platform to do it instead of doing the bare minimum and enticing publishers for exclusive deals instead.
Click to expand...
I'm not a huge fan of Valve, but the big thing they have going for them is that they don't own the platform that their store exists on. Google, Apple, MS, and Sony all own and control the platforms that their stores exist on so they can create problems for other stores coming into existence. Nobody can create a store on Apple's phones, Microsoft's Xbox, or Sony's Playstation without their permission and so far they've not allowed that. Nobody is stopping others from competing with Steam and many are doing so right now. Steam's market position offers them little in leverage to hold back those other stores. And, frankly, I haven't heard anything about them using their market position to try to kill those other stores. They don't even come close to rising to the same level of anti-competitiveness that exists on iOS, or the PS and Xbox. Google is a little more open in that you can sideload apps, and many do. They are engaging in some anti-competitive practices by forcing phone manufacturers to include their store, though. That said, that's a step removed from what Apple is doing by preventing any other store from existing in the first place. Both can be said to be abusing a monopoly position but once is a step further down that road.
 
Ididar said:
I'm not a huge fan of Valve, but the big thing they have going for them is that they don't own the platform that their store exists on. Google, Apple, MS, and Sony all own and control the platforms that their stores exist on so they can create problems for other stores coming into existence. Nobody can create a store on Apple's phones, Microsoft's Xbox, or Sony's Playstation without their permission and so far they've not allowed that. Nobody is stopping others from competing with Steam and many are doing so right now. Steam's market position offers them little in leverage to hold back those other stores. And, frankly, I haven't heard anything about them using their market position to try to kill those other stores. They don't even come close to rising to the same level of anti-competitiveness that exists on iOS, or the PS and Xbox. Google is a little more open in that you can sideload apps, and many do. They are engaging in some anti-competitive practices by forcing phone manufacturers to include their store, though. That said, that's a step removed from what Apple is doing by preventing any other store from existing in the first place. Both can be said to be abusing a monopoly position but once is a step further down that road.
Click to expand...

Valve isn't doing anything near Apple or Google's level in regards to abusing "monopoly" power. What Valve does to leverage their position is mostly behind the scenes hidden to the customer and public.

But to think any competitor stands a chance against Steam by simply "meeting the standards of a modern platform" is utterly retarded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top