Epic Games Sues Apple

d3athf1sh

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
920
paraphrased: Epic upset that Apple takes a cut of App Store sales, files lawsuit so they can keep selling digital hats to kids using their parents’ credit cards without letting Apple in on it.
It's more than a "cut"...
So the devs do the work and apple gets the money. Seems fair.
 

d3athf1sh

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
920
Unless you're being intentionally obtuse, It shouldn't be difficult to see a distinction between a firstparty game developed in-house, versus monitoring a competing store's most-wishlisted games and then offering the publisher/developer a big bag of cash if they remove that game from that store and put it only on EGS. The latter is what gets Epic most of the hate.

Epic isn't "funding games" - they're funneling Fortnite profits extracted from little kids into bribes to keep games off of Steam and GOG, oftentines right before a game was set to release on Steam and had soaked up months or years of free advertising there.
Yes and I haven't found a place to voice this but, I found out a couple weeks ago that if a storm knocks out your networking gear, you can't play ANY egs games, PERIOD. because of that I am no longer purchasing ANYTHING from egs.
Steam for the win. Just change your game settings to "update when I launch" and your good to go and offline play will never be a problem for you on steam.
 

Newbie_52

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
180
Yes and I haven't found a place to voice this but, I found out a couple weeks ago that if a storm knocks out your networking gear, you can't play ANY egs games, PERIOD. because of that I am no longer purchasing ANYTHING from egs

Just curious which games didn't work? I ran some of the free epic games directly from the .exes by passing egs client and seem to work fine. However I didn't try without a internet connection
 

deruberhanyok

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,104
It's more than a "cut"...
So the devs do the work and apple gets the money. Seems fair.

that’s grossly oversimplifying it though.

In physical product being sold on shelves there’s distribution costs, including shipping and packaging, there’s the cut that goes to the retailer, there’s manufacturing costs, and so on.

Apple’s getting the percentage of the sale the same way any retailer would. I don’t know how 30% compares to physical product, but I am going out on a limb and say it’s probably a good rate considering the only logistics a developer needs to deal with is publishing their app.

imagine if you walked into a game shop and took a game off their shelf (for free) and it was yours. Then you walked outside, paid a guy across the street (who doesn’t work for the shop and who puts the money in his own pocket) for an expansion pack, went back into the store and they had to give it to you.

All the while the store is providing infrastructure for you to get that game and expansion, which costs them money - they have to keep the lights on, pay their employees, etc. But you’re just paying that guy on the other side of the street, who again doesn’t work for the shop and is putting the money in his own pockets, and the store has to give it to you anyways, because Tim Sweeney said so.

no physical store would ever work like that, but Epic seems to think it would be fine for Apple. And Google.

Epic published their game on someone else’s platform, agreed to the rules of said platform, and then decided they didn’t like the rules and they shouldn’t apply because... internet? I guess the internet is all free and doesn’t cost anyone anything, so it must be the Apple is being greedy.:rolleyes:

I know it’s cool to hate on Apple right now but this is just Epic throwing a fit and trying to get their way.
 

deruberhanyok

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,104
It's more like Apple saying you can't open a store on a street they do business on. The street goes to their store, no other stores go on that street.

No, you can open as many stores on that street as you want. Epic already has their own shop on it, even.

But Apple customers only buy from the Apple store, they literally don’t have any other options (and that’s part of the design of the product they purchased). so if you want to sell to them, that’s where you put your product. And you do it on Apple’s terms because, again, it’s their store.

Epic seems to think that developing a platform and its software distribution infrastructure, and maintaining it, should not be a a source of revenue for a company. They think it should just be a service they offer for free to whoever wants to use it (because again, internet is free so it can’t possibly cost anything). Maybe the Epic Game Store costs them zero dollars to run, and it requires to maintenance or upgrades or fixes ever. That might explain why they think the App Store is unfair.

instead of suing Apple I would like them to sue Verizon and Comcast, and argue that it’s unfair to charge customers for internet used to play Fortnite.
 

Reaperkk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2000
Messages
1,929
No, you can open as many stores on that street as you want. Epic already has their own shop on it, even.

But Apple customers only buy from the Apple store, they literally don’t have any other options (and that’s part of the design of the product they purchased). so if you want to sell to them, that’s where you put your product. And you do it on Apple’s terms because, again, it’s their store.

Epic seems to think that developing a platform and its software distribution infrastructure, and maintaining it, should not be a a source of revenue for a company. They think it should just be a service they offer for free to whoever wants to use it (because again, internet is free so it can’t possibly cost anything). Maybe the Epic Game Store costs them zero dollars to run, and it requires to maintenance or upgrades or fixes ever. That might explain why they think the App Store is unfair.

instead of suing Apple I would like them to sue Verizon and Comcast, and argue that it’s unfair to charge customers for internet used to play Fortnite.

Your posts nail exactly how I feel about the subject. i've been critical of Apple before because it's cool to jump on the apple hate train but in this case I don't feel it's fair for Epic to skirt the terms of the agreement because they don't feel like paying it. What does Epic feel like paying to Apple if anything? Consider the R&D costs going into developing the new iPhone. I imagine Apple recoups a lot of costs from revenue generated from the App store, then again I'm just speculating.
 

d3athf1sh

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
920
Just curious which games didn't work? I ran some of the free epic games directly from the .exes by passing egs client and seem to work fine. However I didn't try without a internet connection
all the ones i have installed including RDR2. egs claims to have "offline play" but you have to log into the client ONLINE then go offline and you can play. but like i was saying basically no internet = no game. sux. i had to order my new modem and router and it took ~ week for everything to get here, becuase i won't pay for the garbage the cable company is peddling, i was stuck with the few games i had in my steam library or replaying older games that will run off disc. would prob have more games installed if they didn't take 50-100GB of (ssd)disk space like some of them do these days. just something to keep in mind.
 

d3athf1sh

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
920
that’s grossly oversimplifying it though.

In physical product being sold on shelves there’s distribution costs, including shipping and packaging, there’s the cut that goes to the retailer, there’s manufacturing costs, and so on.

Apple’s getting the percentage of the sale the same way any retailer would. I don’t know how 30% compares to physical product, but I am going out on a limb and say it’s probably a good rate considering the only logistics a developer needs to deal with is publishing their app.

imagine if you walked into a game shop and took a game off their shelf (for free) and it was yours. Then you walked outside, paid a guy across the street (who doesn’t work for the shop and who puts the money in his own pocket) for an expansion pack, went back into the store and they had to give it to you.

All the while the store is providing infrastructure for you to get that game and expansion, which costs them money - they have to keep the lights on, pay their employees, etc. But you’re just paying that guy on the other side of the street, who again doesn’t work for the shop and is putting the money in his own pockets, and the store has to give it to you anyways, because Tim Sweeney said so.

no physical store would ever work like that, but Epic seems to think it would be fine for Apple. And Google.

Epic published their game on someone else’s platform, agreed to the rules of said platform, and then decided they didn’t like the rules and they shouldn’t apply because... internet? I guess the internet is all free and doesn’t cost anyone anything, so it must be the Apple is being greedy.:rolleyes:

I know it’s cool to hate on Apple right now but this is just Epic throwing a fit and trying to get their way.
if you want to simplify it like that, then apple isn't paying a monthly fee to have a physical store location and all the cost's associated with that! they are providing a platform, that's their job. they are making their money not only that way but with the hardware! and even they were selling all the software at brick and mortar locations, if best buy or game stop sells you a game, they dont' make money on the DLC...

what would the world be like if microsoft wanted a 30% tax on every transaction that takes place on your pc? what about linux? i mean, C'MON man!!? they don't make enough money for your liking or what?

i think the youth of today has been brainwashed to just accept all these b*llsh*t fees everyone wants to charge and not question anything or stand up for whats right. just bend over and take it. wow man. unbelievable.
 

d3athf1sh

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
920
Your posts nail exactly how I feel about the subject. i've been critical of Apple before because it's cool to jump on the apple hate train but in this case I don't feel it's fair for Epic to skirt the terms of the agreement because they don't feel like paying it. What does Epic feel like paying to Apple if anything? Consider the R&D costs going into developing the new iPhone. I imagine Apple recoups a lot of costs from revenue generated from the App store, then again I'm just speculating.
funny how it comes into the public eye that not only does the NSA have 100% success rate hacking apple products, but that apple has been fucking it's customers over for over 10 yrs by slowing their devices down yearly till they're unusable and you have to buy a new one and also been caught on film at apple stores telling customers that what is basically a $5 fix will cost almost as much as a new phone so they can keep their child slave camps going. Yet you still have guys coming on to places like the [H]ard forum straight simping for them.

Easy to tell which one's of us started dropping $1000 on their cell phone every year a couple years ago.. just got to listen. Hey if you got it flaunt it, right?
 
Last edited:

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,098
It's more than a "cut"...
So the devs do the work and apple gets the money. Seems fair.
Indeed.
Google Play
Nintendo Store
Xbox Store
Playstation Store
Steam
Microsoft Store (separate from the Xbox store)
Samsung App Store
GOG
Amazon App Store

All agree. So glad we're on the same page.
And that is ignoring more or less every media contract such as the music industry, film industry, writing, etc. More or less anything with distribution requires at least a 30% cut.

if you want to simplify it like that, then apple isn't paying a monthly fee to have a physical store location and all the cost's associated with that! they are providing a platform, that's their job. they are making their money not only that way but with the hardware! and even they were selling all the software at brick and mortar locations, if best buy or game stop sells you a game, they dont' make money on the DLC...
The irony is there is a physical location: called the Apple Store. But fine, lets just deal with their non-physical locations below.
So you think land is free? The servers are free? The people employed to maintain said servers are free? Electricity free? There are other facility costs, but besides that:
Do you think that hardware design is free? Or how about building up a user base? What is the value of that? If the value there is zero, Epic is free to create their own hardware, their own software, their own platform to push Fortnite.

what would the world be like if microsoft wanted a 30% tax on every transaction that takes place on your pc? what about linux? i mean, C'MON man!!? they don't make enough money for your liking or what?
They want to do that. Which is why the Microsoft Store is being pushed and if Microsoft does move to another ISA, they will. The Surface RT is a locked down device with precisely one store. Can you guess which one?

i think the youth of today has been brainwashed to just accept all these b*llsh*t fees everyone wants to charge and not question anything or stand up for whats right. just bend over and take it. wow man. unbelievable.
No. People have a choice. Go buy Android. Develop for another system. Go live your life. If you want to be on a platform, then you obey those rules. Again, if that platform has zero value, develop your own hardware, software, and distribute your own phones. Then you can charge whatever you want and earn whatever you want.

funny how it comes into the public eye that not only does the NSA have 100% success rate hacking apple products,
Citation needed.

but that apple has been fucking it's customers over for over 10 yrs by slowing their devices down yearly till they're unusable and you have to buy a new one
This isn't true and I've debunked this numerous times. But if it helps you feel that Apple is the evil corp, go ahead and keep believing it.

and also been caught on film at apple stores telling customers that what is basically a $5 fix will cost almost as much as a new phone so they can keep their child slave camps going.
Citation needed. I'm going to enjoy this one. Even if you can prove that an isolated incident required a $5 fix and they were recommended a new phone you're going to have a hell of a time connecting that to any form of slave camp. But even to that end, in order for you to have the ethical and moral high-ground, you'd better know where everything you buy comes from. Because rare earth metals, steel, manufacturing, your food, probably have an unethical/immoral component to them. Unless you are literally self sustaining - that is growing your own food off your own land and your own clothes then you can't escape this. If the components in your computer contain anything from China, you can't escape this (Foxconn in general and that's ignoring where all the metals and materials were mined from - again with globalization probably came from an unethical place).

Again, if Apple is the big baddie and that helps you sleep at night, great. But you're literally using some form of electronic device to post here. So that automatically puts you in the same boat.

Yet you still have guys coming on to places like the [H]ard forum straight simping for them.

Easy to tell which one's of us started dropping $1000 on their cell phone every year a couple years ago.. just got to listen. Hey if you got it flaunt it, right?
No, just mature enough to know that there isn't a clean option, and Apple's option for me and the people on their platforms is the best for what we want to do.
There is also no requirement to buying a phone every 1-2 years. I've lived with 4+ year old Apple phones multiple times.
If you want to hate Apple, that's on you, but if you hate them because of a 30% cut, which doesn't even affect you, then you should also not shop at any of the stores mentioned above. Basically, don't play any video games ever again. Because retail is over 30% cut (when considering shipping, packaging, the stores cut, etc, some devs have stated it's upwards of 70-80% and they get 20%). And every store for every console is 30%. And basically every other distribution system outside of EGS is 30%. And believe me when I say that EGS isn't the savior either - that's an entirely different bag of worms.

So if Apple users are "taking it" so is everyone else. Just turns out I'm aware of it and apparently you aren't.

I read the whole thing. The only thing I have to say then is if this applies the way this non-legal says it does - then that means that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft will all also have to change their models because they operate exactly the same way. Except they also have a physical component. But either way from the way this guy is wording it, consoles operate the same way.
The only difference might be that multiple dev tools can be used (in the sense of game engines). But in terms of cut and control in terms of storefront etc as well as licensing, it's exactly the same. Which would mean a far greater change in multiple marketplaces. Sony would have to allow you to buy software from other stores than the Playstation store? What would that mean for their upcoming digital only PS5?
 
Last edited:

deruberhanyok

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,104
if you want to simplify it like that, then apple isn't paying a monthly fee to have a physical store location and all the cost's associated with that! they are providing a platform, that's their job. they are making their money not only that way but with the hardware! and even they were selling all the software at brick and mortar locations, if best buy or game stop sells you a game, they dont' make money on the DLC...

I mean, Apple pays whatever it costs them every month to run all the infrastructure for the App Store. Infrastructure isn’t free.

the difference in your example is that when you buy the DLC you’re not going back to GameStop and asking them to provide it for you. They made their cut when they sold you the game, but they weren’t involved in the DLC transaction. Unless Epic set up their whole platform to completely bypass all of Apple’s infrastructure yourmetaphpr doesn’t stick.

(but Apple won’t let anyone set up an alternative App Store, which is a whole separate issue).

what would the world be like if microsoft wanted a 30% tax on every transaction that takes place on your pc? what about linux? i mean, C'MON man!!? they don't make enough money for your liking or what?

do you think Steam, GoG, uplay, Origin and Battlenet don’t take a cut of sales? Or Microsoft, to use your own example, with the Windows App Store? The difference is that Microsoft isn’t providing the infrastructure for those other stores, just the OS they run on (which they already got paid for). But you can be sure they take a cut of anything sold through their own store.

i think the youth of today has been brainwashed to just accept all these b*llsh*t fees everyone wants to charge and not question anything or stand up for whats right. just bend over and take it. wow man. unbelievable.

This is fun. I built my first “gaming” PC before windows 95 came out. But I appreciate being called youth. Thanks.

there are two separate issues here. They are being conflated.

1) Apple can do whatever they want with their own App Store, and charge whatever fees they want to use it, because it’s their own App Store. Some people seem to think Apple should provide this service to developers for free, because they think Apple has enough money already.

2) Apple does not allow alternative app stores. Their platform is locked down and so if you want to sell to iOS users there is only one way to do it.

this the real “problem” most people have. No one is getting upset that Steam takes a cut of app sales, or GoG, or yes even Microsoft, because all those platforms run on Windows (or yes, Linux, for Steam) and you have plenty of choices.

But each store is providing their own infrastructure for distribution and their own entirely different terms to developers/publishers and end users. Steam can make their feed whatever they want. Same with MS, GoG, whatever. You want to sell your software on their store and distribute it using their infrastructure? Damn right there’s going to be fees.

if you don’t like it, build your own App Store.oh wait, Apple won’t let you.

But that’s an entirely separate issue from a company intentionally ignoring the terms they agreed to for using the App Store in the first place.

you want to talk about bullshit fees and standing up for what’s right? How about infrastructure developers getting paid for their work? With fees from the clients they serve. That’s how everyone else does it, and if their clients decide not to pay, they don’t get to use the service.

No one is bitching about Steam’s fees because there are different platforms available on PC. No one is bitching about PSN or Xbox Live Lock-in and fees because... they are consoles and not as ubiquitous as phones, I guess? I don’t know. It’s the same principle for the consoles. L
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,317
I read the whole thing. The only thing I have to say then is if this applies the way this non-legal says it does - then that means that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft will all also have to change their models because they operate exactly the same way. Except they also have a physical component. But either way from the way this guy is wording it, consoles operate the same way.
Yes, if Epic wins that will be the implication. I feel the issue is of personal choice and the rights you have to install software you wish on the devices you own.

So we could also be talking about installing Linux on consoles, downloading or creating home-brew games, getting access to software that wouldn't be approved by platform holders like the PornHub app, uncensored visual novels, etc.

This could be huge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aegir
like this

Aegir

Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
565
Yes, if Epic wins that will be the implication. I feel the issue is of personal choice and the rights you have to install software you wish on the devices you own.

So we could also be talking about installing Linux on consoles, downloading or creating home-brew games, getting access to software that wouldn't be approved by platform holders like the PornHub app, uncensored visual novels, etc.

This could be huge.


Yeah, if Epic wins this, I'll certainly consider it a win for freedom of the consumer.
I might even download their little game store, just to check it out.

I hope they win. It would be the right thing to have happen.

All cell-phones should have "opt-in full root access."
Same with all consoles. Hide it behind a few menus and give a warning if they want, but in the end, this unethical "lock-down" practice is poison to our ability to experiment and innovate. Our devices should be ours by law, and that means the ability to gain full root access.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,098
Yes, if Epic wins that will be the implication. I feel the issue is of personal choice and the rights you have to install software you wish on the devices you own.

So we could also be talking about installing Linux on consoles, downloading or creating home-brew games, getting access to software that wouldn't be approved by platform holders like the PornHub app, uncensored visual novels, etc.

This could be huge.
Yeah, if Epic wins this, I'll certainly consider it a win for freedom of the consumer.
I might even download their little game store, just to check it out.

I hope they win. It would be the right thing to have happen.

All cell-phones should have "opt-in full root access."
Same with all consoles. Hide it behind a few menus and give a warning if they want, but in the end, this unethical "lock-down" practice is poison to our ability to experiment and innovate. Our devices should be ours by law, and that means the ability to gain full root access.
Sounds great until you realize that it kills a lot of the impetus for companies to risk money to invest into. It's all fun and games when you look at "evil Apple" and their billions of dollars. However if this is law going forwards what investor is going to want to stick out billions of dollars on something they can't control? Something in which they aren't allowed to monetize?

Without even looking up information, it's long been known that every console essentially makes their money off of licensing and game sales and not the hardware. With that model - what incentive does Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft or indeed any manufacturer stand to gain from entering into this market? People will just buy the hardware, which they lose money on and side load everything (because you're lying to yourself and this situation if you don't think people will use this to pirate like crazy) and the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in custom software and hardware development will not recoup itself. Sony as an example has been on the edge for a long time. Again, to repeat myself, why bother to be in these markets if you literally do not have the legal right to control your own creation (let alone the issues of being able to even profit from your own creation)? Why bother to design software when you can't even profit from it because now back-doors have to be allowed by law and people can just pirate everything through repos?

Basically this will be the slow death of a lot of development. You're not going to get innovation unless there is profit incentive to do so. Google doesn't care because they'll go along selling user data as they have before (indeed they don't sell a phone so much as license for free OS software. Yes I'm aware of Pixel, but that is a low margin product compared to the rest of the Android market) - it is indeterminate at this point if it's possible for Apple to continue to have it be worth it for the organization without also doing the same. And personally I don't want to be on a cellphone OS that carte blanche sells my user data. Clearly some of you are okay with that, I'm not. This will go from a design with two different systems to one system. And none of us will benefit from that.

Epic really should lose. And there is far more than one reason for that. If they want control over people's hardware, they should themselves be forced to build a phone and an OS and a platform and get people to move onto said platform and see what it is and what it means to have other organizations dictate what they can and cannot do with said platform.
 
Last edited:

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,317
Fair points. Piracy would be a primary concern.

However, desktop PC is fairly open, and yes piracy exists, but companies still make good money selling software and games on Windows.
 

deruberhanyok

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,104
Eh, I don’t think it would actually be a good thing. For the reasons UnknownSouljer said, and more.

any “appliance” you buy has a certain set of features and functionality that makes it work the way it should. If a law mandates that companies have to allow for any software on any platform then you open them up to malicious software as well.

and where does it stop? A PlayStation has an x86 processor so I should be able to run Windows on it? Would Sony be legally required to provide drivers for their console? Would Microsoft be legally required to support installing windows on a smart refrigerator just because someone wanted to?

And then there’s the matter of support. Who handles support for Apple customers whose phone broke because Epic’s store was hacked? Can you get a refund on your PlayStation because you can’t run BSD on it? If I can install Windows RT on my Sony television with an ARM processor in it, and it breaks, does my warranty still apply? Would companies be forced to support all non-default configurations “for the consumer”?

I think there’s a big difference between an open computing platform (like Linux or Windows on a desktop PC, and by “open” I just mean you can install whatever you want on them) and a purpose-built appliance like a phone or game console.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
21,261
Oof. This is going to get even more dramatically interesting.
BRB, getting some popcorn.


https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53888087


Screenshot_20200824-094948.png
 

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
9,887
Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft will all also have to change their models because they operate exactly the same way
This isn't the same. Not only do consoles work without connectivity, they also don't provide any major experience outside of the games.

But if Microsoft opens up Xbox following their new position, I can't see why that would be a bad thing, and it may lead to new fronts on the console horizon.
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
Oof. This is going to get even more dramatically interesting.
BRB, getting some popcorn.

Well, Microsoft's declaration doesn't relate to Epic's demand to receive special treatment on the app store. When Apple banned Epic, they also threatened taking away Unreal engine's access to Apple SDK, which will hurt a lot of indie developers who have no association with Epic but want to make apps for iOS using Unreal engine . Microsoft's declaration is in support of letting Unreal Engine use the Apple SDK again so other developers can keep making stuff for App store.

Rest assured Apple will not end up cutting Unreal engine access and impacting innocent third parties. Also rest assured Fortnite will never be allowed to live rent-free in the App store, ever.
 
Last edited:

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
9,887
Seems equally unfair that Epic feel entitled to launch a full on campaign trying to hurt Apples customer relations.

It's Apple that's hurting their own customer relations. Epic's just pointing it out.
 

deruberhanyok

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,104
It's Apple that's hurting their own customer relations. Epic's just pointing it out.

But how, exactly? So far all we've gotten out of this is that Epic doesn't think it's fair that there's a fee for them to use someone else's infrastructure for sales and delivery of their product.

What is Apple doing that's hurting their customers that is different from all the other digital stores with similar terms and fees? Is this really just a thinly veiled attempt by power users to complain about iOS App Store "lock in" again? To talk about how great it would be if we could run LineageOS on everything and download knock-off games from shifty websites?

What's really your issue?



(I do think the attempt to shut down Unreal Engine itself was an overreaction, though).

(I like LineageOS, btw, I just recently bought a tablet after looking for a model that was well supported by it).

I am also really curious what everyone who is so angry about this thinks would be a “fair” system. Unless every app required manual install and every company used their own infrastructure to handle updates and transactions, someone is going to have to take a cut somewhere, otherwise infrastructure providers would run out of money.
 
Last edited:

Mystique

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
344
I just want to add, late to this topic, that I hope Epic Games wins. To hell with the iOS monopoly bullshit. And Google play. And steam for that matter. Unpopular opinion, but yolo. Competition is what breeds greatness, not a tollbooth that makes Tim Cook's coffeeshop company look good.

30% per sale? That's highway robbery.
 

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
9,887
But how, exactly?
That's a mischaracterization of what's happening. Imagine if you could only install software on your PC through the Windows Store and Microsoft took 30 percent of all software sales.

That's what Apple does with their phones. Forget Epic, this case should have been brought by the Department of Justice.
 

odditory

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
6,482
(I do think the attempt to shut down Unreal Engine itself was an overreaction, though).
Except Apple wasn't necessarily trying to shut down Unreal Engine. Epic has both their Epic Games (Fortnite) and Epic Games International (Unreal Engine SDK, required by all unreal engine games running on iOS) accounts on Apple's developer portal linked to the same Tax ID, billing address and bank account. Apple assumed those accounts were held by the same entity (they are).

Epic brought all of this upon themselves, and putting Unreal Engine based third parties into the crossfire of their tantrum against Apple just seems reckless. And some of those developers are apparently not amused:

r8q53a3mh2j51.png
 
Last edited:

Aegir

Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
565
Epic brought all of this upon themselves, and putting Unreal Engine based third parties into the crossfire of their tantrum against Apple just seems reckless. And some of those developers are apparently not amused:

View attachment 273032

A tantrum against Apple seems reckless, huh?
What a strangely biased choice of words.

True neutrality doesn't sound like that, so does Apple pay you, or are you just a fanatic?

Same with those "developers." They already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Apple, eh?
And they'd pay more? What an interesting mindset they have.

How about Apple finally gets the castigation they deserve?

The laws must change or be properly applied. Apple must be brought to justice.
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,317
I agree that Apple should get what's coming for them.

And I don't really care for Fortnite, if it's on the iOS store or not.

But blocking Unreal Engine is too far. Lots of developers rely on it for cross-platform game development.

It would be a huge blow if UE4 is blocked from exporting to iOS and macOS.

Feel like Epic has poked the hornet's nest on this one, I hope they realize what they have started.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,464
A tantrum against Apple seems reckless, huh?
What a strangely biased choice of words.

True neutrality doesn't sound like that, so does Apple pay you, or are you just a fanatic?

Same with those "developers." They already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Apple, eh?
And they'd pay more? What an interesting mindset they have.

How about Apple finally gets the castigation they deserve?

The laws must change or be properly applied. Apple must be brought to justice.

You really don't seem to understand the argument. (Also, accusing someone of being paid because they side with one company versus another is just... amateurish.)

Epic didn't just put access to Fortnite on the line, it put other developers' access to the Unreal Engine at risk. Imagine if you're working on an Unreal-based game with an iOS version, you've invested hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars into the project... and Epic's publicity ploy suddenly cuts off your ability to publish on the App Store. You have to either cancel your iOS version or spend months retooling the game with a different engine, assuming this doesn't torpedo the whole effort. How would that make you feel, especially if you were a smaller developer who could lose your business through no fault of your own? You'd probably want Tim Sweeney's head on a pike.

Look, I know it's easy to shout "grr! Apple bad," but Epic is far from clean here. It's trying to weaponize gamers, many of whom don't have an inkling of the full story, and it nearly wrecked the entire Unreal Engine ecosystem on iOS. Epic is trying to manipulate you, and your anti-Apple rage is hindering your ability to see that.
 

deruberhanyok

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,104
That's a mischaracterization of what's happening. Imagine if you could only install software on your PC through the Windows Store and Microsoft took 30 percent of all software sales.

That's what Apple does with their phones. Forget Epic, this case should have been brought by the Department of Justice.

This is exactly what Microsoft is doing with Windows on ARM. It's also what they do on Xbox and what Sony does on Playstation. No one seems to care about that, though?

Where does the line between "device" (like "phone", "game console", etc) and "general purpose computer" go? Should a smart TV running WebOS be subjected to the same open requirement?
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,317
While I'll admit I like Epic and I don't like Apple, I think putting Unreal Engine on the line was a bad choice.

As you say, Aurelius , many developers rely on exporting to iOS for their livelihood and switching engines can be costly and risky, especially later in development.

Android is more popular in terms of world market share, but most of the mobile revenue for games comes from iOS. Do neutering your game to Android only could cost you 50% of your sales or probably more.

I hope Epic took that into account, the whole situation just seems reckless. And I'm a developer currently working in Unreal Engine. I'm in the early stages, so I could switch engines easily, but this concerns me personally.
 

NickM

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
461
Yeah, if Epic wins this, I'll certainly consider it a win for freedom of the consumer.
I might even download their little game store, just to check it out.

I hope they win. It would be the right thing to have happen.

All cell-phones should have "opt-in full root access."
Same with all consoles. Hide it behind a few menus and give a warning if they want, but in the end, this unethical "lock-down" practice is poison to our ability to experiment and innovate. Our devices should be ours by law, and that means the ability to gain full root access.

Why should they? Because you think so? Sounds pretty entitled to me.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,464
While I'll admit I like Epic and I don't like Apple, I think putting Unreal Engine on the line was a bad choice.

As you say, Aurelius , many developers rely on exporting to iOS for their livelihood and switching engines can be costly and risky, especially later in development.

Android is more popular in terms of world market share, but most of the mobile revenue for games comes from iOS. Do neutering your game to Android only could cost you 50% of your sales or probably more.

I hope Epic took that into account, the whole situation just seems reckless. And I'm a developer currently working in Unreal Engine. I'm in the early stages, so I could switch engines easily, but this concerns me personally.

Honestly, I'm not sure if Epic thought this through as well as it should. From what I've seen, it thought as far as "yeah! This campaign will get players, anti-Apple types and regulators on our side!" They didn't stop to think that Apple might do more than pull Fortnite from the App Store, or that the Unreal Engine developer community might get caught in the crossfire. It was so obsessed with the potential for extra money (and let's be clear, this is mainly about increased profit) that it didn't stop to think it might jeopardize livelihoods outside of the company.
 
Top