Not for the digital versions of today’s consoles (which are becoming more and more popular), which are the closest analogs to mobile phones. It’s either their App Store or nowhere.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Appeals Epic Games Ruling Over 'Anti-Steering' Provisions to U.S. Supreme Court
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Bro, consoles are sold at a loss and the cost of the hardware is repaid by game purchases. A $499 Xbox Series X is more powerful than a $3600 M1 Max MacBook Pro to give an indication how much the hardware is "sponsored" by Microsoft.
Don't even try to compare this to an iPhone, which are sold at a huge profit.
And it’s not even a narrative that starts with factual statements. In that case, I could say that Apple should reduce their percentage as developers already sacrifice their fatted calves to Apple WHAT MORE DO THEY NEED!
And don’t tell me they don’t because my opinion that calves are involved is just as valid as yours!
So if I could demonstrate that consoles are sold for a profit you'd be cool with the analogy. Or if certain models of iPhones were sold as a loss it would be ok to have higher app store margins?
1) Macs are not gaming computers, they are work systems. The fact that a 4090 at $1,500 gets the same FPS or better than NVIDIA’s workstation cards like Quadro and others at $5,000 is the same reason it’s made for work instead. Heck a 4080 or 4070 competes with those $5,000 cards at gaming performance
2) current gen consoles can be beat by under $1,000 Windows gaming systems. They aren’t really all that powerful.
Is that why everyone always reference Microsoft and Sony (and leave out Nintendo) because they can’t use “the console is sold at a loss” if they include them?
On the one hand “All companies should be regulated by the same broad rules” on the other, “Apple, and ONLY Apple, should have rules different from the rest of the industry.” It’s not even a matter of being in favor of Apple, it’s just being in favor of what’s fair. The reason why challenges are raised and then fail is primarily because folks realize there’s no way for them to create any regulations/regulations, legally, such that they only affect Apple and won’t have any downstream unexpected impacts on any number of business agreements already between many other companies using the same basic legal framework.
It will either be an Epic win or an Epic fail
Is that why everyone always reference Microsoft and Sony (and leave out Nintendo) because they can’t use “the console is sold at a loss” if they include them?
On the one hand “All companies should be regulated by the same broad rules” on the other, “Apple, and ONLY Apple, should have rules different from the rest of the industry.” It’s not even a matter of being in favor of Apple, it’s just being in favor of what’s fair. The reason why challenges are raised and then fail is primarily because folks realize there’s no way for them to create any regulations/regulations, legally, such that they only affect Apple and won’t have any downstream unexpected impacts on any number of business agreements already between many other companies using the same basic legal framework.
I have yet to see proof that current gen is sold at a loss. Sony is done for if that’s the case. With the scalpers and supply issues faced they aren’t making up the remaining costs. Heck FF16 isn’t doing well since it’s PS5 exclusive and not that many people have them due to those issues. I got lucky, but I was about to give up and not bother with a PS5 if I would face more issues.
16% of Epic Games layed off! How many people is that? Apple should hire those people and enchance Reality Composer Pro!
Bro, Apple doesn't have the same business model as gaming consoles. That is a fact. You cannot compare the two.
A bit sad you’re cheering people losing their jobs. When all a company wants to do is show there are other places you can purchase said item.
There is no digital version of the Switch and I suspect that, while technically true that there's only one place for stuff on the digital-only versions of PS/Xbone consoles, I suspect the reason they're not under the same scrutiny is because you can buy non-digital or mixed-use versions of those same consoles and hence can get things through multiple avenues.
Microsoft is basically giving away free money ($200) for every console sold and in order to get the money back, Microsoft tries to recoup these losses by game sales.
Apple doesn't work like this. Every iPhone sold is sold at a huge profit margin. You know this yourself.
That’s not all they want to do. In their initial lawsuit to Apple (AND GOOGLE) they want the Epic Games Store on the devices. Essentially breaking down the walled garden which is why I’m on the iPhone in the first place. And Apple knows this is a selling feature for them. Because Android is far superior in every other way. Apple has been playing catch up for years now with Android features. Just now getting USB C? Notifications update a while back? Many other new features Android had them years before.
In court documents Epic in internal emails says they chose to do this to Apple and Google because only 5% of their revenue comes from there. Something like that at least. They planned for missing this revenue from the beginning.
Switch is the worst part in these arguments. There are many physical games that don’t include the full game. So when Nintendo kills the eShop support for the Switch, you can’t play your physical copies anymore.
So you are cool with draconian developer rules such as is typical in the console market if the console maker can prove to you an accounting loss on the hardware. But if they are actually making money on the console they have to change the rules?
And what if the console maker made it portable? And what if the console maker made it possible to message and run non-game applications?
The Xbox Series X cannot be sold for $499 and thus having a huge population of gamers world wide if Microsoft didn't do this.
If Microsoft was trying to make profit of the Xbox Series X and was selling it for $999, the console market would be dead and everybody would loose (including the game developers).
In the end, consoles make more money than PC games, so game developers are fine with this business model. Microsoft and the game developers both win in the end as there are much more gamers who can play / buy games with these cheap $499 consoles.
And yes, I am cool with this approach, as it allows everybody to play the latest AAA games for only $499 (which in the end, leads to more money for the game developers with so many gamers)