actually apple also in the low-end market. A lot of export iPhone 7,8,6 to another country. Apple, not all premium as you think.For developers as long they upgrade to iOS 13, they happy.
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.
Fortnite for iOS and macOS Will No Longer Be Cross-Platform When New Season Launches
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Tell the client if they don’t like it they can go use the visa App Store or the mastercard App Store and sell apps on the Bank-of-America-phone.
Oh wait. No such thing exists.
It's very easy.
Apple provides the developers X and Y (A huge list of features and documentation to help the developers).
The cost is 30% plus your $99 developer account fee.
That's very simple.
Everyone wins as it's much cheaper than having your game at gamestop. Only the greedy like Epic fight for the system to be skewed in their favour.
Well you need an actionable cause before you can bring a case to court. You can’t sue on a hypothetical outcome.
Let Apple payment remain available along side with 1000 different payment methods.
What is the harm to you?
I note this quotation from the article you linked:Lol, don’t let the kiddies see this phone:
Nubia Red Magic 5S gaming smartphone with the Snapdragon 865, 144Hz display launches globally for €579/$579
Nubia has launched its new Red Magic 5S gaming smartphone globally. It brings the Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 and a 144Hz display for $579/€579.www.xda-developers.com
I’m impressed with the low blue light certification and DC dimming for those of us who get headaches from OLED flicker. I’m starting to see more phones dedicated to gaming coming from these Chinese OEMs.
Well, at least Nubia seem to be honest about their *ahem* long-term plans for OS support.
My favorite bit from that article, though, has to be this picture!
What a shame. I wanted to download the free version on my iPad and see how far one can get without any in-app purchases.
I gave a example of game companies that use micro transactions to pay for its operation which was Path of Exile. While the game is given away for free, that's how the developers make their money.
Looking online Fortnite is a good example of drawing in people using that same system, see How Microtransactions Impact the Economics of Gaming - Investopedia
Look at this part of the above article
Companies That Benefit From Microtransactions
The video game industry reached a record of $36 billion in revenue for 2017, according to data from the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) and the NPD Group.
Riot, the company that owns and runs the online game "League of Legends" (LOL) benefits tremendously from microtransactions. LOL is played by tens of millions of people worldwide, and it is completely free to download and play. Almost all of its revenue comes from in-game purchases.
LOL allows for the purchase of Riot Points, and this in-game currency is then used to buy skins, which are different aesthetic choices for the in-game characters. The in-game currency can also be used to unlock different characters. These options can often be unlocked with extended gameplay, but the microtransactions offer an incentive to unlock them quickly.
Many of these microtransactions come from a small amount of the player base since most gamers choose not to take part in microtransactions.
Epic Games release of Fortnite has proven to be a huge success. Fortnite is a free-to-play game where a maximum of 100 players join a match and fight until the last person or squad remains. Like LOL, it relies upon in-game purchases for skins and power-ups. Epic announced in May 2018 that they were planning to provide $100 million in prize pool money for their upcoming season of eSports competitions.
So yeah I don't think most of you discussing EPIC vs Apple know how most of these free to download games work and how the Apple App Store ruins their income stream. Its not about wanting the store to be free, it coming up with something that doesn't involve the Apple store from taking 30% of Microtransactions. Its the way the store works.
How exactly does taking 30% of Epic’s income stream “ruin” it?
You do realize, don’t you, that were it not for Apple’s App Store, and Google’s Play Store, and Microsoft’s Xbox store, and Sony’s Playstation store, all of which take 30%, Epic would never have grown any income stream at all from microtransactions?
Last edited:
Apple App Store is not preventing Mac OS users from getting it directly from web or steam.
From related IGN article 10/17/19
Thats implying that games vendors don't get 70% usually (30% store)
I thought the mention of this comment from way before EPIC vs Apple was kinda a warning
"One source told IGN that there is currently tremendous pressure across the industry to lower the cut stores take."
I also observe multiple article the government doesn't like microtransactions, they consider this gambling.
Last edited:
You are missing the point. Epic does not have 50% in the US market share in the gaming Industry. Neither have a device business with 50% of the smartphone market in the US. Finally if want to play another game in your device just play.
Last edited:
If you care about this and don't bother changing your search engine, IDK what to say.
You can play the whole game without them, just with default skins. I guess there are people out there buying enough skins to fund the whole thing.
Also, I don't know if people here realize that this is one of the most well-done Mac ports of a large, graphics-intensive game. It runs fast. It also runs fast on iPad. I got sick of the constant updates and don't play games in general anymore, but hats off to the devs for building the game so well.
Last edited:
Yeah, so whether they make the money through upfront sales or microtransactions, it makes sense for the "tax" to be the same. The microtransactions model works better because people who don't want to pay them will still help make the game popular, plus people don't realize how much they pay over time, but it shouldn't be a loophole too.
I think it may be you whose not understand it. The people that oppose your view know that.
The issue is that one in two Americans own an iPhone. A general purpose computing devices. To compete business need to serve their customer wherever they are, they have no say over which devices they choose, and that is great! Absolutely great, this market flexibility is what allowed Apple to become what they are, a trillion dollar company. They were free to operate without being forced to pay 30% rent to anyone in particular ... they supplier competed with each other since no one had the power to put 50% of the population out of reach by Policy.
The App Store is not a Store. Fundamentally is the means to install Apps in 50% of US population. So it’s in the critical path to access the market with no competition. The competition is happening in another space, the device space, not in the digital business space. This is in no way comparable to regular stores. Much less specialty computing devices such as consoles.
Last edited:
Then enlighten us on which games are made for non-ADD kids.
Cause if you ask me, they're all a waste of any kid's time.
What makes iPhones “general purpose computing devices” and consoles “specialty computing devices”?
And why would that make a difference?
Nah, I much prefer Summer, but Autumn ain’t bad either I suppose.Excited for the new season
PS: new season actually starts on the 22nd of September, so still quite a bit to go.
You should rethink your argument, cause no one is comparing Apple to a credit card issuer. It’s not like Apple forces you to pay with Visa, which hypothetically takes 8%, when Amex hypothetically takes 5%. Paying through Apple’s store, you can still use Debit or Credit, or buy gift cards... the credit card comparison is really out of place (just as an aside, if the card linked to your Apple ID is a credit card, then the credit card issuer will take a percentage, which I assume (though I may be wrong) comes out of Apple’s 30%, and not out of the dev’s 70%, since Apple is the ones operating the payment system)
You don’t need the willfully break TOS to challenge it’s validity in court, I don’t think.
I do think most of us do. No income stream is ruined either. The business model – or income stream if you will –is completely irrelevant; why should a developer that makes its income from charging a price for the download of its app pay the cut, and a dev that makes its income from microtransaction shouldn’t? There is a cost to making business. In Apple’s ecosystem (and in Sony Playstation’s, Microsoft Xbox’s, Nintendo Switch’s, Google Play Store’s, ...) that cost is 30% of what is sold through that specific platform (nothing precludes users from buying their in-game currency on their PC/Mac, which doesn’t use any of the aforementioned platforms). If they were to sell physically, it’s be the price of printing media, distribution, plus the seller’s cut, which would amount to more than 30%, and probably wouldn’t include a lot of the things Apple offers its developers.
In my opinion, Epic proved pretty clearly that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly when it comes to gaming devices (when they just listed to their players all the other places where they can play the game’s new season) which also demonstrates that they don’t have enough market influence to brute force apps into their ecosystem regardless of the TOS. If they did, Epic would’ve had no choice but to stay in the App Store. Any game developer is free to develop for any other platform if they don’t agree with Apple’s TOS. Epic was already making bank before developing the mobile version of Fortnite.
I say “when it comes to gaming devices” 'cause personally, I think phones are now so multi-usage and compete with so many different types of goods that you can’t simply say they have a monopoly without looking at each market separately. Do they have a monopoly in video distribution when you can buy blu-rays, or buy digital copies on a variety of other stores, or stream directly to your TV (through your cable company, or a streaming box, etc) or your computer? Do they have a monopoly in book distribution when you can buy physical books, or buy books for a kindle, or go to a library? Do they have a monopoly in the gaming space when you can play games on a PlayStation, Xbox, Switch, PC (I won’t put Mac, cause... really?), stream them via Stadia, etc? ...
In order to argue that Apple has a monopoly in any of these, you have to further qualify the segment: monopoly in video distribution? No. In digital video distribution? No. In digital video distribution on mobile platforms? Still no. In digital video distribution on a mobile platform that happens to be iOS and where the actual purchase takes place directly on said device? Ding ding ding. With that logic, you can always further qualify your segment until you make it so overly specific that you create a monopoly. Admittedly, in gaming you don’t have to get quite as specific, since you can’t buy a game elsewhere to then play on your phone, but you can certainly buy a digital game elsewhere and play it elsewhere. You can even play it on another mobile platform... the court will have to decide how specific they want to be, but it seems a reach to me... even if you take apps as a whole, you can develop apps/applications/programs for iOS, macOS, Windows, Android, Linux, etc. So even then, no one is forcing anyone to develop apps for iOS if they don’t like the TOS.
... Do they have a monopoly in mobile operating systems? Nah. Are they in a Duopoly? Yeah, sure.
I just find this whole thing insane. Epic can easily pull the game and make it an android exclusive for the mobile market. But they know where the money lies and therefore choose to publish it on iOS. For those that say that Apple is just rent seeking are wrong. Apple provides an excellent platform and customer base that statistically spends more money and an easy way for these customers to securely purchase overpriced skins and dance moves. I’m sure Epic sees the writing on the wall and Fortnite is probably starting to wane in popularity and decided to timing is right to make a stink about the 30% cost of doing business on Apple (and Google).
People are accusing of Apple being anti-consumer, but what about Epic who would rather deny access to a user base than take a 30% dip in their revenue?
I think Apple should drop the percentage it charges, but that being said, they built and continue to carefully cultivate a platform so they should be able to charge something. Allowing an individual App Stores is pie in the sky. This isn’t about one big bad company squashing the little guy, this is about two billion dollar corps wanting to make more money and effing the consumer in the process.
People are accusing of Apple being anti-consumer, but what about Epic who would rather deny access to a user base than take a 30% dip in their revenue?
I think Apple should drop the percentage it charges, but that being said, they built and continue to carefully cultivate a platform so they should be able to charge something. Allowing an individual App Stores is pie in the sky. This isn’t about one big bad company squashing the little guy, this is about two billion dollar corps wanting to make more money and effing the consumer in the process.
This might be the best argument I’ve seen so far. But games (or Fortnite if you want to be specific) aren’t just possible on Android and iOS, but also on PS, Xbox, Switch, PC, Mac, Linux, ... If you take all these platforms, excluding iOS, you have access to more than the 50% of the population that has an iPhone in the US (or whatever market share they have in the US and the rest of the world), so really they aren’t locked out of 50% of the market because of the TOS on iOS which they don’t want to adhere to.
Lol, Epic really thinks they are stopping the world from spinning with their ridiculous standoff with Apple. I think they've forgotten their core audience is young children who are just going to move on to something else. This isn't news anymore, its just noise.
If only this could be a lesson for people to learn why they should prefer ownership of bought products instead of subscriptions... but I don't keep my hopes high: next month a new "ACME" business will launch a new subscription, people will join and pay for it massively (just because all the neighbourhood joined), and then they'll lament when the service is cancelled and they lose access. It's sad how people jump into this without thinking first, and it's sad how businesses (Apple included) learnt that subscriptions are the way to go just because people cannot tell any longer the difference from owning to being owned. Sad.
Do you really know either? Your post above suggests you don't.
Epic want all the benifits of the iOS hardware and app store ecosystem without paying for that privelage.
Riot Games are ok with the iOS 30%.
That something you mentioned can be anything it likes. If that something involves the iOS App store, or Google play store, or Nintendo eShop or Steam or Playstation Network or Xbox store then it will involve the 30%. If that something doesn't involve any of those then you are free to not pay the 30% as you are not benefiting from their already established app ecosystems.