This really needs putting to bed: Console manufacturers do not monopolise software distribution on their own platforms.
Please show any developer how they can entirely by-pass and publish a title ("sideload") on Nintendo, Sony, or (while it's still around) Microsoft hardware -- without out forking over any commission % and specifically without getting sued. Or even just a reduced commission %. I'm not talking about hacking the console to run some homebrew or pirate copies of games or such. A retail game sold online (e.g. mail order), at a physical store on a store shelf (e.g. Walmart, GameStop, etc) or through an on console app / digital game store.
You can buy physical copies of games on Switch, Xbox and PlayStation from a variety of retailers and voucher codes from the likes of CDKeys. You can lend, borrow and resell physical software all you want. If as a gamer you dislike the idea of Sony getting any of your money you can buy everything 2nd hand and they get nothing.
How do those physical copies get onto the store shelves? The developers / publishers aren't doing it themselves. Even in the 80's and 90's "code signing" was even a thing, you had to license "keys" to the systems lock-out chip. If you were Tengen or Accolade who developed work arounds to sell games for Nintendo or Genesis you were sued and ultimately lost your case. And, as we just saw with Epic vs Apple -- even the U.S. Supreme Court didn't give Epic a win on the merits of the case. Apple, though, subsequently decided to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by playing FAFO with trial judge. But, that's their problem.
But, back on topic -- Who are the retailers buying the physical games from? It's not the game publisher or the developers directly. They're bought a distributing party or company of Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. Because, yea -- they own the distribution of games. And, guess who sets the price that the retail store has to pay so their store shelves can be stocked with said games? It's again: Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo based on MSRP guidance from the developer / publisher.
I am more then happy to be corrected by anyone that works as the purchasing agent for a Walmart, Best Buy, GameStop, or any local retail store. Maybe it worked a bit different in the past in that publishers could sell the games directly, but they had to have a contractual agreement to buy a specific number of game carts at a specific price. And while this means that the developer can chose a price point for their game -- they don't get to directly sell the games. And retail stores don't get to negotiate game prices so Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo get their 30% cut on the whole price of the game. Any discount a retailer offers you on a physical copy comes comes out of their profit cut on the retail sale, not out of console manufacturers position. Meaning, it's either to clear out inventory or meant as a loss leader to get you in the store to hopefully buy other stuff and make up the difference.
So while, yes, I get that you're saying you can "trade around" your physical copies of games. It's not the 'out' or the 3rd party "App Store" you maybe thinking retail sales are. And, spoiler, both the console manufacturers and developers / publishers don't really want to sell physical games anymore -
because- of trading and reselling. Why do you that are games are not fully on the disk or cart anymore? Or why was EA games selling physical
console (not PC) games with one time one time use "online" game codes. Why did Sony sell a "digital only" PS5 version and why is the PS5 Pro only sold as "all digital" and without a disk drive? Why did Microsoft try so hard with the launch of Xbox One to mandate online "check-in"? Why is Nintendo banning Switch 2 consoles that use MIG flash carts and writing into their EULA that they can just brick your console if they want? Why is online YouTube personality "Pirate Software" trying so hard to position the "Stop Killing Games" EU citizens initiative as bad?
I can't speak for an you, but if you only care that you -can- get a discount on games (at the retailers expense) then I'd say you don't really care about the merits of the matter. I'd like to be wrong, but that's how I understand it.
You can do precisely none of this on an iPhone.
Sure, I grasp the concept there aren't physical manifestations of iPhone or Android "apps" -- but that's beside the point. With the exception of the Atari 5200 (and earlier) no video game hardware will run arbitrary code. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo (and previously Sega) spend a lot to make sure of that.
And if you don't like the way one company does business you have options. You can buy a PC. Or a Mac!
Sounds to me like you're again excusing Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. Best case scenario, because you're uninformed about how physical game distribution for those systems work. But, you wouldn't let me (or anyone) get away with just saying "Go buy an Android, then." Because there is a principle at stake, right? So, while, yes those are
options and, many console games have PC equivalents, not all do. And this isn't addressing the underlaying issue. They aren't actual alternatives for someone who wants to play console video games. Just like Android isn't an alternative for someone who likes iOS devices, but doesn't want to be overpaying for apps.
Or a Playdate. Or an Evercade. Or one of those Chinese retro consoles. Or an actual retro console. Or a Steamdeck. Or one of those handheld PCs.
Now you're just talking about Piracy which is entirely different from developers and publishers not having to put up with Apple's 30% commission or arbitrary, capricious, ever changing rule structure. Don't get me wrong, retro gaming is fun and increasingly the better bet since modern video games systems being overpriced and overbearing with even developers over pricing or over monetizing their games though "microtrasactions" which are not at all "micro" anymore.
Even on PC and Mac you have the choice of a variety of storefronts for your software purchases or go straight to the Devs.
Yea, PC games usually have more options for purchasing -- but, you should want the video game hardware system to be exactly like your PC or Mac. I mean, isn't that why everyone was calling behind Epic Games and Tim Sweeney? But, during the Epic vs Apple case, those critical of Apple, were not being critical of Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft they're a different case. Best case scenario they were saying that because well, they were just blindly going along with what Epic wanted. But, the more likely scenario was that they just didn't care about Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft since they weren't really affected by them at the time (maybe because they don't game, only play PC games). Even though, the reality is the console manufacturers are just as 100% in control (with all the despotism) as Apple is.
Like I said, that was 5 years ago, and now people are waking up. Increasingly, you're losing the freedom from control that PCs have afforded. Because, increasing software and games, are being locked behind a developers own digital "storefront" without any physical product. Which means that no is alternate store to purchase from. And though which, the software or game will only launch though said storefront. So it can be taken away at any time they desire.
Even worse, I'm sure you've read - Steam and Itch.io have had to delist 10,000's of games because now the payment processors Visa / Mastercard / PayPal are flexing and saying they won't process payment for legal products or content they don't approve of. So it isn't a matter whether the product or content is legal anymore -- if it doesn't fit the brand image that Visa / Mastercard / PayPal's values -- they'll decline the merchants ability collect payment. Better hope that some activist group doesn't argue your PlayDate or Evercade, Chinese Retro console or Steamdeck *could* play a game that has titties, or perverted behavior, *could* be used to play pirated / illegal ROMs. So Nintendo can probably just get your Playdate, Evercade, or whatever effectively banned because who wants to -literally- mail order anything today.
As a gamer I'd love it if my consoles were as open as the PC when it came to buying software. Indeed the next Xbox console is looking more like it's going to be more PC-like with Epic and Steam at the very least alongside the Microsoft store.
Microsoft's game pass isn't very long for the world, I think. The idea is great, but they keep laying off employees, killing game studios, and if you don't need to buy an xbox to play Microsoft / Xbox games - it's no wonder they're hardware is in last place, less then half the sales of PS5. Only around 1/4 the sales of the PS4, even. Moreover, if the "nextbox" is effectively just a PC - why not just use your existing PC?
Don't like Apple for software distribution and your other option is Google. Not exactly a choice. It's like not liking beef and discovering McDonald's only sell hamburgers and cheeseburgers.
The question I've always asked and everyone always dodges or tries to avoid answering is why don't 3rd party app stores work on Android? Why does Google's PlayStore still get to charge its 30% commission rate and functionally is the only really viable app store on Android. Or, why do Androids 3rd party app stores suck?
I mean, it is the _
key_ thing that is championed about Android. It is the thing Epic Games was suing / demanding for, from Apple and that everyone was rallying behind Epic Games / Tim Sweeney and his "Project Liberty" for. But, it doesn't function on Android.
It is the rallying cry, the clarion call, that if Apple's iOS App Store monopoly was broken and had to compete against 3rd Party app stores like Epic's own app store or Valve's Steam, then Apple would have to lower to lower commission rates and stop being so abusive towards app developers.
So why doesn't that happen on Android? Why does Google's PlayStore still dominate Android. Why don't 3rd party app stores for Android make the same impact that they are claimed they will make on iOS? Before you say, because Google isn't as overbearing and restrictive as Apple is -- I'm going to remind you that Epic Games / Tim Sweeney sued Google's PlayStore at the same time it sued Apple's App Store and it was Google who lost
on the merits:
Epic Games Wins Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google Play Store: "the nine-member jury in the case unanimously agreed that [Google] abused its power by operating an app store monopoly and charging developers unduly high fees."
People need to stop thinking that the biggest company on the planet whose primary concern is looking after its shareholders is in any way a victim.
In no way am I saying that Apple can do no wrong, but Epic's case against Apple was weak. It's why their lawsuit failed, it's why even the U.S. Supreme Court rejected their appeal. As I mentioned previously, Epic could have had substantially more success if they were attacking Apple on its inconsistent and arbitrary application of its own rules. Example: Epic was successful in getting Apple's ban on links to the developers website for sales overturned.
But, I don't think that really matters. I mean, Apple shot itself in the foot in how it responded to handling the loss of that provision. What I think really matters is that Epic destroyed Google's Android monopoly.
I'll challenge you again, that if 3rd party app stores (or, even sideloading) worked on Android -- then mobile app developers would effectively only develop for Android because they just keep more (or all) of the revenue from their app sales and just don't have to deal with Apple's nonsensical iOS platform policies. Meaning that, like the PC market, Apple's iOS mobile devices would only be a small fraction. Which would also mean that Google's "PlayStore" would only be the equivalent of say the Windows app store or the Mac App Store.