And they are bullies, too. I have bought 5 Mac games from Steam, and since they literally don't want to develop a 32 bit wrapper/converter/whatever-it-is for Mac to support games like Portal and Portal 2 on current macOS -like the one they have for Windows- I can no longer access those games because they also do not support older Mac operating systems. So I have a modern Macbook that won't run older Steam Mac games, and I have a perfectly functioning 2008 iMac that can run them, but its OS is not supported by the stupid Steam installer client. Again, these companies are not fighting for "choice freedom" to the end user/client, they just want to weaken/get rid of the competition.
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.
Google Pulls Fortnite From Play Store, But Game Remains Available Through Other Android Sources [Update: Epic Games Sues Google]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And they are bullies, too. I have bought 5 Mac games from Steam, and since they literally don't want to develop a 32 bit wrapper/converter/whatever-it-is for Mac to support games like Portal and Portal 2 on current macOS -like the one they have for Windows- I can no longer access those games because they also do not support older Mac operating systems. So I have a modern Macbook that won't run older Steam Mac games, and I have a perfectly functioning 2008 iMac that can run them, but its OS is not supported by the stupid Steam installer client. Again, these companies are not fighting for "choice freedom" to the end user/client, they just want to weaken/get rid of the competition.
That's what I was thinking. At least on Mobile devices. I was thinking/wondering, even if they win and Apple is forced to have lower fees, it doesn't mean that Apple has to let them back on the App Store, right? So, they kind of shot themselves in the foot.
That doesn't make any sense. They are set up on lots of platforms that they don't have to give 30% of their revenue to, one of them is macOS and the other two are Android and Windows.
I want to hear the argument that Epic has a monopoly on their in game store to buy and sell items. I don't play fortnite and I'm terrible at it. The Freemium games just hit an old man nerve for me. While I don't have any sympathy on any other these companies, it's interesting to see Epic take it's self proclaimed benevolent stand while reaping the benefits of virtual currency (and loot boxes?). I personally love paying for things through Apple. I'd say I purchase more if that option is available because of how easy and quick it is. Not that I agree apple should be shaking down developers, but I'd think every side tells half the story.
Fortnite is free + microtransactions. The app store policies are there to provide compensation to Apple for hosting freemium software so companies like EPIC and so many others don't skirt the value they receive through stunts like this. I think Apple customers get a lot of value from a curated store.
Why the Freemium model for EPIC? In part, so they can overcome adoption issues, better hook little kids (mom it's free!) and increase long run customer revenues (mom, i really want this cute outfit!). That said, I also think Epic customers get a lot of value from Fortnite. However, Epic's juvenile reaction, to essentially to have a fit and try and humiliate only undermines their relationship with a company that is basically an important distributor and key partner in their success. Ironically, they are betting that Apple is principled and will take them back under the old rules, so are just testing boundaries like a hormonal teenager.
How should Apple respond? Wouldn't it be unfair to other companies for Apple to bend and make an exception for one company just because they are popular? If Apple cared to, they could just update their general policies - say a charge of $10 per year per licensed download to be excluded from the 30% (which is less than old retail box margins). But most software companies wouldn't pay that because they don't know if any given app download becomes an actual customer - a cost that Apple actually covers.
I don't always like Apple pricing myself, but in my view, the Apple store has carefully found a way to address different business models in software to allow a trustworthy experience for the consumer. We have Fortnite on iOs, PC and Xbox - if we loose iOS, which allows me and my kids to play squads, all this is going to do is make us find another game.
Last edited:
Good point about loot boxes. Sleazy! Like Epic thinks it’s **** doesn’t stink after doing that? Give me a break. 🙄
Compare the prices on macOS vs iOS/iPadOS. Has the system that provides an expanded range of store options on macOS provided generally lower software prices for consumers? No. Is Epic aware that prices within the desktop/laptop system are generally higher? Of course they are. Now ask yourself why Epic would be claiming that multiple store options for digital goods would provide a better experience for consumers on iOS/iPadOS if they already know that isn't true for macOS...
This is why I think Apple is screwed. These developers want Apple to take ZERO and that is what they are pushing for. To date I have heard no reasonable amount mentioned by Epic or anyone else. They just want Apple to take nothing, or at least that’s how it seems to me.
Or maybe they want to be able to just break apart the walled garden? Software from anywhere to be installed like the Intel Macs?
I’ve largely lost interest in gaming anymore. My time is more limited, and what I’ve found just as frustrating is the fact that if I haven’t played a game in a while, I can’t just pick it back up quickly because there’s usually a large update that needed to happen that for some reason didn’t even though auto-update was on. Seems like it was more a Sony issue than on Steam.
I would love for mobile gaming to scratch my itch, but there it seems like most games are now in the Freemium format. Reviews of such games sum up to “really fun, but I’d hate to think how much I’ve spent on this game to progress.” I’m of the school where I want to know what it costs me up front to play a game to completion. I’m ok with DLC, as again, it’s a known investment. What I don’t like is when studios play off the same human impulse as gambling does—where you pay in relatively small amounts over time to get a small hits of dopamine along the way. You can’t gamble legally until you’re 21, but you can play Freemium games at virtually any age. Just my opinions of course. I’m getting too old for this stuff!
How is a tiered model anti-competitive? Every app starts on the same page at 30%. As commissions increase, Apple takes less of a cut. On big apps, revenue grows quicker because of marketing, app usefulness/popularity, etc. The tiers would be fixed for all developers, no negotiated tiers. You can't solve for marketing inequalities, those will always exist.
Totally agree on that, Epic and others do not like how Apple handles privacy and I bet part of this is about that too. Right on with that comment.
Get a Nintendo 3DS and a Switch. I have a both and play fantastic games. The 3DS is older but the games are cheaper too, and are still great. Gaming is still wonderful if you avoid mobile. There are a few freemium type games on Switch and 3DS but they are a tiny minority. Most games you buy and you own the whole game, though some offer DLC (which I don’t mind at all, I like it).
I think it's the other way. There is a last gasp in console. Mobile silicon has become amazing and Apple will only get better with its own titles. On another front, you have others looking for what a basically thin client solutions leveraging cloud and 5G. And then on another, Fortnite's success has awakened the industry and a lot of imitative products are coming.
Epic has tried to take a stand because of this moment in time, I'm guessing because of Apple silicon and that their next season looks good, but there's no obvious way that this can work out for them.
[automerge]1597423917[/automerge]
Just learned that EPIC says they would create an alternative iOS App Store if allowed.
I am totally against that !
It should ONLY be done by an organization that has NO apps, whatsoever ! ... & NO ties to any third-party apps !
And the penalty should be harsh for those who Play Favorites even in such an organization !
Trust, but Verified should be the Motto every step of the way !
That & transparency to the General Public !
A 2nd, Trusted, Verified, & Transparent iOS App Store run by a company with NO apps & NO ties to third-party apps could completely change the landscape !
And the current Narrative !
Apple's existing iOS App Store needs both "Price" Competition & (more importantly) "App Discovery" Competition from "at least" one additional App Store !
I personally have caught Apple playing favorites on select occasions just in Photo & Video !
E.g., recommending v1.0 of an app as App of the Day when it clearly was NOT justified / warranted !
They should NOT be doing that !
EPIC, & other BIG companies, have a Pricing Battle with Apple, while most App Devs have something else entirely, an App Discovery Battle !
It's the BIGGER of the two issues as if affects far more App Developers !
EPIC's battle is about profit, nothing more, nothing less !
I am totally against that !
It should ONLY be done by an organization that has NO apps, whatsoever ! ... & NO ties to any third-party apps !
And the penalty should be harsh for those who Play Favorites even in such an organization !
Trust, but Verified should be the Motto every step of the way !
That & transparency to the General Public !
A 2nd, Trusted, Verified, & Transparent iOS App Store run by a company with NO apps & NO ties to third-party apps could completely change the landscape !
And the current Narrative !
Apple's existing iOS App Store needs both "Price" Competition & (more importantly) "App Discovery" Competition from "at least" one additional App Store !
I personally have caught Apple playing favorites on select occasions just in Photo & Video !
E.g., recommending v1.0 of an app as App of the Day when it clearly was NOT justified / warranted !
They should NOT be doing that !
EPIC, & other BIG companies, have a Pricing Battle with Apple, while most App Devs have something else entirely, an App Discovery Battle !
It's the BIGGER of the two issues as if affects far more App Developers !
EPIC's battle is about profit, nothing more, nothing less !
Why is this a stupid policy? Apple doesn't make the App Store for free. It costs them a lot of money to make it what it is. Every single developer signs an agreement knowing about the 30% fee. Epic just decided to no longer honor that agreement. We all know well enough up front about the 30%. Epic is being greedy and wants more money so they are challenging this. Not even challenging it but just deciding to no longer pay Apple at all and do their own thing. Not only does this violate the agreement but its a form of theft of the normal revenue stream Apple has.
Like it or not but Apple can't create a market for free and nor should they. Developers will pay rent to Apple one way or the other. Either a monthly fee or a percentage of sales. To many developers the current system is preferred because if we only make $100 on an app we only pay Apple $30 and nothing more. If we paid monthly like a web hosting service then we would eventually lose money.
Perhaps Apple could come up with a tiered policy for larger developers but that also isn't exactly fair to the smaller developers. Apple is giving a fair chance to every developer big or small. That 30% fee has also been there since the launch of the App Store and most developers were super excited to pay it and have a chance to sell games/apps in a way that would have been very challenging previously. Its only recently that a few greedy larger companies want to get a free ride from Apple and get to freeload off the app stores ecosystem.
Although I’m fully behind Apple’s privacy policies, some of these policies have absolutely zero to do with privacy. Their weird vendetta against mobile gaming in particular makes no sense when these same policies do not apply to non-gaming apps. There are plenty of apps that give you zero privacy protection from Apple that are perfectly fine and approved by Apple to run on your phone already. So I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make in regards to this particular issue. Privacy is great, but Apple’s gimping of the mobile gaming platform has nothing to do with that.
It’s stupid for instance to take 30% of a subscription service every month like Spotify which is their sole means of revenue and Spotify uses their own servers to host their data. The flat rate of 30% across everything is nonsensical. There should be variation based on the service being offered. The banning of cloud gaming in general is just an outright stupid policy and the defending of it is incomprehensible. I’m not defending the slimy company that is Epic Games, but I do agree some changes need to happen ... and it’s why Apple was in court in the first place.
These policies also don’t apply to everyone, such as Amazon Prime being sold outside the Apple Store. Who Apple decides to charge 30% to is arbitrary and inconsistent. They’ve let up on some of the policies but the inconsistency is an issue.
As the past has shown, Apple has to have wrong pointed out to them, usually publicly, for them to do anything about it.
The way I see it, the big developers have gotten the most out of the App Store. Their apps are going to be in-demand and rise to the top of the storefront very quickly. Apple provided them a massive customer base that they can reach with ease, and Apple handles much of the support. A little guy developer has the uphill battle already.
I think when folks view this as Apple holding a monopoly, it’s just not accurate. Apple is a hardware company that also produces the software that its hardware runs. Apple hardware is the playing field, and Apple can govern the rules to what can be run on its hardware and how. So long as they apply their rules consistently, then it’s a level playing field. Everybody is asking for exceptions and more choice, but all that costs money and no one else seems to make it work. Apple and Google have succeeded, while even some big names elsewhere (like MS) have failed. They tried to build the ecosystem, and the developers said “no thanks.”
An interesting sidebar to this discussion is that many companies have decided to forgo apps and just use their website for the functionality they need, and, in doing so, can circumvent Apple‘s payment mechanisms and fees. It’s not illegal, and they use web APIs, servers, and their own systems to manage the transaction. Nothing about Apple’s software helps facilitate this, other than having a browser, which is a universal smartphone expectation. Epic depends on Apple’s hardware substantially here, along with advanced APIs, like Metal, to make their game work. They actually use more of Apple’s available toolkits and hardware resources to make their games work. If you slide over to Xbox, PS, or PC gaming, you’ll find that game studios partner with MS, Sony, and Nvidia, Intel, or AMD to make their programs better. In some cases, like with Nvidia, the developer is actually partially supported by the hardware provider to improve game performance. Epic’s move implies that Apple offers them nothing in return for that 30%, which is obviously false. The value of what Apple provides can be debated, but it is certainly not “zero,” which is what Epic is implying by circumventing the storefront entirely.
Just for clarification - fortnite is not freemium in the way many other games are.
Other than being required to pay $$$ to dress up like a Christmas tree or Deadpool (which offers no tactical benefit) you can play the game in the richest way possible, and win the game just as easily if you don’t pay money or if you do. It’s just a “hats” business model. It may have been an accident even that it worked out that way, but i think it’s a fun game and haven’t paid a dime.
Other general thoughts:
Epic’s Unreal Engine is an incredibly important component to like 100 games.
It’s silly to minimize epic as some fly on apples windshield or that somehow epic/fortnite is in decline. Epic will be fine and I don’t see any downside for consumers that they are pushing on this - even if the outcome is merely better informed consumers. I don’t believe might makes right in any case.
I thought you needed the source code to do that. But that makes sense, the signing phase happens after compilation.
Games contribute to device sales to some amount above zero. Apple makes pretty solid profits on devices (not loss leaders to be subsidized by the store like consoles often are) therefore I continue to believe there’s an argument that consumers should have the right to circumvent the store because rules are inconsistently applied (therefore it isn’t clear to consumers that what they can or cannot do is at Apples sole discretion.). And be able to do so legally (similar to the precedent that Microsoft had to give consumers the ability to remove Microsoft apps and still make the software function)
It’s very unlikely I would do things any differently, but I would like to have the freedom to use something I bought in the manner I wish, since it can be done in a way that causes no harm to others.
Also Epic don’t need Apple to do anything to market or support their product.
Nah, you really don't own the bits. You never do. The good analogy is "you own the atoms obut not the bits".
The good part is most of the games on the eShop are a one time payment deal. But it and that's it. Apart from the occassional DLC. Nintendo prefer these kinds of games. It's specifically why their fremium games are on phones only. Also it's rumoured that Nintendo is getting out of the freemium game on phones market too.
Though you still have companies like EA and 2K who like you paying $60-$80 for a game and then lootboxes ontop of that.
If Apple applied the same policies from the iOS store to the Mac App Store, you wouldn't even be able to buy from Steam. The only "App Store" would be the Mac App Store.
Yeah? How much, exactly?
They didn't have to. They could have allowed app downloads from websites, just like any Mac or PC can do. Instead they chose the walled garden approach to get a slice of all the revenue, and did it under the guise of security. Sure, you're more protected, but we're not all idiots. My Mac is doing just fine downloading apps from the internet, thank you very much.
Exactly, I just want it back where you pay one price for a game, and the only time you would ever pay again is if an expansion or sequel came along. Even MMOs in the beginning weren't so bad because there was just a sub <$10. The only IAP I MIGHT even consider is an item that actually help me to do better. Cosmetic over like $1 should be banned, and sure as heck ban the BS loot boxes that give a CHANCE of something good, especially if it is also cosmetic.Exactly. iOS was locked down from the beginning. Mac has never been even from the start. There was no Mac app store only a few years ago. EVERYONE knew what they were purchasing.
General reply- I think the bigger question is the validity of these freemium games which pray on kids. Why dont we regulate THOSE. You know kids using their parents card and/or irresponsible teens with their first card. Everyone knows these microtransaction games pray on those people. How better to pray when you dont have Apple or Google's store parental protections..... Nothing better than suckering a kid to buy a clothes skin for $7.99 or dance for $20
Yes I get freedom of contract etc; most of these "buyers" arent of legal age to agree to anything either. And the game company brainwashes them into needing these upgrades with constant nags in the game.
Maybe these sleezy microtransaction games with IAPs need the regulation discussion more so than why Apple and Google can take a cut of them. There's a reason South Park mocked microtransaction games YEARS ago.
How about sure Apple takes less but they charge for the same and NO IAPs in any of these games anymore. There are an u front fee or a TOTALLY free game with ads. That's it.