4 ms·

Except that Epic is using the cheaper prices on consoles, where the platform owner is taking a 30% cut. Clearly Epic's pricing isn't actually driven by the app

by jsnell 6y ago

Except that Epic is using the cheaper prices on consoles, where the platform owner is taking a 30% cut. Clearly Epic's pricing isn't actually driven by the app store costs on mobile platforms.

gamblor956 6y ago
Epic doesn't pay Sony and MS 30% for console purchases, as both companies negotiate arrangements with big studios that lowers the rate.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Still, it does create a bit of a contradiction. We don't know what Sony and Microsoft charge, but we can reasonably assume it isn't zero, and it's also probably more than whatever Epic pays for their internal payment processing. Epic could still turn around and say "well, the price would be even lower if not for Sony and Microsoft," but I'm not sure how much they want to piss off the console manufacturers, who—all things considered—probably have more power as far as Epic is concerned. The other elephant in the room, IMO, is that V-Bucks don't actually cost Epic anything. They're just bits, and Epic could set the price to whatever they want without much consequence. More than anything else, I see Epic's stunt as a wake-up call. It doesn't quite stand up under scrutiny—but, once you've scrutinized the situation, you can also find better demonstrations of the problem, such as Spotify.
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    AFAIK Sweeney isn’t against stores taking a cut he just sees the 30% as egregious. V-Bucks whilst costing nothing to create are exchanged for things that did cost money to create and as a means to fund the existence of the game itself.
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      > V-Bucks whilst costing nothing to create are exchanged for things that did cost money to create and as a means to fund the existence of the game itself. Right, but the only scarcity of the "good" is that which Epic creates. If more people have V-Bucks, then current skins are less exclusive and become less valuable. I don't think the cost of V-Bucks has an impact on consumer buying power, except in the most pedantic sense. I don't mean to imply that The Emperor Has No Clothes; the less revenue Epic gives to Apple, the more revenue Epic has to improve Fortnite for their customers. Rather, I think this all speaks to the paucity of the US's current antitrust standard. As long as Facebook is "free", they can be as anti-competitive as they like, and prices will not increase. But consumers pay in other ways—with their data, with their eyeballs, and by missing out on products that never had the chance to exist.
    - makomk 6y ago
      Epic are not Costco and the amount they charge for items is not simply designed to repay what it costs to create the items and the game - in fact by all accounts they're raking it in. I'd be very surprised if they hadn't carefully tried to optimize their pricing based on what they expected to give the most revenue, which of course would lead to a pricing model very much like the one they actually had prior to this PR stunt where the pricing is independent of whether Google or Apple or Sony are taking a cut, and the amount taken by the platform only affects how much of that price Epic get to keep.
  - axlee 6y ago
    > The other elephant in the room, IMO, is that V-Bucks don't actually cost Epic anything. They're just bits, and Epic could set the price to whatever they want without much consequence. Can't you argue this about any software? A copy of an expensive, downloadable software is always "just bits", and the marginal cost of selling one more copy is ridiculously low, but that doesn't mean the software itself is free. In order to sell those V-Bucks, Epic had to spend millions in order to develop, market, run and support a game that people actually want to play.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

by jsnell 6y ago

Except that Epic is using the cheaper prices on consoles, where the platform owner is taking a 30% cut. Clearly Epic's pricing isn't actually driven by the app store costs on mobile platforms.

gamblor956 6y ago

Epic doesn't pay Sony and MS 30% for console purchases, as both companies negotiate arrangements with big studios that lowers the rate.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
Still, it does create a bit of a contradiction. We don't know what Sony and Microsoft charge, but we can reasonably assume it isn't zero, and it's also probably more than whatever Epic pays for their internal payment processing. Epic could still turn around and say "well, the price would be even lower if not for Sony and Microsoft," but I'm not sure how much they want to piss off the console manufacturers, who—all things considered—probably have more power as far as Epic is concerned. The other elephant in the room, IMO, is that V-Bucks don't actually cost Epic anything. They're just bits, and Epic could set the price to whatever they want without much consequence. More than anything else, I see Epic's stunt as a wake-up call. It doesn't quite stand up under scrutiny—but, once you've scrutinized the situation, you can also find better demonstrations of the problem, such as Spotify.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  AFAIK Sweeney isn’t against stores taking a cut he just sees the 30% as egregious. V-Bucks whilst costing nothing to create are exchanged for things that did cost money to create and as a means to fund the existence of the game itself.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    > V-Bucks whilst costing nothing to create are exchanged for things that did cost money to create and as a means to fund the existence of the game itself. Right, but the only scarcity of the "good" is that which Epic creates. If more people have V-Bucks, then current skins are less exclusive and become less valuable. I don't think the cost of V-Bucks has an impact on consumer buying power, except in the most pedantic sense. I don't mean to imply that The Emperor Has No Clothes; the less revenue Epic gives to Apple, the more revenue Epic has to improve Fortnite for their customers. Rather, I think this all speaks to the paucity of the US's current antitrust standard. As long as Facebook is "free", they can be as anti-competitive as they like, and prices will not increase. But consumers pay in other ways—with their data, with their eyeballs, and by missing out on products that never had the chance to exist.
  - makomk 6y ago
    Epic are not Costco and the amount they charge for items is not simply designed to repay what it costs to create the items and the game - in fact by all accounts they're raking it in. I'd be very surprised if they hadn't carefully tried to optimize their pricing based on what they expected to give the most revenue, which of course would lead to a pricing model very much like the one they actually had prior to this PR stunt where the pricing is independent of whether Google or Apple or Sony are taking a cut, and the amount taken by the platform only affects how much of that price Epic get to keep.
- axlee 6y ago
  > The other elephant in the room, IMO, is that V-Bucks don't actually cost Epic anything. They're just bits, and Epic could set the price to whatever they want without much consequence. Can't you argue this about any software? A copy of an expensive, downloadable software is always "just bits", and the marginal cost of selling one more copy is ridiculously low, but that doesn't mean the software itself is free. In order to sell those V-Bucks, Epic had to spend millions in order to develop, market, run and support a game that people actually want to play.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]