4 ms·
> Apple is providing the platform that enables Epic to distribute their game for FREE to a billion+ users. Why shouldn't they take a cut from the in-app purchas
by beaner 6y ago
> Apple is providing the platform that enables Epic to distribute their game for FREE to a billion+ users. Why shouldn't they take a cut from the in-app purchase monetization?
Then they should charge the developer for install costs + profit, not charge for all transactions happening in the game that have nothing to do with Apple and impose no cost on them. That's retarded.
It's like a landlord taking 30% of sales from the local florist rather than just charging rent. Totally messed up.
- Pfhreak 6y agoIndependent of whether I agree with you, you may want to consider finding a better way to express your disapproval than using people with developmental disabilities as an insult.
- la_oveja 6y agoA retard is not someone with developmental disabilities. It's an insult to denote an unintelligent person.
- m3kw9 6y agoExcept the game is free, so all free games can freeload?
- beaner 6y agoThe game is free to users but that doesn't mean Apple can't charge the developer for installs, especially if the developer is making a profit through in-app sales.
- qtXJ9EM 6y agoThis literally exists and is commonplace in commercial real estate. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/percentage-lease.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/percentage-lease.asp
- beaner 6y agoI'm not surprised! It seems like a reasonable option for those who have no initial capital to pay for their lease. But for those who come with capital ready, it can be a horrible deal. Being made to accept that option when you don't need it means you end up wasting much more money than you otherwise would. Same happens in the app store, in its absence of an option between these methods.