3 ms·
>Epic, btw, has the exact same kind of agreement with Sony, Microsoft, and Google, for access to their gaming platforms. All three of those companies are extrac
by Hamuko 6y ago
>Epic, btw, has the exact same kind of agreement with Sony, Microsoft, and Google, for access to their gaming platforms. All three of those companies are extracting the same 30% fee that Apple is.
Tim Sweeney has stated in the past that he feels like there's a better argument for game console makers taking a 30% fee.
>"There's a rationale for this on console where there's enormous investment in hardware, often sold below cost, and marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers. But on open platforms, 30 per cent is disproportionate to the cost of the services these stores perform, such as payment processing, download bandwidth, and customer service.
Basically, he feels that these platforms might actually be doing enough work to earn a 30%. It's not that crazy to criticise one company taking a big slice and approve another company taking a same slice if they are bringing different value.
- odshoifsdhfs 6y agoAnd the iPhone doesn't have an enormous investment in hardware/R&D/marketing? The only point would be the sold below cost, but I even thought this was illegal (dumping) no?
- threatofrain 6y agoMy problem with this is it's a very ad hoc argument without a brightline standard to anchor your judgments. It's not really clear why anyone who can get a slice of your work deserves any slice, and society has conventionally allowed the market to determine this. You appeared to have carved out a convenient exception for the Playstations and Switches of the world because your intuition tells you that the industry isn't healthy, and that wobbling it a little could kill company interest. But we still have nothing to anchor the belief that 30% is right for gaming consoles but not elsewhere.