5 ms·

So, let's say hypothetically Epic allowed the sale of third-party skins in Fortnite. Would a skinmaker would be entitled to demand the following concessions? 1

So, let's say hypothetically Epic allowed the sale of third-party skins in Fortnite. Would a skinmaker would be entitled to demand the following concessions? 1. The ability to install skins outside of the V-bucks store. 2. The ability to pay for Fortnite skins using payment methods other than V-bucks. Alternatively, should Epic not be permitted to impose the following restrictions in their Fortnite store? 1. Skins must be approved by Epic before they can be sold. No x-rated skins, etc. 2. Epic will take a 30% cut of each skin sold. What if I'm a skinmaker that wants to compete with Epic because I think I can provide higher quality Fortnite skins than they have made. Should I be able to demand to participate in the "Fortnite skin" market which is currently 100% controlled by Epic?

lwansbrough 6y ago
I think it's a very American perspective to see this as black or white. You should be able to tell something is wrong by looking at what Apple is doing. Looking at how Fortnite operates does not give me the same feeling. Obviously Fortnite as a platform is not the same as iOS as a platform, and holding monopoly positions for each yield completely different outcomes. They are not equivalent.
- quotha 6y ago
  Maybe you should read more about Epic games the “private” company. It is owned mainly by Tencent which answers to the Chinese government.
  - untog 6y ago
    How is that relevant to this conversation at all?
- nemothekid 6y ago
  Regulation is a blunt tool - it not enough to just feel they are not equivalent. Any law that may apply to Apple will apply to everyone else as well. The American perspective is that the government should not pick and choose winners
birdyrooster 6y ago
Not all monopolies are created equally. Some have greater cost to society. For example, Qualcomm has an essential patent which grants them a monopoly over certain communications technologies but it has been mitigated by requiring them to license it in a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) way. A monopoly by Standard Oil was pervasive in all of daily living because by the early twentieth century, they had control of more than 90% of the country's petroleum fuel production and logistics which they abused to keep any competition from ever gaining a foothold. By 1911, they were dissolved by the Supreme Court as per Sherman Antitrust Act. VBucks and Fortnite are not pervasive in all of daily living, it is a tiny market and the monopoly is one which can easily be managed by society without breaking up the company.
- nodamage 6y ago
  > A monopoly by Standard Oil was pervasive in all of daily living because by the early twentieth century, they had control of more than 90% of the country's petroleum fuel production and logistics which they abused to keep any competition from ever gaining a foothold. The key point here is that 90% market share constituted monopoly power, whereas Apple's 46% share of the smartphone market likely does not.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    Apple and Google have some >90% and are colluding to keep their cash cows fat. Antitrust needs no monopoly to enforce.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      > Antitrust needs no monopoly to enforce. I'm not sure why you think this? Sure, certain Sherman Act violations (e.g. price fixing) do not require monopoly power to be considered illegal, but the specific claims in Epic's lawsuit (unlawful monopoly maintenance) definitely require proof of monopoly power.
      - nwienert 6y ago
daed 6y ago
> 1. The ability to install skins outside of the V-bucks store. Isn’t this like allowing mods, custom maps etc? So CounterStrike, DoTA, etc shouldn’t exist? Honestly I started off on the fence but now I’m 100% against Apple here, and I’m an iOS dev. This is kinda crazy.
pgcj_poster 6y ago
Isn't Fortnite a free online game? How is that comparable to a general-purpose computer that the consumer bought and owns? If skins are what I imagine they are, Epic needs oversight over which ones players are allowed to use because they affect the experience of other players. And Epic provides Fortnite gratis specifically so that they can sell premium features like skins, so it seems completely reasonable that they would take a large cut out of third-party sales of those features. To be analagous to IOS devices, Fortnite would have to be a single-player game that players bought a copy of. In that case, I think people would be right to be upset if Epic prevented them from getting skins through some other channel.

lwansbrough 6y ago

I think it's a very American perspective to see this as black or white. You should be able to tell something is wrong by looking at what Apple is doing. Looking at how Fortnite operates does not give me the same feeling. Obviously Fortnite as a platform is not the same as iOS as a platform, and holding monopoly positions for each yield completely different outcomes. They are not equivalent.

quotha 6y ago
Maybe you should read more about Epic games the “private” company. It is owned mainly by Tencent which answers to the Chinese government.
- untog 6y ago
  How is that relevant to this conversation at all?
nemothekid 6y ago
Regulation is a blunt tool - it not enough to just feel they are not equivalent. Any law that may apply to Apple will apply to everyone else as well. The American perspective is that the government should not pick and choose winners

birdyrooster 6y ago

Not all monopolies are created equally. Some have greater cost to society. For example, Qualcomm has an essential patent which grants them a monopoly over certain communications technologies but it has been mitigated by requiring them to license it in a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) way. A monopoly by Standard Oil was pervasive in all of daily living because by the early twentieth century, they had control of more than 90% of the country's petroleum fuel production and logistics which they abused to keep any competition from ever gaining a foothold. By 1911, they were dissolved by the Supreme Court as per Sherman Antitrust Act. VBucks and Fortnite are not pervasive in all of daily living, it is a tiny market and the monopoly is one which can easily be managed by society without breaking up the company.

nodamage 6y ago
> A monopoly by Standard Oil was pervasive in all of daily living because by the early twentieth century, they had control of more than 90% of the country's petroleum fuel production and logistics which they abused to keep any competition from ever gaining a foothold. The key point here is that 90% market share constituted monopoly power, whereas Apple's 46% share of the smartphone market likely does not.
- nwienert 6y ago
  Apple and Google have some >90% and are colluding to keep their cash cows fat. Antitrust needs no monopoly to enforce.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    > Antitrust needs no monopoly to enforce. I'm not sure why you think this? Sure, certain Sherman Act violations (e.g. price fixing) do not require monopoly power to be considered illegal, but the specific claims in Epic's lawsuit (unlawful monopoly maintenance) definitely require proof of monopoly power.
    - nwienert 6y ago

daed 6y ago

> 1. The ability to install skins outside of the V-bucks store. Isn’t this like allowing mods, custom maps etc? So CounterStrike, DoTA, etc shouldn’t exist? Honestly I started off on the fence but now I’m 100% against Apple here, and I’m an iOS dev. This is kinda crazy.

pgcj_poster 6y ago

Isn't Fortnite a free online game? How is that comparable to a general-purpose computer that the consumer bought and owns? If skins are what I imagine they are, Epic needs oversight over which ones players are allowed to use because they affect the experience of other players. And Epic provides Fortnite gratis specifically so that they can sell premium features like skins, so it seems completely reasonable that they would take a large cut out of third-party sales of those features. To be analagous to IOS devices, Fortnite would have to be a single-player game that players bought a copy of. In that case, I think people would be right to be upset if Epic prevented them from getting skins through some other channel.