3 ms·

> You mean the same 30% margin that Google, Sony, Microsoft (Xbox), Nintendo, Spotify, etc. charge? Why do people think this is an effective argument? In any o

> You mean the same 30% margin that Google, Sony, Microsoft (Xbox), Nintendo, Spotify, etc. charge? Why do people think this is an effective argument? In any other context, noting that prices are standardized across the entire market would be strong evidence that the market was not competitive. If you went into a shoe store and every shoe in the shop was $49.99, that's pretty good evidence that the shoe manufactures are not competing with each other over price the way that they should be. You look at something like gas prices, service industries, physical goods, games, online payment providers -- you see lots of different prices and fees, deals, and marketing strategies. You don't see a standardized price that's universally applied to everyone, because the companies are actually competing with each other to attract customers with diverse offerings. An unspoken agreement between every digital storefront to charge developers 30% fees on even unrelated services is bad. On more open platforms, you don't see that: Steam, Epic, GoG, Itch, and Humble all have different fees because they're actually competing with each other and it's actually possible for upstarts to disrupt the market.

scarface74 6y ago
You can sideload on Android - why is Google charging 30%? You have a choice of three consoles - why aren’t developers side loading there? Where are the successful third party app stores for Android? Why did Epic decide to relent and make their game available on Google Play?
- danShumway 6y ago
  > You can sideload on Android [...] Where are the successful third party app stores for Android? [...] Why did Epic decide to relent and make their game available on Google Play? Epic is actively suing Google for using anti-competitive practices to force phone makers not to include 3rd-party app stores on their phones[0]. One example they bring up: > Epic struck a deal with OnePlus to make Epic games available on its phones through an Epic Games app. The Epic Games app would have allowed users to seamlessly install and update Epic games, including Fortnite, without obstacles imposed by Google’s Android OS. But Google forced OnePlus to renege on the deal, citing Google’s “particular[] concern” about Epic having the ability to install and update mobile games while “bypassing the Google Play Store”. If you want to show that sideloading doesn't make a difference for storefront fees, you should pick a company not currently being sued for antitrust to demonstrate it. ---- > You have a choice of three consoles - why aren’t developers side loading there? You can't sideload on a console, I don't know what you're getting at. In regards to price fixing on consoles: you're right, the console situation is also bad. We effectively have only 3 major consoles, and a reasonably high barrier of entry into the space for similar reasons as mobile phones. Of course, the console space is better (in no small part because the PC market exists), and console manufacturers do compete more for developers than Apple and Google do. But it's not perfect, and as a result, you still see some issues around competition. It took direct action from developers like Epic to even force the issue on cross-play, which is a decent sign that console manufactures really didn't feel like they needed to compete with each other in that area. However, it is generally ill-advised to sue every single major games distributor at the same time, so it is perfectly reasonable for Epic to target what they see as the biggest problem-areas first. The whataboutism doesn't really work here. Yes, console sideloading would probably be good for the market, it's just not as big and immediate of a problem as Apple is -- in part because more people own iPhones than an Xbox, in part because the barriers of entry to console competition are slightly lower, and in part because the PC games market provides somewhat of an escape hatch for console games, and that escape hatch isn't applicable to the mobile app market. [0]: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21759099/file0.243586135368002.pdf https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21759099/f...
  - scarface74 6y ago
    so it is perfectly reasonable for Epic to target what they see as the biggest problem-areas firsT Epic is the problem in the case of Fortnite. They are no more ethical than the Candy Crush, Farmville’s of the world. What happen to HN users who love Big Government wanting fo go after all of the “game” companies who were milking consumers selling loot boxes and virtual currency? and that escape hatch isn't applicable to the mobile app market. That escape hatch is called Android. But it isn’t like we are talking about great innovative games for the most part on mobile. Mobile is mostly made up of pay to win games and “whales” buying virtual currency for dance moves. If the entire play to win games completely disappeared nothing of value would be loss. If Apple made a rule banning in app purchases for games or at least banning consumables, it would be a better experience for customers. The entire pay to win mobile game ecosystem is a bigger stain on the iPhone than in app purchases. I have sympathy for the Basecamp’s of the world. The Epics, not so much.
    - detaro 6y ago
      Totally agreed on the overall criticism of the typical mobile game model, but the specific example of Fortnite is at least not really pay-to-win (afaik the only arguments for buyable benefits in it are that some skins are harder to see than others, and that some "dance moves"/"emotes" can be used to duck behind cover?)
      - scarface74 6y ago
        So we are back to sympathizing for Epic and Fortnite? It’s strange HN: We want government to be more involved in tech. Government: okay let’s pass laws against net neutrality, against strong encryption, the DMCA, COPPA and force the sell of TikTok and the governmebt should get a cut. HN: oh no. The government abuses power and doesn’t understand tech. But the government will get it right next time.
        detaro 6y ago
        You are projecting way to much into my comment. And if there were a single "HN" opinion on this, we'd not have hundreds/thousands of comments of discussion on it.

scarface74 6y ago

You can sideload on Android - why is Google charging 30%? You have a choice of three consoles - why aren’t developers side loading there? Where are the successful third party app stores for Android? Why did Epic decide to relent and make their game available on Google Play?

danShumway 6y ago
> You can sideload on Android [...] Where are the successful third party app stores for Android? [...] Why did Epic decide to relent and make their game available on Google Play? Epic is actively suing Google for using anti-competitive practices to force phone makers not to include 3rd-party app stores on their phones[0]. One example they bring up: > Epic struck a deal with OnePlus to make Epic games available on its phones through an Epic Games app. The Epic Games app would have allowed users to seamlessly install and update Epic games, including Fortnite, without obstacles imposed by Google’s Android OS. But Google forced OnePlus to renege on the deal, citing Google’s “particular[] concern” about Epic having the ability to install and update mobile games while “bypassing the Google Play Store”. If you want to show that sideloading doesn't make a difference for storefront fees, you should pick a company not currently being sued for antitrust to demonstrate it. ---- > You have a choice of three consoles - why aren’t developers side loading there? You can't sideload on a console, I don't know what you're getting at. In regards to price fixing on consoles: you're right, the console situation is also bad. We effectively have only 3 major consoles, and a reasonably high barrier of entry into the space for similar reasons as mobile phones. Of course, the console space is better (in no small part because the PC market exists), and console manufacturers do compete more for developers than Apple and Google do. But it's not perfect, and as a result, you still see some issues around competition. It took direct action from developers like Epic to even force the issue on cross-play, which is a decent sign that console manufactures really didn't feel like they needed to compete with each other in that area. However, it is generally ill-advised to sue every single major games distributor at the same time, so it is perfectly reasonable for Epic to target what they see as the biggest problem-areas first. The whataboutism doesn't really work here. Yes, console sideloading would probably be good for the market, it's just not as big and immediate of a problem as Apple is -- in part because more people own iPhones than an Xbox, in part because the barriers of entry to console competition are slightly lower, and in part because the PC games market provides somewhat of an escape hatch for console games, and that escape hatch isn't applicable to the mobile app market. [0]: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21759099/file0.243586135368002.pdf https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21759099/f...
- scarface74 6y ago
  so it is perfectly reasonable for Epic to target what they see as the biggest problem-areas firsT Epic is the problem in the case of Fortnite. They are no more ethical than the Candy Crush, Farmville’s of the world. What happen to HN users who love Big Government wanting fo go after all of the “game” companies who were milking consumers selling loot boxes and virtual currency? and that escape hatch isn't applicable to the mobile app market. That escape hatch is called Android. But it isn’t like we are talking about great innovative games for the most part on mobile. Mobile is mostly made up of pay to win games and “whales” buying virtual currency for dance moves. If the entire play to win games completely disappeared nothing of value would be loss. If Apple made a rule banning in app purchases for games or at least banning consumables, it would be a better experience for customers. The entire pay to win mobile game ecosystem is a bigger stain on the iPhone than in app purchases. I have sympathy for the Basecamp’s of the world. The Epics, not so much.
  - detaro 6y ago
    Totally agreed on the overall criticism of the typical mobile game model, but the specific example of Fortnite is at least not really pay-to-win (afaik the only arguments for buyable benefits in it are that some skins are harder to see than others, and that some "dance moves"/"emotes" can be used to duck behind cover?)
    - scarface74 6y ago
      So we are back to sympathizing for Epic and Fortnite? It’s strange HN: We want government to be more involved in tech. Government: okay let’s pass laws against net neutrality, against strong encryption, the DMCA, COPPA and force the sell of TikTok and the governmebt should get a cut. HN: oh no. The government abuses power and doesn’t understand tech. But the government will get it right next time.
      - detaro 6y ago
        You are projecting way to much into my comment. And if there were a single "HN" opinion on this, we'd not have hundreds/thousands of comments of discussion on it.