4 ms·
It's an unimportant distinction. It doesn't matter that you got your Microsoft-store approved copy of Gears of War from Gamestop instead of the Microsoft app s
by akersten 6y ago
It's an unimportant distinction.
It doesn't matter that you got your Microsoft-store approved copy of Gears of War from Gamestop instead of the Microsoft app store. MS still gets their cut, and that application still had to be approved by them.
The core similarity to iOS and Apple's app store is: Third party applications cannot run on the Xbox without Microsoft review, approval, and fee. It doesn't matter that it's a physical copy or not. You, an independent developer, can't just create an Xbox game and get it running without MS approval, no matter whether you wanted to sell it on the app store or as a physical copy.
- pkaye 6y agoHow does this compare to Google? You can develop your own app and side load it. And you can have third part app stores.
- akersten 6y agoYep, I'd say Google's closer to doing the right thing here comparatively, having at least a non-terrible path to running unsigned APKs. I would put Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo in the same bucket of "makes hardware that can run software, but only software they approve." Whether this is something we as a society should allow, I won't comment on, but I will say that Epic should either have a grievance with all of them or none of them. Microsoft and Epic are strange bedfellows and I can't see this headline as anything other than a nervous preemption on Microsoft's part.
- fomine3 6y agoI against to put smartphone platform and game console in the same bucket on antitrust perspective because there's only two viable players in smartphone platform market (on gaming, 3 major platforms + open PC platform + smartphone platforms) and it's mandatory device for modern life.