3 ms·

> then passing most of that savings on to the customer is obviously going to save the customer money. I see no evidence of Epic passing savings to the consumer

> then passing most of that savings on to the customer is obviously going to save the customer money. I see no evidence of Epic passing savings to the consumer in this scenario. Unless by customer you mean stock holder in which case the fight is about which stock holders get paid. Edit: unless you are referring to a temporary PR sale where they were still paying the 30% cut in many cases.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
When they introduced their iOS "store" which used a non-Apple payment service they lowered prices because they weren't paying 30% to anybody. Which is totally logical and profit-seeking in both the short and long term because when you're making 30% higher margins, sacrificing some of them in exchange for higher volumes will generally maximize profits.