3 ms·

But it’s not a monopoly, it’s one of many, many devices. There are, at time of writing, many games platforms and many application platforms: XBox, PlayStation,

by vr46 6y ago

But it’s not a monopoly, it’s one of many, many devices. There are, at time of writing, many games platforms and many application platforms: XBox, PlayStation, Nintendo, IOS, Android, Windows, MacOS, Linux, with Google Stadia too. Developers make a choice and everything sold on those platforms has distribution costs. Fortnite is available on most if not all of those platforms. AND, players play against one another through the internet not through a private developers network. So there’s plenty of competition. Why Epic aren’t demanding Nintendo and Sony take a lower cut is a mystery. Or maybe not? Epic have massively, massively, overplayed their hand here. Instead of creating an amazing new game and using THAT as leverage to platform owners for a deal, they’ve made a satirical video, broken a contract, had their bluff called, and cemented their place in future business school classes as how not to go about a negotiation.

enragedcacti 6y ago
> cemented their place in future business school classes as how not to go about a negotiation it isn't a negotiation, it's an anti-trust lawsuit. Tim Sweeney made it clear that the only 'deal' he is willing to accept is 3rd party stores.
- LadyCailin 6y ago
  I find it rich that a company that bleeds tons of money just so they have exclusive titles on their platform is suing someone else for anti competitive behavior.
elif 6y ago
Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are creating a game ecosystem by selling hardware at a loss or near loss, footing R&D, supporting devkits, and running promotions mutually beneficial for developers. The value of creating and enabling an entire ecosystem is found to be worth 30%. An iPhone is sold for a substantial profit regardless of gaming entirely, and offers none of those services or promotional benefits to developers/publishers.
- vr46 6y ago
  This is true, but until Free-to-play arrived, the companies would get a cut from every single piece of software that was published through licensing. The advent of downloads reduced the trade in used-games, meaning higher revenue. The selling at a loss is just another business strategy to drive hardware sales of a limited-functionality device (ok, you can watch videos and surf the net, but it's hardly an actual computer) compared to the iPhone, where other factors drive sales and increase the user base. I mean, I love my Switch and I'm definitely a profitable customer but it's a specialized device. If Nintendo's loss-leader strategy is worth 30%, why isn't Apple's strategy? Or really, who gets to decide what the correct % is? And how?
  - elif 6y ago
    in theory, that is the responsibility of the markets. but when you have a duopoly there is no one to decide the correct %, and we start to not have a functioning capitalist market.
    - vr46 6y ago
      It's almost like we're all discovering that there may be problem with the underlying system.
- maxdo 6y ago
  You compare a company ( Apple) who invested billions of dollars in ecosystem, hardware etc. In dev tools. It's not even fair to compare it with parasitic company Epic. That is leveraging platform been developed and pretty much created a market to leverage human weaknesses ( gaming). They don't bring any real in this world. And yet they dare to say they not happy with market that brought them billions. Such kind of ideas can only appear in such kind of company, that don't bring any value to the world and thinks that the world owns them something. Huge part of Epic success is apple marketplace that users trust. Even google play is a derivative from Apple's ideas due to Eric copy pasted while been a board member of apple. You got access to billions of people thanks to apple and google, using their tools. I think it's logical apple and google want their cut for that.

by vr46 6y ago

enragedcacti 6y ago

> cemented their place in future business school classes as how not to go about a negotiation it isn't a negotiation, it's an anti-trust lawsuit. Tim Sweeney made it clear that the only 'deal' he is willing to accept is 3rd party stores.

LadyCailin 6y ago
I find it rich that a company that bleeds tons of money just so they have exclusive titles on their platform is suing someone else for anti competitive behavior.

elif 6y ago

Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are creating a game ecosystem by selling hardware at a loss or near loss, footing R&D, supporting devkits, and running promotions mutually beneficial for developers. The value of creating and enabling an entire ecosystem is found to be worth 30%. An iPhone is sold for a substantial profit regardless of gaming entirely, and offers none of those services or promotional benefits to developers/publishers.

vr46 6y ago
This is true, but until Free-to-play arrived, the companies would get a cut from every single piece of software that was published through licensing. The advent of downloads reduced the trade in used-games, meaning higher revenue. The selling at a loss is just another business strategy to drive hardware sales of a limited-functionality device (ok, you can watch videos and surf the net, but it's hardly an actual computer) compared to the iPhone, where other factors drive sales and increase the user base. I mean, I love my Switch and I'm definitely a profitable customer but it's a specialized device. If Nintendo's loss-leader strategy is worth 30%, why isn't Apple's strategy? Or really, who gets to decide what the correct % is? And how?
- elif 6y ago
  in theory, that is the responsibility of the markets. but when you have a duopoly there is no one to decide the correct %, and we start to not have a functioning capitalist market.
  - vr46 6y ago
    It's almost like we're all discovering that there may be problem with the underlying system.
maxdo 6y ago
You compare a company ( Apple) who invested billions of dollars in ecosystem, hardware etc. In dev tools. It's not even fair to compare it with parasitic company Epic. That is leveraging platform been developed and pretty much created a market to leverage human weaknesses ( gaming). They don't bring any real in this world. And yet they dare to say they not happy with market that brought them billions. Such kind of ideas can only appear in such kind of company, that don't bring any value to the world and thinks that the world owns them something. Huge part of Epic success is apple marketplace that users trust. Even google play is a derivative from Apple's ideas due to Eric copy pasted while been a board member of apple. You got access to billions of people thanks to apple and google, using their tools. I think it's logical apple and google want their cut for that.