7 ms·

> No I don't. How disingenous. The claim was that it would reduce the cost. But you agree that it would increase the developer split. Thats good enough for me

by stale2002 6y ago

> No I don't. How disingenous. The claim was that it would reduce the cost. But you agree that it would increase the developer split. Thats good enough for me. Glad you agree that it would increase the developer revenue split. > At the moment they do. Ok, and it is still a good thing, that in the moment, for a certain period of time, that developers would get a better revenue split. Thats still good. > it won't benefit anyone except for EPIC. I would still rather that a game developer get more of the money that their game makes. Thats still good. > Also EPIC are buying their way in. Ok. Even so. That means that in the mean time, developers could benefit from Epic buying their way in. Thats still good. > That was the agreement between them and the app publisher. But the agreement could be illegally anti-competitive. Therefore your argument would not be valid in that case. > They are owed that money You have no basis for claiming this to be the case, because the lawsuit could still find the arrangement to be illegal, and also the law could be changed later. > . EPIC want a sea of launchers If a game company wants to have their own launcher, that should be their right to do so. I would be happy that they get a larger cut, from having their own launcher. > It is about one large company EPIC trying to force another large company's hand The precendent that is set would allow other app stores to be on the IPhone as well. Even if you think Epic is doing it for its own benefits, the precent set would allow other game developers or app stores, to be on the IPhone. That helps those groups. > There will be two dominate app stores. I still prefer 2 app stores to 1 app store. Also, it would allow a 3rd and 4th or 4th app store to be in the Iphone, if anyone wanted to do that. > it won't be the indie dev hacker Well, it would help any indie dev hacker that is now allowed to be on the IPhone, without being forced to go through apple. Those people would benefit.

forest_dweller 6y ago
I really shouldn't reply but I really can't leave this unaddressed. > But you agree that it would increase the developer split. Thats good enough for me. Glad you agree that it would increase the developer revenue split. I never agreed. Please don't put words into my mouth. It is soo disingenous. I haven't done it to you so don't do it to me. As for the rest of the points. You aren't accepting the reality of the situation. It will benefit nobody other than EPIC which have a money printer called fortnite. EPIC doesn't care about other developers it cares about itself,. Nobody will benefit from this in the long run other than EPIC and the other huge companies. But you keep on talking about the theorectical benefits, it is the same sort of mental masturbation that GPL zealots engage it. It is mostly pointless and doesn't address reality. Also your concern trolling for the devs is cute. I imagine the vast number of developers are fine with the current revenue splits on storesm, unless you prove otherwise all you are doing is concern trolling to avoid the real issue. As for future court rulings about "anti-competitive" practices. We will see. You and I don't know what will happen. The 70/30 split which I was originally replying to is not anti-competitive or unfair. It is a normaly split and I will keep on re-iterating this because people on here because they are ignorant think it is unfair when it is perfectly normal. As for app stores. More app stores won't benefit the consumer or the developers in the long run as I don't think the vast majority of Apple users will use anything other than the official App Store. You can claim theorectically it will be better but in practice that won't be the case. It will be a pyrrhic victory at best.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > Nobody will benefit from this in the long run Even if you think it is only a short term benefit, that is still a good thing that the benefit would exist in the short term. Great. Glad you agree that there would be at the very least, a short term benefit. > More app stores won't benefit the consumer or the developers in the long run Even a short term benefit is still a benefit and is still a very good thing! Glad you agree that there is a short term benefit.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - forest_dweller 6y ago
    > Glad you agree that there would be at the very least, a short term benefit. Never agreed. You are obviously trolling. Goodbye.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > Never agreed. You agreed that "EPIC is buying their way in" to the market. Buying their way into the market helps developers in the short term at the very least, which is a good thing. So you agree that they were "buying their way in" to the market, in the short term. Great! Glad you think that. This results in developers getting more money, in the short term, at the very least.

forest_dweller 6y ago

I really shouldn't reply but I really can't leave this unaddressed. > But you agree that it would increase the developer split. Thats good enough for me. Glad you agree that it would increase the developer revenue split. I never agreed. Please don't put words into my mouth. It is soo disingenous. I haven't done it to you so don't do it to me. As for the rest of the points. You aren't accepting the reality of the situation. It will benefit nobody other than EPIC which have a money printer called fortnite. EPIC doesn't care about other developers it cares about itself,. Nobody will benefit from this in the long run other than EPIC and the other huge companies. But you keep on talking about the theorectical benefits, it is the same sort of mental masturbation that GPL zealots engage it. It is mostly pointless and doesn't address reality. Also your concern trolling for the devs is cute. I imagine the vast number of developers are fine with the current revenue splits on storesm, unless you prove otherwise all you are doing is concern trolling to avoid the real issue. As for future court rulings about "anti-competitive" practices. We will see. You and I don't know what will happen. The 70/30 split which I was originally replying to is not anti-competitive or unfair. It is a normaly split and I will keep on re-iterating this because people on here because they are ignorant think it is unfair when it is perfectly normal. As for app stores. More app stores won't benefit the consumer or the developers in the long run as I don't think the vast majority of Apple users will use anything other than the official App Store. You can claim theorectically it will be better but in practice that won't be the case. It will be a pyrrhic victory at best.

stale2002 6y ago
> Nobody will benefit from this in the long run Even if you think it is only a short term benefit, that is still a good thing that the benefit would exist in the short term. Great. Glad you agree that there would be at the very least, a short term benefit. > More app stores won't benefit the consumer or the developers in the long run Even a short term benefit is still a benefit and is still a very good thing! Glad you agree that there is a short term benefit.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- forest_dweller 6y ago
  > Glad you agree that there would be at the very least, a short term benefit. Never agreed. You are obviously trolling. Goodbye.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > Never agreed. You agreed that "EPIC is buying their way in" to the market. Buying their way into the market helps developers in the short term at the very least, which is a good thing. So you agree that they were "buying their way in" to the market, in the short term. Great! Glad you think that. This results in developers getting more money, in the short term, at the very least.