3 ms·

Is all of that really a problem when the companies seem to have shown that none of that matters? The increased cut is apparently more valuable to them. And I a

Is all of that really a problem when the companies seem to have shown that none of that matters? The increased cut is apparently more valuable to them. And I also should note, half of those items don't need to implemented in a store. People ask for them because they are implemented as extras in other stores, but strictly speaking the distribution and support are the only things the store needs to have to be called a store. Achievements, friend lists, user reviews, and cloud saves can be provided by separate services and work just as well, and could result in a higher cut for the vendors if the store doesn't have to shelter the cost for that.

Arainach 6y ago
That sounds like the same class of argument as "all an operating system needs to provide is process scheduling and hardware access". It doesn't match user expectations and it certainly isn't a good user experience. Having to sign into a different account for every game to get basic functionality is a nightmare. Users want to purchase a game from a store, install it, play it, and have everything work. That's it - no other configuration or connections required.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  The answer to that isn't putting all stores but one out of business, it's having a single-sign-on provider. Also, I doubt you would criticize an embedded OS for only having process scheduling and hardware access, because that's probably all it was designed to do. Similarly, a low-cost store may want to skip on providing all those extra features so they can keep prices down.