6 ms·

Google says Fortnite’s in-app purchase swap was a breach of contract, sues Epic

14 points by lakis 5y ago

downrightmike 5y ago
Epic shouldn't have started a fight they can't win.
- Anunayj 5y ago
  Epic should have just paid 30% of their profits to Google and Apple for doing nothing. Here fixed that for ya.
  - TechBro8615 5y ago
    That wouldn’t even be enough, they need to pay 30% of revenue.
  - ChrisLomont 5y ago
    If they did nothing, then Epic would not need their platforms and stores. Apparently they're market makers and Epic want to reach the market. Used to be you sold games in retail stores, which took 50% of retail price. Old console games took around 30% of retail. Pretty much every distribution and market maker in gaming history took these rates to provide platforms and markets. I'm guessing Epic will not win these, given the many platforms they can sell on, and each taking around these same rates. Maybe it's time for Epic to make their own phone and see how that goes. And no matter how it's sliced, Epic breached contract. It's one thing to sue over principles or whatever. But when you breach contract, the contract usually has costs for that.
mullingitover 5y ago
You notice Epic never picks fights with XBox and Playstation stores, which have identical costs and monopolies over their products.
- enos_feedler 5y ago
  Yes because their fight is not grounded in principles but in bottom line.
- cookingmyserver 5y ago
  The key difference is the product. What a company has a monopoly over is important and is a factor in whether the government takes action and what kind of action they take. Heck, the government even enforces temporary monopolies of specific technologies to promote R&D. A video game console is marketed and used as a video game console by most people. Mobile phones and tablets are used as mobile general purpose computing devices. I know many people who only have mobile phones and tablets as their computer. This means everything they do online and in their cyber lives is through their phone. That means two companies have complete control of communications, banking, emergency alerts, voting information, dating/relationships, political discussions, job functions/searches, photo storage, shopping, education, entertainment, identification cards, health care, physical access credentials, schedules, location data, IoT device control, password managers, news, navigation/travel, religious apps, etc. If gaming consoles begin to be used for most of these things.. then maybe we should look at it as a monopoly that needs to be broken or regulated, but until then its apple and oranges.
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    > This means everything they do online and in their cyber lives is through their phone You make a great case for an absolutely locked-down device, especially given that it's something that's bristling with microphones/cameras/accelerometers/GPS and logged into the most sensitive services in your life. The market agrees with this stance - Google offers sideloading, and vast armies of people are lining up to never use it. Apple's locked-down product is so successful with consumers that we're complaining about their monopoly power. You can buy a general-purpose computer for cheaper than a cell phone. The fact that people choose the locked-down pocket computer over the general-purpose device tells me that the locked-down experience is the one the mass market prefers. The people who I hear complaining about this aren't the regular users, they're the companies who aren't making the maximum profit they feel they're entitled to.

14 points by lakis 5y ago

downrightmike 5y ago

Epic shouldn't have started a fight they can't win.

Anunayj 5y ago
Epic should have just paid 30% of their profits to Google and Apple for doing nothing. Here fixed that for ya.
- TechBro8615 5y ago
  That wouldn’t even be enough, they need to pay 30% of revenue.
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  If they did nothing, then Epic would not need their platforms and stores. Apparently they're market makers and Epic want to reach the market. Used to be you sold games in retail stores, which took 50% of retail price. Old console games took around 30% of retail. Pretty much every distribution and market maker in gaming history took these rates to provide platforms and markets. I'm guessing Epic will not win these, given the many platforms they can sell on, and each taking around these same rates. Maybe it's time for Epic to make their own phone and see how that goes. And no matter how it's sliced, Epic breached contract. It's one thing to sue over principles or whatever. But when you breach contract, the contract usually has costs for that.

mullingitover 5y ago

You notice Epic never picks fights with XBox and Playstation stores, which have identical costs and monopolies over their products.

enos_feedler 5y ago
Yes because their fight is not grounded in principles but in bottom line.
cookingmyserver 5y ago
The key difference is the product. What a company has a monopoly over is important and is a factor in whether the government takes action and what kind of action they take. Heck, the government even enforces temporary monopolies of specific technologies to promote R&D. A video game console is marketed and used as a video game console by most people. Mobile phones and tablets are used as mobile general purpose computing devices. I know many people who only have mobile phones and tablets as their computer. This means everything they do online and in their cyber lives is through their phone. That means two companies have complete control of communications, banking, emergency alerts, voting information, dating/relationships, political discussions, job functions/searches, photo storage, shopping, education, entertainment, identification cards, health care, physical access credentials, schedules, location data, IoT device control, password managers, news, navigation/travel, religious apps, etc. If gaming consoles begin to be used for most of these things.. then maybe we should look at it as a monopoly that needs to be broken or regulated, but until then its apple and oranges.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  > This means everything they do online and in their cyber lives is through their phone You make a great case for an absolutely locked-down device, especially given that it's something that's bristling with microphones/cameras/accelerometers/GPS and logged into the most sensitive services in your life. The market agrees with this stance - Google offers sideloading, and vast armies of people are lining up to never use it. Apple's locked-down product is so successful with consumers that we're complaining about their monopoly power. You can buy a general-purpose computer for cheaper than a cell phone. The fact that people choose the locked-down pocket computer over the general-purpose device tells me that the locked-down experience is the one the mass market prefers. The people who I hear complaining about this aren't the regular users, they're the companies who aren't making the maximum profit they feel they're entitled to.