3 ms·
Yeah, it makes their kerfuffle with Apple look a bit different. Because Apple charges 30%. And Apple can keep that if there is a refund. In this case, Epic is
by bena 4y ago
Yeah, it makes their kerfuffle with Apple look a bit different.
Because Apple charges 30%. And Apple can keep that if there is a refund.
In this case, Epic is returning money. They would ideally be net zero on this whole debacle. You mistakenly bought $10 worth of skins, Epic collected that $10. Then you get refunded $10, Epic returns that $10. In the App Store scenario. You mistakenly bought $10 worth of skins, Apple collected that $10, gave $7 to Epic. Then you get refunded $10, Apple returns that $10, and then collects that $10 from Epic. Epic loses $3 on the exchange.
And if this is just refunding the purchases, it's kind of a good deal for Epic. As they essentially got an interest free loan from their customers.
- RussianCow 4y ago> And if this is just refunding the purchases, it's kind of a good deal for Epic. As they essentially got an interest free loan from their customers. Just a minor note: I believe credit card transaction fees are not refunded to the vendor, so there is still a non-zero cost to refunding customers which likely doesn't make it a "good deal". (Disclaimer: It's been over a decade since I did anything related to payments, so this may be out of date, or I may be misremembering it.)
- bena 4y agoNo, that sounds if not outright correct, at the very least in the ballpark of close enough. And I'm not totally up on the transaction fees, but they're typically in the low single digit percentages. And you only get hit once. So even on the higher side, you're looking at making up 3%. Which is way more likely than making up 30% in the same timeframe.
- ipv6ipv4 4y agoThis is completely false. Apple doesn't chargeback more than it paid out.