4 ms·

The infamous 30% goes back to the time when there where no app stores and we, mainly game developers, had to publish our games thru publishers who used to take

The infamous 30% goes back to the time when there where no app stores and we, mainly game developers, had to publish our games thru publishers who used to take a large percent of income, 50% or higher, up to 70% I heard; in order for app stores to become competitive they set the fee to 30% which was an incredibly great deal for us! It seemed to me that the democratization of game publishing finally arrived at that point. Not trying to defend them, just telling that times change.

aurareturn 3y ago
I'm on Apple's side for this one but weren't game publishers also funding the development, marketing, and distribution?
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  Typically, no, actually. Take dumb phones before iOS came along, like on Symbian or Windows Mobile. Every carrier had their own App Store, their own awful SDK, their own rules and approval processes, and 50% was the minimum share. It wasn’t just the apps either. It was the OS itself requiring carrier approval - something Apple managed to dodge through sheer clout, but that hereditary disease still plagues Android to this day.
- spookie 3y ago
  While one could argue that a some money had to be spent in the old days to get those boxes in the shelf and off them, these days what does Apple do? Besides being one of the two players in the market? Clearly someone is being abused. I'm aware they do bring customers, I guess. Not to _you_, specifically, to someone... Maybe you.
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    Probably designing ever more power SoCs, OS, accumulating wealthy users for app developers, etc.
incrudible 3y ago
The 30% goes back to retail markup, i.e. the what the seller who buys and physically stocks your game could expect to keep for gross profit. Of course digital store fronts do not have many of the costs associated with physical retail, but there is still value in them bringing the customer to you.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Of course digital store fronts do not have many of the costs associated with physical retail, but there is still value in them bringing the customer to you. This is inherently in conflict with having a single store for everything, because the everything store would then have all of your competitors in it too. It also doesn't explain why you still have to pay when you do your own marketing through some other means and the customer is already looking for you in particular.
  - incrudible 3y ago
    You have to pay because Apple asks for a commission in exchange for you being allowed to sell your product in their store. I think what you're really asking is: Where's the value if I want to (or have to) do my own marketing anyway? The answer is trust. I'm more likely to trust you with my money, with you executing code on my device, if Apple allows you on their store. Even the big brands like Epic get this value, because who is judge that whatever "I look for" isn't being hijacked by some impersonator? Perhaps that trust is misplaced, but the effect is real, thus the value is there. Apple considers this worth a 30% commission, and 100% of developers on the App store agree, or they wouldn't be on there. The question whether you couldn't get more value by doing it all yourself doesn't even ask itself, because there is no alternative. Whether that is anti-competitive in the legally prosecutable way is a very interesting question that we're all eager to hear answered by the courts. Personally, I do find that a 30% (or 27%) commission on out-of-band purchases is outrageous and that phone platforms should be cracked open, but I can also see the argument from the other side, comparing e.g. to video game consoles or set top boxes.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
themagician 3y ago
Epic used to charge insane fees for the Unreal Engine too. They really only changed their tune when Fortnite became so successful they could print money via skins.
- jojobas 3y ago
  You don't have to use Unreal Engine, there are many others and you can write your own. Distribution to apple devices requires using apple's store, which is really the core issue here. If IBM/Intel/MS could pull this off in the 80s we'd still live in a stone age.
  - simonklitj 3y ago
    You don’t have to distribute to Apple devices, there are many others and you can make your own. Help me understand how this is different?
    - spywaregorilla 3y ago
      apple is gatekeeping billions of users. unreal engine is not.
    - jojobas 3y ago
      You can achieve the result of making an FPS game without Unreal Engine. You can't achieve the result of offering your product to about half US phone users without apple store.
- spywaregorilla 3y ago
  You're making shit up. Unreal was at the same 5% years before fortnite. albeit with a lower kick in threshold
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - readyplayernull 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
GeekyBear 3y ago
For any type of software you wanted to sell to the retail chains, you had to find a software distribution company, since the chains would not deal directly with you. So you were paying one cut to the software distributor, and another cut to the retail chain. Then there were costs things like creating and shipping physical inventory, swapping out the unsold inventory in the stores when you did a major version update, shared advertising costs, etc. You definitely were not getting to keep anywhere near 70% of the price consumers paid for your product.

aurareturn 3y ago

I'm on Apple's side for this one but weren't game publishers also funding the development, marketing, and distribution?

gjsman-1000 3y ago
Typically, no, actually. Take dumb phones before iOS came along, like on Symbian or Windows Mobile. Every carrier had their own App Store, their own awful SDK, their own rules and approval processes, and 50% was the minimum share. It wasn’t just the apps either. It was the OS itself requiring carrier approval - something Apple managed to dodge through sheer clout, but that hereditary disease still plagues Android to this day.
spookie 3y ago
While one could argue that a some money had to be spent in the old days to get those boxes in the shelf and off them, these days what does Apple do? Besides being one of the two players in the market? Clearly someone is being abused. I'm aware they do bring customers, I guess. Not to _you_, specifically, to someone... Maybe you.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  Probably designing ever more power SoCs, OS, accumulating wealthy users for app developers, etc.

incrudible 3y ago

The 30% goes back to retail markup, i.e. the what the seller who buys and physically stocks your game could expect to keep for gross profit. Of course digital store fronts do not have many of the costs associated with physical retail, but there is still value in them bringing the customer to you.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Of course digital store fronts do not have many of the costs associated with physical retail, but there is still value in them bringing the customer to you. This is inherently in conflict with having a single store for everything, because the everything store would then have all of your competitors in it too. It also doesn't explain why you still have to pay when you do your own marketing through some other means and the customer is already looking for you in particular.
- incrudible 3y ago
  You have to pay because Apple asks for a commission in exchange for you being allowed to sell your product in their store. I think what you're really asking is: Where's the value if I want to (or have to) do my own marketing anyway? The answer is trust. I'm more likely to trust you with my money, with you executing code on my device, if Apple allows you on their store. Even the big brands like Epic get this value, because who is judge that whatever "I look for" isn't being hijacked by some impersonator? Perhaps that trust is misplaced, but the effect is real, thus the value is there. Apple considers this worth a 30% commission, and 100% of developers on the App store agree, or they wouldn't be on there. The question whether you couldn't get more value by doing it all yourself doesn't even ask itself, because there is no alternative. Whether that is anti-competitive in the legally prosecutable way is a very interesting question that we're all eager to hear answered by the courts. Personally, I do find that a 30% (or 27%) commission on out-of-band purchases is outrageous and that phone platforms should be cracked open, but I can also see the argument from the other side, comparing e.g. to video game consoles or set top boxes.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago

themagician 3y ago

Epic used to charge insane fees for the Unreal Engine too. They really only changed their tune when Fortnite became so successful they could print money via skins.

jojobas 3y ago
You don't have to use Unreal Engine, there are many others and you can write your own. Distribution to apple devices requires using apple's store, which is really the core issue here. If IBM/Intel/MS could pull this off in the 80s we'd still live in a stone age.
- simonklitj 3y ago
  You don’t have to distribute to Apple devices, there are many others and you can make your own. Help me understand how this is different?
  - spywaregorilla 3y ago
    apple is gatekeeping billions of users. unreal engine is not.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    You can achieve the result of making an FPS game without Unreal Engine. You can't achieve the result of offering your product to about half US phone users without apple store.
spywaregorilla 3y ago
You're making shit up. Unreal was at the same 5% years before fortnite. albeit with a lower kick in threshold
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- readyplayernull 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

GeekyBear 3y ago

For any type of software you wanted to sell to the retail chains, you had to find a software distribution company, since the chains would not deal directly with you. So you were paying one cut to the software distributor, and another cut to the retail chain. Then there were costs things like creating and shipping physical inventory, swapping out the unsold inventory in the stores when you did a major version update, shared advertising costs, etc. You definitely were not getting to keep anywhere near 70% of the price consumers paid for your product.