4 ms·

Poor Tim! Hey anyone know if I'm allowed to put my own skin store inside the Fortnite store? It's only fair.

by mrcwinn 10mo ago

hshdhdhj4444 10mo ago
People keep making the comparison between the Apple App Store or the Google Play store and the XBox store or the Fortnite store. But these are likely irrelevant comparisons. For one thing, the degree of monopolization simply doesn’t exist. Gaming is a market. There are many gaming platforms that are extremely popular. Xbox, PS, Nintendo, Steam, and then just open distribution on PCs which essentially means there is no lock in in this industry. And unlike the “web app” comparison folks try to make, open distribution can easily leverage the same capabilities as the store distributed games can (and in fact, they are more capable than games from some stores, like the Windows store). But more importantly, gaming isn’t an essential part of life, which is basically what smartphones, dominated entirely by iOS/Android, have become at this point. People depend on these platforms. There are businesses you cannot interact with if not through your phone. There are public transportation systems that are almost unusable. And finally, maybe this is just me, but I think the idea that general purpose computing is the same as playing video games just strikes me as wrong. General purpose computing, which is what phones are, are basic infrastructure for modern life. They should be treated differently and we shoudoht allow 2 companies to monopolize and/or embargo them like Apple/Google are trying.
- Razengan 10mo ago
  [flagged]
- 8note 10mo ago
  in terms of relevance, i think its anticompetitive that i cant use my skins and cosmetics from one game in a different game. if everything is running on the same couple engines, the cosmetics are all compatible with each other
  - deaux 10mo ago
    This comparison doesn't work at all. An APK for app A is compatible with Android devices of version X, regardless of the store it is sold on. A cosmetic for game B is not compatible with all games running on the same engine Y, for obvious reasons. Asking Fortnite to accept other stores selling Fortnite-compatible cosmetics doesn't work either because Fortnite has not monopolized a trillion-dollar industry, meanwhile spending billions on lobbying to make daily life for the average citizen impossible without them, which the Google-Apple cartel has. Fortnite has also never gained market share by pursuing claims about being an open source platform or not being evil, again unlike Google. These differences.. make all the difference. Call me when my kids are forced to agree to Fortnite EULAs to participate in schooling all around the world.
    - pjmlp 10mo ago
      They can come to Portugal, we don't do Chromebooks, or to most European countries for that matter. Unless all around the world is the usual "world === USA".
      - deaux 10mo ago
        > Unless all around the world is the usual "world === USA". Not at all. US isn't even the leader on this. For example in many countries it's already much harder to do any kind of digital banking without a Google/Apple-approved phone than in the US. In Europe as well, more and more places where it's completely the norm for schools and teachers to do all their communication through Facebook or Whatsapp. Sure those have web, but are arguably the worst of the three. Portugal nor most European countries are above this at all. If only they were. Look at all the national IDs rolled out, those too more and more mandatory Apple/Android 2FA. Will Portuguese teachers never downgrade any students who do all their homework on e.g. OpenOffice and it doesn't look nice on the teacher's MS Office? Doubt it.
        pjmlp 10mo ago
        Most students in Portugal still deliver their work assigments in paper, and if they want a computer, parents buy one to have at home, usually shared by all that are going to school. We have had national IDs since forever, with fingerprints, we don't go crazy about it like in some other countries, even though we suffered a dictorship with lots of human losses, colonial wars, and even though PIDE/DGS wasn't KGB or Stasi level, it also managed to impact our society. I should know, I am part of the first generation to grow up in freedom, while hearing the grown up stories of how everything came to be.
- musicale 10mo ago
  It's really too bad that essential public services can't be hosted on the web so that you could use them on any platform - smartphone, laptop, tablet, whatever - and would have an alternative to Apple and Google's game stores. Basic apps don't need fancy 3D graphics (and even if they did we have webGL etc.)
  - mdhb 10mo ago
    Apple’s 20 year campaign to intentionally undermine and artificially cripple the web platform has a lot to answer for here.
    - JimDabell 10mo ago
      There is no single organisation that has done more to push the mobile web forward than Apple. Seriously, name one. Nobody gave a shit about the mobile web until Apple launched the iPhone, where one of its main selling points was a “desktop-class web browser”, where Steve Jobs told announced that if they wanted to run apps on the iPhone, they should be web apps. Then suddenly everybody started demanding “iPhone-compatible websites” overnight. Nobody was asking for “mobile websites”, which until that point were shitty WAP/WML things, or – in the best case – cut back m.example.com microsites. People wanted “iPhone-compatible websites”. And then all the other phone vendors used Apple’s open-source WebKit code (open-source thanks to KDE, useful on mobile thanks to Apple) to release their own browsers, and the mobile web took off like a rocket because suddenly it was useful because people could use real websites. And let’s not forget Steve Jobs telling people to avoid Flash and use open web standards instead. There is a very clear before/after with the mobile web, and it’s the launch of the iPhone and all the work Apple put into making WebKit work well on mobile that provided that watershed moment. Apple were championing the web in the time period you claim they were “intentionally undermining and artificially crippling it”. Now, you may be underwhelmed by their performance in more recent years, but it’s simply factually untrue that they have had a 20 year campaign to undermine the web.
      - mdhb 10mo ago
        [flagged]
- raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
  And the business you need to interact with through your phone and government services are not going through in app payments and giving Apple a cut. At most they are accepting Apple Pay and being charged standard credit card fees Cry me a river for the Epics of the world selling loot boxes and other pay to win crap. It came out in the trial that 90% of App Store revenue is coming from games. Neither Epic, Google or Apple are on the side of the angels
- charcircuit 10mo ago
  >the degree of monopolization simply doesn’t exist Yes, it does. Your only options are like Fornite, Roblox, or Minecraft. Saying make your own game, is like saying make your own phone. There is tremendous value in the gigantic userbases these platforms have. This value is why platform holders can charge for access to them.
  - shakna 10mo ago
    Those are my _only_ options? Wow. I guess Steam must be bankrupt and surviving off just four games. And I guess Epic and Steam just don't compete. And itch and GoG are just irrelevant with no market impact. Sorry for the sarcasm, but gaming is not "choose between these two" level of monopilisation. And indies just won game of the year awards! Things are just not monopolised.
    - charcircuit 10mo ago
      Steam is not a competitor to Fortnite. Fortnite gives you a lot for free as a platform compared to what you get from Steam.
    - Rohansi 10mo ago
      Steam must just be a front because none of those games are available on it.
  - Rohansi 10mo ago
    > Your only options are like Fornite, Roblox, or Minecraft. What?? Unlike phones nothing locks people into only playing a specific game. And there are so many other games out there to choose from.
    - charcircuit 10mo ago
      Nothing locks you into a specific phone. I have both a primary Android and iOS phone that I use. >are so many other games out there to choose from. But how many can you make a business on top of that can pay competitively? It's like how there are a ton of operating systems to choose from, yet only a few that are viable to build upon.
- hnlmorg 10mo ago
  > For one thing, the degree of monopolization simply doesn’t exist. Gaming is a market. There are many gaming platforms that are extremely popular. Xbox, PS, Nintendo, Steam, and then just open Except there isn’t multiple stores on Xbox or PlayStation or Switch. Which is directly comparable to the iOS lock ins that Epic was fighting against. > But more importantly, gaming isn’t an essential part of life, which is basically what smartphones, dominated entirely by iOS/Android, have become at this point. True but also irrelevant. Monopoly laws don’t make those distinctions. > And finally, maybe this is just me, but I think the idea that general purpose computing is the same as playing video games just strikes me as wrong. Again, monopoly laws don’t make any distinction here. However to answer your direct point, some consoles are marketed as more general purpose devices for taxation reasons. All consoles support YouTube, most have other streaming services from Netflix to Spotify. They all come with a fully capable web browser. Even their hardware has been generic for the last few generations of consoles. So they are general purpose devices in all metrics aside from the variety of apps available. And you could argue the reason for this is literally because of their “App Store” lock ins. So your argument here is evidence against the point you’re trying to make. > General purpose computing, which is what phones are, are basic infrastructure for modern life. That’s not the definition of a “general purpose computing device” and I reject the idea that iOS and Android are equivalent to water, roads and electricity. I do agree that smartphones are a MASSIVELY useful asset, but you don’t actually need a smartphone for modern life. Plenty of older people still manage just fine without iOS nor Android. They’ll use a laptop or PC to access the same services via a web browser. Furthermore, the companies who are fighting iOS lock ins are not critical services. Epic, for example, is a gaming company. They don’t provide health or banking services. You can’t do your taxes in Fortnight. You don’t book your car in for a service via an app built in Unreal Engine. Epic build games not essential infrastructure.
  - musicale 10mo ago
    This analysis is correct. Epic's business incentive has always been lowering platform fees paid to Apple and Google for Fortnite compared to what they are paying Nintendo and Sony for Fortnite.
    - 10mo ago
- AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
  It seems like the better way to dispose of these comparisons is to just to treat them the same and require Xbox etc. to allow alternative stores too. Would thousands be killed if that were required? Simply don't allow devices to exclude competing distribution systems, whatsoever.
  - musicale 10mo ago
    I'm a bit surprised that the DMA etc. didn't end up applying to Xbox, and how Microsoft has tried to make implausible arguments about how iPhone should be open but Xbox should be closed. The killer app for jailbreaking game systems is and has always been running unlicensed games, a scenario which Apple, Xbox, and Nintendo vigorously object to. It's also why Sony killed Linux on PS3. On the other hand, you can run unlicensed games on Android and it hasn't killed Google Play.

Poor Tim! Hey anyone know if I'm allowed to put my own skin store inside the Fortnite store? It's only fair.

by mrcwinn 10mo ago

Poor Tim! Hey anyone know if I'm allowed to put my own skin store inside the Fortnite store? It's only fair.

People keep making the comparison between the Apple App Store or the Google Play store and the XBox store or the Fortnite store. But these are likely irrelevant comparisons. For one thing, the degree of monopolization simply doesn’t exist. Gaming is a market. There are many gaming platforms that are extremely popular. Xbox, PS, Nintendo, Steam, and then just open distribution on PCs which essentially means there is no lock in in this industry. And unlike the “web app” comparison folks try to make, open distribution can easily leverage the same capabilities as the store distributed games can (and in fact, they are more capable than games from some stores, like the Windows store). But more importantly, gaming isn’t an essential part of life, which is basically what smartphones, dominated entirely by iOS/Android, have become at this point. People depend on these platforms. There are businesses you cannot interact with if not through your phone. There are public transportation systems that are almost unusable. And finally, maybe this is just me, but I think the idea that general purpose computing is the same as playing video games just strikes me as wrong. General purpose computing, which is what phones are, are basic infrastructure for modern life. They should be treated differently and we shoudoht allow 2 companies to monopolize and/or embargo them like Apple/Google are trying.

Razengan 10mo ago
[flagged]
8note 10mo ago
in terms of relevance, i think its anticompetitive that i cant use my skins and cosmetics from one game in a different game. if everything is running on the same couple engines, the cosmetics are all compatible with each other
- deaux 10mo ago
  This comparison doesn't work at all. An APK for app A is compatible with Android devices of version X, regardless of the store it is sold on. A cosmetic for game B is not compatible with all games running on the same engine Y, for obvious reasons. Asking Fortnite to accept other stores selling Fortnite-compatible cosmetics doesn't work either because Fortnite has not monopolized a trillion-dollar industry, meanwhile spending billions on lobbying to make daily life for the average citizen impossible without them, which the Google-Apple cartel has. Fortnite has also never gained market share by pursuing claims about being an open source platform or not being evil, again unlike Google. These differences.. make all the difference. Call me when my kids are forced to agree to Fortnite EULAs to participate in schooling all around the world.
  - pjmlp 10mo ago
    They can come to Portugal, we don't do Chromebooks, or to most European countries for that matter. Unless all around the world is the usual "world === USA".
    - deaux 10mo ago
      > Unless all around the world is the usual "world === USA". Not at all. US isn't even the leader on this. For example in many countries it's already much harder to do any kind of digital banking without a Google/Apple-approved phone than in the US. In Europe as well, more and more places where it's completely the norm for schools and teachers to do all their communication through Facebook or Whatsapp. Sure those have web, but are arguably the worst of the three. Portugal nor most European countries are above this at all. If only they were. Look at all the national IDs rolled out, those too more and more mandatory Apple/Android 2FA. Will Portuguese teachers never downgrade any students who do all their homework on e.g. OpenOffice and it doesn't look nice on the teacher's MS Office? Doubt it.
      - pjmlp 10mo ago
        Most students in Portugal still deliver their work assigments in paper, and if they want a computer, parents buy one to have at home, usually shared by all that are going to school. We have had national IDs since forever, with fingerprints, we don't go crazy about it like in some other countries, even though we suffered a dictorship with lots of human losses, colonial wars, and even though PIDE/DGS wasn't KGB or Stasi level, it also managed to impact our society. I should know, I am part of the first generation to grow up in freedom, while hearing the grown up stories of how everything came to be.
musicale 10mo ago
It's really too bad that essential public services can't be hosted on the web so that you could use them on any platform - smartphone, laptop, tablet, whatever - and would have an alternative to Apple and Google's game stores. Basic apps don't need fancy 3D graphics (and even if they did we have webGL etc.)
- mdhb 10mo ago
  Apple’s 20 year campaign to intentionally undermine and artificially cripple the web platform has a lot to answer for here.
  - JimDabell 10mo ago
    There is no single organisation that has done more to push the mobile web forward than Apple. Seriously, name one. Nobody gave a shit about the mobile web until Apple launched the iPhone, where one of its main selling points was a “desktop-class web browser”, where Steve Jobs told announced that if they wanted to run apps on the iPhone, they should be web apps. Then suddenly everybody started demanding “iPhone-compatible websites” overnight. Nobody was asking for “mobile websites”, which until that point were shitty WAP/WML things, or – in the best case – cut back m.example.com microsites. People wanted “iPhone-compatible websites”. And then all the other phone vendors used Apple’s open-source WebKit code (open-source thanks to KDE, useful on mobile thanks to Apple) to release their own browsers, and the mobile web took off like a rocket because suddenly it was useful because people could use real websites. And let’s not forget Steve Jobs telling people to avoid Flash and use open web standards instead. There is a very clear before/after with the mobile web, and it’s the launch of the iPhone and all the work Apple put into making WebKit work well on mobile that provided that watershed moment. Apple were championing the web in the time period you claim they were “intentionally undermining and artificially crippling it”. Now, you may be underwhelmed by their performance in more recent years, but it’s simply factually untrue that they have had a 20 year campaign to undermine the web.
    - mdhb 10mo ago
      [flagged]
raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
And the business you need to interact with through your phone and government services are not going through in app payments and giving Apple a cut. At most they are accepting Apple Pay and being charged standard credit card fees Cry me a river for the Epics of the world selling loot boxes and other pay to win crap. It came out in the trial that 90% of App Store revenue is coming from games. Neither Epic, Google or Apple are on the side of the angels
charcircuit 10mo ago
>the degree of monopolization simply doesn’t exist Yes, it does. Your only options are like Fornite, Roblox, or Minecraft. Saying make your own game, is like saying make your own phone. There is tremendous value in the gigantic userbases these platforms have. This value is why platform holders can charge for access to them.
- shakna 10mo ago
  Those are my _only_ options? Wow. I guess Steam must be bankrupt and surviving off just four games. And I guess Epic and Steam just don't compete. And itch and GoG are just irrelevant with no market impact. Sorry for the sarcasm, but gaming is not "choose between these two" level of monopilisation. And indies just won game of the year awards! Things are just not monopolised.
  - charcircuit 10mo ago
    Steam is not a competitor to Fortnite. Fortnite gives you a lot for free as a platform compared to what you get from Steam.
  - Rohansi 10mo ago
    Steam must just be a front because none of those games are available on it.
- Rohansi 10mo ago
  > Your only options are like Fornite, Roblox, or Minecraft. What?? Unlike phones nothing locks people into only playing a specific game. And there are so many other games out there to choose from.
  - charcircuit 10mo ago
    Nothing locks you into a specific phone. I have both a primary Android and iOS phone that I use. >are so many other games out there to choose from. But how many can you make a business on top of that can pay competitively? It's like how there are a ton of operating systems to choose from, yet only a few that are viable to build upon.
hnlmorg 10mo ago
> For one thing, the degree of monopolization simply doesn’t exist. Gaming is a market. There are many gaming platforms that are extremely popular. Xbox, PS, Nintendo, Steam, and then just open Except there isn’t multiple stores on Xbox or PlayStation or Switch. Which is directly comparable to the iOS lock ins that Epic was fighting against. > But more importantly, gaming isn’t an essential part of life, which is basically what smartphones, dominated entirely by iOS/Android, have become at this point. True but also irrelevant. Monopoly laws don’t make those distinctions. > And finally, maybe this is just me, but I think the idea that general purpose computing is the same as playing video games just strikes me as wrong. Again, monopoly laws don’t make any distinction here. However to answer your direct point, some consoles are marketed as more general purpose devices for taxation reasons. All consoles support YouTube, most have other streaming services from Netflix to Spotify. They all come with a fully capable web browser. Even their hardware has been generic for the last few generations of consoles. So they are general purpose devices in all metrics aside from the variety of apps available. And you could argue the reason for this is literally because of their “App Store” lock ins. So your argument here is evidence against the point you’re trying to make. > General purpose computing, which is what phones are, are basic infrastructure for modern life. That’s not the definition of a “general purpose computing device” and I reject the idea that iOS and Android are equivalent to water, roads and electricity. I do agree that smartphones are a MASSIVELY useful asset, but you don’t actually need a smartphone for modern life. Plenty of older people still manage just fine without iOS nor Android. They’ll use a laptop or PC to access the same services via a web browser. Furthermore, the companies who are fighting iOS lock ins are not critical services. Epic, for example, is a gaming company. They don’t provide health or banking services. You can’t do your taxes in Fortnight. You don’t book your car in for a service via an app built in Unreal Engine. Epic build games not essential infrastructure.
- musicale 10mo ago
  This analysis is correct. Epic's business incentive has always been lowering platform fees paid to Apple and Google for Fortnite compared to what they are paying Nintendo and Sony for Fortnite.
  - 10mo ago
AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
It seems like the better way to dispose of these comparisons is to just to treat them the same and require Xbox etc. to allow alternative stores too. Would thousands be killed if that were required? Simply don't allow devices to exclude competing distribution systems, whatsoever.
- musicale 10mo ago
  I'm a bit surprised that the DMA etc. didn't end up applying to Xbox, and how Microsoft has tried to make implausible arguments about how iPhone should be open but Xbox should be closed. The killer app for jailbreaking game systems is and has always been running unlicensed games, a scenario which Apple, Xbox, and Nintendo vigorously object to. It's also why Sony killed Linux on PS3. On the other hand, you can run unlicensed games on Android and it hasn't killed Google Play.