I bet the entire industry, sans Apple, Google and Sony, would love to see Sweeney win this, at least in some way.During the past financial year, the actual fees paid to platform-holders (console and Steam) for digital sales alone are estimated to be a least 2x the actual costs spent on game development during the past fiscal year. We will continue to challenge these paradigms and pursue opportunities to reduce costs and increase the relative investment into content creation.
Yeah I'm very curious to see what the final verdict will be. I followed the proceedings pretty closely and it does seem that some sort of ban on Apple anti-steering rules will happen. The most important fact about such a verdict in my opinion won't be how said ban is going to be implemented but that, in order to impose it, the judge necessarily has to rule that Apple does have a monopoly over its own ecosystem. This would be huge since it would mean that owners of walled gardens can't hide behind the "it's all proprietary and we can do what we want" argument anymore.Closing arguments are today, but otherwise the trial is done and the only thing left is to await the verdict [UWSL]and the years of appeals[/UWSL]. Just from watching the Hoeg videos, I think Epic will get a partial win (primarily with steering rules), but they most likely aren't getting what they really wanted. It would be funny if both companies wound up appealing the verdict.
I mean, the humorless trolls on the internet had already figured those out.-to not pay fees inside the app because of impulse buy(fuck them kids);
-a exclusive deal with Apple to benefit only Epic(fuck them devs);
-to Apple to distribute EGS through the App Store without fees;
Actually, it's a bit weaker than the headline of this article suggests. The judge orders Apple to allow external links of various kinds which then allow people to purchase things. So Apple doesn't have to outright allow Paypal or other payment services. They just can't stop an app developer from linking to their own website, where they can use whatever payment mechanism they like.So, Epic essentially won even though it wasn't due to their own arguments (monopoly etc.)? What?
More like Apple's defense of why no other payments methods wasn't good enough to sway it from being anti-steering, but they don't need to allow other app stores nor direct payments methods - just external, as I understand itSo, Epic essentially won even though it wasn't due to their own arguments (monopoly etc.)? What?
This is a tiny concession. With anti-Silicon Valley legislation happening around the world, and with Big Tech facing antitrust action in the US, Apple was already prepared to make that concession. All this case has done is bring it forward a couple of years.Effectively they both lost. Epic did not get what they truly wanted and Apple has to make a large concession.
It's chump change for Apple. Fortnite makes most of its money on console.I dunno fortnite money is very sweet
I don't know how Apple are going to act, but Epic is steadfast that they won't bring it back until they get what they want.I'm pretty sure Apple's Lawyers could word it so that it makes Apple seem like the nice people and let fortnite back on for that sweet, sweet Fortnite money.
Tim would cry but would the Fortnite fanbase care? Are they loyal to Fortnite or Epic? Was there a large fortnite community on Apple that would come back to the ecosystem or have they moved on?
Good. They should be.Judge seems alarmed at the extent to which impulse spending by "exorbitantly high spending gamers" drives App Store revenue.
Absolutely.But I'd be interested to see what happens if they ban the tools also.
They both lost, but I'm not so sure Apple lost as much as Jason is thinking.
So even if an app had no IAP and directed all purchases to an outside website, Apple would still be allowed to collect money. Whether that means they still claim 30% or have a lower cut for outside purchases or base the commission/licensing fee on something else entirely, I dunno. But it seems the "make F2P app and only include off-app purchases, get all the money and pay Apple nothing" reality is not likely.To be clear: "Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional." Page 68 https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631/apple-epic-judgement.pdf
There is a big difference between a percentage of revenue and a licensing fee.So even if an app had no IAP and directed all purchases to an outside website, Apple would still be allowed to collect money. Whether that means they still claim 30% or have a lower cut for outside purchases or base the commission/licensing fee on something else entirely, I dunno. But it seems the "make F2P app and only include off-app purchases, get all the money and pay Apple nothing" reality is not likely.
Sill, will have to wait for Hoeg's video on that for the details, will probably have more insights on how that could or would work.