Epic Launches #FreeFortnite Campaign in Retaliation to Apple (and Now Google)

jimbobaus on 14/08/2020 - 09:21
Last edited 14/08/2020 - 09:35

So This is how the story goes
1) Epic adds a direct payment option into mobile versions of Fortnite
2) Apple removes Fortnite from App Store as it is against the Apple TOS to allow direct payment options, as Apple misses out on its 30% cut.
ONE HOUR LATER: Epic drops this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiSHuaw6Q4&feature=emb_logo
(its like they knew it would happen or something)
NOT LONG LATER: Google removes Fortnite from its Play Store for same reasons

Epic announces legal action against apple policy minutes after its removal from app store
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53773715

Epic has now announced they are adding Google to the list in their lawsuit.
However due to the way Android works you can still download and access Fortnite via other means such as the epic launcher for Android.

Epic's Press release: (not updated since Google removed the game)
https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/freefortnite

Google statement:
The open Android ecosystem lets developers distribute apps through multiple app stores. For game developers who choose to use the Play Store, we have consistent policies that are fair to developers and keep the store safe for users. While Fortnite remains available on Android, we can no longer make it available on Play because it violates our policies. However, we welcome the opportunity to continue our discussions with Epic and bring Fortnite back to Google Play.

Gaming Epic Games Free to Play (Video Game) Video Game

Related Stores

Epic Games
Epic Games

Comments

  • MatteCar on 14/08/2020 - 09:30
    +11

    Ridiculous! They expect to earn billions per year paying 100$ for distribution!
    As a little developer I should stay with them but I’m definitely with Apple.

    I also hope Apple start another legal action against them for using 1984 spot!

    • brendanm on 14/08/2020 - 10:50
      +1

      Lol, apple owns 1984 now?

      • MatteCar on 14/08/2020 - 10:59
        -3

        Apple paid someone for the concept of that ad or whatever, there was an idea. It has just been copied against them.
        Apple willl never do any legal act against that but would be interesting, hypothetically, to see what happens

        • brendanm on 14/08/2020 - 11:41
          +10

          You must be sucking the apple koolaid down by the 44 gallon drum. By that thinking, George Orwells estate should take apple to court over their theft of the premise of his book.

          • MatteCar on 14/08/2020 - 11:52
            -3

            @brendanm: Apple hasn’t used 1984 against mr. Orwells, plus I’m pretty sure that Apple or whoever they commissioned that ad from, made sure they were not making any copyright infringement.
            Epic just copy-pasted that ad to use it against their creators to incite some 13yo boys to set a shitstorm against Apple because Apple is mean and nasty. Aahhhh 2020 marketing!

        • whooah1979 on 14/08/2020 - 16:59
          +1

          It isn't possible to patent or copyright an idea.

          • Lysander on 17/08/2020 - 11:13

            @whooah1979: Thank you. Finally someone who understands this and doesn't talk out of their behind.
            The implementations of an idea could possibly be protected but if its a different implementation to the one protected you are out of luck too.

  • SnowDragon on 14/08/2020 - 09:36
    +14

    Firstly Epic already have enough money (or perhaps they need to pay for their free games somehow!)

    30% is a standard. Steam take a cut. Google take a cut. Apple take a cut. They are taking 30% because they are providing a service: hosting your application and providing it to their users.

    If you want to have direct payment options, just provide the .apk and .ipa files and give instructions on how to install third party apps (although iOS requires jail breaking possibly).
    Otherwise suck it up and deal with it like every other company does.

    Epic are being cry babies about it. Just because they take a 12% cut, doesn't mean every other company has to follow suit.

    • swimmingtoad on 14/08/2020 - 09:39
      +14

      30% is steep, however it is their platform so they can dictate the price. No different from UberEats charging restaurants 30%.
      This is the reason developers are moving away from Steam onto Epic to sell games, which charge about 10-15%.
      This seems like a PR/Marketing stunt to get other developers onboard and start awareness/a movement.

      • SnowDragon on 14/08/2020 - 09:47

        Surely by doing this they are potentially losing out on a truckload of money while Fortnite isn't on the appstore(s)?
        Although it doesn't stop people who already have it installed from playing it, so I guess the amount would be minimal.

        • jimbobaus on 14/08/2020 - 10:00
          +4

          It doesn't stop them now… but they will not be able to update the game next season

          Will there be any account issues if I continue to play Fortnite’s 13.40 update on my iOS device while also playing subsequent updates on other devices?

          If you already downloaded Fortnite via the App Store, you should have no issues continuing to play Chapter 2 - Season 3’s 13.40 update — whether you’re only playing on mobile devices or also playing the latest version of Fortnite on other devices.

          Once Chapter 2 - Season 4 begins, players accessing Fortnite will still be able to play the 13.40 version of Fortnite, but will not be able to access any new content or the new Battle Pass.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/08/2020 - 09:49

        Yep.
        Definitely trying to point out how they're so much cheaper to host PC games on Epic vs Steam and trying to get mobile providers to do the same before they jump into the mobile market

      • RockyRaccoon on 14/08/2020 - 10:37
        -2

        30% sounds step, but factor in things like 10-20% off ITunes cards and the 30% isnt that any more.

        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/558012

        And then Apple pays a percentage to the retailer as well

        Now is that still too much for Apple etc?

        We will find out if the lawsuit is successful.

        One thing for sure - the Lawyers will still get their cut whoever "wins" 🤑

      • nomoneynoproblems on 14/08/2020 - 13:47
        +1

        Developers are only going to Epic because they're getting paid to.

        • Lysander on 17/08/2020 - 11:21
          -2

          They are going there because they get to keep 18% more money for their work.
          Insane, hey??😉

          • nomoneynoproblems on 17/08/2020 - 11:46
            +1

            @Lysander: Yet Epic still make them sign exclusivity despite the extra cut they receive. You would think that developers would flock to the Epic store on their own accord but for whatever reason Epic need to lock them in. Insane, hey?

            • Lysander on 17/08/2020 - 11:51

              @nomoneynoproblems: Exclusivity contracts are also about preventing Steam from exercising pressure onto devs.
              Steam tries anyway with their updated T&Cs for devs (read them).
              Plus Steam has exclusives too - they just don't announce it.
              Example: Lobotomy Corp.
              At least with Epic I can buy keys from other stores, Lobotomy Corp.is ONLY sold on Steam. Cannot get keys anywhere else.

              https://store.steampowered.com/app/568220/Lobotomy_Corporati…

              https://isthereanydeal.com/game/lobotomycorporationmonsterma…

              • nomoneynoproblems on 17/08/2020 - 12:51
                +1

                @Lysander: Lol what pressure? You mean the one where you can't advertise games on steam and then pull a complete 180 and sell it on Epic? That was introduced due to Metro Exodus accepting pre orders and garnered front page promo for a good 6 months prior to announcing Epic exclusivity. Valve doesn't force publishers or developers from selling anywhere else like Epic do and just because Lobotomy Corp choose to sell on Steam, doesn't mean Valve entered an agreement with them for exclusivity. Maybe, I dunno Steam has all the support tools, largest marketplace, integrated community hubs and proven track record? The mental gymnastics for Epic is sad dude.

                • Lysander on 17/08/2020 - 13:53
                  -2

                  @nomoneynoproblems: How do you know there is not such agreement? 🤔
                  I work in this area, have drafted a few of such agreements and have yet to come across a single occasion where a developer voluntarily limits its income to a single sales outlet that is not his own.
                  But you know better of course, I am sure.

                  What you cite as pros are actually more reasons to curb Steam's power. Remember, they did NOT offer refunds voluntarily but had to be forced by litigation. How is that for being pro consumer and pro gamer?😂😂😂😂

                  • nomoneynoproblems on 17/08/2020 - 22:27
                    +1

                    @Lysander: Because Valve doesn't buy exclusivity, why would valve buy a little known indie developer from Korea. You've gone from thinking publishers actually wanting to move to Epic because of a higher cut to shifting the goal post in that Steam somehow exerts 'pressure onto devs' then Steam being so good at what they do that they deserve they should be curbed? And now they're the bad guy because 3 years ago the ACCC slapped them with a 7 figure bill. For someone that supposedly works in the industry you have have no idea what you're talking about and frankly look silly. Take the L and move on man.

    • whooah1979 on 14/08/2020 - 17:09
      +5

      Apple has a monopoly on iOS. Microsoft got theirs handed to them in 2001 when the court ruled that they were operating a monopoly with their windows OS and IE.

      Epic or other developers have a case for antitrust against Apple considering Apple's closed iOS. This closed iOS prevents consumers from loading unapproved app on their platform.

      • Lysander on 17/08/2020 - 11:25
        +1

        In fact Apple actively prevents any installs not made through their store front. That is why iPhones must be jailbroken before it can be done.
        Which is a key difference to Google and is why Apple will likely lose (definitely in EU) and/or give in before judgment.

        • AddNinja on 22/08/2020 - 14:47
          +1

          I think you’re wrong about Apple losing this. A 30% cut is about the going rate and controlling what software can be installed on a device is commonly used by other companies. Anyway, time will tell who’s right.

      • AddNinja on 22/08/2020 - 14:43
        +1

        Yes Apple controls what is loaded on the devices they own. That is not the same as a monopoly. For example, they sell fewer than 50% of phones/iPads - you don’t need to buy Apple, and as a developer you don’t need to sell on their platform.

        Also, controlling what is sold on your platform is a common industry tactic. Think Sony, Nintendo etc.

        Apple is rich, I’m all for companies using negative press to try to get a better deal from Apple. But I can’t see how they could be accused of using a monopoly to control the market.

        • whooah1979 on 22/08/2020 - 16:14

          Yes Apple controls what is loaded on the devices they own.

          No. The ownership of the device or widget is transferred to the end-user once they buy the device. The end-user may from that point modify the device. This has been tested in court.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens_v_Kabushiki_Kaisha_Son…
          http://classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/…

          Apple's iOS is designed in a way that prevents end-users from sideloading (modifying) apps even when they have ownership of the device. That is a monopoly and a violation of antitrust law.

          • AddNinja on 22/08/2020 - 18:25
            +1

            @whooah1979: I completely agree with the facts you raise, just not your interpretation of them. You are allowed to modify your iPhone in anyway you like. Equally, Apple is allowed to make it hard to do so.

            Their success in doing so doesn’t make them a monopoly - I’m fairly sure of that. I have no idea whether it is a violation of anti-trust though.

            A monopoly is something that exists within a wider market place and occurs when there is no (adequate) competition to the product you sell. Epic doesn’t have to sell on the Apple App Store, customers don’t have to buy Apple products. See how this is different to Microsoft back in the day? You essentially had to buy their operating system to operate a business, and they used this fact for all sorts of abuse (remember you couldn’t buy built PCs without a MS license)

            Having said that, I might be wrong, and if I am I promise to say “I was wrong on the internet” :)

            • whooah1979 on 22/08/2020 - 18:28
              +1

              @AddNinja: I wrong all the time. Just count my history of negs. ;)

    • Lysander on 17/08/2020 - 11:19
      -4

      @Snowdragon Just because something is standard doesn't mean it is reasonable.
      Not too long ago CDs cost $29.99 and that was standard. Was making $27 profit (to be divided between publisher and artist) reasonable? NO.
      Also standards change.
      Try charging this today - even though it was standard then it is lunacy now.
      30% is not okay for what they provide. It is better than the third party charity fundraisers who get to keep 90% or more of your first two years' donations but it is still a rip-off.
      And what kind of argument is "Epic has already enough money"? What about Apple? Compared with Apple Epic is absolutely poor, a total Centrelink case!

  • FireRunner on 14/08/2020 - 09:56

    It looks like Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo also take ~30%. Why doesn't Epic go after them?

    • jimbobaus on 14/08/2020 - 09:58
      +4

      because those platforms allow you to buy direct from Epic and bypass their comms

      • FireRunner on 14/08/2020 - 10:44

        So what does Epic pay to have their game on the console stores?

        • Lysander on 17/08/2020 - 11:29

          Being able to advertise that your platform has Fortnite is a benefit for those platforms as it is important for the kiddies. The same way that Uncharted sells PlayStations and Halo XBoxes (well, at least before it also came to PC but still not on PS as far as I know).

      • AddNinja on 22/08/2020 - 14:49

        No they don’t. You can’t buy software for Playstations that hasn’t been approved by Sony. Same for Nintendo.

        • jimbobaus on 22/08/2020 - 14:52

          You can buy VBucks on Epic Store and use it on your Nintendo/Sony account due to link with Epic.
          So yes you can buy direct from epic and use on Switch/PS4/Xbox/PC
          Vbucks purchased from epic direct can not be used on Mobile Platforms and this was Epic's way of trying to get around that and save money in comms to apple/google
          to spend vbucks on mobile platforms they needed to be purchased on the mobile device directly.

          • AddNinja on 22/08/2020 - 15:04

            @jimbobaus: I didn’t know about this. But I take it Sony still get their cut right? And you must still deal with Sony for them to allow you to run their game on their platform. So it is not like I could write my own game for the PS4 and release it without Sony both approving it, and getting their cut? (Unlike the PC world say).

            • jimbobaus on 22/08/2020 - 15:23
              +1

              @AddNinja: If you buy VBucks through the store on PS4 they get a cut for sure.

              But sony allows your to access your epic account which means you can buy them direct from Epic on PC say and use those vbucks when logged into your account on PS4 (you can also use bucks bought on PS4 when logged in on your PC)

              If you play on mobile as well, you will have 0 Vbucks visibile in your account if you bought them on another platform (pc for example) and would need to buy via the in game store. in turn the bucks purchased on mobile can not be used on other platforms like PC/PS4 etc

              another example is FFXIV
              You buy the game via PS 4 store (Sony gets their cut)
              but the monthly sub is paid to Square Enix directly and sony gets no % from that sub payment but allows you to access that game on your PS4 (without needing PS Plus either)
              Sony gets a cut from selling the game (or supplying it free via their store which the dev pays a fee or commission for)

    • sss333 on 14/08/2020 - 10:49
      +4

      Tim Sweeny's thoughts on console vs PC

      Consoles aren’t quite comparable. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo spend billions of dollars building hardware and often sell it at a loss for years, subsidizing it through game sales. Whereas we and Valve just wrote PC launchers and partnered with payment processors.
      https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/111398556543376588…

      • FireRunner on 14/08/2020 - 10:59
        +1

        Apple also designs and manufacturers their own devices, except not at a loss. Google is a bit more like Steam since it’s just a storefront on the android system

  • NotAnAudiophile on 14/08/2020 - 10:07
    +1

    Start of a trend… google and Apple need to drop their comms.

  • skid on 14/08/2020 - 10:25

    This should be interesting. I read a prediction which said that if Apple loses the lawsuit, they might respond by adding a tiered system where the higher the revenue, the lower the service charge. e.g. sales of more than a million units, taxed at 20%.

    • SnowDragon on 14/08/2020 - 10:37

      I think this should be the standard.

      For indie devs a 30% cut is quite a bit. But when you're making millions a day, you can afford 30%. It's a bit tough that you already need to fork out $99 USD a year just to have your things on the app store.

      • skid on 14/08/2020 - 10:48

        It'd be hard to imagine that Apple would flip it e.g. higher the revenue, higher the service charge. The bulk of their store comprises of indie devs. Apple would lose a large amount of revenue that way.

  • WoodYouLikeSomeCash on 14/08/2020 - 10:27

    Be interesting to see how this goes.

    • MatteCar on 14/08/2020 - 10:31
      +5

      Spotify already tried…they gave up…

  • Bid Sniper on 14/08/2020 - 11:56
    +3

    Bit more murkey than that Tencent (CCP company) owes 40% share in Epic. So Trump ban on Chinese apps in 45 days will screw them anyway, this was a way to bypass that ban.

    /grabs popcorn for this battle

    • Lysander on 17/08/2020 - 11:40
      1. Read the news: gaming is not affected
      2. Check what else Tencent has stakes in (from Wikipedia):
      • Full ownership of Riot Games, the American developers of Valorant and League of Legends[155]
      • Full ownership of Norwegian publisher Funcom.[156][157]
      • Full ownership of Swedish developer Sharkmob, founded in 2017 by ex-Ubisoft developers and fully acquired by Tencent in 2019.[158]
      • 80% ownership in the New Zealand company Grinding Gear Games, the developers of the game Path of Exile.[159][160][161]
      • Approximately 84% ownership in Finnish mobile game developer Supercell, makers of Clash of Clans and Clash Royale[162]
      • 40% ownership of American developers Epic Games, the developer of popular online game Fortnite[163]
      • 20% ownership of Japanese publisher and developer Marvelous which own G-Mode and the majority of Data East's intellectual properties including: BurgerTime, Joe & Mac, and Magical Drop franchises.[164]
      • 18.6% ownership of Chinese company iDreamSky, which mainly develops and publishes mobile games for the Chinese market.
      • 5% ownership of Chinese company Century Huatong, which operates games developed by FunPlus.[165] Tencent became a shareholder through an investment in Century Huatong's subsidiary Shengqu Games.[166]
      • 17.66% ownership of South Korean mobile developer Netmarble.[167]
        Approximately 15% ownership of American mobile game developer Glu Mobile[168]
      • 13.54% ownership of South Korean company Kakao, the parent company of South Korean publisher Kakao Games.[169][170]
      • 9% ownership in UK developer Frontier Developments[171]
      • 5% ownership of American holding company Activision Blizzard, the parent company of Activision, Blizzard and King[168]
      • 5% ownership of Swedish publisher Paradox Interactive[168]
      • 5% ownership in France's Ubisoft, purchased from Vivendi following Vivendi's failed attempt to buy out Ubisoft in March 2018[172][173]
      • 1.5% ownership of South Korean company Bluehole, the publisher of PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds.
      • Majority ownership in Switzerland-based mobile game developer Miniclip[174]
      • Capital Investment in Japanese developer PlatinumGames[175]
      • Minority share in German developer Yager Development[176]

      Also: from Wikipedia:

      So far, the TGP console has imported many Tencent games, such as League of Legends, FIFA Online 3, NBA 2K, Monster Hunter, Need for Speed, and PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds

      Do you think Trump will get rid of the above then just because Tencent is involved?

  • coray8 on 14/08/2020 - 12:02
    +1

    The Battle of the Greedy (profanity), who will win?

  • trapper on 14/08/2020 - 12:57
    +5

    I don't mind the 30% commission, their store their rules.

    Where it gets sketchy though is how Apple dictates that purchases made outside the app store (via website for example) can't be cheaper than the app store price.

    Developers should have the freedom to set their own prices. If Apple wants to whack +30% on the app store price then that should be on them.

    • djkelly69 on 14/08/2020 - 13:10

      Where it gets sketchy though is how Apple dictates that purchases made outside the app store (via website for example) can't be cheaper than the app store price.

      Yeah I think this is probably the real issue they will be arguing about, as it seems (without having really read anything about it) very anti-competitive.

    • jimbobaus on 14/08/2020 - 13:35

      This is interesting.
      I know that as i pay for my US Hulu Subscription via Apple/iTunes i pay more.
      Hulu sent an email about a year ago advising that subscriptions via apple would be increased and they in turn increased them.

      maybe there is some exceptions to the rules?

      • trapper on 14/08/2020 - 15:15
        +1

        I think I might have got that wrong actually… you can sell it cheaper elsewhere, you're just not allow to tell the user that inside the app.

  • skid on 14/08/2020 - 13:28
    +2

    The google statement sounds fair and all. Problem is the Play store is pre-installed on most Android phones. Any other store pales in comparison to its coverage. Microsoft got in hot water by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. Google is just as anti-competitive.

  • Strahany on 14/08/2020 - 20:35
    +1

    I don’t buy in to the lack of “choice” for developers.

    The “choice” aspect came into it when they chose to develop for iOS, in the first place, knowing the unchanging TOS. You don’t have to develop for iOS in the same way you don’t have to develop for the PS4 or the XBOX. Not to mention that this is a fairly standard charge, and is what Microsoft and Sony (the latter being a major business partner of Epic’s) charge themselves. The game consoles, just like iOS, don’t allow other avenues for purchasing digital content, nor do they allow any sideloading. They’re locked-down OS’s for reasons of security and piracy.

    I also don’t want sideloading to become possible for security reasons; many people who choose Apple devices do so because of the locked-down OS. They choose to sacrifice sideloading and other more open facets in exchange for greater security. Forcing Apple to add in this feature would effectively render the market options down to a choice between Android or Android-lite.

    Epic are effectively trying to force Apple to try to change their business model in a clearly long-planned stunt whilst Apple are under security for anti-competitive practises (they had a whole lawsuit and ad ready to go)! Whilst it’s a clever business move, it’s a thinly veiled stunt, what with their CEO potting Apple for the last ~6 months, publicly.

    It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.

    • Zephyrus on 19/08/2020 - 22:11

      The problem is that Apple has two things, the Apple store, and iOS. They're using the fact they are they make iOS to make it so the Apple store has a monopoly, this is blatantly anti-competitive. If security is the real problem, there's nothing stopping Apple from forcing approval of every app, as long as they do it a way that isn't anti-competitive.

      Modern versions of Android more secure (I work in a related area to this) than iOS, it just gives you the option to open it up a bit. Which in my mind is much better, as it allows legitimate competitors to exist that are reputable i.e. Amazon.

  • mubd1234 on 14/08/2020 - 22:13

    I do think that the Apple and Google moves to block third-party developers from using their own payment mechanisms for in-app purchases is anti-competitive, especially given the prominence that the Play Store and App Store on these OSes are given. Apple is in a bit of a worse position than Google, as there is no form of circumventing their app store.

    I think a 30% cut for ALL purchases made through an app is FAR too high. I don't think there's any way they can justify taking almost a third of revenue away from developers.

    A 30% cut might be acceptable with, say, a paid app, or an app which requires an in-app purchase to unlock all functions. However, for things like monthly subscriptions or free-to-play games (where purchases are expected to be made over a long period of time), something like 5 to 10% would be reasonable in my mind.

    This kind of blanket 30% margin causes huge problems when trying to price something like a video on demand subscription across multiple platforms, where the margins are already tight. Netflix, for example, dumped billing through Apple and Google's payment platforms because of this. Netflix got away with it because the in-app billing is mostly set and forget, but it would be untenable for a game like Fortnite where purchases are an integral part of the game's interface - you can't just fob the player off to use a browser to make a purchase every time. I should say I've never played Fortnite, but I imagine this is why it's so important to Epic Games.

  • papachris on 15/08/2020 - 04:51

    Epic continues to pull out pins and toss grenades around. Eventually they will drop one at their own feet. No one will jump on it for them…

  • b0rnwithabeard on 15/08/2020 - 10:29
    +4

    forgive me if i don’t feel bad for the company who made $1.8B revenue last year just from Fortnite.

    Play by the rules or gtfo

    • Faro on 15/08/2020 - 15:22

      It's hard to feel sorry for any of these 3 giant corporations to be honest. Not sure why anyone would feel compelled to take a side at all.

      • ozbjunkie on 16/08/2020 - 00:19
        +4

        I see where you're coming from, and you're probably right.

        However, epic openly disregarding the policies of the Play store and apple store, possibly just as a way to obtain a bunch of free publicity before it enters the mobile space, just seems scummy to me.

        They're not doing it to highlight the injustices against small indie developers struggling to make a living. They're complaining about Google and apple being these giant bullies of the tech world, while at the same time trying to bully Google and apple based on the fact that fortnight has (among other things) made epic a giant of the tech world.

        • b0rnwithabeard on 17/08/2020 - 09:52

          upvoted.

          That’s my biggest gripe about it - if they were a tiny 2-man indie dev house, i’d absolutely get behind it, but Epic? Come on, you’re hardly struggling to keep up with rent. I’m sure I could google this answer, but I’d be curious to know what percentage of revenue is done through mobile purchases compared to PC & console

          • Lysander on 17/08/2020 - 11:59
            -3

            @b0rnwithabeard: So if something is wrong you support action against the wrong of it's a two people outfit but you accept the wrong of the entity fighting the wrong is a big corporation???
            Yes, very logical. Vulcan-like logic. No emotions involved here.

            • ozbjunkie on 17/08/2020 - 20:07
              +2

              @Lysander: The logic is in the premise of the complaint.
              "Stop big companies throwing their weight around" sounds a little disingenuous from Epic because it is a big company throwing its weight around.

          • whooah1979 on 17/08/2020 - 12:12

            @b0rnwithabeard: Apple charges 30%. This is passed onto the end user. A win for epic would be a win for all devs giving them the opportunity to file class actions against Apple for antitrust behaviour.

    • Lysander on 17/08/2020 - 11:46

      True. Feel sorry for the company that made $260 billion last year. Much better.
      Apple store had gross sales of $50 billion in 2019. 30% of that makes $15 billion.
      Kinda dwarfs the Fortnite money.

      Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/01/07/app…

  • whooah1979 on 17/08/2020 - 10:14
    +1

    Apple has a long history of antitrust practices which makes them a target by multiple authorities and private entities. They’ll face more and lawsuits the longer they keep their wall up.
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/15/apples-antitrust-…
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/03/16/apple-fined-12-bi…
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/23/doj-announces-mas…
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/05/23/fresh-app-store-m…

  • ThePriceMatchGuy on 17/08/2020 - 11:13
    +1

    I've never really seen the appeal in Fortnite tbh, Fall Guys ftw! I hope they bring that game to mobile!

    • Sammy Boi on 17/08/2020 - 20:07
      +1

      I watched the sideman playing that last night and it was hilarious

      • ThePriceMatchGuy on 18/08/2020 - 08:50
        +1

        hahah no way! I watched the same video yesterday, JJ is hilarious

  • Sammy Boi on 17/08/2020 - 20:07
    +1

    Epic games is a joke I hate what fortnight did for that Company and in my opinion the only reason they succeeded was because they knew how to use their game engine and the people they licensed it to didn't.

  • scotty on 18/08/2020 - 11:01
    +4

    Need more popcorn now.

    Apparently Apple is also going to terminate all Epic Games' iOS/Mac development accounts & access to tools, API, etc. Note that Epic Games is the studio behind Unreal Engine — I wonder how that would affect games developed on that engine on macOS.

    • skid on 18/08/2020 - 11:07

      Apple sticking to their guns haha.

      Games from other developers using UE shouldn't be affected.

    • whooah1979 on 18/08/2020 - 11:21
      -1

      will terminate all our developer accounts and cut Epic off from iOS and Mac development tools.

      This supports Epic's claim that Apple has a monopoly in this market. They can flip a switch take away the jobs tens of thousands of people.

    • jimbobaus on 21/08/2020 - 15:42

      I saw this
      And I lol’d

    • jv on 21/08/2020 - 15:46
      +3

      Thanks,

      Will see if my kids want to sell their old iphones and upgrade to brand new ones.
      The don't play fortnite anymore.

      • WoodYouLikeSomeCash on 21/08/2020 - 15:56

        Yeah if they don’t have it but they had it in the past they can also re install it :)

  • skid on 19/11/2020 - 09:00

    Apple cuts its service fee from 30% to 15% for developers earning less than $1mil on January 1st, 2021.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join