Comment on A Jury Will Decide If Google's App Store Is an Unjust Monopoly
DeadlineX@lemm.ee 7 months agoEpic games decided they don’t want to pay 30% of every transaction to Google or Apple. They sued Apple already and lost. They’ve filed an appeal, so we will hear more on that soon ish. I’m not an epic fan at all, but 30% of all sales is ridiculous. Epic themselves take 12% on the epic store. Valve, Apple, Google—none of these companies should get a third of the sale price for everything sold through an app downloaded from there store. Not just the price of the app, but all app revenue. Every in app purchase. All of it.
The $25 registration fee is just for the account. That’s negligible considering Apple charges $100 a year. It’s the commission these companies take that epic is suing over.
ryper@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
The Epic Games Store isn’t profitable so it may not be a good example for how fees should be set.
Also, Epic is trying to argue lower fees would benefit consumers but games generally aren’t cheaper on Epic’s store than on Steam.
barsoap@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Yeah I mean they’re handing out games for free left and right, their store sucks, their reputation sucks (both among gamers and most devs), of course they’re not making a profit. Their 12% cut is only able to about cover costs because it doesn’t include transaction fees and while I’d like Stream to lower their cut they’re providing a fuckton of service for devs and the health of the wider ecosystem. I’d wish Gabe would finally figure out succession, though, e.g. make Valve a foundation, think Zeiss or Bosch, to make sure it stays bound to statutes instead of finance for eternity.
DeadlineX@lemm.ee 7 months ago
They aren’t cheaper in epic, but more money goes to the publishers and developers. It sucks when a game studio you like goes under.
I’d argue they aren’t profitable because of steam. Everybody uses steam, and most people will wait 6 months to get the epic exclusives after the exclusivity runs out.
arc@lemm.ee 7 months ago
I guess as a studio it boils down to is would they rather get 70% of 10 million sales or 88% of 1 million sales. They have to make that calculus and also whether they’re going to spend money to make, test, distribute and support multiple builds of the same game to capture as many sales from as many platforms as possible.
I once made a game for Android that I distributed on Play, Amazon and Blackberry(!) app stores and it soon became a huge pain in the ass. Since the stores have different banner / screenshot requirements, different upload requirements, even different approval procedures that could mean uploads took a week to appear. In the end I just gave up and used Play because it was the largest audience and relatively frictionless.
DeadlineX@lemm.ee 7 months ago
I think the way 2k does it is a good model. They release in epic exclusively for like 6 months, and tben steam and epic after. Idk what the different requirements are for the various game stores, but the build version should be the same for a software that large.
It’s also the publishers job to handle marketing, so that would fall under their purview rather than the devs at least. With 2k’s model for the ‘lands series, they get the best of both worlds for the most part. The only customers they lose are the ones who are staunchly against using multiple game portals or just really dislike epic for one reason or another.
For a small developer, I do agree though. It comes down to whether they think a larger audience will benefit them. Sometimes being a large fish in a small pond is better, sometimes not. I won’t pretend I’ve got personal experience marketing and selling a game, but I do believe (and not just because I’m a developer) that the dev companies and publishers should get more of the pie than the platform they are selling on.