-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Verge: Google says it won’t grant Fortnite an exemption to the Play Store’s 30 percent cut
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Excuse me? What I'm saying is directly applicable to the mobile situation at hand, I haven't mentioned steam once. If your mind happens to go there because this isn't consistent behavior, that's not on me.
Haha. They would lose a hell of a lot more than 30% revenue if they tried that.
LOL.
That's disappointing. It's shocking that Android and Apple still charge 30% to developers. An exemption for Fortnite could have been the start of a better deal for everyone.
People forget this about Steam.
Trying to bully Google didn't work lol
Yes, because supporting the app stores is free, right?
Basically, what you're saying is let Epic have the special rate, and it will "trickle down" to the other devs?
Lol no.
Fortnite is free to play. They don't charge 30% to host the game, they charge 0%. This is for IAP, which not all players take advantage of. You're saying that 30% of only a fraction of the players who use their hosting services is unreasonable? Serving content is expensive. It's why only a few, giant corporations do so, because they can bare the brunt of the cost, with expectations that they'll make it up in some other way.
Keep in mind, fortnite mobile has in-game advertising, which is a major source of revenue for epic. Google takes 0% of that money.
In the gillette razor blade model, gillette gave away razors for free because distribution was very valuable to them. Hence, they'd pay the USPS to courier their razorblades for them. The gillette razorblade model doesn't consider USPS charging for their delivery service to be a rip off, rather they consider that part of the equation vital. You're shocked a service that makes it's money by hosting and serving content... is asking to be paid for their service?
Last edited:
Yea why go for the biggest one , if Epic starts getting special treatment thats going to lead to other major app companies asking for concessions. They coulda tried pulling this deal with Sony or MS ( or maybe they possible already have ).
I feel like this is an enormous mistake on Epic's behalf. Just by the pure exposure given by the Play Store, I have to think they'd easily make up for Google's 30% cut and then some. Certainly would be better than telling Android users to work around the store.
It's the exact same situation as these developers complaining about Steam on PC. Sure, you can take your game somewhere else for a storefront with a lower cut, but you're going to sell more and make more on Steam.
It's the exact same situation as these developers complaining about Steam on PC. Sure, you can take your game somewhere else for a storefront with a lower cut, but you're going to sell more and make more on Steam.
I think the difference is you can sell games on pc without Steam, but you really can't on iOS without Apple. Apple is more like consoles in that respect. If there was a way to bypass iOS that would still generate similar revenue, you can be sure they would do it.
Epic already abuses the "early access" title to not pay QA fees
gonna assume that Epic said 0% cut as a means to set the bar really low so that they could then negotiate a reduced cut for the Google Playstore. My read on that probably isn't right but I assume that's the plan. Because anything else wouldn't make sense I feel lol.
also good luck with getting anything other than 30% Epic. I don't think Google is gonna be flexible about this haha
also good luck with getting anything other than 30% Epic. I don't think Google is gonna be flexible about this haha
mmhmm, sounds like it's a very good thing from a developer's perspective that there are avenues to readily and easily put out their games where the public can reach them. Sounds like a really sound argument against walled gardens. Almost like having an entity that chooses and picks which games a user can access is a really bad thing for small developers.
that might be the case if the stores selling games on open platforms weren't demanding the same cut as the walled gardens. That's why they are getting circumvented.
Because it costs less money to serve content on an open platform than a walled garden?
Also, keep in mind, this is a FREE TO PLAY GAME. Nobody is selling games here. This is about IAP. The "cut" of the sale is 100% of $0.
I wouldn't call it bullying. They simply asked and applied for an exemption through the proper channels. Or am I missing something here
It can certainly be argued that the walled gardens charging more are somewhat justified in that they have to subsidize the development costs of new consoles/phones That are sold for little to no profit and must make their money elsewhere to be worth it.
Even if you reject that argument, it doesn't much matter if it's right, its their platform and you have to do business on their terms if you want to do business. Open platforms don't have that. You can still release games on the platform without using those stores.
And of course fortnight is free to play. I'm pretty sure everyone posting here knows that, so there's really no need to shout ;) Epic is making all of their money on the in app purchases. I dont see how that makes any difference at all. They want a bigger cut of the money from their game. Which we would all agree with if it was our company.
No, that's only a fraction of the money they earn from fortnite. Fortnite itself is one of the biggest advertising platforms on the planet currently, there have been multiple advertising industry articles about it as a platform. They make money even when they earn 0% of their IAP. Fortnite as an advertising platform is where they make a ton of money, and the serving host sees not a dime of it (rightfully so).
most of their money comes from ads? Do you have a link for that? I'm having trouble finding that.
'Fortnite's revenue comes entirely from microtransactions.'
'With Battle Royale offered as a free to play game, and with no ads in sight, many players have been left wondering how Epic Games makes money from it.'
Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2018/03/13/fortnite-make-money-7383431/?ito=cbshare
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/
I never said most, I said a ton, and they do.
The CFO was a big shot in advertising working for huge brands (and ironically google before he left for my company). He shows me articles behind paywalls, fortnite is HUGE in advertising currently.
Yes you did, you said.
But fine, if you're backing off that, then we are in agreement. Most of their money comes from IAP. So it's very much in their best interest to try to get the store owners cut of that as low as possible.
A fraction != a minority, a fraction simply means it's not the totality, hence said in reply to your claim that they made all their money (i.e. Not a fraction) from IAP.
I'm not backing off anything, you misread my post.
He didn't, "a fraction" is usually used to refer to a small amount of something.
They would if it was legal and easy to download software without needing to go through the main store.
I wouldn't be surprised if Epic is asking for 0% cut from Play Store.
You must have been absolutely awful at math if this is what you think. 9/10 is a fraction. A fraction literally means any ratio that is not a whole.
And yes, if he's taking a colloquial reading of my post instead of the definitive and intended meaning, he, in the most literal sense, misread my post.
frac·tion
/ˈfrakSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: fraction; plural noun: fractions; noun: Fraction; noun: the Fraction
- a numerical quantity that is not a whole number (e.g. 1/2, 0.5)
"Epic is making all of their money on the in app purchases."
...and? Like I said, he misread my post, he is inferring the incorrect reading of what was intended. Context dictates what I meant pretty clearly.
What are you even doing here? The poster even said we're in agreement.
Poor epic just couldn't handle a 30% cut you see, fortnite doesn't make enough.
It is strange that Epic is pushing google store on this. If I am not mistaken they only sell digital goods as the game is free correct?
No offense meant, but...why would you assume that the information in a 21-month-old news article about a popular mobile game is still true? 21 months is an eternity in the mobile market.
It's also worth mentioning the specific use of "only," which as a modifier, is absolutely meant to imply a minority amount.
It'll have a bigger statement if they held the game hostage to force those stores to drop to 10%.
Again, incorrect. The poster said y'all were in agreement if you were backing off that point. But you emphasized you weren't backing down.
Only in that sentence is a conjunction, expressing contradiction. As in, it's not a whole, only a fraction.
Get back on topic, please
Nor should they. It's really is microcosm of capitalism, where the one company expecting to get the help of lesser cut is the one least needing it. Rich getting richer and all that.
They shouldn't make exceptions like that unless they want to piss off other publishers on the Play Store.
Good luck dealing with the massive backlash from iOS and console players. Epic has no choice but to play by their rules.
Last edited:
The advantage isn't in the walled garden. The advantage is in hitting as many potential customers as possible. Epic are demonstrating that hitting a wide audience through multiple store fronts is much, much prefered to selling your title to a fraction of the total user base. They are, in essence, rejecting exclusivity because the more potential customers you can reach, the more actual customers you yield. That they are "trying to weasle" into google's walled garden is proof that the best strategy is blanket coverage, not exclusivity.
Which has always been obvious. When you sell your products on multiple stores, you hit multiple types of customers.
They are also demonstrating that by missing the most popular storefront on a major platform, your sales are not nearly what they would be even when you technically release in the same space. People on android can already play fortnite, but clearly the number of people who will jump through the hoops to do so instead of going through the established market leader on that platform is smaller than they'd like.
All these are very good arguments and I applaud epic for laying it out like this. Great demonstration.