Apple threatens to kill Unreal Engine on iOS, Fornite may never return

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Please look up the game and you will see what I'm talking about.

It doesn't prove what you think it does.   You and some of the others have straw manned this argument to death.  Even though some of your strawmen fell over before you got to burn them.   No one is arguing 30% outright is bad, they are arguing 30% for in-app when no other option exists is bad.  So unless you can address that then you don;t have an argument.

 

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

2 minutes ago, Arika S said:

 

Windows RT also barely lasted a year. so it's hardly comparable

Bareilly a year? It got 2 whole oses.

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

That doesn't make it less unrelated. Everyone and their mom seems to grapes the fact that the 30% of app sales makes sense, but you obviously don't. We are discussing the fact that the 30% of in app purchaces makes no sense.

Think Amazon only gets charged like 15% for their digital media sales on ios

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

Think Amazon only gets charged like 15% for their digital media sales on ios

Amazon doesn't let you buy through the iOS apps.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Huh. I still have my surface RT. There isn't a jailbreak for 8.1 yet. Forget iOS being the most sucure, RT is.

When I said ripped, I meant people were getting into it hard core about it being locked down and a shit product and a failure etc.  Also there were some inquiries into it being a monopoly as ArikaS pointed out.

 

Basically RT did try to do a bit of what apple are doing but lost out,  MS also offers alternatives to rt, and S that allow you toget your software from anywhere.  So in that sense it is not the same.  Bu thte point remains,  no one gave them a feepass on it.

 

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, rockking1379 said:

Please do tell of these iOS app stores that don’t require a jailbreak to acquire 

AppValley, Emus4u, Xabsi, TutuApp to name a few. 

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

That doesn't make it less unrelated. Everyone and their mom seems to grapes the fact that the 30% of app sales makes sense, but you obviously don't. We are discussing the fact that the 30% of in app purchaces makes no sense.

a) The game was only released digitally, and "retail" versions were simply a download code

b) The DLC was only available digitally, and , again, "a download code" was made available

 

You can't tell me that that "retail" is a way to buy a game when the publisher and platform doesn't permit it to be purchased, at retail or digitally, or even subject to geoblocks. I can not buy a "used" version of this game, I'd have to buy someone's PSN account that has it. That's risky as all hell.

 

The point a lot of you sorely miss is that a lot of "DLC" is already on the disc when you buy retail, and unlocking it is done through another SKU in the store, and then the game console merges the version you installed to the console with this "patch" DLC, which might be nothing more than a text file that says "DLCunlocked=true" in it. In fact that's exactly what Mass Effect 2's DLC was.

 

There is no additional cost to the console store to unlock such "on-disc" DLC, because it's already there. The Console manufacturer has to vet every update to every game in exactly the same way Apple does, thus apple charging 30% for anything that changes the downloaded product is valid an on point.

 

The problem y'all seem to think is that Apple charges too much, when really Apple doesn't charge anything for free content, and if your "free" game is unlocked with simple DLC flags controlled by the publisher, then you're intentionally going out of your way to screw Apple.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Just now, mr moose said:

When I said ripped, I meant people were getting into it hard core about it being locked down and a shit product and a failure etc.  Also there were some inquiries into it being a monopoly as ArikaS pointed out.

 

Basically RT did try to do a bit of what apple are doing but lost out,  MS also offers alternatives to rt, and S that allow you toget your software from anywhere.  So in that sense it is not the same.  Bu thte point remains,  no one gave them a feepass on it.

 

 

I didn't know, I was like 4 or 5 when RT came out. I have never seen anyone bashing RT for being stupid, besides on jailbreak fourms.

 

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Kisai said:

a) The game was only released digitally, and "retail" versions were simply a download code

b) The DLC was only available digitally, and , again, "a download code" was made available

 

You can't tell me that that "retail" is a way to buy a game when the publisher and platform doesn't permit it to be purchased, at retail or digitally, or even subject to geoblocks. I can not buy a "used" version of this game, I'd have to buy someone's PSN account that has it. That's risky as all hell.

 

The point a lot of you sorely miss is that a lot of "DLC" is already on the disc when you buy retail, and unlocking it is done through another SKU in the store, and then the game console merges the version you installed to the console with this "patch" DLC, which might be nothing more than a text file that says "DLCunlocked=true" in it. In fact that's exactly what Mass Effect 2's DLC was.

 

There is no additional cost to the console store to unlock such "on-disc" DLC, because it's already there. The Console manufacturer has to vet every update to every game in exactly the same way Apple does, thus apple charging 30% for anything that changes the downloaded product is valid an on point.

 

The problem y'all seem to think is that Apple charges too much, when really Apple doesn't charge anything for free content, and if your "free" game is unlocked with simple DLC flags controlled by the publisher, then you're intentionally going out of your way to screw Apple.

That was a choice of the developer, not forced by the platform.  There in lies the reason it is a moot argument.

 

 

 

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Amazon doesn't let you buy through the iOS apps.

Check again

 

[Sarra]

1 minute ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Why do you absolutely hate both. I get apple, and epic isn't a saint, but they have been making games for decades, and most are pretty good.

Well, Apple and I go way back. I learned on Apple machines, we're talking IIe's and the early Macs, and I loved them. But after moving on to Intel, they just seemed really greedy. My first smartphone was a Windows CE based nightmare, my second being an iPhone 3GS, and while my first iPhone was great, and I eventually did get a 4S, I just felt... Leashed by the rules and restrictions. I moved over to Android, and my Nexus 6 is still a daily use item for me, though without updates, it's a security risk, so it's just used as a music player, while my Razer Phone 2 is my daily for actual mobile use. My parents have owned 3 Macbook Pros, and all 3 have been nightmares. Having a quality problem that is repaired by 'replacing the entire unit', soldered SSD, and the ridiculous BS that basically turns them into ewaste the moment something fails, just rubs me the wrong way. The company overall just needs to be ended, or at least go back to being reasonable with right-to-repair and such. Personally, I will never willingly purchase an Apple product ever again, nor use an Apple Service.

 

As for Epic, it's mostly due to the Exclusive BS. I wanted Borderlands 3, but I also remember a time when I had 4-5 game launcher programs installed, and after much agony, have trimmed it down to just one: Steam. I refuse to bloat my system with launchers, which is why GTA5 is permanently uninstalled, and I won't be buying Red Dead 2 (Grand Theft Horse 2, IMO). I won't install Epic Game Launcher. So, having to wait 6 months for Borderlands 3 sucked. I also really want to play Snowrunner, but it appears to be an Epic exclusive forever, with no plans for a Steam launch, and that seriously needs to stop. If Epic had focused more on getting features together, as well as shorter, or non-exclusive deals, then... Well, I feel like Epic was twisting my arm, trying to force me to buy into their ecosystem, as opposed to offering me the opportunity to get good deals. Without features, Epic wasn't useful to me. With features, but also tons of exclusives, it just felt forced. If they change that, then I might consider in the future... For now, though... I'm just not interested.

 

I hope they both lose, and are forced to stop doing shady, anti-consumer practises.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Just now, pas008 said:

Check again

 

Really? Audible doesn't let you. You can use credits, but that's it.

[pas008]

1 minute ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Really? Audible doesn't let you. You can use credits, but that's it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.macworld.com/article/3536072/apples-in-app-purchase-deal-with-amazon-could-be-a-big-deal-for-the-app-store.amp.html

 

Says 15% too

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

That was a choice of the developer, not forced by the platform.  There in lies the reason it is a moot argument.

 

 

 

Nah, it was a choice by the publisher and the licencing involved.  The point still stands. I can not buy this, even if I were to buy a new PS3/PS4/PS5. That is because it was only available digitally, "retail" versions were download codes, and this is not the only game to be like that, but it one of the few games that people actually want to play that has a movie-tie-in.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/25/18281538/sony-playstation-4-gamestop-stop-selling-game-download-codes-retailers

Quote

Sony has confirmed that it will indeed prevent retailers like GameStop from selling digital download codes for PlayStation 4 games starting April 1st, 2019. The news, first circulated late last week via a leaked memo obtained by popular game deals watcher Wario64, means that players who do not want to input credit card information into Sony’s PSN platform will no longer be able to buy digital versions of games from physical brick-and-mortar stores. Sony confirmed that it isn’t just GameStop being cut out of the download code business, but all retailers.

 

[justpoet]

3 hours ago, Pickles - Lord of the Jar said:

If unreal is removed from the Apple Store then does that give Epic more ammo? 

Sort of, but not really.  It gives them the ability to say "they targeted us" more.  But the Apple response will be exactly the same as it was before, so nothing really changes.  "This is the developer agreement that all developers agree to by using our tools that we provide for free.  They are in violation of the agreement and therefor have had their account revoked."

 

Regardless of which side of the argument you want to take here, this really doesn't change anything in this specific case other than Epic deciding to gamble the lives of the developers that used their stuff too, which is quite frankly a complete dick move.  It isn't like Epic hasn't done a bunch of non-compete and exclusive requirement deals with the Epic store, either…so this is a laughable "pot meet kettle".

 

Regardless of which party wins, developers working with Epic will have reason to sue Epic.  If Epic wins, they open themselves up to more lawsuits for anti-competitive store behavior.  If Epic loses, they open themselves up to possible breach of contract and similar lawsuits from developers that used things like Unreal engine on iOS under guarantee of continued support by Epic.  Either way, Epic as a company just lost, regardless of the lawsuit outcome.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Just now, pas008 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.macworld.com/article/3536072/apples-in-app-purchase-deal-with-amazon-could-be-a-big-deal-for-the-app-store.amp.html

 

Says 15% too

Huh. Weird.  Idk if it has something to do with how my Apple id is configed (got to love locked down child apple IDs. This is the only reason I would want a Android phone. Sideloading), but this is all I see. In fact it says no cash purchaces.

[mr moose]

Just now, Kisai said:

Nah, it was a choice by the publisher and the licencing involved.  The point still stands. I can not buy this, even if I were to buy a new PS3/PS4/PS5. That is because it was only available digitally, "retail" versions were download codes, and this is not the only game to be like that, but it one of the few games that people actually want to play that has a movie-tie-in.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/25/18281538/sony-playstation-4-gamestop-stop-selling-game-download-codes-retailers

 

The point does not stand at all, your point doesn't even make sense.  The problem is apple will not let developers have a choice, and your argument is to point to a developer who had a choice.

 

You may as well argue that flashlights don't work because you have one without batteries.  It makes as much sense.

 

[CarlBar]

49 minutes ago, harryk said:

Tough luck? No one is forcing them to sell to me nor do I even necessarily want to buy what they're selling.

 

Ah I think we come from different cultures then. Here in #freedom USA, as far as my understanding goes there aren't really any exceptions to trespassing law. Maybe in the case of emergencies but even then you still probably have grounds to prosecute. 

 

Here's another analogy because we can't get enough of them haha...

 

As a consumer I can choose to only buy food from Whole Foods because reasons (doesn't matter why because I'm the consumer making my own choices). Whole Foods only sells high quality organic products because that's their choice as a business. Now if Frito-Lay decides they want to target me and sell me Cheetos they will obviously have to sell them at Whole Foods because I only shop at Whole Foods. However Whole Foods refuses to sell Cheetos because it does not meet their standards, so Frito-Lay will either have to give up, or modify their ways in order to meet Whole Foods's standard.

 

 

I should have clarified the right to roam bit more. it exists because unlike the US there's much less wilderness land that isn't privately owned, if you want to go hiking, climbing on rocks, bird watching e.t.c. without going onto nominally private land it's all but impossible without either paying or sticking to a very small number of relatively small publicly owned nature reserves. Right to roam was brought in specifically to address this because the rights of private landowners where making it virtually impossible to engage in an otherwise perfectly legal and long done pastime.

 

Thats ultimately how it works for everything, everything and everyone has rights, but where those rights interact or conflict additional rules about who's rights takes precedence and when exist, and they exist to prevent one party's rights superseding another to such a degree that it has an unacceptably negetive impact.

 

As for your analogy. it's actually very good with one problem. Now throw in that anyone shopping at any sperm market has to pay a 5 yearly door fee of $500. Now Cheetos has a case because anyone shopping at Whole Foods who wants to have Cheetos's can't and the barrier to entry for those people is very high because of the entry fee so it's no longer reasonable for them to just go elsewhere, (which is what would happen IRL with those people, they'd buy it from a local shop for the one or two items they couldn't get at the big retailer).

 

Thats the difference here, if your using an apple device you don't have the choice to go elsewhere unless you have a lot of spare cash because the barrier to getting somthing else just for the few apps you want that apple doesn't allow is unreasonably high for most people. Your stuck with apples rules even if you don't want them for some thing, or even if you want apple for a couple of things and otherwise don't care about the rest.

 

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 minute ago, justpoet said:

Sort of, but not really.  It gives them the ability to say "they targeted us" more.  But the Apple response will be exactly the same as it was before, so nothing really changes.  "This is the developer agreement that all developers agree to by using our tools that we provide for free.  They are in violation of the agreement and therefor have had their account revoked."

No. They have WAY more ammo if that happens. They are not just attacking epic then, but also third party devs using unreal engines, such as injustice 2. It would basically be giving the US govmt, at least a "sue us for violation of anti-trust laws" free card.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 minute ago, CarlBar said:

relatively small publicly owned nature reserves.

I mean, the smokey mountains are free, and are, like, huge.

[justpoet]

1 minute ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

No. They have WAY more ammo if that happens. They are not just attacking epic then, but also third party devs using unreal engines, such as injustice 2. It would basically be giving the US govmt, at least a "sue us for violation of anti-trust laws" free card.

You're mistaking "agreed to action" for "attack".  Apple would only be enforcing their terms and conditions as an action.  Epic would be the ones going outside of those after many years and deciding to screw all of those they've made business agreements, licenses, and contracts with.  The ones in violation of contract law would be Epic, not Apple.  Ironically, both in their contract they agreed to with Apple, and also the contracts they gave out to their developers.

[Kisai]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The point does not stand at all, your point doesn't even make sense.  The problem is apple will not let developers have a choice, and your argument is to point to a developer who had a choice.

 

You may as well argue that flashlights don't work because you have one without batteries.  It makes as much sense.

 

Your argument is "I want to be able to whatever I want with my device" and " I want to be able to do what I want on someone's elses property (The Apple store)", you can not have it both ways.

 

On the console, I want to buy this game, but I can not because it's been withdrawn, but your argument is "you can just buy it retail" but this game was not made available at retail in a form that can be picked up from a secondary market.

 

Thus Apple's store is exactly the same as Sony's store. Apple has the exact same mechanism for download codes, and you can not claim otherwise as I've shown this in one of the other threads.

 

[Belgarathian]

I totally understand wanting to avoid paying 30%, particularly for large sums of money. 

 

However, are they expecting Apple to run the App Store out of goodwill by completely cutting them out? It's not like Apple hasn't been transparent about their pricing, Epic knew what they were getting into when they published their apps on the store.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Just now, Belgarathian said:

I totally understand wanting to avoid paying 30%, particularly for large sums of money. 

 

However, are they expecting Apple to run the App Store out of goodwill by completely cutting them out? 

No. 30% purchace, even if a little high makes sense. You are using their platform to have your app be distributed. The main problems are the 30% of IAPs, and the fact that you are forced to use the app store.

[justpoet]

7 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

Thats the difference here, if your using an apple device you don't have the choice to go elsewhere unless you have a lot of spare cash because the barrier to getting somthing else just for the few apps you want that apple doesn't allow is unreasonably high for most people. Your stuck with apples rules even if you don't want them for some thing, or even if you want apple for a couple of things and otherwise don't care about the rest.

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide

Apple isn't even close to a monopoly though, which is the problem with your statement.  The equivalent to going to another store (say, any other grocery store instead of Whole Foods) is to just get an Android.  Since Apple doesn't have even close to a dominant market share position, despite that so many people seem to think they do, they're not a monopoly.

 

Sticking with your analogy though, you're really dealing with shopping clubs instead of grocery stores though.  So, let's look at BJ's and Sam's Club.  You can't use your membership at one (the device you purchased) to get into and make a purchase at the other.  Likewise, nothing prevents you from purchasing a membership to both to buy from both, other than your own budget and choice.