Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Interview: Epic CEO Tim Sweeney after Google antitrust win (theverge.com)
111 points by saikatsg on Dec 13, 2023 | hide | past | favorite | 139 comments



The most interesting thing to me in this case is Epic refusing Google's $150 million 'offer', and instead relying on the courts. Epic could have accepted that offer with zero risk, and been all the better off for it, with zero risk. Of course everybody else would be left behind. But by going all the way, and refusing the pay off, they instead make a better world for everybody.


It's unfortunate that Epic is never given the goodwill they deserve for this fight. (I still hate their exclusivity deals, but I don't let that poison other aspects)


Exclusivity deals suck but I would redirect more of your anger to greedy storefronts like Steam which take 30% (25% after $10,000,000 in sales) of revenue compared to Epic's 12%.


Don't know there is a difference between greed and anti competitive practices. Last I check Steam :

- does not control the OS and prevent you to install app outside of it (even on steamdeck)

- d̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶c̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶m̶a̶t̶c̶h̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶t̶f̶o̶r̶m̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶w̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶a̶s̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶s̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶u̶s̶t̶o̶m̶e̶r̶ ̶(̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶"̶P̶r̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶P̶a̶r̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶R̶u̶l̶e̶"̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶s̶t̶e̶a̶m̶ ̶k̶e̶y̶s̶)̶.̶

They do enforce their cut on in-app purchase but since you can sideload app I see it at less of an issue (suppose all games would become free with a 40e in game purchase otherwise).

Edit: on the price parity while the policy might be listed as applying only for Steam key it's possible they engage in anti competitive practice since :

- http://blog.wolfire.com/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-ac...

- https://www.ign.com/articles/valve-ceo-gabe-newell-ordered-t...


Considering what Steam has been done for linux gaming Valve employees could be kicking puppies for all I care.


Steam is an interesting instance of near-monopoly store fronts. Unlike the App Store, which Apple forces upon users of their devices, or the Play Store, which is a default on most Androids and Google strongly pressures both devs and users into relying while technically allowing for competition, Stream is a third-part and cross-platform store/application managers which users go out of their way to install.

So while being the default (or only) store is clearly valuable, it is not the only path to a dominant position. As a Steam user, I find myself groaning if a game is exclusive to Epic or Battle.net (or whatever it's called now), but don't mind if I have to buy a game from GOG or a dedicated site put up by the developer. So the actual complaint isn't that the game isn't on Steam, it's that I don't want to have to install and use some shitty game launcher. I don't want it on my computer. People felt like this about Steam initially too, and it certainly has its shitty parts still, but it actually adds sone value over a raw installer exe, unlike some other stores.

It's all about the user experience. Minimal steps between them and the product. Buy on Steam? Great, I have that installed and ready to go. Buy on your website? Fine, I can autofill the purchase form, get an exe/zip, and I'm set. Buy on Epic? I have to install their store... then make an account... then add payment info... then find and purchase the game (while being bombarded with ads and flashy shit in an unfamiliar store interface). I think I'll pass.


> Buy on Steam? Great, I have that installed and ready to go. Buy on your website? Fine, I can autofill the purchase form, get an exe/zip, and I'm set. Buy on Epic? I have to install their store... then make an account... then add payment info... then find and purchase the game (while being bombarded with ads and flashy shit in an unfamiliar store interface).

That same logic could apply to Steam if you don't have it installed and have Epic installed. You're basically describing first-movers advantage.

Personally I don't see that as a reason not to try others. Nor as a reason to give Steam a monopoly (on my game purchases).


I installed both, and never wanted to try Epic anymore, because when I requested a refund in Epic, the only option was to leave those as Epic credits. By contrast, a refund in Steam goes back to my credit card.


>Steam if you don't have it installed

if


You've disregarded the UI complaint in your own quote.


I've disregarded the UI complaint from someone who has admitted never having downloaded the software to use the UI, yes. It's a hypothetical complaint in a hypothetical scenario.


You are dismissing a lot of things.

Steams memory footprint is generally lower. The social aspect of it actually works and can be disabled to free up resources (first mover I'll admit). And the UI is dramatically less offensive than the other "game launcher/stores"

Steam gives me the option to launch into my library instead of the store which makes it feel dramatically less "blah".

In comparison, just to play diablo IV I had to click off two popups in the battle.net launcher of "buy this".

When you add shortcuts to games on your desktop it bypasses the steamui entirely and just launches the DAMN GAME. (it still does do an update/validly check with steam if you are connected to the internet tho).


But you've actually tried those launchers. The comment I was replying to is talking about hypothetical complaints about a launcher they have never tried. Complaints like "I've never tried sushi, but I don't like it" don't hold much substance, and can't be addressed.

Try them and dislike them, that's the proper way to do it. You've tried the sushi, I'm not disagreeing with any of your real complaints that have substance. But I would try to convince someone to try sushi before making deciding it is bad. Deciding something is bad without trying isn't keeping an open mind.


The thing about game launchers like the Epic Game Store is that they tend to be ungainly, clunky built-by-lowest-bidder beasts that aren’t pleasant to interact with. Somehow they’re never high quality, polished products despite being profit centers. That’s where much of that feeling of loathing comes from.

Steam certainly isn’t faultless here but it’s less clunky and and adds value with features like shoring up of Windows’ abysmal controller support, which makes a big difference. If competitors want people to want to install their stores, they need to be treating the project with respect and hiring on a team of full time well compensated high quality engineers to build it. Be a VS Code, not an MS Teams.


Yeah it's worth nothing that Steam is allegedly responsible for the default 30% cut number app stores get, by sort of arbitrarily picking it, and that Steam is an absolutely crushing monopoly that has so much of a vice grip on the PC gaming space that when you go outside of it, tons of people whine and cry because everything is expected to just use the thing that takes a third of all revenue.

Nobody likes buying exclusives, but it's basically the only way to break into a market under such heavy capture.


Steam adds a lot of features to games though over just having a windows install. Setting up multiplayer for indie games before steam was always annoying, with steam it is very easy and gives a uniform way to play with friends for every game I own there. There are many such quality of life things from steam, to me as a user it means I prefer paying more for games in steam than to pay for it without steam.


> me as a user it means I prefer paying more for games in steam than to pay for it without steam.

Unfortunately this is not an option. Valve's Steam agreements forbid publishers from charging less money on competing platforms.

https://www.masonllp.com/case/valve-mass-arbitration/#:~:tex...

(Others have pointed out that this fact is contested, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38625225)


It's not just contested, but contradicted by reality. Many games on steam can be purchased from retailers who receive keys directly from the publishwr (e.g. Green Man Gaming), at a substantial discount. Sometimes that discount price is much closer to the after steam cut amount the publisher would otherwise receive.

The rumor, for many years, was that you could sell a game separately and if it didn't use steam keys and steam services Valve did not care. If you wanted to sell steam copies, there seemed to be two conditions. 1. Keys sold off of steam must make up less than some percentage of on-steam sales. 2. If you have a sale on another storefront, there must be a matching sale on Steam in some time window.

It is entirely possible that valves notoriously bad communication abilities resulted in a company believing a total ban on discounts was policy, but the fact that other publishers seemingly are not and were not held to that standard for many years is certainly odd.


I disagree with such contracts, I think they shouldn't be allowed, at least when you are as big as steam.

I can see it being reasonable to ban selling steam keys for less than they are sold at steam. But selling a steam-less license for less than what it costs at steam seems reasonable.


> adds a lot of features to games though over just having a windows install

Sure, and that goes into ways it should be able to compete well with other stores, not just be "the default".

> a uniform way

Also known as "a complete monopoly", and this is exactly the mountain that any competitor has to completely break. Epic's use of both paid exclusives and free games is to build you enough of a library that you (and your friends) likely have and want to play at least some Epic Games, and hence, already have both Epic and Steam installed.

Only once both stores are somewhat similarly available to you, can Epic really compete on the price and features aspects.

EDIT: The other thing that's important to realize about monopolies is that nothing remains the same forever. You might like Steam today, and feel we should all just let Steam be a monopoly because they're "good", but what happens when Gabe retires and a private equity firm comes in?

The only difference between Steam and Ticketmaster is that Steam hasn't tried to maximize value extraction yet.


> Epic's use of both paid exclusives and free games is to build you enough of a library that you (and your friends) likely have and want to play at least some Epic Games, and hence, already have both Epic and Steam installed.

The epic store program is trash though, it is extremely slow and clunky and power hungry and lack most of the features I have in steam. They do have multiplayer integration which is nice, I have played games with friends there that were free, but the store being such a bad program is the main reason I still buy games on steam.

Steam isn't some super well made program, if epic store was a better program I would prefer buying games there for that reason. But as is epic store is way worse in almost every way, it takes seconds just to view a page, the epic store is much nicer to browse as a web page than in their dedicated program but I can't play the games from their web page.

If they fixed that then I don't think people would hate buying games on epic store, but until then I am pretty sure the main reason people still prefer steam is that epic store is garbage. Not sure why they don't just fix the app instead of spending so much money on exclusives or free games.


Steam is good. But they have some sketchy policies. Eg epic requires games offered on multiple storefronts to have cross play compatibility


The important thing is that Valve does not engage in anti-consumer practices, and they provide a vastly larger infrastructure than Epic Games, going far and beyond your typical storefront and providing a rich, unparalleled gaming experience. I do think that their price control for multi-platform launches is in very bad taste, but unfortunately this is commonly found in retail.

I buy from GOG sometimes, because they also have a unique value proposition with their anti-DRM stance. Other than that, Steam simply provides the best service by leagues, and it's very take-it-or-leave-it when it comes to the 30% cut.

I personally would love for them to reduce their cut, I think 30% is massive. It is worth pointing out that the 30% cut is well-established in many industries outside of gaming, such as franchising. But it's also fairly standard within gaming.

- Gamestop, Amazon, Best Buy and Wal-Mart take a 30% cut.

- PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo each take 30% from their console stores.

- GOG, Microsoft take 30% from their game stores.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...


> Valve does not engage in anti-consumer practices

Yet. Imagine how PC gaming would look if tomorrow you woke up and Valve said, hey, our cut is 50% now. The problem with monopoly capture is once a company has it, it can choose to abuse it at any time in the future. And even if you have complete faith in Valve's current leadership, those people get old and die or retire, and the next guys may not run things the same way.

> But it's also fairly standard within gaming.

One of the things uncovered by these lawsuits is largely than everyone settled on the 30% cut because Steam picked it and got away with it. We should definitely blame Steam for this abusive tax on the game industry, even if many others have now copied it.


> Imagine how PC gaming would look if tomorrow you woke up and Valve said, hey, our cut is 50% now.

I would expect a bunch of bright, freshly-laid-off engineers would get together and try to seriously compete either through a single platform offering, or a system of integrated services. I'd love to see Valve's platform advantages a little more democratized; but you can't deny the level of engineering that goes into their products. SteamVR, Steam Play, streaming, Steam Deck, Proton, it goes on and on.

> We should definitely blame Steam for this abusive tax on the game industry, even if many others have now copied it.

No more than we blame anyone else who followed suit, as a gain, Valve chose a number that was already massively standardized in many industries. If the 30% cut is too much, someone should seek to disrupt them at a 5-20% margin.


We should blame them and everyone else abusing platform economics to take a 30% cut. Not a 30% margin. Their margin is much higher


> If the 30% cut is too much, someone should seek to disrupt them at a 5-20% margin.

And we have come full circle: Epic's cut is 12%.


> And we have come full circle: Epic's cut is 12%.

Epic's cut is 12% because they can afford to lose money on it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/11/07/tim-sweene...


EGS is in "growth-mode", which, among other things, means they have to provide a current service that offers better terms than the service they intend to provide once they reach Sweeney's ideal 50% market share.

They spend a ton of money on exclusives, enticing offers and other substitutes for attractive features.


Epic is absolutely not competing with Steam in any meaningful way for me as a consumer until they compete on several more fronts, or at least integrate with services that allow them to do so.

If Steam was just a store frontend, I wouldn't use it. I just established their competitive offering above.

In fact, EGS's primary way of competing, exclusives, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's anti-consumer, and a poor substitute for engineering a competitive feature offering.

I actively avoid their store for this reason, and have passed up on their exclusives in the past, despite being interested in the IP.


> In fact, EGS's primary way of competing, exclusives, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

You're only noticing because of the competition. Without it games would be exclusive to Steam and you would never notice. Anything from The Finals to Lethal Company, PUBG to Destiny 2. Are these any less anti-consumer because they're only on Steam? I don't think so.


I'm speaking of exclusivity deals. None of those games had exclusivity deals with Steam.

You're blaming Steam for not having worthy competitors, but that isn't their job. Valve/Steam doesn't engage in exclusivity deals, EGS does. And Valve-published games obviously don't count, there's no deal, they just decide not to publish elsewhere.

And remember: the closest competition is literal piracy. I'm not only noticing that Steam provides a quality service worth paying for because of EGS. I don't think you understand how many would-be pirates instead have gigantic Steam libraries.


And I'm asking you how exclusivity deals are more anti-consumer than exclusivity without deals. I'm not saying they have exclusivity deals with Steam and I'm not blaming Steam for anything, but that doesn't change the fact that as a consumer I'm forced to use Steam to purchase those games. In the same way I'm forced to used EGS to purchase their exclusive games.

So why does a deal between a publisher and Valve or EGS make a difference to me, the consumer? Why aren't all exclusives anti-consumer regardless of a deal that might or might not exist?

> I don't think you understand how many would-be pirates instead have gigantic Steam libraries.

I don't understand your point though. Are you saying no one should compete with Steam because users will pirate the games? I don't think that's a good reason to give Steam a monopoly.


> And I'm asking you how exclusivity deals are more anti-consumer than exclusivity without deals.

The former are in Valve's control, the latter are not. Valve can't help it if they're the best in town and no one else is able to compete at their level.

> I don't understand your point though. Are you saying no one should compete with Steam because users will pirate the games?

My point is that Steam offers a better service than piracy, which is very hard for a digital storefront to compete with. They achieve this by being more than a storefront. The way they conduct business is reasonably open and any funded competitor could emulate their success over time with careful design and engineering. Part of that is being consumer-friendly and having an open culture.

> I don't think that's a good reason to give Steam a monopoly.

No one gives them a monopoly. I don't follow your argument here, because you seem to be suggesting that we should handicap Steam in some kind of Harrison Bergeron scenario.


Well let's stick with the exclusive discussion because I'm not sure where the other is going either.

>The former are in Valve's control, the latter are not.

Why does this distinction make a difference in how anti-consumer it is? The store owner or Valve's (lack of) control doesn't make it any better for me as a consumer.

To summarize my position here to avoid more confusion: Exclusives deals don't make exclusive games any more anti-consumer. Because the deal or lack thereof doesn't effect me as a consumer.

So my original reply is that all of these exclusive games are the same level of anti-consumer. But you only notice when it's not Steam exclusives, because that's your platform of choice. I'm not blaming Valve for anything, I'm just using games on their store as an example of games you don't think of as exclusives or anti-consumer.


Valve doesn't do exclusive deals. Even some of their best first-party titles made it to consoles. I don't know how you can blame them for not having more competitors.


I don't know how you keep thinking I'm blaming Valve for anything when I've reiterated that I'm not multiple times.

I'm just using games on their store as an example of games you don't think of as exclusives or anti-consumer.


Your argument just makes no sense. Exclusive deals are extremely different from a game simply releasing on one store out of convenience.


I'm not arguing about the differences, just that they're the same in one aspect. You're saying one is bad because it is anti-consumer. I'm pointing out that the other is the same level of anti-consumer, and that you have just not noticed.

Deal or no deal is not relevant to the consumer so it doesn't change how anti-consumer it is.


Steam do the same pseudo-ownership crap Sony have just been lambasted for. The cart page explicitly says 'purchase' but you have no right to sell, trade or lend them. Steam only reluctantly added refunds due to legal obligations and if you have a justified reason for a refund outside of the 2 hour/2 week window, you have to communicate with Google-esque customer service.

Years before Half Life: Alyx, Valve said they would never make single player games again. It made sense - TF2 was making silly money selling silly cosmetics. Presumably, the economics have now changed to make single-player viable again: any further player-base goodwill means a few more years of getting away with predatory BS.


>communicate with Google-esque customer service

This is a strange allegation; While I have little personal experience with Steam's consumer service, the typical report I hear is that it is excellent and very helpful, while Google more or less doesn't have it at all. I've even successfully refunded some games that were a bit over the 2 hour window.


They promised to fix my damaged Steam Deck LCD screen for free 8 months ago, and I still haven't sent it in because I was on the move a lot.

Twice I have renewed the ticket with staff deeply apologizing and asking for them to print a new RMA, offering to pay this time, and they just send me a new RMA free of charge, which I have twice disregarded. I can't think of another digital business off the top of my hand which would put up with my shit.


Well if it's any motivation you should go get on that haha


> Presumably, the economics have now changed to make single-player viable again

I think alyx/deskjob primarily exist to sell hardware rather than make silly money on their own. You even get a free copy of the former with any index hardware.


Valve is certainly better than others, but they do prevent publishers from selling their game for less outside of Steam (if they sell that game on Steam), and I think that is anti-consumer.


If you're going to make statements like this, at least be correct. Valve don't prevent yoou from selling your game for less outside of steam, they prevent you from selling _steam keys_ for less outside of steam. You're perfectly free to host it on your own website for $10 less.


(See update at bottom for a source supporting parent's claim)

That's not correct from what I've read. You are more than welcome to ask for a source instead of accusing me of falsehoods.

"To help maintain its monopoly power, Valve uses what is known as a Platform Most Favored Nations (“PMFN”) clause in its agreements with game publishers which prevents game publishers from selling their games on other on-line gaming sites with lower costs, fees, and/or sales commissions for less than the game publishers sell their games on the Steam platform"

https://www.masonllp.com/case/valve-mass-arbitration/#:~:tex...

Nothing about that refers to Steam Keys. I did do some cursory searching to find sources which disagreed with this interpretation but was unable to find any. There's always the possibility that the class action lawsuit was misguided or incorrect- so if you have any sources that say otherwise, please provide!

..Or I suppose, some examples of games that sell for less (excluding temporary sales) on other stores than they do within Steam.

EDIT: Elsewhere someone provided this Ars Technica article where an unidentified source at Valve said this does only apply to Steam keys, which is likely what you are referring to: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/why-lower-platform-fe...

So it's definitely a contested fact.


To be fair, it probably falls under speak to legal, but it's in the SDA on steamworks.


That can't be right. You can routinely find good deals on Steam keys using ITAD (isthereanydeal.com) which just searches a bunch of key sites for you and compares prices. So are all these sites breaking some rule then?


Most of the key sites are reselling bundled keys, doing region nonsense or are outright fraudulently purchased and laundered. There's a blog post from an indie studio that is roughly titled "don't buy our game from those sites, please just pirate it instead"


Good points, thank you.


Steam is also the reason Linux desktop is becoming more and more viable for everyday use (yes, including gaming) through Valve's involvement with Wine, Mesa, and other parts of the stack. As a consumer, I'm glad this is where the store's cut is going to, instead of perpetuating the Windows monopoly and lootbox gaming. Not to mention that Steam has tons of quality of life features that EGS still lacks: written reviews, discussions, gifts, I could go on and on... There are many reasons people prefer Steam besides its popularity. Epic had so much time and resources to improve their storefront and expand platform support, but they just don't seem to care.


> I'm glad this is where the store's cut is going to, instead of perpetuating the Windows monopoly and lootbox gaming

Valve is practically the ones that mainstreamed lootbox gaming with Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike, and Dota 2. When others like Rocket League have removed lootboxes from their games altogether, Valve don't bother. The lootbox "winnings" being tradable and having an item marketplace (in which they take a cut of all transactions), makes it even more egregious to me.


Valve was the originator of loot boxes...


MapleStory Introduced Loot Boxes and Randomized Rewards


> Steam is an absolutely crushing monopoly

Origin, U-Play, EA Play, etc. Blizzard titles are not on Steam. Microsoft Game Pass, and before that Games for Windows Live. Some physical releases require Steam, many do not. GOG. Edit: itch.io. So it's easily disproven. The other option sucking (e.g. not allowing reviews) does not a monopoly make.


Overwatch 2 and Diablo 4 are both on Steam actually.


Personally I think exclusivity is much worse. It has the potential to poison the entire video game market in the same way the video stream market is poisoned.


Steam (and every other storefronts) has been taking 30% since its beginning. When did it become "greedy"?

Is EGS offering the same quality of service as Steam? Is EGS making profits? Is 12% really sustainable?


EGS never gave us proton, steam deck, steam workshop, early access, steam link or controllers, big picture, etc. steam and valve in general has great VR support and lots of r&d in general.

No hate nor shade towards epic but man valve kills it. Best video game company (studio or platform) by far for several decades now imo.


Steam is undeniably the best platform for PC gamers, but I can't help but feel bad for game devs who get squeezed and don't have good alternatives.


Are they getting "squeezed" by Steam? That would imply there is pressure coming from Valve, but the pressure to use Steam is coming from customers.

I'd say that Steam is a great service that customers love and demand that game developers provide, and the 30% fee is the price of that service.

I know that in my own case I've bought games on Steam that were available cheaper elsewhere, or even given away for free on EGS.

And the attempts at creating alternatives have all been unable to create a good alternative. (Except perhaps Good Old Games, which stands out by being DRM-free.)


Well they're getting squeezed by the 30%, but also that the act of participating in the Steam market means they cannot sell their game for less money (to incentivize a better cut for themselves) off platform, since Steam doesn't allow you to do that, at least to the best of my current understanding. I've posted this elsewhere and had one user pretty upset that I had posted false statements, but I haven't seen evidence to the contrary yet (context is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38624916)


Do you have any evidence of that?

I know I've seen games given away for free on EGS while they were also for sale on Steam, and seen lower prices on IsThereAnyDeal, but those might all be temporary.

According to Ars, "Sources close to Valve suggested to Ars that this "parity" rule only applies to the "free" Steam keys publishers can sell on other storefronts and not to Steam-free versions of those games sold on competing platforms."

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/why-lower-platform-fe...


Thank you for a source. I do link to my source in the thread in question, and while that law firm was working with Wolfire Games who presumably saw agreements directly from Valve, it's not exactly going to be an unbiased account since they were, you know, suing Valve.

After reviewing the article, it's still a second hand unidentified source, but definitely clear the facts are contested.

I updated that thread with these details.


Payment-processing companies for credit-cards typically take less than 2% of the paid amount, also capped with a maximum fees in the low single digit $ for larger payment amounts. That is "not greedy" in my reckoning, and it pays for all of the hardware and software to make your credit card effective and secure. Taking 30% as gate-keeping lordship rent is greedy, it treats customers and merchants as serfs of the Apple/Google kingdom. Just sayin'


Steam and EGS don't just offer payment processing. Bandwidth isn't free, neither is patching, distributaion and "curation" (albeit this one is definitely more debatable).

Even then, payment processing isn't just about taking a $10 transaction. A single dispute on Stripe will cost you $25 whether you are succesful or not. Handling payments in non-local currencies is 3.5% + 20p on stripe, plus currency conversion fees.

I don't think 30% is the right cut, but 2% isn't a fair comparison for the service.


Why are you comparing Steam to a payment processing gateway? Payment processing is just one small part of the services Steam offers. Of course a platform that offers a lot more is going to charge a lot more.


You really have to explain how you can even begin to compare a payment processer with steam.

Steam provides a ton of value add on top of payment processing. Advertisement, distribution, a storefront, a boatload of users.


Thanks for asking. - Advertisement: the free internet has lots of places for adds - Distribution: there are several very good protocols for transferring files, even ones with DRM! - Storefront: ...stores don't take a 30% cut of what they sell, and as we all know inventory costs are pretty low when it's all just bits on NAS storage. - Users: again, this is called the internet, they are there and what they need is curation. I would much rather a proper gatekeeper, say for example Polygon magazine, was able to pay real game testers and journalists to surface the really good game, and make a cut off of this, instead of the wasteland that's on display at whatsonsteam.com


You are not answering my question. You are simply enumerating ways how to do what steam does in other ways. My question is why are you comparing it to a payment processor.


I am comparing the greedy fee it charges...


Why build dropbox, you can easily do it yourself just by using (...)


>When did it become "greedy"?

This is a rhetorical question I don't know how to answer.

>Is EGS offering the same quality of service as Steam?

In my opinion, no.

>Is EGS making profits?

No. Source: https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/6/23949372/the-epic-games-s...

>Is 12% really sustainable?

I don't know.


> No

Needs some qualification.

EGS is not profitable as they are spending like crazy to try and gain users. But the EGS is not where Epic makes its money, that’s Fortnite for now.

The 12% is still more then enough to profitably be a platform middleman because it costs very very little and is basically pure profit to stay the course.


Good will? The reason they want Apple and Google out of the way isn’t just because of the 30% fee but also because it prevents Epic from collecting information and utilizing dark patterns to gouge children.

https://gizmodo.com/epic-fortnite-gaming-ftc-dark-patterns-1...


Your joking right? Nothing apple does is preventing any of that


In fact, the FTC sued Apple for the exact same thing (microtransaction for children). The only difference is that Epic immediately took remediation steps and shared them publicly with other stores when they were sued.


Apple managed to screw up Facebook’s data gathering. So they are definitely hurt Epic’s ability to do so too.

Epic having its own store front means they can use dark patterns there too.

Apple is limiting the worst of these companies’ behaviors.


As an app developer, I'm massively behind them


Why not?

Assholes are still assholes, even when they do something for everyone else, once.


Something only possible with a principled majority shareholder.


These appstore lawsuits are potentially worth billions to Tencent, so it makes sense they want Epic to take this fight even if it isn't worth it for Epic itself.


Tencent is not a majority shareholder


Even their layoffs were principled? 6 months severance?


Tim Sweeney will get even more money this way. I am also not convinced this makes things better for everyone. The majority of users need devices that protect them from being tricked into installing malware by black hats. The only way to do that is to create devices where they are incapable of doing that even under duress. Eliminating barriers to doing that is not doing many gullible people a favor. There will undoubtedly be more malware attacks on unsuspecting victims if Google is forced to make things better for Epic, and Tim Sweeney does not care that his additional revenue from this if it is allowed to stand means that regular people will suffer.

Note that Sweeney is no stranger to harming others to enrich himself:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/...

I find the idea that his actions are making the world better to be ridiculous. Overall, they are making the world worse. I guess I should not be surprised that his propaganda about making the world better has gained traction. Most people who hear it do not have the full picture to consider and will happily consider only what they have been told. :/


The games industry is a Leviathan, just like movies and music.

If one Leviathan threatens another, things get ugly.


What would stop Google rescinding or changing the terms of that deal at any time? It would be better for Epic to fight for something enshrined in law.


It's not zero risk, the risk is lower revenue with this offer vs the more competitive alternative


Except the kids they keep exploiting for micro transactions, just lets keep it in mind that we’re talking about a business here, not some sort of good will charity


Google promotes the in-app purchase model they profit from and takes a cut from every microtransaction made on all Android apps in the Play Store.


What did this case have to do with any of that?


For me nothing , but has something to do with all this god saviour speech going on in the interview and in this thread, someone has to point out that, I thought

I’d have expected a journalist from better times, not accepting to be put there just to buttlick, to also ask questions not given by the press department, when the ceo said we want to make the world better, if they would have also stopped exploting kids in order to achieve that, but now newspapers are just external press departments


Seems everyone forgot that Epic was fined over half a billion by the FTC for “Violating Children's Privacy and Engaging in Dark Pattern Deception”.

https://gizmodo.com/epic-fortnite-gaming-ftc-dark-patterns-1...

They are as unethical as they come.


Let's not forget that Google isn't any better in that regard:

> Google Is Fined $170 Million for Violating Children’s Privacy on YouTube

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/technology/google-youtube...

> 15 privacy violation settlements amounting to roughly $1 billion between 2011 and 2023 with government regulators in various countries and private litigants

https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/23/google_childrens_priv...


Hardly agree, so all this corp speech about making the world better.. for their shareholders maybe, but lets ignore these CEOs acting as world saviors, how annoying


But in this case, they are doing a good thing.

Or do you believe that we should not acknowledge any positive actions from someone who has done something wrong in the past?


The case is about who gets what fraction of the microtransactions - Google or Epic (after accounting for the game dev's share).


I get that but what does that have to do with whether devs use microtransactions or not in their games? The kids will be subjected to them whether Epic or Google takes the lion’s share.


I am probably from a different time, before the advent of blogs, where journalists were not half-carpet/half-tongue creatures just reading a script and asking CEOs "what is your favourite playable character?", but this article is just a scandal, there is no question that upsets the CEO, I would bet everything that I have, that if 30 years ago a CEO would be in front of some journalist saying "We want to make the world better", the journalist would have pointed out the ways the CEO's own company makes the world worser


Related ongoing thread re https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/12/tim-sweeney-why-epic-did-bet...:

Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38621557

That discussion is rather poor in quality and this article looks more substantive, so maybe we can try a reset.


I’m all for the shady dealings and real power structures that drive the app stores to be exposed, so I applaud this ruling and that Epic saw this through.

The product person in me does wonder what the experience of using an App Store is going to be like in another few years if we continue down this path. Am I going to be forced out to some slow and clunky checkout experience in my browser every time an app wants money from me? Are the days of being able to manage most of my digital subscriptions from a single screen in the settings of my phone over?

While this ruling was only against Google (and the recent outcome against Apple was different) I don’t know that I love the picture this paints for me as a consumer. I don’t buy the argument that this is going to result in lower prices for me - probably just a worse experience.

I’m sure that Google (and Apple, should a similar fate eventually come their way) will fight this every step of the way, and I can imagine there’s a lot they could do to nudge users to opt for the better experience of using their native payments infrastructure. I don’t know to what extent courts are willing or able to micromanage some of those details but it will be interesting to see it all play out.


Well, as a consumer, instead of having to switch your entire phone if you don't like the way apps are billed, you'll now be able to switch apps if you don't like how that specific app handles billing.

Some things like Netflix and Amazon were already this way, even on Apple devices.

As a product person myself, I would hope that the net result is that we would be allowed to offer both: that we could have a fast friction free purchase via iOS/GPlay and pay the toll, but present the option to pay us directly if the user wants to support us more, or offer lower prices when the transaction is via a provider that takes 3% instead of 30%. I find that to be much more likely. Friction is a real thing in subscription services, and that isn't changing just because the OS vendors might not be able to force apps to use the platform IAP system anymore.


> you'll now be able to switch apps if you don't like how that specific app handles billing.

I think you mean "you'll now have to use the developers preferred app for billing".


Well no, my point is if the developers preferred app for billing isn't what you want, you can more easily find another app. Before all of this you had no choice if you didn't like, for instance, giving your credit card information to Google, or if you wanted more of your money to support the app you were using. I'm not saying some huge percentage of the population will care about the 30%, but as app developers we would be empowered to explain it, if we thought it was worth it.

As I mentioned, I think high quality apps will overwhelmingly still offer a convenient way to pay using IAP, because the friction cost of adding a new subscriber is high when everyone has their CC in their store. And probably that will come with lower prices for those who are willing to punch in a credit card onto a form.

I do think it's still well within the rights of Apple and Google to expect certain security practices from these billing solutions, and I expect that will replace the time reviewers currently spend looking for where the app dev tries to do off platform billing today.


> As I mentioned, I think high quality apps will overwhelmingly still offer a convenient way to pay using IAP,

Really? right now, to rent a video on Prime on android, you have to switch to a web browser. Netflix doesn't let you sign up in app. Epic decide to sue Apple and Google to avoid paying the IAP fees. All the signs point to major players being willing to circumvent the app store for

> Before all of this you had no choice if you didn't like, for instance, giving your credit card information to Google, or if you wanted more of your money to support the app you were using

Sure you do, sign up outside the app like Netflix and co provide support for. In fact, if you go look at other aplications taht offer payment outside of the app store, you can likely already do that. Calm, for example offers a discount if you punch your details into the form online.

Here's an example of exactly what's going to happen - I live outside the US and I signed up for NYT Cooking on their website. In order to cancel it, I have to _phone_ them to cancel.

This will not give customers "more choice", this will allow Billion dollar companies like Epic, Meta, Netflix to run their own app stores and force you to download from there instead.


Maybe the law should be mandating at least 3 payment options for any app. And let users make the decision.


I think sign in with apple id the right approach - if you offer sign in on an iOS app one of the options must be with apple. If we applied the same to payment processing, it would be fine, but I suspect we'd see app store fees as "freemium" apps wouls distribute on the app store, use it for updates, marketing, presence, and then dissuade customers from paying via the app channels


> Are the days of being able to manage most of my digital subscriptions from a single screen in the settings of my phone over?

You applaud this ruling yet you fear the outcomes. Don't you think this is dissonant?

Keep in mind the kind of ruthless practices we've seen from Epic Games' store make Google and Apple seem like child's play.

Nothing good will come out of this fragmentation. It makes no sense in the first place to have multiple app stores per one OS. An OS only exists to host apps on the device, and the store exists to host apps in a central repository from where devices copy. Both are part of one service continuum.

The apps target the same APIs and the same OS. I wish we'd see more OS and hardware platforms instead, each with its own store. A healthy market would be 3-5 types of devices with their own OS you can pick from. Alas.


> An OS only exists to host apps on the device, and the store exists to host apps in a central repository from where devices copy.

Then the store needs to have the apps I want available. If they don't, why shouldn't I be able to look at other stores?


> Keep in mind the kind of ruthless practices we've seen from Epic Games' store make Google and Apple seem like child's play.

I disagree - all EGS did was fund exclusives. Meanwhile, both Apple and Google have been propping up other categories with gaming spends, and offering hushed sweetheart deals to other categories.

> The apps target the same APIs and the same OS. I wish we'd see more OS and hardware platforms instead, each with its own store. A healthy market would be 3-5 types of devices with their own OS you can pick from. Alas.

Could not agree any more.


Sure, if you don't buy one of the main benefits of more competition - lower prices - and only imagine the bad parts of the alternatives, it's natural that the picture is bleak


At what % discount point on a purchase would you suffer through that experience instead of paying the premium app store price?

The app stores will quickly work out the 75th percentile (or 90th or whatever) and reduce their take accordingly.


deja vu. I forgot their names, but there were two social media platform in 2000s, one offered no moderation and other offered some. The one with some moderation was found guilty of not being able to manage hate speech. Meanwhile the one with no moderation was found not guilty.


I think you're thinking of CompuServe and Prodigy, respectively. The lawsuits against them were Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc. and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. Those two lawsuits were the motivation for the passage of Section 230.

I think you have a minor detail wrong - Prodigy was found liable for defamation posted by clients, not hate speech - but the broad strokes are right.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....


LOL, it's THAT Stratton Oakmont :-))

It's that sleazy company from the Wolf of Wall Street. How did they ever win a trial?


> How did they ever win a trial?

In this particular case, the court ruled that Prodigy was the publisher of its users' content because of its efforts to exercise editorial control, which made it liable for what its users said.


A cloakroom that inspects every coat for explosives and claims so could be sued for negligence, but a cloakroom that doesn’t is less likely.


Seems mainly Google has treated people differently like Spotify and got caught for playing games. Apple play only 1 game and as in the article all internally, harder to catch. Still it is a surprise as both are so similar. And if it failed you would think it should be Apple. Strange world. Even stranger if you dig in seems “logically”. Just crazy.


Apple has explored deals with large app makers like Netflix as well (https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/5/22421734/apple-epic-netfli...). They even offered 15% to Netflix (https://www.theverge.com/c/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-proj...)

Certain parts of App Store policy are the result of this sort of thing. For example there is a carve out for media services-- unlike the rest of the app ecosystem, it is OK for subscriber only media services to have an app that requires login to use it. This was a result of Netflix refusing to use IAP.

If you didn't know, it is otherwise not allowed to have a login only experience. You can't even require users to sign up for an account before a user purchases an IAP product or subscription, let alone require a signup before the app is used.

While this is a pro consumer move, it does mean headaches for any user that purchases a subscription without attaching an email address and then expects the app's customer support to be able to identify their subscription. It also confuses users because they'll say they're emailing on the same email as their Apple account, but that doesn't help because a subscription purchase doesn't come with the user's email.


Is it pro consumer? Those exact reasons you describe are why apps want you to make an account. Doing customer service for people in this situation is a nightmare


Well that's what they claim. And to be fair, since managing that subscription is entirely in the user's hands in the App Store UI/UX, it sort of makes sense- the user shouldn't have to receive spam to buy a random subscription.

But I do fall more on the side of your opinion after spending 5 years managing these sorts of systems and working with the support team.


As a developer, It gives apple all the power, I don't own the relationship between me and my customers. And the same as a customer, you have this third party butting in, and getting in the way of the experience.


Apple also rewrote the rules to allow Amazon Prime users to buy video content in their app as long as the user has Prime and already has a CC on the account

> “Apple has an established program for premium subscription video entertainment providers to offer a variety of customer benefits — including integration with the Apple TV app, AirPlay 2 support, tvOS apps, universal search, Siri support and, where applicable, single or zero sign-on,” Apple said in a statement given to The Verge. “On qualifying premium video entertainment apps such as Prime Video, Atlice One and Canal+, customers have the option to buy or rent movies and TV shows using the payment method tied to their existing video subscription.” https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-vide...


Your quote even says that it's not just prime. That's not a sweetheart deal for amazon, that's a carve out for an entire app category.


Apple's always taken the "if you want to play in our court, you play by our rules" approach to this kind of thing so wouldn't be at all surprised if there are zero back door deals going on there. They don't need to do that as no major app provider is going to want to be the one who's not on their app store.

If Spotify for example left iOS devices all it would do is drive up Apple Music subscriptions. Very, very few people would switch operating systems for a single app.

The average joe doesn't even think about app availability when picking a phone.

At most I'd say theres likely some grey area about managing 3rd party subscriptions that arent being done via the app store.


Netflix was offered 15% by Apple (not 15% after 1 year; but just 15%; and before the public offer): https://www.theverge.com/c/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-proj...


It’s documented that Apple offers deals to companies to keep on using the App Store, or at least stick to its payments (Netflix in particular refused a sweetheart deal).

If Spotify and Netflix were not on iOS I’m pretty sure lots of people would go look for an android. Not everyone, but a percentage above 0 (and probably above 2 or 3 percent I bet)


> It’s documented that Apple offers deals to companies to keep on using the App Store

Is it? I know that it has happened in the past, but in 2020, Tim Cook testified to Congress that they treat everybody equally. Is there any evidence showing that they still offer special deals today?


Is there evidence that suggests there are companies out there today that have different deals on the iOS App Store than the standard?


It's in the app store rules, media companies have a special deal, that no one else gets.


No one found inside documents showing apple was playing games, but I struggle to believe there is none of that going on.


There's a reason they changed Google's internal chat system to delete all messages after max 30 days. They don't want discovery happening again.


But they did play games, check the other subthreads. They were willing to bend over backwards for Netflix including giving them a lower cut.


And yet that judge didn't find a problem, which is stunning really, when, at least as far as I can see, the case that apple is monopolising the app store is just so obvious


if epic wants to gain market share and actually be competitive with steam they are not going to win users over with just free games. the steam client has so many nice features that work fairly well most of the time while epic to the best of my knowledge (havent checked recently) still doesnt have a shopping cart despite users very vocally asking for it for a long time.

epic needs to put more money into their software not exclusives


Don t be evil to don't get caught in a decade..


Everytime the kids buy some useless cosmetics in fortnite I'm telling my self I'm financing Tims crusade against big tech here. FTW!


Epic is owned by the Chinese TenCent - considering one of the things US used against Huawei which made their phones useless outside the domestic market was Google Play services and App Store.

I smell something here - think Tim was encouraged to go on this crusade.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: