this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
164 points (95.6% liked)

Games

32654 readers
1238 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] thesmokingman@programming.dev 89 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nintendo does not sell hardware at a loss and, IIRC, has done so since the Wii. It was a huge deal back when they said they were going to make a profit off the hardware. Given how abysmally the Wii U did, I’m struggling to find coverage of that from 15yr ago that I only vaguely remember. However, that’s been a major point from Nintendo since the Wii, so it’s ridiculous that Epic wouldn’t know that and is clearly just an attack on Google (please don’t read that as me supporting Google or Epic).

[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 54 points 11 months ago (1 children)

PlayStations are not sold at a loss either.

They usually start out selling for a loss, but Sony reduces costs and scales production so they're usually profitable (or at least even) after a couple of years. As far as I can tell the PS3 took the longest, releasing in 2006 and not breaking even until 2010, still 3 years before the PS4 launched.

It seems Xbox has always sold at a loss though.

[–] BigVault@kbin.social 31 points 11 months ago (2 children)

On top of all this, Apple also sell their own hardware alongside their own App Store, just like Sony and Nintendo do.

The Apple model is extremely similar to the way the console manufacturers operate albeit with a few more freedoms on Mac.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think everyone is aware that Apple sells hardware, that's not relevant to the discussion. What's relevant is whether they sell it at a loss or not.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago

Personally, I don't think that selling hardware at a loss is a good excuse to be anticompetitive with the software. I don't understand how it (and any other kind of loss leading sales tactics) doesn't trigger anti-trust laws.

[–] raptir@lemdro.id 49 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So if Google sold its phones at a loss then Epic would have no problem paying the fee? Sure.

The more interesting part of the argument is saying that people will contact Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony for technical support with a game and expect them to help while Apple or Google would send you to the developer.

[–] ares35@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

google isn't the only company selling android phones.

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

google isn’t the only company selling android phones.

Other Android OEMs are allowed to ship whatever store they want in addition to Google Play. The Epic Games Store is on the Samsung Galaxy Store: https://galaxystore.samsung.com/detail/com.epicgames.portal

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 45 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Honestly, they should sue Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. The fact that we allow such restricted computers that can land you in prison for manipulating them is just absurd.

More realisticly Epic is just choosing their battles where they can see that they can make progress but they can't say that.

[–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They only need one big win. If they manage that, the rest would be much easier. As arguments will have been made and ruled. They can refer to the case against Google as precedent, making the subsequent court cases short, cheaper and/or not be necessary. If Google loses apple, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will all examine changing policy or settling any disagreements earlier.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Precisely, it would be a stupid waste of money to launch simultaneous lawsuits against everyone. Get one victory, then use that precedence to get settlements from the rest.

[–] Shadywack@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I mean don't get me wrong, it's absurd how locked down their stuff is, but I'm not aware of prison time for opening up consoles yet. You can get sued, like Sony vs Hotz, and get ordered to pay some outrageous restitution, but that road ends in bankruptcy, not prison. Still complete bullshit that they can bankrupt a person, but there's no prison....yet.

[–] swordsmanluke@programming.dev 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I mean... Gary Bowser got three years and millions of dollars in fines for running the website of a modchip company.

[–] HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone 26 points 11 months ago

They're trying to get John Fortnite into Smash and are trying to impress Nintendo by knocking Google and Apple off-screen, saved you a read.

[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 13 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Wow, this is complete bullshit.

And I am saying that even though I have zero love for the mobile gaming market, while I do own and like consoles. There is just no reason to consider they're doing things any differently on this matter.

30% seems quite a lot, no matter the platform, especially for small indie studios. I'd care more about these than whatever the Fortnite machine has to pay.

[–] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

30% seems quite a lot, no matter the platform,

I’ve been developing mobile apps since before the iPhone was a thing. I remember when the App Store was announced, including the 30% cut for Apple. There was a lot of excitement around the fact that developers could keep 70%.

Before app stores, this is how you distributed and charged for a mobile app: customers would send a text message with a keyword to a so called shortcode, depending on country this was a 4 or 5 digit phone number. For example, you would send ‘NAMEOFGAME’ to 12345. The user would then get a text message back with a link to download the game. The message they got back was a so called reverse-billing SMS (also known as premium SMS). This message would be billed to the customer, at a certain rate that you as the sender of the SMS could configure. This basically meant customers paid for games through their phone bill.

How this worked from the developer’s side:

  • You generally didn’t own the short code, it was shared with many users, you had to pay a monthly fee for the use of that keyword. Companies who owned a ‘nice’ shortcode (like e.g. 12345) would charge more for it than those who owned a more difficult to remember one. This would cost you at least €100 a month per keyword (the same as you pay for an app store account per year, for an unlimited number of apps)
  • For this amount all the operator did was forward the message to you, you had to have your own server to process the messages. Your server then had to call an API at the telco to send an premium SMS back with the link. (a so called WAP push message). The telco would usually keep 50% of the total cost to the customer. Send a €3.00 SMS , you get €1.50, the telco gets €1.50. For sending 140 bytes to a phone.
  • The link you sent pointed to your own server, where you had to host the files for the game for the user to download.

Note that there was no store, no way for users to discover your game, so you had to advertise it as well. The telco’s took 50% for billing the customer, while you had to everything else. Of course the development tools for mobile apps were absolute shit as well.

So when Apple announced that they would let you keep 70%, would take care of hosting, payments, would provide a nice user friendly app store where people could actually find your app and provide decent development tools for you to build apps in, that was a fucking huge win.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Honest question: how is it possibly "complete" bullshit, when we know for a fact that console makers are taking like a hundred dollar wash on every console sold whereas Apple and Google make substantial profit on every device sold?

I mean I would love to see consoles forced to allow sideloading and alternate app stores too, but I can't fathom how you cant see the difference in business models....

[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 9 points 11 months ago

Someone linked to it already, but yeah, about that...

Note that it was 1 year ago. So the hardware is probably less expensive now and the exceptions are at the very least not as marked.

And of course, it was never true for the Switch to begin with.