Epic explains why it hasn't sued Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft over 30% fee

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.

google isn't the only company selling android phones.

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.

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.

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.

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....

30% fees are insane. Those cost are passed down to us the consumer. We get shittier game because a third of the profit goes to these marketplaces.

Whilst that may be the case, every single day one launch on EGS and other stores (GOG, Microsoft, Steam) launch at exactly the same price on Epic despite the lesser cut. Not one single title I’ve seen launch at a lower price on EGS.

I feel it’s naive to think that is, the consumer would ever benefit from a lesser cut, the fat shits at the top would just keep more.

The 30% covers storage, distribution, discovery, and probably more. If you had to implement that yourself you'd wind up with a shittier version for probably more money.

I'll happily pay these 30% if it means I get quality services for them:

• high speed download servers
• reliable cloud saves
• automatic, non intrusive updates
• discussion forums
• easy mod management
• friend networking, multiplayer services
• responsive and uncomplicated support

(using Steam as an example here)

People always act like those are to be taken as granted, but if you have ever worked in dev/devops, you would know that there's a lot of work maintaining each one of them.

Also, you can use these services for as long as you want, despite paying for them with a single one-time purchase.

Of course, if the platform doesn't provide any services or benefits, your point stands. In that case just avoid it.

Except even without the fees games generally get released at the same price

You're just licking someone else's boot. Epic is by no means pro-consumer.

And yes, google is evil. But that doesn't imply there's someone good in this situation.