This is done in Australia through Telsta and Microsoft's partnership for Xbox all access and has been announced to be happening again for series S/X which is really neat. It's also not a bad deal considering you keep the console if you stay for the full 24 months which I assume will stay for the S/X also. Source: https://www.telstra.com.au/entertainment/gaming/xbox-all-access
@Grot Again I think you didn't read my previous comment. Of course Epic has Epic in mind as all for profit companies do. The thing about the scope of this is that if Epic gets what Epic wants then it's very possible that all developers will get what they want too. And again as I was saying it's a very strange situation when you produce platforms. Does doing the work to produce the device give you exclusive rights to stop others from using it? Of course it does at the beginning but as a platform grows to be the primary device that more than 1 billion people people use, I think (and anti-competitive laws state) that they no longer have as much control. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are of course required to adhere to the same rules if their platforms had the power that Apple does with the iPhone. Comes down to where do you draw the line in the sand as to when your ecosystem is forced to become an open ecosystem by law. As a consumer of entertainment goods I don't understand how you can't see that this is good for you regardless of what you think about Apple.
@Grot You have again just looked at it from a shallow surface level just as I said.
To any regular consumer, if the cost is the same to sign up to the same service on different platforms, the payment breakdown would almost never cross their minds. To them they are paying $10 a month to the service, not $3 to Apple and $7 to the service.
Apple literally has control of these Terms of Service. You cannot tell me with a straight face that Apple blocking a game streaming service isn't Apple's fault and that it is instead Apple's Terms of Service's fault.
It's not about side-loading apps, it's about alternative stores. Yes every single developer could sell directly from their own website to iOS users, but much more feasible would be a launcher specifically for Games that can actually maintain enough market share to be worth hosting there. Of course the App Store will always maintain a value, the argument here is not that it doesn't, rather that it shouldn't be the only option for developers. Why can't I publish a game on the App Store and on another alternative store that provides me a much better cut?
This is one that I see a lot. People think that because Apple sell the iPhone that they should have complete control over everything that everyone should be able to do on it. It's a very strange situation obviously because at what stage does a single company have enough market share to be forced to allow direct competitors access to their tools. This is a very subjective situation that no one person has any good answer to, however from a consumer standpoint competition drives innovation and lower prices so I'm not really seeing why anyone would support their monopoly.
Yes, they are buying exclusives with lots of money. Maybe this does go against what they previously had said. I understand consumer frustration about this however again ultimately this is a good thing for game developers and for gamers. In reply Valve is taking less of a cut from larger developers which in turn is savings passed on to the consumer (either directly or indirectly).
Tencent's involvement is difficult and potentially worrying. Ultimately their current stake is 40% and although it does maintain some power on the board, it isn't enough for a proper takeover and the theft of data that you're worried about. Maybe in the future it will be and if your decision is to avoid it for that you are welcome to, but ultimately they are giving developers a much better deal which allows game companies to stay open which is what we all want.
@antdickens @Grot I think a lot of people are having a very shallow look at this whole situation. While Epic staged a publicity stunt, they're doing it to bring attention back to a major problem for many developers and companies that deal with the App Store, and that is the overarching anti-competitive behavior that Apple has been displaying recently. Apple undercutting Spotify with Apple music because they nobody to pay a 30% cut to, blocking Microsoft from releasing xCloud to iOS to protect their own Apple Arcade interests and many more instances including with Netflix/TV+ and News+ with news organisations. I don't think Epic went into this thinking "we are going to win a lawsuit about Fortnite", I think they went in with the mindset to provide irrefutable evidence of this behavior and to gain the backing of other companies in similar sticky situations for a Senate investigation. Of course Epic has things to win - if this tips Apple to be forced to allow installs from outside the App Store then Epic stops paying them anything on Fortnite, however it would also give other game developers that opportunity too making it much more feasible to launch on iOS which is pro-consumer. Ultimately this gives Epic more money since they tax large developers (a fairly small fee in comparison) to use the Unreal Engine, but I think their push towards a much lower tax (12%) against game developers on the Epic Games Store shows that they're invested into the longevity and future of the games industry as a whole - which again, is good for consumers.
Comments 6
Re: Rumour: Xbox Series S To Be Bundled With Phone Contracts In The UK
This is done in Australia through Telsta and Microsoft's partnership for Xbox all access and has been announced to be happening again for series S/X which is really neat. It's also not a bad deal considering you keep the console if you stay for the full 24 months which I assume will stay for the S/X also.
Source: https://www.telstra.com.au/entertainment/gaming/xbox-all-access
Re: Apple Can't Block Epic's Unreal Engine, Rules Judge
@phantomgrimace Why would it make you happy for Apple to put hundreds of developers out of business? They have nothing to do with this issue.
Re: Apple Can't Block Epic's Unreal Engine, Rules Judge
@Tharsman yes I am aware of this, I was explaining this in direct response to Grot who didn't seem to understand that.
Re: Apple Can't Block Epic's Unreal Engine, Rules Judge
@Grot Again I think you didn't read my previous comment. Of course Epic has Epic in mind as all for profit companies do. The thing about the scope of this is that if Epic gets what Epic wants then it's very possible that all developers will get what they want too. And again as I was saying it's a very strange situation when you produce platforms. Does doing the work to produce the device give you exclusive rights to stop others from using it? Of course it does at the beginning but as a platform grows to be the primary device that more than 1 billion people people use, I think (and anti-competitive laws state) that they no longer have as much control. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are of course required to adhere to the same rules if their platforms had the power that Apple does with the iPhone. Comes down to where do you draw the line in the sand as to when your ecosystem is forced to become an open ecosystem by law. As a consumer of entertainment goods I don't understand how you can't see that this is good for you regardless of what you think about Apple.
Re: Apple Can't Block Epic's Unreal Engine, Rules Judge
@Grot
You have again just looked at it from a shallow surface level just as I said.
Re: Apple Can't Block Epic's Unreal Engine, Rules Judge
@antdickens @Grot I think a lot of people are having a very shallow look at this whole situation. While Epic staged a publicity stunt, they're doing it to bring attention back to a major problem for many developers and companies that deal with the App Store, and that is the overarching anti-competitive behavior that Apple has been displaying recently. Apple undercutting Spotify with Apple music because they nobody to pay a 30% cut to, blocking Microsoft from releasing xCloud to iOS to protect their own Apple Arcade interests and many more instances including with Netflix/TV+ and News+ with news organisations. I don't think Epic went into this thinking "we are going to win a lawsuit about Fortnite", I think they went in with the mindset to provide irrefutable evidence of this behavior and to gain the backing of other companies in similar sticky situations for a Senate investigation. Of course Epic has things to win - if this tips Apple to be forced to allow installs from outside the App Store then Epic stops paying them anything on Fortnite, however it would also give other game developers that opportunity too making it much more feasible to launch on iOS which is pro-consumer. Ultimately this gives Epic more money since they tax large developers (a fairly small fee in comparison) to use the Unreal Engine, but I think their push towards a much lower tax (12%) against game developers on the Epic Games Store shows that they're invested into the longevity and future of the games industry as a whole - which again, is good for consumers.