this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2026
10 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
2401 readers
193 users here now
Tech related news and discussion. Link to anything, it doesn't need to be a news article.
Let's keep the politics and business side of things to a minimum.
Rules
No memes
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The way Epic boycotted Android (and Mac) was always weird. The only platform that really prevented them from working was iOS, because you couldn't sideload it. You CAN but it's a pain in the arse and not really suitable for most people (though, it's not hard). Epic could have shown people how to do it and continued to offer their game on iOS, and sold the V-bucks directly to users, and Apple couldn't do shit about it, unless they stopped how sideloading worked, and some say they would never do that because it also allows developers to test apps. But they might. Apple never did anything to prevent them from offering the Epic Game Store on macOS. They just removed it for a while. It's back, you can use it, even filter by OS and install/run games from it, just like Steam. However, Fortnite is listed as "unavailable" for some reason.
It's worse on Android. Just like macOS, users have always been able to install the Epic Game Store on Android and get Fortnite through that. So, what's the big deal, on macOS and Android? See, hosting big files costs money. And Fortnite updates every couple days. So Epic doesn't want to have millions of people downloading Fortnite, if they can help it. If they can upload the update once to Google and let Google handle the downloads, that's better on them. But they don't want to pay Google in terms of letting them take a cut from sales of their virtual currency.
On one hand, yeah, "rent seekers" like Apple and Google are kind of in the wrong... but their costs aren't zero. They want Apple and Google to host their game effectively for free. They've always been able to offer it directly. They just wanted others to host it for free. So next time you see Fortnite update, think about how many people are playing, and do some basic math, and look into what hosting something with that much bandwidth required costs, and you can see how much Epic is trying to mooch from Apple and Google.
But let's be absolutely clear, everyone's an asshole here.
While the minimal effort Epic Games has put into the Epic Games Store (giving away games rather than implementing innovative platform features) shows that their motive is more to keep as much of the money from Fortnite microtransactions as possible rather than be innovative, it doesn't cost platform holders 30% of sales to host game files. It's a highly profitable business model, especially in closed ecosystems where it is intentionally difficult to install games via alternative means.
While I don't like Epic Games, platform gatekeepers shouldn't be able to extract a toll on software distribution purely because they develop the operating system, and especially not one as high as 30%. A competitive app store ecosystem would reduce platform fees as each store seeks to attract developers, who would in turn be incentivized to reduce prices to make their games competitively priced for consumers. For this to be possible, however, alternative App Store installation has to be possible, something Google is trying to make harder and something Apple prevents in most markets (charging an anticompetitive app installation fee in markets where it is forced to compete).
I agree with most of that for the most part, but... what about Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch? Should they have to allow sideloading/alternative app stores, too? Or do they get a pass? And if so, where do you draw the line?
The difference used to be that consoles were sold at a loss so they could make it back in the licensing, but that's no longer the case. Today, both game consoles and smartphone are sold at profit. The game consoles are using parts from 2020 (ish, in the case of Switch 2) and they're buying them in bulk AND they've jacked the prices way up. So yeah, they're making money on those, so they should be subject to the same rules as Apple and Google.
I agree—Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony shouldn't have exclusive distribution rights for their consoles either. Their distribution systems are inherently monopolistic, and all the more problematic when games are on a trend towards becoming digital-only, enabling even greater profits from the eventual inability to buy used games.