Citing 'Economic Efficiency,' Epic Says Fortnite's Upcoming Android App Won't Hit Google Play Store (theverge.com) 131
Fortnite developer Epic Games will not be distributing its massively popular game on Android because the Play Store takes a 30 percent cut of the revenue. Instead, the company plans to distribute the software to players via the official Fornite website, "where Android users can download a Fortnite Installer program to install the game on compatible devices," reports The Verge. From the report: For Fortnite on iOS, Epic decided to distribute the game on the App Store, most likely because it had no other method of getting iPhone users to easily download the software. (Apple, unlike Google, does not allow iOS users to download apps that are not first approved by its internal review processes and distributed through its proprietary marketplace.) With Google and its more open platform, Epic can get away with distributing the app itself. CEO Tim Sweeney says the primary motivation here is twofold. Epic wants to maintain its direct relationship with consumers. (The company currently distributes Fortnite on PC through its own Epic Games Launcher, instead of using Valve's popular Steam platform.)
The second reason is financial: Epic does not want to pay Google's 30 percent cut, especially considering the entire game is funded through in-app purchases. "The 30 percent store tax is a high cost in a world where game developers' 70 percent must cover all the cost of developing, operating, and supporting their games," Sweeney says. "There's a rationale for this on console where there's enormous investment in hardware, often sold below cost, and marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers." But on mobile platforms that are open, like Android, "30 percent is disproportionate to the cost of the services these stores perform, such as payment processing, download bandwidth, and customer service," he says. Sweeney adds that Epic is "intimately familiar with these costs" from its direct distribution of Fortnite on Mac and PC. There's no word as to when the Android version of Fortnite will be available, but rumors suggest it will be tied to the upcoming Samsung Galaxy Note 9 launch on August 9th.
The second reason is financial: Epic does not want to pay Google's 30 percent cut, especially considering the entire game is funded through in-app purchases. "The 30 percent store tax is a high cost in a world where game developers' 70 percent must cover all the cost of developing, operating, and supporting their games," Sweeney says. "There's a rationale for this on console where there's enormous investment in hardware, often sold below cost, and marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers." But on mobile platforms that are open, like Android, "30 percent is disproportionate to the cost of the services these stores perform, such as payment processing, download bandwidth, and customer service," he says. Sweeney adds that Epic is "intimately familiar with these costs" from its direct distribution of Fortnite on Mac and PC. There's no word as to when the Android version of Fortnite will be available, but rumors suggest it will be tied to the upcoming Samsung Galaxy Note 9 launch on August 9th.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:War of the corporate cancers is BAD for securit (Score:5, Interesting)
Encouraging people to download software from even less secure sites is NOT a win even if one of the corporate cancers is able to get a bit more profit.
The Fortnite website is not "less secure" than the Google play store. One of those has been found with malware.
Re: (Score:3)
this precedent will inevitably lead to kids side-installing malware to get their games.
Why don't you think of the children? That is an emotional appeal. Just like arguing that violent video games will lead children into a life of violence.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Mostly I think you failed to understand my point, but I am quite willing to accept your premise that the Fortnite website itself is as secure as the Google Play website. It does NOT change my point unless you insist that EVERY website with apps to be downloaded is secure.
However, I disagree with you regarding your claim that Fortnite has no malware. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. You can't prove any negative.
I also note that you ignored the more serious problems mentioned by my comment nor did
Re: (Score:2)
However, I disagree with you regarding your claim that Fortnite has no malware. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. You can't prove any negative.
I don't think you disagree with my point. I said "One of those has been found with malware."
I also note that you ignored the more serious problems mentioned by my comment nor did you offer any trace of a solution for anything. Oh, wait. Just par for today's Slashdot. [On the bigger religious problem, "There is no gawd but profit, and Apple is gawd's #1 prophet", I think the best solution approach would be a pro-freedom anti-greedom tax system]
I have no solution for this. The solution is love for and from all mankind?
Re: (Score:2)
Epic's website maybe not. but you do realize that Fortnite for Android has already been out for over a month now [bbc.com] right?
Oh wait, those are FAKE Fortnite apps, installed via... the same way as the real Fortnite app.
You may note that none of those apps are on Google Play. And what else is not on Google Play?
I can only imagine there will be a new round of Fortnite phishing apps to steal account crede
Re: (Score:2)
Re: War of the corporate cancers is BAD for securi (Score:2)
If Fortnite scale is so large, then they should be able to negotiate a better deal with Google.
Re: War of the corporate cancers is BAD for secur (Score:1)
Because now I have to verify TLS certs, owners, UTF8 charactors, credit card processor, etc. for Epic. Malware authors already have dozens of copies of malicious Fortnite software in the wild. The Play Store allows me to easily verify the author. Epic's does not.
Re: (Score:1)
Type in www.epic.com to get the apk - half of those things you pulled out of your bum are irrelevant and unnecessary.
It's easy to tell you don't know the topic you;re talking about. The game in question is free. There is no credit card processing required to get the APK.
"Malware authors already have dozens of copies of malicious Fortnite software in the wild."
And? So what? There could be a thousand virus ridden copies of photoshop on piratebay too but who gives a crap if you are not getting it from there an
Re: (Score:2)
What part about "now I have to verify TLS certs, owners, UTF8 charactors" are you not understanding?
This bullshit where every individual provider has their own way of doing shit is why end-users just click "Yes, please get me through this bullshit security nonsense" and don't verify this. When I'm downloading shit for my phone, I'm on a mobile browser and far less likely to want to go through bullshit of verifying all this crap. If you don't care about security or don't care about your time, then go ahead
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent example of how the insane greed of the corporate cancers is bad for the human peasants caught in the crossfire.
It's an excellent example of how monopolies begin to crack under the weight of their own largesse.
NOT to suggest that the Google Play website properly vets the security of the apps, but it's better than nothing.
No absolutely not. It's much worse than nothing. The existence of the app store is a potent source of perverse market incentive fueling the creation of malware.
Re: (Score:3)
While it seems we are largely in agreement on the problems, you seem to have nothing resembling a solution or any constructive improvements for mine. A "problem" with no solution is just part of reality. If you can't fix it, then you better learn to enjoy living with it.
Re: (Score:2)
While it seems we are largely in agreement on the problems, you seem to have nothing resembling a solution or any constructive improvements for mine. A "problem" with no solution is just part of reality. If you can't fix it, then you better learn to enjoy living with it.
I don't use app stores. Never have, never will. I don't have Google app store/play services installed on my phone.
It is sufficient to provide users with tools to manage and transform trust. Monopoly dictation of standards from up high by those who claim to "know better" is dangerous and counterproductive to society.
Users should have the ability to configure systems to visit only approved sites or run approved software by any authorities user deems to be trustworthy.
Users should have the ability to config
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for attempting to clarify your position. Unfortunately, it appears that you are a Libertarian, but one of sufficient sophistication not to identify yourself as such. Under that theory of interpretation, you have already discovered that Libertarian "philosophy" is badly broken and therefore avoid the tag. Again, under that hypothesis, I would say the problem is that Libertarians don't actually understand freedom and there was quite a bit of evidence of such confusion in your reply. I actually consi
Re: (Score:2)
That word doesn't mean what you think it does.
In fact, the sentence almost says the opposite of what you intended.
Re: (Score:2)
That word doesn't mean what you think it does.
In fact, the sentence almost says the opposite of what you intended.
Intent was to convey sloppiness rather generosity. Monopolies can afford to be lazy and sloppy with allocation of resources. A company held to the fire of a functioning market is forced to work for it while remaining frugal or die.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And meanwhile the rest of us will continue to be caught in the crossfire.
However, I actually disagree with you. Cancers are not planning so far ahead. They are only trying to swallow each other and the last cancer standing gets to kill the host. In this case, our society.
I'm increasingly convinced the resolution of the Fermi Paradox is human extinction.
Re: War of the corporate cancers is BAD for securi (Score:1)
"NOT to suggest that the Google Play website properly vets the security of the apps"
99% of the apps on the Play Store are spyware. That is unsurprising given that Google's whole business model is based on data rape.
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather have that money go to Google (who provides a large mobile platform and ecosystem) than Epic (who abandoned the PC platform for consoles, and now has abandoned the concept of buying a game in favour of a Gaming as a Service model).
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
App stores are a way of bringing the benefits of unix package managers to a wider audience.
You mean Linux package managers. AFAICT, this notion was invented by the Linux community, specifically Debian -- and it's a really good idea, so I want credit apportioned correctly.
As long as they are not the only method of installing, they can be very nice.
I would say that while it's important that they not be the only method of installing, it's also important that they be the primary method of installing. I think this move by Epic is bad for the Android ecosystem because if end users get accustomed to grabbing APKs from random places, a large percentage of those APKs will be malwa
Bloody Awful Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
I completely get why Epic wants to do this: 30% adds up to a lot of money for a game that pulls in hundreds of millions a month. But for the broader Android user base this is a terrible idea.
Having the ability to install external APKs and actually enticing non-technical users to do it are two different things. The average smartphone user isn't prepared to use external sources, and if they do, it's going to end up like malware on Windows. Which is to say there's going to be trojan APKs left and right pretending to be Fortnite, or Fortnite with hacks, etc.
Fortnite's original game mode - Save The World - was a zombie survival game. If users have to install APKs from unknown sources, we're going to be surviving a whole new kind of zombie outbreak...
Re: (Score:2)
The average smartphone user isn't prepared to use external sources, and if they do, it's going to end up like malware on Windows.
It doesn't have to end up like malware on Windows. OSX and Linux don't have the same problem, despite being open platforms.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately it pretty much does. Android is the Windows in this analogy; it's the OS running most of the world's smartphones.
Linux and Mac OS X are both niche operating systems in comparison. Linux is all techies (whom generally know what they're doing), and while OS X has some real traction, Apple also keeps it locked down. By default you can't even install external applications, nev
Re: Bloody Awful Idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except with pronouns, apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to end up like malware on Windows. OSX and Linux don't have the same problem, despite being open platforms.
OSX and Linux do have the same problems. They are just slightly insulated in:
a) not being a profitable target so malware is significantly reduced.
b) not having as many stupid users.
But to further your point, OSX and Linux have had considerable malware over the past 2 years, in the case of Linux you were even able to get it from behind the walled garden of apt or npm thanks to server side breaches. But if you want to be pedantic, given the number of malware infested Android phones out there I would almost wa
Re: Bloody Awful Idea (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re-read my comment, pay attention to the 3rd and 4th word.
One of the benefits of not having "as many" users period, is that you don't have "as many" stupid users.
Re:Bloody Awful Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
I completely get why Epic wants to do this: 30% adds up to a lot of money for a game that pulls in hundreds of millions a month. But for the broader Android user base this is a terrible idea.
Having the ability to install external APKs and actually enticing non-technical users to do it are two different things. The average smartphone user isn't prepared to use external sources, and if they do, it's going to end up like malware on Windows. Which is to say there's going to be trojan APKs left and right pretending to be Fortnite, or Fortnite with hacks, etc.
Fortnite's original game mode - Save The World - was a zombie survival game. If users have to install APKs from unknown sources, we're going to be surviving a whole new kind of zombie outbreak...
You're right, but so is Epic. 30% is extortion for the service provided. Somebody has to try to grind the monopoly down to something more reasonable. A smaller game or app probably couldn't do it. I don't play Fortnite but there seems to be a huge following. Even raising awareness of the 30% fee would be a worthwhile accomplishment.
I wonder if there is anything in Google's TOS about not being able to charge a higher price for in-app content if the app was installed from the app store vs APK load.
Re: (Score:1)
30% is a fair market price for the service provided. The service in question is access to a vast marketplace and promotion. Anyone can put up an APK on a website, paying a pittance for distribution. They'll have to find a marketplace though, and secure their own promotion.
Good for Fortnite for being good/popular enough to be able to forego the largest game marketplaces. This is the dream for developers. The vast majority of games out there wouldn't have a hope of success following the same route though. For
30% cut a fair market price? (Score:1)
30% is a fair market price for the service provided. The service in question is access to a vast marketplace (..)
What's Google's cut for then? Download bandwidth: peanuts. Promotion?
Re: (Score:2)
.. which is not Google's to sell access to
And even it were, that point is moot since clearly Epic doesn't think that's worth 30%.
Re: (Score:2)
Although Google is a great force behind Android, the bulk of it are open source components developed (or at least: created) elsewhere.
Oh please, Google basically wrote a new userspace on top of Android. They added so much changes to the Linux kernel that for a long time they were their own fork. That statement is about as much bullshit as claiming macOS is just repackaged BSD with Apple toppings.
At least in theory it's an open platform, you don't need Google to use Android. You don't need to go through Google's app store to distribute apps for it. So Google doesn't deserve payment for the privilege of 'allowing' a developer into the Android ecosystem.
Access to a market is still a service, even if it's not exclusive access. Sure I could set up my own retail outlet or I could ask Wal-Mart to sell my product, they'd probably take a solid cut for access to a customer base even though those custome
Re: (Score:2)
.. which is not Google's to sell access to.
Actually, yes, it is. The vast marketplace is the Google Play store.
Other marketplaces exist, including the Amazon app store, the Samsung app store and Fdroid. Or you could skip the lot and just sell on the street, doing other things to attract the footfall.
Which is what Epic are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
30% is a fair market price for the service provided.
The fact that the publisher chose to go this route is a pretty significant indication that the price is actually too high. If the price was right, then there wouldn't be much incentive to cut out the middleman -- especially considering that they certainly know that this will cut into their overall number of sales.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I sometimes got a mod point to give you. I think you make the point more succinctly than I did. However, you don't touch on solution approaches, so I refer you to my comment on that basis. Warning: I still suffer from delusions of grand solutions, or at least solution approaches that might lead to positive evolution before the violent revolution...
Re: (Score:2)
Aha! Is this a way to make such a reference more concrete: https://games.slashdot.org/com... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
The point of this move is to put pressure on Google to decrease the 30% commission. It really is too high, and should be reduced to at most 15%.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the great thing about Android. User choice about where I get my software from and who I choose to pay and how
Re: (Score:2)
I completely get why Epic wants to do this: 30% adds up to a lot of money for a game that pulls in hundreds of millions a month. But for the broader Android user base this is a terrible idea.
The only terrible idea is monocultures and single vendor monopoly rule.
Having the ability to install external APKs and actually enticing non-technical users to do it are two different things. The average smartphone user isn't prepared to use external sources,
It's actually trivial and learning something new is a great experience.
and if they do, it's going to end up like malware on Windows.
Unlikely, security models are vastly different.
Which is to say there's going to be trojan APKs left and right pretending to be Fortnite, or Fortnite with hacks, etc.
LOL thank goodness Google app store doesn't have malware and fake apps.
All this does is punt the same set of trust issues from app stores to web sites. Whether an app store or web site there are established mechanisms for centrally reporting and blocking harmful sites.
Doing away with app stores mitigates some perverse ma
Re: (Score:2)
The average smartphone user isn't prepared to use external sources
The average smartphone user does what they need to to get the product they want. On Android this means an additional click when it asks you for a one-off enable services button. They average smartphone user not only will manage this, but will do it happily without question and without ever bothering to understand the implications.
Yet Google fined not Apple. (Score:2, Insightful)
Google was recently fined Billions by the EU for a supposedly closed system (eg requiring Google Play on all Android devices), yet Apple gets away with a far more closed system. Stupidity knows no bounds
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's because the only manufacturer allowed to sell phones with iOS is Apple so there cannot be any blocking of competition because there is none.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google just has to come up with a new OS, not license it to anybody and build their own hardware for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Or not license Android for sale in the EU, just sell their own phones there directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Or not license Android for sale in the EU, just sell their own phones there directly.
That does not work. The licensees would sue.
Google can't retroactively change the contracts.
Re:Yet Google fined not Apple. (Score:4, Informative)
Google wasn't fined for a closed system, they were fined for requiring vendors shipping Android devices and wanting to use he Play Store to also ship Chrome and Google Search, exclusively. They were also fined for making payments to vendors to facilitate this restriction, and finally they were also fined for restricting these vendors from shipping any device without the Play Store if they shipped a device with the Play Store.
The idea that this is about a closed App Store system simply isn't true.
Apple isn't subject to the same fines because they aren't forcing third party vendors to act in such a way which furthers their own, unrelated products.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you've sent a message. Your imagination sucks [cnbc.com], your knowledge of how Europe treats its own is non-existent, and nobody should pay any attention to you concerning this topic.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got that backwards. Abuse of dominance is a bit more insidious than price fixing and/or market sharing.
As if duration of infringement [europa.eu] was the sole metric. What about the value of the affected market? Why is Google's market cap 11x Daimler's? Complete irrationality, or a much larger value for the search/information market?
1 billion Euro out of an 850 billion USD market cap or 1 billion Euro
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong [bloomberg.com]. US is +12B/yr in the balance of trade.
Sales are sales. Trade is not limited solely to things measured by the ton. Welcome, traveler from the 19th century, to the 21st.
Re: (Score:2)
It was actually because they required their own browser and search in order to get the Play Store installed, but with this Epic move, I guess the Play Store isn't even necessary.
Could be bad for Android's openness (Score:3)
Sideloading could become more difficult in future official Android builds as a response to this...but hopefully Google will choose the high road.
Sweet (Score:2)
Sweet, and Google better try to understand the message before it gets busted up for the same reason that Apple is getting busted [macrumors.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Same audience that is playing Fortnite today. Children who have no access to a better device at the moment of playing it. For example, during recess in school.
A very bad idea (Score:1)
You're right Epic. Let people enable "Unknown sources" - something which Google has been fighting with for years to avoid malware being widely spread and now you're basically saying that since you cannot come to an agreement with Google over your greed, you're leaving most of your users fucked, sorry, wide open to attacks.
And I'm sure as hell, the Internet will be full of alternative malware-ridden Fortnight APKs because you told everyone that installing APKs from sources other than Google Play is safe.
Re:A very bad idea (Score:4, Informative)
Ad-ridden, crypto-mining fake fortnite installers have been a thing on play store for a while, dear pro-monopoly zealot.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to see them. Please.
Google cannot manually check every new submission to Google Play and their automatic systems sometimes misses malware. It's not perfect however they remove such bad apps by dozens of thousands every month and they also remotely wipe such apps from your phone. Everyone's more or less happy. However once you enable "Unknown Sources" Google can rightfully wash their hands of it. You're on your own. Fucked or not.
Also, just also, stop using the Internet altogether. There are
Re: (Score:2)
You must be a bit slow on the uptake, Ivan. I'm pretty sure I've explained it to you once.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not ;-)
If you don't log into your Google account then Google Play won't check your apps and certainly won't delete the apps installed from unknown sources.
Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
look at this guy, getting mad at someone for trying to make money in america. are you not from around here?
Re: (Score:2)
So the TL;DR version is "Go walled gardens fuck yeah." well remember that when Windows and Mac go store-only and boot locking kills Linux/AOSP. Because that's what you want, you buy a device from $vendor and they control what you can run on it. It's probably where we're going but I wouldn't be cheering on that development...
Competition between app stores and mobile OSes (Score:2)
Fornite (Score:2)
Fornite? (LIne 2). Sounds like a heat-resistant mineral.
Can't BeauH1-B even copy and paste correctly?
This would probably hurt most games (Score:1)
But Fortnite players seems unhealthily obsessed with the game. I saw something in the past week about this being the most profitable game at the moment, taking up something around 7% of the entire digital market's spending?
So I imagine Fortnite players would have no problem doing anything to keep the game on them even more. I saw an image recently of a guy who had taken his computer and monitor onto a train/bus/whatever so he could play Fortnite the entire time.
Def not going through the hassle (Score:2)
Play Store manages security updates and holds my payment info. Not going to give up on those features for a game, so they lose a customer here.
EPIC... is part of the industry that pioneered... (Score:3)
... walled gardens and locking down games accusing google of unfair practices. That is rich.
Alternative app stores (Score:2)
I would really love to see some app store competition. This 30% take on everything is ridiculous. If the big app stores would charge a flat fee, or cap their take at a certain dollar amount, much more quality software would show up on the app stores, instead of just rinky-dink cheap and free apps. If there were app store competition, we'd have a lot better choices.