Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Epic Taking on App Store 30%

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by hard_code, Aug 13, 2020.

  1. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,631
    Or they're a poor EU country, since EU forbids regional pricing.
     
    Ryiah and neginfinity like this.
  2. koirat

    koirat

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Posts:
    2,068
    Are you sure about this ?
    I tried to find it can you give some links ?
     
  3. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,631
    Ryiah likes this.
  4. neoshaman

    neoshaman

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Posts:
    6,493
    I'm pretty sure the goal isn't the 30%, it's just epic argument, the goal is to make a competitive digital storefront by anyone who would provide alternative to the 30%.

    That is, the stake is the gatekeeping.

    The market isn't defined by monopoly it's an oligopoly, ie not a real competition.

    I can attest it's not healthy and not abstract as the gatekeeping, Google in my case , prevent entire local regions to develop themselves. Ie where I am, i have a market, i have the skills, but i can't tap into it because Google prevent selling and buying in my area on phone, despite being only a region of a country where it's allowed, so it's legally nonsensical but we don't have the resources to fight back.

    I can only compete if i have the resources to make a phone. Which is an option i evaluated using white brand phone, but then Google also control android, the os, even if i could make my os i still would to create the driver too, and the accord they have with constructors preven that anyway. Epic tried the android side load thing and still got kept away by google hold on the os.

    As their condition for access will worsens over time, it will be you in the future.

    I hope epic win.
     
  5. neginfinity

    neginfinity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Posts:
    13,554
    Never thought being part of EU could result in this kind of downside.
     
    AlanMattano likes this.
  6. neoshaman

    neoshaman

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Posts:
    6,493
  7. koirat

    koirat

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Posts:
    2,068
    Damn this is crazy. It will result in lowering prices for rich countries and raising for poor ones.
     
  8. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,631
    I think it’s primarily about digital actually.
     
  9. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,616
    Or maybe just raising prices in poor countries, depending on the geographic mix of product sales. If raising prices in poor countries puts it out of reach for them then there's no point also lowering them in rich countries and making less money there, too.
     
  10. koirat

    koirat

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Posts:
    2,068
    It is not only about short term sales, you want a lot of people to play your games and spread your mark and products.
     
  11. neginfinity

    neginfinity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Posts:
    13,554
    Mostly raising prices in poorer regions and increased piracy in poorer regions.

    I have thought about regional pricings in the past, and decided that the most reasonable scheme is the one that adjusts prices for regions, based on their income level. Basically that's because price of making a copy of a digital product is close to zero and it is not like physical goods.

    Obviously in this case it'll be necessary to make sure people can't buy things outside of their regions. Which would mean gifting would be forbidden, or gifting to another region would mean buying at the price in that region.

    Gog handled this well, I think, steam mostly handles it well, but some titles do not bother with regional adjustments.

    Interestingly, GOG originally tried to implement "same price for everyone" with presumption of it being fair, but later ditched this idea, as it turned out to be "not fair".
     
    Ryiah and angrypenguin like this.
  12. IgnisIncendio

    IgnisIncendio

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Posts:
    223
    Something I find interesting in the latest hearing is that the judge asked Epic, when did the App Store become a monopoly, if the iOS app distribution market is a relevant market? From the beginning in 2008? That doesn’t sound right. The judge was not convinced, and I wasn’t too. Epic didn’t have a good answer to that, they just replied that they basically didn’t know.

    If you say “when iOS became a dominant size of the market” that sounds a bit weak too, since even Epic said that they weren’t saying that iPhones were a monopoly.

    I have yet to hear a good answer to that question. If iPhone isn’t a monopoly, and the App Store can’t be a monopoly because it would have made the 2008 iPhones illegal, what’s the problem?
     
  13. Metron

    Metron

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Posts:
    1,137
    I think that you have to consider the question of monopoly tied to the platform itself. On the iOS platform, Apple doesn't allow any other shop to exist. On the iOS platform and in combination with the app store, Apple does not allow to use any other way to pay for IAP and subscriptions in another way than through their payment system.

    Thing is, that Apple requires developers to sell on the app store for the same price than on their own website. This means, that they are forced to sell their apps for around 25% less profit on the app store (-5% due to CC processing). Developers are not free to choose a higher price on the iOS platform than somewhere else.

    Now, Apple says that they treat everyone in the same way. This, in fact, is not true. They have special deals with a number of application publishers to pay less than 30%. In some cases, they even allow to bypass the Apple payment system and to sell subscription through a web site.

    In the same time, Apple requires more and more developers to integrate IAP, even if the developer itself does not "sell" anything (i.e. Wordpress). There are proven cases where Apple has copied an app, pushed it onto their store and forced the original software out of the store (and sometimes out of business).

    So... Apple says that they are no monopoly because players can choose to access the game through another platform. But why would Apple users do that? They have their device, they want to play on it.

    The Apple iOS market is huge! They are no monopoly when you consider smartphones as a whole, but in terms of financially stable and wealthy customers, the Apple market has it's value. Saying "Well, you pay 30% and not 15% to gain access to the market." could lead to "Well, you now have to pay 35% to access the market." Seriously, what would hinder Apple to do so?
     
  14. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,631
    Also, I said it a few pages back, but combined with Google, they are for sure a Duopoly, and there are antitrust laws against that as well.
     
  15. Marc-Saubion

    Marc-Saubion

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Posts:
    653
    That's a very good point but part of the issue is that Apple doesn't want their users to make an informed decision. From what I've heard, they prevent you to mention their cut and also forbit you to charge more on their platform to compensate.

    Otherwise, I'd be ok with their business model.
     
  16. IgnisIncendio

    IgnisIncendio

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Posts:
    223
    Your first paragraph is exactly what the judge said didn’t make too much sense. If the App Store is a monopoly on iOS, wouldn’t it have been a monopoly ever since it launched in 2008, even if iOS had 1% market share, it would have been illegal? The judge basically asked, if Apple never changed their terms, and has always operated this way from the very beginning, when did it become a monopolist? Epic couldn’t answer this.

    Also, just some side opinions:

    I agree the “don’t sell the same app for a lower price elseware” is scummy.

    Even if they don’t treat people equally, I don’t see it as a legal issue. Retailers and malls do this all the time; more popular products have more leverage and bargaining power.

    The Wordpress thing was misleading, they had a section in their app where they advertised Wordpress premium IIRC. They were definitely selling something there.
     
  17. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    Surely you have links to this proven cases, right? Cause otherwise they aren't proven. Incorporating the functionality or features of an app is not the same as literally "copying" an app.

    I will say in general I don't like this idea, but it's not an Apple thing, it's a "marketplace provider" thing. You see it with Amazon, you see it with Meijer and Walmart. How do you view their similar behavior?
    Have you seen the latest in that situation? Apple backtracked on that. Let's not spread misinformation and hearsay. Amusing quote from Wordpress: "Bad news travels faster than good, usually, so please consider sharing that they reversed course."

    That situation is definitely weird though. Apple's response implies the developer added payment options to the app excluding Apple Pay. That article says the guy in charge of Wordpress claims in a tweet that didn't happen, but I can't find any such tweet.
    The "informed decision" is when one has $500 on hand and needs a phone and looks at the two platforms and decides which they're buying into.

    Of course people are people so we know there are very few informed decisions, but that's ostensibly when one considers the platform's design.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2020
    IgnisIncendio likes this.
  18. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    You are aware that these companies are currently under investigation for exactly this reason, right?

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon...lers-to-launch-competing-products-11587650015
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/01/ama...e-probe-by-house-panel-nears-final-steps.html
     
  19. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    6,009
    It's pretty obvious that a monopoly doesn't exist in a shoebox. I can't be accused of having a monopoly on myself. It has to be something that controls an overwhelmingly large share of a very large market (phones/apps).

    It's the same thing with something like Facebook, of course they would have nothing to prove to Congress if they were just a network of students on a campus somewhere.

    One of the reasons why a monopoly is an issue is that it is too big to reasonably compete with. Back in 2008 or whatever, it would have been fairly easy to compete with them, but now that's not the case.

    Also, it's a question of how much influence phones and apps have to people's everyday lives. If there were ten people on the planet using an iPhone, nobody would care. But when they are the go-to platform for a device that is incredibly integral to virtually everyone's lives, that changes things a bit. Basically, great power and great responsibility, and all that.

    Just to be clear about my position on this, I'm not arguing from a moral position. I don't think there's anything morally wrong with what Apple is doing, of course - it's just stifling. And the question is, do you want to live in a society that takes action to maintain a constructive business and social environment, or not? Many businesses, ranging from small-time devs to big businesses such as Epic, rely on being able to put apps on people's phones without getting bled to death or facing unwarranted uncertainty.
     
  20. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
  21. neoshaman

    neoshaman

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Posts:
    6,493
    Apple is playing mind games, they don't have hardware monopoly, they have software monopoly.

    It means that in the current software market, you can't create competitive software without going through a gatekeeper having conflicting interest.

    The problem isn't apple it is the increasingly control through wall garden. Google closing that gap too.

    Only pc and web are open software market, and apple is crippling web app on their bowser for a reason.

    Epic might have selfish reasons but their initiative is good for opening the market, especially for poor region where newcomer could arise. Walled garden keep away initiative from poorer region too. Epic is the lesser evil here. Way lesser.
     
    Deleted User and Ryiah like this.
  22. koirat

    koirat

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Posts:
    2,068
    Apple - the existence of this corporation is a proof of how ignorant and elitist people are ;)
     
  23. Marc-Saubion

    Marc-Saubion

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Posts:
    653
    No, it's not an informed decision because Apple is actively using their dominant position to prevent their users to know about these 30%.

    What did you think this was about? Epic isn't suing to get a better deal but to force Apple to talk about the rules they don't want their users to know about.
     
    Deleted User likes this.
  24. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    Huh? Any proof of this, or more hearsay?
    Lol, what? You telling me the entire court case is a show? You telling me their Google suit is to do the same thing--are you trying to claim that Google "uses their dominant position to prevent users from knowing about their 30%"? Are you really trying to claim these lawsuits are completely frivolous? Are you really trying to claim Cravath, Swaine, and Moore took on a frivolous lawsuit?

    And honestly...you really think Apple users care that Apple gives devs the same industry standard cut everyone else does?
     
  25. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    On the contrary they are the same because as the store's owner they have unfair advantages. For starters, they don't have to pay the store's fee and can promote their own products above the third party products, and worse yet because they don't pay a fee they're able to force the minimum price for the product all on their own.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2020
    AcidArrow likes this.
  26. IgnisIncendio

    IgnisIncendio

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2017
    Posts:
    223
    Shouldn’t this apply to in-house brands at retailers too?

    Yeah, I was actually arguing from a legal position which is why we may be talking past each other. Epic’s legal theory is that the iOS app distribution market is its own market, which will implicate Apple even if they had no market share, so it isn’t really a sound theory. Which is like, yeah, of course they have a 100% monopoly in their own product.

    In the court hearing (if I remember correctly) they also said that they weren’t arguing anything about iOS’s market share in the wider smartphone market, which may hurt their case even more. Maybe they could backtrack on this in the future and argue that iOS, while not being a monopoly, is a dominant player which stifles innovation. But that still shouldn’t mean iOS itself is a relevant market for reasons stated above.

    Speaking about stifling innovation, I feel like this is something that can’t be solved. Third party apps are always going to be more agile and have better features; first party features are always going to be better integrated. This is just a fact of life because it’s easier to communicate within a company than to negotiate open APIs across companies. This applies to everything, not just tech. For example, I’m sure that there are better third party speedometers for my car, so is it stifling innovation for my car to come with a stock speedometer that is hard to change out? I’m looking for a discussion here, not an argument.
     
    EternalAmbiguity likes this.
  27. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    They're objectively not the same thing. My company matches me when I buy stock and that's legal. It would be illegal as hell for me to use internal information to choose when to buy or sell stock. One type of "unfair advantage" is completely legal and normal, the other is not (legal--sadly probably pretty normal).

    Now as I said in general I'm against a marketplace having a generic product for the reasons you mention, and I try to go out of my way not to buy such products. But the two aren't the same. One is specifically abusing and exploiting "trust" placed in you by another party.
     
  28. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    6,009
    OK well if that's what they said, that would be a weak argument on Epic's part. I thought the definition of a monopoly included some absolute value of influence.

    For me, the issue is that Apple are outright blocking things like installing third party apps and alternative payment systems, forcing app devs to use their store and pay them 30% even if those devs want to do everything themselves. It's not a question of competitive edge at all - in fact I think Epic are showing gaping holes in the value of the companies like Steam and Apple that they are taking on, and demonstrating higher value offerings that everyone prefers.

    The problem is that providing any competition is very difficult. They had to resort to exclusives to compete with Steam, and take Apple to court just to be able to compete with the app store.

    I'm pretty amazed at how low quality the market for games and app devs has become. I was very disappointed with Steam - with the Steam fee thing it's clear to me that they thought they were so difficult to compete with that they just wanted to open the gates and let everything in for a few more bucks. If I remember correctly, they floated some range of $100 - $5000, and everyone was wondering if this meant they were trying to screen out the low quality stuff, and then they go ahead and choose the absolute bottom value.

    The app stores themselves are absolutely flooded with all kinds of junk, and these companies are squeezing devs and acting like the app stores still have some great value because there isn't an alternative route to get an app on people's phones.

    One might say that this means that Apple should keep control of iOS apps to maintain quality - but I would prefer competition. Competition is the only thing you can rely on to improve the quality of a market for customers (in this case devs). Waiting for these companies to have some kind of epiphany and suddenly care about the overall health of the market seems like a waste of time - I think big companies are like civilizations, going in only one direction from innovation to consolidation to immobility and eventual self-destruction, with a constant decline in efficiency along the way.
     
  29. adamgolden

    adamgolden

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Posts:
    1,549
  30. chingwa

    chingwa

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Posts:
    3,789
    Corpo War! :D
     
    EternalAmbiguity likes this.
  31. Shizola

    Shizola

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2014
    Posts:
    470
  32. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    A day late and a dollar short, honestly. There's little to no point for the people who this would benefit the most to enter the mobile market anymore.
     
  33. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,631
  34. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    What about the people who're on the App store now but below that revenue threshold? Won't this help them?
     
  35. Baste

    Baste

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Posts:
    6,294
    Having to "enroll" is sketchy. It should be automatic.

    It should also not cost money to ship software on a platform that's doing exactly 0 things to help you get customers. Just don't make IPhone games, people.
     
  36. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    Those people are few and far between due to how extremely top-heavy the app store has gotten, even compared to traditional gaming platforms dealing with AAA heavy hitters. Do they exist? Sure! Do they represent a group of people so small as to make this obviously lip service? Also yes!
     
  37. Joe-Censored

    Joe-Censored

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Posts:
    11,847
    I think Epic made an epic mistake suing Apple and Google separately, and calling each a monopoly. Both Apple and Google can each point to the other and say "See, they exist with significant market share, so I'm not a monopoly." Epic should have sued them both in a single lawsuit, and argued that together they are a duopoly covering nearly the entire mobile app landscape, and both use similar tactics to prevent a competing app store from gaining a foothold on their respective platforms.
     
  38. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    I think the real purpose (or the real benefit if not) of this is to neuter claims by Epic and others about the percentage being prohibitive for small developers. This totally reverses things so a big company like Epic can't use small devs as a shield when criticizing the App Store.

    It's interesting also in light of Steam taking the direct opposite approach (rewarding higher sales with lower percentages).
     
  39. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,616
    Storage and delivery, transaction management, storefront, user account management (and security), channel related customer support, and so on. All global. And it should all cost nothing?

    I guess it's easy to take stuff for granted when we're not used to doing it ourselves.
     
    Deleted User, NotaNaN, xjjon and 3 others like this.
  40. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    Nothing? No, but the only reason these stores have a value proposition past the cost of baseline services is because there are literally no functionally profitable alternatives. I guarantee that, if there were, these services would cost far less than you'd ever expect.
     
  41. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,616
    The fact that itch.io and the Humble Widget both exist is testament to the fact that the cost can be low, sure.

    Similarly, the fact that these do exist and yet the vast majority of PC game developers still choose to pay Steam's much higher rates instead or as well is testament to the fact that there is some kind of value being provided that is greater than the difference in cost.

    I too would love to see that defacto standard 30% rate go down, and from a cost perspective it's pretty clear that there's room for it. But the proposition that valuable services "should... not cost money" is flawed at best.

    Following on from that, the idea that the value of Steam / iTunes / Google Play / et al. comes solely or primarily from their functionality is also flawed. The stuff I listed previously is in fact just ticking off prerequisites before you can reach the real value: access to the audience each of those various services have cultivated. As you say, there are "no functionally profitable alternatives". You had to specify "profitable", because some platforms do have functional alternatives, and developers go elsewhere anyway - to the established channels which have audiences.
     
    EternalAmbiguity likes this.
  42. xjjon

    xjjon

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Posts:
    610
    Well they also provide a platform where you can reach billions of users that otherwise wouldn't be possible without (or really hard to do so). For example using apple search ads or google play ads makes it really easy to get to your your user.. where else can we do that with such high conversion

    I think there's a lot the app stores can improve on but for a small fee ($25 one time for google, $100/yr for apple) I can reach many users and not have to worry about how to distribute it to them or even how to reach them.

    I suppose 30% fee for IAPs is high, but 70% to me is better than 0% I would have gotten if I was pushing games on my own platform or website.

    But yes you are right about alternatives, they all pretty much suck. Even ones backed by big money like Amazon are not really worth the time to even setup the IAPs and maintain
     
    angrypenguin likes this.
  43. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    Yes, but the keyword here is "can". You could say the same about getting a product into a major retail store, but if the store decides to stuff it into the most obscure location possible it's practically guaranteed to never sell and that is the state for 99% of games on these stores.
     
  44. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,616
    You say that as if it's a deliberate decision rather than a physical limit. Yes, digital stores have unlimited space, but users only have very limited viewing attention and only a very few products can go in the highly visible spots. Those spots are both highly limited and highly sought after.

    And if they weren't then you wouldn't want to be on that store, because they wouldn't have an audience.

    Complaining that your app isn't one of the tiny fraction that a distribution channel actively promotes is abdicating your own role in the sales process. It's obvious to anyone who thinks about it that a store can't directly promote every product, or that it would be detrimental if they did. So, as businesses trying to sell something we're naive if we plan based on the assumption that someone else will spontaneously promote our stuff.

    You'll probably notice that most of the businesses selling through the major retail stores you mention also advertise for their products outside of the store. They know that the limited shelf space in a store will go to the products most profitable to the store, and that they have to work to maintain those spots. A digital storefront who will put you in an "obscure" place rather than dropping your product is much better than that.

    So you're right, the key word here is indeed "can", because at least from that obscure place you can still sell your product if you manage to find your audience. There's no point getting upset at Apple that your app isn't in the top 1%*. That's not a realistic expectation for any of us to have.

    They do give us access to the audience, but it's up to us to do the selling.

    * With 1.96 million apps on the App Store, 1% would still be 19,600 apps. That's in the vicinity of half of the content of Steam, or several times the size of a typical game console catalogue. So the real expectation here if you expect Apple to actively promote your stuff is to be around the top 0.001%
     
  45. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    It is. Product placement in a store is deliberate and often paid for.

    I'm not complaining about my app not receiving a certain degree of attention. I'm saying just being on the store doesn't do anything for sales regardless of how many people there are aside from the fact that a store with no audience has no sales period.
     
  46. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,616
    Yes, the decision of which products receive the 0.00001% of high-profile shelf space is deliberate.

    However, you were talking about 99% of products being in "obscure" shelf space as if it were deliberately made so. That is not the case. If Valve decided to give every spot in their store equal visibility it would just mean that 100% of their shelf space became "obscure".
     
  47. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    That last sentence sounds very deliberate to me.
     
  48. neginfinity

    neginfinity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Posts:
    13,554
    I believe, the correct wording would be
    "a platform where you might reach billions of users"
     
    Ryiah likes this.
  49. unitedone3D

    unitedone3D

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2017
    Posts:
    160
    Hi there! Just a 2 cents. TL DR: sorry again for this long one. But I'm a bit of answering (ok a lot) to what is going on this. I think that is the problem once more, not having options and being tied to what's available, because that's all there is. All there is, that is profitable; or else you must go on small-audience websites that are not profitable simply because the user base is too small. It is why I suggested the Unity game store...but alas, no one is interested (except me or like 1 other person); it's like ''our games end up in an obscure place on a popular Platform...we get no exposure despite we are on the supposed best Platform (Steam/Google Play/...), we try to 'attract' the audience to our game on that website...but so does 1 million other game devs...competition too much''....

    Then..? maybe it is time to look elsewhere and if these options are the only profitable options; then, you have to try Something else; like making your Own Platform - which will be far more difficult to 'obtain audience' because you off of a popular Platform; but you are also Not with the Competition on the website; you are only on Your website, so that evens things; but, yes, no audience because 'obscure offsite Platform of indie dev'...so, you must make them come; you might not have 140 millions users like Steam 'ready for you - to pay' for your game. But, you still ahve to reach this audience, even on Steam, and as others said :''But steam can't show Every Single game (that 50,000 total of games) - it only shows the popular ones (algorithm), so only these obtain exposure...there are 24 hours in day, thus not all games can even obtain 10 Seconds of Marketing Exposure on the 'what's new page' or 'popular/trending' on Steam...you have to 'get people to your game/market it' for them to come to your Steam page and buy it'....but again, going around in circles...

    That'S why I said, make a new Platform, like Unity store or some other (doesn't matter if they never made any game...don'T need to be like Steam or Epic (Game makers...that made platforms); All that matters is that they make the Platform...like Discord for example. Then you haev to attract the people (with exclusive etc...because no one will leave Steam/Google app playstore etc); The fact that people Did go to Epic Store or Did go to 'small obscure indie dev platofrms' to sell their game; shows that people Can budge and decide 'ok' I'll buy it elsewhere instead of same ol place. Maybe that game could be good, maybe it's Worth it, to go on another website and buy a game there rather than regular places. But, gamers (and even devs) continuously make More reasons to Not go...and that is why we go in circles
    ''Popular Platform/Huge Audience/Profitable -> Ovesaturated/Ultra-Competition -> Unless Perfect Marketing -> NOt so Lucky/profit. '' Many devs said it, there made Nothing on Steam and they Did marketing too; Ok, their game was not super great as probably one big reason..but it was not always the case; where people just did not want this game or this genre; or whatever other reason; the devs made no money or little on the Popular (supposedly profitable) Platform,

    The saying is: ''only fools/crazies repeat same thing on and on and on, hoping to see change''. Maybe it'S time to go elswhere (not GOG, not itch io, no itch for that, not Google play or mac this...mac that;; but a New thing). Unity Game Store could have been a partial solution by offering a New Empty (no compeitiont, like the Nintendo Switch store...at the start...indies flocked to it..and made their fortune; now it's filled up..and that early-profitable time is bygone).

    It is a question of competition/market saturation etc; new empty stores, are empty and need games (to fill them); very few devs at the start = high odds of 'being chose' because no other competition. Now, there is no audience at the start...but soon enough, some come (like Epic Store...), and yes small stores like GOG/Itch io ..made no money and are no profitable so we should heed them as example of places to not put your games (if profitability is end goal);

    But, making a store by a Big Company like say Unity, is a different kettle than GOG itch...it is comparable to Epic, doing the store (no matter the 'they don'T make games'; not important, what's important is a new place to put your games on and reach a new (coming over) audience and obtaining that Exposure/now; instead of facing 1 zillion games on Google play store and 0.00000000000000000000001% getting any success)..too crowded, lkie sardines.

    Thanks for Reading. I apologize for generalizations.
    Just a 2 cents.

    PS: I can keep dreaming, oh well, I gues what's there...is what we have to contend with. I might end up doing the Escape from Tarkov/One Hour One Life - One Obscure Platform of Mine -'Leave' the big platforms out and try to do it with own Platform - Attract them/make them come to your website, they might come if you ahve a great game they want and know about; it is hard but what is Harder, -is your game failing to be profitable Even when put on big platform (despite the game is good-enough, you made marketing, obtained 100 reviews or so...and still no dice/'not picking up'/meager pittance return; that's very bad 'return' ROI, for many small solo indie dev doing this 'in the hopes of making enough to make another game', it's carreer exit/end and not the 'fail fast, repeat..go back...fail fast...repeat repeat...at certain point some abandonned, too costly for too little return; if your game took you years to make (like mine so far still in progress), you are left to Wonder, what if make 0 and I spent years, I took that change/that risk I assume it; but I would like to minimize the likelyness of failing to be profitable - Hence, I Will conside options and not just go to Steam or other because only they exist/only they are profitable; Except, when they are not; as in, you do everything right, and still not profitable...will you spend another 5 years to make another 'attempt'/game..or just, now, decide that's it 'I'm making 'chain-games' that take 2 months to make...I sell them for 23 cents). 0 Risk..safe...fast (but, likely, 0 return $ too).
     
  50. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    6,009
    The app store is no more a gift to you than the road you drive on, the airlines you fly on, or the clothes shops you buy from. I wouldn't be able to pave a road myself, or build a plane, or stitch together some good-looking clothes. But that doesn't mean I won't question the price from those who can do those things and sell me the utility of them. If anything, things like the app store, and social media platforms, and other technological 'public spaces' are grossly more well-compensated than just about any other business, many of which are perhaps far more useful.

    Besides, there are many things that are integral to the success of games, not least of which is the Unity engine itself. If every one of these things took 30%, making games would become a charity for third party tools.

    In the end everything is only worth as much as the nearest competitor is offering (or thereabouts). The problem with the app stores is the difficulty for competitors to come in and apply competitive pressure, because of how excessively integrated the devices and various utilities are, the speed with which they have taken over and dominated important parts of people's livelihoods, and how hostile the companies are to third party businesses who would like to operate inside the ecosystem.

    This is not an unsolvable problem, and will eventually be resolved one way or the other, as has occurred in every industry that matures, but that doesn't make the current situation particularly special or innocent.
     
    Shizola likes this.