Options

The Epic Apple fight

1234579

Posts

  • Options
    chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    The itch io thing was a big win for apple.

    It clearly proved their stance of external stores carrying things that you would not carry on your own store, thus being served to your customers, as a negative that Epic then went on to agree with.

    The fact they were only added so recently points to them being included specifically to be used as a gotcha against Apple yet it basically backfired spectacularly.

    Itch seems fine with it though. They knew what they were getting into and it's free advertising for them either way.

    Nothing that Epic is trying to do really helps anyone. Except them and their creepy desire for their metaverse crap. Apple losing it's regulatory oversight over their ecosystem doesn't help some little guys. They'll be totally ignored in either instance. It really just gives apple less incentive to do any kind of discovery on things that aren't already winners. Kind of like EGS.

    What is does mean is that Sony and Nintendo might have some big issues going forward. The next consoles will probably cost significantly more as there is less of a way to makeup the loss. Which some might claim is good because it'll... Uh, lemme see... Increase competition in the console space? Yes. That's the logic. I'm sure some upstart garage company is just waiting til they can compete with Sony once they can go longer sustain selling at a loss.


    I'm really not for either in this instance, I've never owned an apple product and Epic is just the worst kind of corporate toad. On the other hand I'm less interested in the knock on effects of Epic winning. I just feel like if people don't like the walled garden uh... Don't buy it. There is no ambiguity about what Apple is offering. It seems silly to punish them for running their business in a way that has led to their success. It isn't even like they have some massive worldwide dominance like Microsoft. I dunno. Buy an Android.

    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    Houk the NamebringerHouk the Namebringer Nipples The EchidnaRegistered User regular
    I disagree with basically everything you just said, except for the part about Epic being a shitty corporate toad.

  • Options
    HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    Ubik wrote: »
    i couldn't believe, and maybe they changed this, that you had to pay for stadia monthly and then buy the games on top of that

    what's the use case for someone who has the necessary internet speed, but would rather rent access than put that money towards a console or pc

    The best use case I've seen proposed is troops on long overseas deployment which is some pretty fuckin niche shit

  • Options
    ElaroElaro Apologetic Registered User regular
    Hobnail wrote: »
    Ubik wrote: »
    i couldn't believe, and maybe they changed this, that you had to pay for stadia monthly and then buy the games on top of that

    what's the use case for someone who has the necessary internet speed, but would rather rent access than put that money towards a console or pc

    The best use case I've seen proposed is troops on long overseas deployment which is some pretty fuckin niche shit

    And we should get rid of those.

    I mean, if the only use case is imperialism, maybe rethink your product.

    Children's rights are human rights.
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    hey, Stadia could be the next M&Ms!

  • Options
    sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    Stadia’s not the next anything.

  • Options
    TheStigTheStig Registered User regular
    Will Google remember the loyalty of the Stadia team members who stick around knowing it's dead?

    bnet: TheStig#1787 Steam: TheStig
  • Options
    Kane Red RobeKane Red Robe Master of Magic ArcanusRegistered User regular
    sarukun wrote: »
    Stadia’s not the next anything.

    The next Ouya

  • Options
    HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    edited May 2021
    TheStig wrote: »
    Will Google remember the loyalty of the Stadia team members who stick around knowing it's dead?

    They will be ebtombed alive in the prebuilt mausoleums of Google executives, a great honour for their caste

    Hobnail on
  • Options
    JragghenJragghen Registered User regular


    This is still going on, fyi
    Apple lawyer: If someone were to say Fortnite Creative is "Barbie Fashion Designer for the Fortnite Universe, that person would be incorrect, true?”

    Weissinger: “I’m not sure what goes on in Barbie Fashion Designer.”

    “Fair enough.” Turns out lawyer doesn’t know either.

    Tweet is from a reporter for the Verge

  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    These lawyers all know they are just making gobs of money, and do not care at all about this.

  • Options
    H0b0manH0b0man Registered User regular
    How come I've always heard about how hard law school and passing the bar is, but then I see transcripts with arguments like that?

    FFXIV: Agran Trask
  • Options
    GarthorGarthor Registered User regular
    I feel like the argument being made is basically “Fortnite lets players make games but is a walled garden therefore Apple’s walled garden is fine.” Or something. It really feels more like a lame “ha ha gotcha” than a legal argument.

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2021
    I can't remember why proving Fortnite wasn't a game became important

    Judge asks how much of Party Royale is games.

    “Is there a percentage? 50-50?”

    Weissinger says it can depend on events like concerts; judge notes the concerts are only around 15 minutes.

    “So you don’t have any way to quantify games vs. experience?”

    Not offhand.

    A place where you can play minigames with your friends. Truly it is a huge platform and not a mere game

    Edit:

    Minecraft in sandbox: not a game?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    PiptheFairPiptheFair Frequently not in boats. Registered User regular
    Garthor wrote: »
    I feel like the argument being made is basically “Fortnite lets players make games but is a walled garden therefore Apple’s walled garden is fine.” Or something. It really feels more like a lame “ha ha gotcha” than a legal argument.

    'ha ha gotchas' are legal arguments, especially in civil cases

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Epic: Using creative tools in Creative Mode isn't gameplay

    Epic:
    https://www.epicgames.com/help/th/fortnite-c75/creative-c96/what-is-creative-mode-in-fortnite-how-does-it-work-a3428
    What is Creative mode in Fortnite? How does it work?
    Gameplay

    Phone This is the in-game tool your character holds that’s used to edit, copy, and manipulate props in the world. Experiment with its features to discover all the things it can do.

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »


    This is still going on, fyi
    Apple lawyer: If someone were to say Fortnite Creative is "Barbie Fashion Designer for the Fortnite Universe, that person would be incorrect, true?”

    Weissinger: “I’m not sure what goes on in Barbie Fashion Designer.”

    “Fair enough.” Turns out lawyer doesn’t know either.

    Tweet is from a reporter for the Verge

    Not even the worst part so far


    Epic Lawyer: “A little bit of a digression: we talked about Peely, our banana?"

    Epic lawyer: "There might have been an implication that showing Peely without a suit might have been inappropriate. [Lawyer shows a picture of naked Peely in court.] "Is there anything inappropriate about Peely without clothes?”

    Weissinger: “It’s just a banana, ma’am."

  • Options
    ChicoBlueChicoBlue Registered User regular
    They're talking about gachas now?

    Going all over the place.

  • Options
    PinfeldorfPinfeldorf Yeah ZestRegistered User regular
    In the case of naked banana man, maybe more gachis than gachas.

  • Options
    cursedkingcursedking Registered User regular
    what even is this case, like what are the lawyers arguing about? It sounds like insanity, like what does defining gameplay have to do with anything

    Types: Boom + Robo | Food: Sweet | Habitat: Plains
  • Options
    PiptheFairPiptheFair Frequently not in boats. Registered User regular
    god, the judge has got to be so tired

  • Options
    PinfeldorfPinfeldorf Yeah ZestRegistered User regular
    They're proving to the world that lawyers have no fucking idea what they're talking about vis a vis videojuegos.

  • Options
    PiptheFairPiptheFair Frequently not in boats. Registered User regular
    "It's just a banana ma'am" is a line that will haunt my dreams

  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    Sometimes a banana is only a banana, ma'am.

  • Options
    Houk the NamebringerHouk the Namebringer Nipples The EchidnaRegistered User regular
    cursedking wrote: »
    what even is this case, like what are the lawyers arguing about? It sounds like insanity, like what does defining gameplay have to do with anything

    i could easily be 100% wrong about this, but i think the idea behind defining gameplay is that if they can pin down a definition, and then somehow prove that Fortnite itself (or at least significant portions of it) don't meet that definition, then Apple can (according to them) argue that Fortnite is functionally the same as the Apple Store. So whatever it is Epic wants Apple to do with their store (open it up, reduce/remove paywalls, stuff like that), Epic would have to do the same thing with Fortnite.

    obviously it all seems pretty tenuous and non-sensical, but sometimes lawsuits, especially civil lawsuits, go to some crazy-ass places.

  • Options
    TheySlashThemTheySlashThem Registered User regular
    H0b0man wrote: »
    How come I've always heard about how hard law school and passing the bar is, but then I see transcripts with arguments like that?
    meritocracy

  • Options
    HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    This is all very stupid but at least the people involved aren't making a lot of money doing it

  • Options
    PinfeldorfPinfeldorf Yeah ZestRegistered User regular
    cursedking wrote: »
    what even is this case, like what are the lawyers arguing about? It sounds like insanity, like what does defining gameplay have to do with anything

    i could easily be 100% wrong about this, but i think the idea behind defining gameplay is that if they can pin down a definition, and then somehow prove that Fortnite itself (or at least significant portions of it) don't meet that definition, then Apple can (according to them) argue that Fortnite is functionally the same as the Apple Store. So whatever it is Epic wants Apple to do with their store (open it up, reduce/remove paywalls, stuff like that), Epic would have to do the same thing with Fortnite.

    obviously it all seems pretty tenuous and non-sensical, but sometimes lawsuits, especially civil lawsuits, go to some crazy-ass places.

    But Fortnite doesn't sell cell phones, so the comparison is totally irrelevant, no?

  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Hobnail wrote: »
    This is all very stupid but at least the people involved aren't making a lot of money doing it

    The lawyers certainly are!

  • Options
    MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    They're trying to prove that Fortnite is a platform rather than a game, which is just positively unhinged, but that will in some way let them argue that they should be able to handle their own payment processing and sidestep Apple's (and potentially other platform holders) cut.

    I'm not actually sure of the connective tissue in the middle here, honestly

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    cursedking wrote: »
    what even is this case, like what are the lawyers arguing about? It sounds like insanity, like what does defining gameplay have to do with anything

    i could easily be 100% wrong about this, but i think the idea behind defining gameplay is that if they can pin down a definition, and then somehow prove that Fortnite itself (or at least significant portions of it) don't meet that definition, then Apple can (according to them) argue that Fortnite is functionally the same as the Apple Store. So whatever it is Epic wants Apple to do with their store (open it up, reduce/remove paywalls, stuff like that), Epic would have to do the same thing with Fortnite.

    obviously it all seems pretty tenuous and non-sensical, but sometimes lawsuits, especially civil lawsuits, go to some crazy-ass places.

    Epic is the one arguing Fortnite is a platform.

    I think their argument is that Apple is preventing Fortnite, a competing platform, from being on the app store

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2021
    Now if Apple not letting another platform on the App store is monopolistic, you might ask why that doesn't apply to consoles.

    Epic's reasoning for that is also kind of bad and mostly comes down to forced distinctions about gaming devices versus more general devices that don't really do much about the core of their argument that should still apply to those game consoles.

    So you end up with stuff along the lines of, "well, consoles are fixed devices... but the Switch doesn't count because it doesn't have a cell connection"
    Evans giving his own “phones v. consoles” distinction: “The smartphones can be used anywhere, anytime. And that means a consumer … as long as they have a cellular connection can use that smartphone."

    “A game console on the other hand is typically a fixed device that is not something that people carry around,” except the Switch, which still doesn’t have a cellular connection.

    “A consumer who is interested in using apps at various times and various places during the course of their lives, there are many many situations in which the game console even if it had the relevant app on it, is simply not a relevant device for them to use in their daily lives.”

    Again, this matters because (to Evans) it means that console ecosystems can’t be considered direct competitors to iOS.

    Console makers have been trying to make their devices more general purpose to various degrees for a while. Microsoft might have mostly moved away from making it very overt after the Xbox One launch debacle, but the idea is still there

    I don't see why selling at a loss makes a huge difference other than that selling at a loss to establish a captive market that they can exploit with nobody else able to get into that market except through them is often kind of a monopolistic behavior

    Couscous on
  • Options
    Houk the NamebringerHouk the Namebringer Nipples The EchidnaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2021
    oh yeah okay I probably have it backwards then

    either way, that's the point of defining what a "game" is in legal terms, so that someone can leverage the definition to shit on someone else somewhere down the line

    Houk the Namebringer on
  • Options
    PinfeldorfPinfeldorf Yeah ZestRegistered User regular
    Actually, yeah, that's a good point. They should let us install apps and shit on the Switch as if it was a mobile device.

  • Options
    HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Hobnail wrote: »
    This is all very stupid but at least the people involved aren't making a lot of money doing it

    The lawyers certainly are!

    But if this were true what motivation would there be to not have these sorts of things go on

  • Options
    JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    i cant follow this case that closely because i treasure what little sanity i have left, but how did this become about defining what is a video game instead of defining what is a market monopoly...

  • Options
    HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    i cant follow this case that closely because i treasure what little sanity i have left, but how did this become about defining what is a video game instead of defining what is a market monopoly...

    Well if Fencinsax's disturbing notion is true it seems it would be in everyones financial interest to spool everything out as interminably as possible no matter what

  • Options
    OptyOpty Registered User regular
    I've never looked into developing an iOS app, is the SDK available for anyone to use or do you have to pay money/get permission first before Apple will let you have it? If the former is true, then if I were Epic I'd just define an open platform as "one where the SDK is available for anyone to use" which would include Windows, Xbox, and Android but not Playstation, Nintendo, or Stadia.

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2021
    Evans is going to explain the difference between a “foremarket” and “aftermarket” distinction. A “foremarket” would be buying a printer, for instance, while an “aftermarket” is a purchase made after that initial buy — like toner for that printer.
    The smartphone is a foremarket here, and the apps are an aftermarket, Evans says. Basically, allegation is that Apple is using the foremarket to monopolize the aftermarket.
    I’m sure your friendly neighborhood lawyer or @reckless etc. can explain this much better than I can, but the upshot is, Apple created a big and unique ecosystem that it’s controlling access to, and Epic argues this is an antitrust violation.
    Again, don't see why this doesn't apply to consoles even more so given selling at a loss or very small profit to monopolize the aftermarket is kind of what consoles have done usually.

    If the argument is that the app market is different because it is more diverse, that seems really arbitrary and not that meaningful. The console markets are clearly big enough that Sony can use its control of access to its market to force Epic to do shit it definitely doesn't want to do in order to access it in the way it wants

    At least iPhone started without there even being a marketplace while the consoles have generally always been built with control of the aftermarket in mind and seen anything that gets around that as a huge problem from the get go

    Couscous on
  • Options
    JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    Everytime I read this thread, the arguments get dumber.

    I'm worried that end result will be a ruling that no one can control want is or isn't sold in a digital market place.

    Like Apple sucks, but I really don't see the argument Epic is making.

Sign In or Register to comment.