Tim Sweeney provides one of the most advanced game engine technologies in the world completely for free for all revenue under 1 million. After 1 million you pay 5% on revenue over that, if your game makes $1,200,000 you pay Tim Sweeney $10,000.
If you make 2 games and both games equally make 600K you pay Sweeney nothing.
It's definitely a business but not sure "greedy" describes this.
Most of that comes from selling in-game currency to children.
He wants a higher cut.
Does that make him greedy?
TenCent controls Epic’s access to the Chinese market.
Together, they decided to put Epic’s customers in harms way.
I don’t think Epic will prevail, but I respect the investors right to make a bet on Sweeney if they so choose. They can sell their stake if they like.
Not so the customers, who Epic could clearly have protected but chose not to for publicity reasons alone.
Apple just showed they care about their image. If they really cared about small devs, they can allow third-party app stores or platforms like Epic's, which would really help developers by bringing down processing costs.
Allowing multiple stores would increase costs doe small developers, because of the overhead of dealing with many stores and many sets of rules.
Any cost saving would disappear into one or two levels of middlemen, otherwise known as publishing companies.
Not really relevant to what we're talking about.
> Apple has made rev share changes in the past unprovoked (like 15% for sustained subs)
That wasn't an unprovoked change, it was an olive branch to companies like Amazon that were pressuring Apple for more attractive terms.
> But I would bet in that case Apple did it to take wind out of Epic’s sails around standing up for little devs.
Right, that's what I said. Apple is facing pressure from Epic, it's getting bad PR in press releases from other large companies like Microsoft, indie devs are starting to get mad, and legislators are starting to float ideas about antitrust.
Apple is in a position where they need a positive PR push about their app store policies; they need to be able to hit back at the negative press and claim that they're offering more attractive terms than the competition. They're in that position because the negative pressure is working; it's forcing them to respond.
> Zero proof this 15% reduction has anything to do with pressure from that legal battle.
Short of email leaks or Apple publicly admitting that they're doing this to take public pressure off of their store policies, what would convince you that these changes are related to the current legal battle(s) they're facing?
My take is that we've seen this happen multiple times with multiple companies. Steam went through the same process with Epic: they got slammed by publishers for doing very little work in courting them, and as a result, they changed some of their terms to be more attractive to large studios. Microsoft originally ported IE to Macs to help try and rein in suspicions that they were trying to turn the web into a Windows only platform. Apple's recent review process overhauls are minor concessions to try and get people to stop talking about the negative experiences that publishers like Basecamp have had with opaque rules and rejections.
At some point, when you look at the broader industry, you start to see patterns, and those patterns are that broad, uniform negative press and lawsuits are often (but not always) effective tools when it comes to forcing companies to at least make small concessions on their policies. I think it's very reasonable to look at this change as an indication that Apple is scared of antitrust and thinks that it is possible that further antitrust efforts might succeed.