they already do that. (free to download, in app purchases after)

But apple was getting a cut of the in-app. Now they can't.

Now Apple has less incentive to allow exploitative IAPs and lootboxes on their store. Problem solved.

If Apple was worried about this, they shouldn't have flaunted the court order in a way that made the judge say in the subsequent order that "this is an injunction, not a negotiation."

I understand what you are saying, but not what I am getting at. If you were a developer and had a choice between a "one-time fee" with Apple taking 30% vs "free to download" but redirect to an outside payment system, which one would you chose?

I am worried that now game companies are incentivized to abandon "initial purchase" games/apps and go the "loot-box, subscription" route.

Is this the final nail in the pay one time for games coffin?

>Is this the final nail in the pay one time for games coffin?

No, these will continue to be made. Just that the Premium iOS Games market will also stay much smaller than the IAP horror world the rest is.

Nothing stops them from doing that today.

But alternative payment flows will put some pressure on Apple to improve IAP features that many developers want to provide better experiences for their customers. Like IAP kind of sucks, unless your revenue model is tricking kids into charging things to mom's CC or finding whales and getting them addicted to your gambling app.

Competition keeps app developers from behaving badly.