>As long as they don't follow the Final Fantasy route - releasing the same game on 10 different platforms

Something in the style of Steam's multiple-platforms-with-one-purchase support would be interesting, though I imagine putting together a system for it that reliably works across both Android and iOS would be unpleasant.

I assuem this is for F2P games. How does iOS handle F2P cross-platform games? Can I buy assets on the Android version of a game and have them appear on the iOS version, or does that violate Apple's TOC?

If they go traditional pay-up-front, Android/PC has been done by Humble Bundle - they have their own app-downloader-app on Android, and use Steam keys on the PC.

If Nintendo targets PC they would probably go webapp since this smartphone-Nintendo thing is likely about Pokemon Shuffle (and possibly other Facebooky games). Webapp makes distribution simple. So they could do Webapp/DS/Wii/Android.

> I assuem this is for F2P games. How does iOS handle F2P cross-platform games? Can I buy assets on the Android version of a game and have them appear on the iOS version, or does that violate Apple's TOC?

Yes, you can. For example, Kindle books you buy on Amazon appear on the iOS app, and Hearthstone packs you buy on Battle.net appear on the iPad app. Apple takes a share of IAPs bought in iOS apps, but that doesn't mean it disallows content bought somewhere else.

Can you buy kindle books in the app on iOS? I thought Amazon didn't want Apple taking a bite out of their (already low) ebook profits?

You still buy the books through Amazon, and download them from Amazon. Technically they're not an IAP, since with "traditional" IAPs the app store/play store would keep track of what purchases a user has made; with Kindle, Amazon is keeping track of what you buy and they link it to your account so you can access it anywhere.

The main problem here is properly paying your dues on monetization. If Nintendo sells you a $10 IAP on your Android, Apple is going to want its $3 to provide that content on your iPhone.

If all purchases are kept track of on Nintendo's server, then Apple only gets $3 on purchases through an iOS device. Purchases elsewhere (Nintendo's website, Android app, etc) wouldn't be subject, but the tradeoff is Nintendo has to track those purchases themselves.

Google also takes 30% for purchases, so you're talking about $6.

No, just $3 for the Android purchases. Since it was made on another platform, Apple doesn't get a cut.

So you say, but that's not how it would work (or how it works) in the real world.

I'm confused, could you elaborate?

I thought the way it worked is: - User buys game on 3DS, links to their Nintendo account, can play on 3DS, iOS, and Android. Nintendo gets $10. - User buys game on iOS, links to their Nintendo account, can play on 3DS, iOS, and Android. Apple gets $3, Nintendo gets $7 - User buys game on Android, links to their Nintendo account, can play on 3DS, iOS, and Android. Google gets $3, Nintendo gets $7

Alternatively, search for the title on Google and it lets you past the paywall.

If WSJ does not want to have their content read by non-subscribers, these links are pointless (or spam) on HN.

Can HN do something to convert WSJ links to paywall-bypassing links? Like substitute the google search URL for the original article URL. Or just ban the domain automatically.

The status quo does suck, but banning all paywalls would be worse, because sometimes the most substantive article on a story is behind a paywall with a workaround. That seems to be the case here.

I don't know of a robust way to replace paywalled links with open ones to the same story. Sometimes people post Google search links to WSJ articles, but those don't work for everyone, and presumably there would be legal questions even if it did work technically.

It's also not as simple as the publications not wanting anybody other than subscribers to read their content, since they choose how high to make their paywall, and most have well-known workarounds. WSJ is one, though theirs is a step more annoying than NYT et al.

Previous comments on this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8777971

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8634076

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8647853

If the point of HN is sharing information, and having substantive dialog, then these links are counter-productive. If really think we should ban non-traversable links; if there are alternative links to submit that are the next best available summary or secondary source, I think that would be far preferable (and we can always relegate the primary paywall-ed source into the comment page).

Should I continue to "flag" paywall-only links as I see them, or just continue to gripe in the comments?

Just putting a paywall warning in the link text would suffice. Let people decide whether they want to pay.

I'd rather skip the paywall and deny WSJ the advert money. Just my 2c (taken elsewhere).