By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Apple removes Fortnite from app store, cant connect to servers. Epic Games Sues.

Intrinsic on 23 August 2020
shikamaru317 said:

Epic takes 12%, not 30%. 

RolStoppable said:

Epic takes only 12% from sales on their own store, but it has nothing to do with being kind at heart. When you can observe how other big corporations have failed to establish their stores as viable competitors to Steam, then you have to be more aggressive than them if you want to stand a chance.

Thanks for the correction.

kirby007 said:
ye sorry for being the only visionary to see that a closed environment like IOS is bad, whether or not that is being pointed out by a fucked up party themselves

This is interesting.



Around the Network
JWeinCom on 24 August 2020

Having read Epic's filing and Apple's response... Epic has bad lawyers.

Based on the the complaint and the response, Epic has a weak case.

First off, there's the issue of filing for the court to force Apple to reinstate Fortnite onto the app store. Apple countered by showing that they offered Epic the chance to submit a version without the IAP workaround, would put it back on the store. They could still file the anti-trust suit, and could reclaim any money lost during the time of the lawsuit as part of their damages if successful.

Apple's case seems as far as I can see 100% valid. Epic could have chosen this route, and still could, and there doesn't seem to be any benefit to doing it the way they did. Not only is their restraining order part of the suit kind of dumb, but it's also not a good look and will likely prejudice a judge/jury against them.

As for the substance of the claim, it's basically that they are accusing Apple of leveraging the App Store's power to force the use of Apple Pay. Legally, that's not a good claim for reasons that Apple spells out in their response. I'd have to look into whether the sources they cite are being interpreted correctly (naturally Apple is biased), but they make a good case. Epic on the other hand... cited no actual case law or court decisions, and their complaint actually made me cringe a couple of times, as they tried to portray Fortnite more as a public service than a game.

All of this is not to say that Apple's policies are necessarily good, but Epic's lawyers did a shit job making the argument that they're monopolistic.



Kristof81 on 24 August 2020

They made four times as much money on the iOS than on Android. In a total of 133 million downloads and $1.2 billion in revenue. Apple took $300 mil from that amount. Personally, I'd rather have 1.2 billion than nothing. Whether you agree with Apple's policies or not, biting the hand that feeds you is plain stupid.



Pyro as Bill on 24 August 2020

If I was Epic I'd prefer a letter from MS promising not to sue me for turning UE into malware instead of some letter of support.

If I was Apple I'd refund every vbuck spent on iOS then sue Epic to recover those funds such that Fortnite never makes a penny from iOS. I'd also help fund any lawsuit to refund non-iOS purchases that were used on Apple devices.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

theRepublic on 24 August 2020

Regarding the lawyers working for Epic, if a client insists on something they are going to do it. They can advise against it. They can polish it up as much as they can. But at the end of the day, it is on the client if they want something stupid done.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
Switch - The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019)
Switch - Bastion (2011/2018)
3DS - Star Fox 64 3D (2011)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Wii U - Darksiders: Warmastered Edition (2010/2017)
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

Around the Network
Pyro as Bill on 24 August 2020
twintail said:
Pyro as Bill said:
If I was Epic I'd prefer a letter from MS promising not to sue me for turning UE into malware instead of some letter of support.

Lol what? MS can do nothing if UE miraculously became malware.

It wouldn't take a miracle. It's already occurred as far as Apple is concerned. If devs have been making games using UE under the reasonable assumption that UE won't make any changes that would jeopardise it being rejected by Apple or any other platform holder then they absolutely have a case. And it's better than Epic's.

If MS is so concerned about Forza's mobile future on iOS perhaps they should put pressure on Epic to agree to Apple's ToS. It's difficult to believe MS genuinely supports losing all of their own 3rd party royalties in favour of increased sales of their 1st party games. I think they have ulterior motives.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

AsGryffynn on 24 August 2020
padib said:
RolStoppable said:

Making such an argument is bound to look stupid when the premise is false to begin with. No amount of layers on top of this core is going to cover up how delusional Epic is.

Apple is monopolistic, of that there is no doubt.

The problem is that this case gives Apple more ground to behave how it already does.

Apple is no saint, but Epic is handing them legitimacy on a silver platter. No one company should have so much control over the usage of software over such a large portion of the population, and be allowed to enforce such strict rules that gauge money out of those forced to use their platform, and forces competition out of the race.

There's an issue with Apple, the government is already on the case of all big IT companies (there was a hearing at the beginning of the month). This case with Epic is just making things worse for consumers, because in the end it just means we pay more and more goes into Apple's pockets and, over the long run, we have less options due to less competition.

How does this logic even work? Why would a case against Apple make them more legitimate? Regardless of the reason, that 30% cut is wrong and indefensible. 



AsGryffynn on 24 August 2020
padib said:
AsGryffynn said:

How does this logic even work? Why would a case against Apple make them more legitimate? Regardless of the reason, that 30% cut is wrong and indefensible. 

I think you and I are on the same side. We both agree that Apple is being monopolistic.

What I mean is that, by Epic behaving like rabid children and creating a strawman case which they will lose, they give Apple's strongman stance more legitimacy with a successfully defended case (which is what is almost bound to happen at this point).

Epic is not alone on this. MS is looking into this as well. 



JWeinCom on 24 August 2020
AsGryffynn said:
padib said:

Apple is monopolistic, of that there is no doubt.

The problem is that this case gives Apple more ground to behave how it already does.

Apple is no saint, but Epic is handing them legitimacy on a silver platter. No one company should have so much control over the usage of software over such a large portion of the population, and be allowed to enforce such strict rules that gauge money out of those forced to use their platform, and forces competition out of the race.

There's an issue with Apple, the government is already on the case of all big IT companies (there was a hearing at the beginning of the month). This case with Epic is just making things worse for consumers, because in the end it just means we pay more and more goes into Apple's pockets and, over the long run, we have less options due to less competition.

How does this logic even work? Why would a case against Apple make them more legitimate? Regardless of the reason, that 30% cut is wrong and indefensible. 

That's the way the legal system works. If Apple wins in this case, that case becomes an authority. So, if another team comes with a case, apple will say "In Epic Games v. Apple (or w/e) it was ruled that the App Store is not a monopoly". Then the other side has the additional burden of demonstrating why this case is different and that ruling shouldn't apply.

Apple's cut btw is 30%, but drops to 15% for subscriptions longer than a year. 



AsGryffynn on 24 August 2020
JWeinCom said:
AsGryffynn said:

How does this logic even work? Why would a case against Apple make them more legitimate? Regardless of the reason, that 30% cut is wrong and indefensible. 

That's the way the legal system works. If Apple wins in this case, that case becomes an authority. So, if another team comes with a case, apple will say "In Epic Games v. Apple (or w/e) it was ruled that the App Store is not a monopoly". Then the other side has the additional burden of demonstrating why this case is different and that ruling shouldn't apply.

Apple's cut btw is 30%, but drops to 15% for subscriptions longer than a year. 

I know that much. But this case is extremely hard to defend against specifically because of it. This happened before, remember? Like, do people forget the shit MSFT got into in the early 00's?