Hacker News Reader

Comment by FullMetalBitch | Hacker News Reader

Personally I don't think it's fair to compare Apple to any of the names (Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo, Amazon, Walmart or Best Buy) since a videogame from Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft can be sold on Amazon, Walmart or any other store. And you can open your own store (F-Droid for example) in Android.

View on HN

Why isn't it a fair comparison? Just because the big video game companies have multiple channels of sales it doesn't mean they don't collect their cut for each sale. It's very much the same thing just slightly obfuscated. Access to the platform is still restricted and those who want release content have to pay.

I think the relevant market here is phones. Anything that can substitute for a phone and reduce sales of phones. Within this market, devices have long been able to run whatever apps were compiled using relevant free SDKs and downloaded from any website. iPhone/iOS was the first phone to not allow side loading.

On the Nokia 3310? Or a rotary phone? What is a “phone”?

There is a huge difference between having access to a single channel and 2+ channels. It promotes competition among the channels. What if Apple takes 30% of your phone bills, because it just can. What if Apple and Microsoft starts restricting the applications that you install in their OS and then start charging 30% of all programs that you install in their OS?

So what you're saying is you want EA to be able to have its own store on iPhone where Apple collects 30% on the backend anyway? Because that's what Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft do now. I don't see "I should be able to purchase iPhone apps at Target" as a compelling argument, much less relevant to the case at hand.

Between the creator and consumer, choices should be available and not restricted to any specific platform. The creator (or the distributor willingly chosen by the creator) can fix whatever the price and should be able to distribute it via multiple channels. And the channels can charge whatever percentage they want, as far as consumer has access to alternate channels. Apple/Microsoft/Google should either allow alternative channels to be available if consumers wish.. or else, they should agree the app stores to be treated like utilities (utilities are heavily regulated with pricing, profit margins, etc). FAANG are already too powerful and why do you want hand over more power to them? Imagine, Microsoft allowing only Edge browser and not allowing any other browser in Windows OS.. and then start charging 30% for all payments done via the browser. That's what happening in app stores. Soon, Oculus will do the same thing in VR world..

> Between the creator and consumer, choices should be available and not restricted to any specific platform.

So don't, then. Apple doesn't force developers to make iPhone exclusive content. And consumers are not forced to use only one device. This whole issue is merely developers complaining that they want cheaper access to the most lucrative markets. It has nothing to do with consumers.

will you make same argument if Microsoft makes Windows OS a walled garden with Edge as the only browser? will it be justified that there are Linux alternatives and no one is forcing users to use Windows?

Your reasoning is valid if Apple happens to be not so big player or if Apple has many alternatives. Between iPhone and Android, do consumers have any other choice? Between Windows and Mac, do consumers have any other choice?

I don't really care that Chrome is the only browser on a Chromebook, no.

Wait, there’s competition between retail channels? Great, I’m looking forward to getting the next major AAA game for a discount at Target due to this so-called competition with Wallmart.

Just kidding. It’ll be $59.99 at both stores. There is, practically speaking, no competition in the retail space either.

But Walmart does offer a discount, Walmart sells most new Nintendo Switch games for $49.99 rather than $59.99.

That's a function of it being a Switch game, not a Walmart discount. They'll be the same price at Target.

Nintendo Switch titles tend to cap at $50, not $60.

Where are you getting that from? Nearly every "large" switch title has a price of $60. Including ones that are years old.

https://www.nintendo.com/games/game-guide/?pv=true#filter/:q...

Fair enough - I personally recall seeing a lot of titles at the $49.99 price point, but the Nintendo store itself is infinitely more accurate.

It doesn't change the underlying point, however.

No, it doesn't because if you purchase thru Walmart.com they are offering some titles "below" the retail price by Nintendo and Target.

Not all videogames can be sold by a retailer. To use the Nintendo example, not all of the games sold in their store can be purchased from Amazon, because physical cartridges don’t exist for those games. In fact, most indie titles (Among Us, for one example) can’t be purchased from Amazon, Wallmart, Target, etc. Nor can they be re-sold.

For now. Both next-gen consoles have "digital-only" versions. I myself have opted to preorder the digital versions of both, because I see no reason to own physical games anymore.

It's only a matter of time until this will be the only option. Will your argument change when this comes to pass?

While the XBox also supports physical media, there are some digital-only titles that can only be loaded via the Xbox Games Store.

And physical media is always a far worse deal for developers than 70% of digital sales. Developers might only get 20% of physical sales.

Buying those games from Amazon, Walmart, or any other store still results in a license fee paid to Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft: 30%, in fact.

Distribution is not determinant in license fees.

The reason the comparison is reasonable is because console manufacturers exert the same level of control over their platforms that Apple does, even when a physical copy of a game is sold in a store. The manufacturer still gets to collect their royalty from that sale, and the manufacturer still has approval rights over the game itself.

How much does a retailer like walmart charge on a transaction like a video game? I'm not sure but I'm inclined to guess it's more than 30%

It's likely they add 30% to what they pay their supplier. At least that's what it was like 15-20 years ago when I worked in a games store, for PC and vide games. Board games have better margins.

Interesting. So maybe that's where apples 30% margin comes from. Retail stores charge that so they figured a virtual retail should charge the same. Except it has a much lower operating cost.

There are also a couple more levels in a physical supply chain, each adding their own percentage: manufacturer, distributor, probably a few more I don't know about.

When Apple introduced the App Store with iPhone OS 2, didn’t they claim than 30% was less than half what retail chains could charge?

Yeah, go try selling a PlayStation game without paying Sony. Sony gets its cut no matter you got online or in store.

I think she’s referring to licensing fees. Not distribution costs.

All of the console makers still charge a license fee for each game sold - even on disk.

Also, some console games that you buy on disc lock features behind IAP. Even when you sell the physical disk, you can’t sell the associated in app purchases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com