Apple Denies Paying EA to Delay Plants vs. Zombies 2 on Android | Hacker News Reader

Apple Denies Paying EA to Delay Plants vs. Zombies 2 on Android

giantbomb.com

51 pointspatrickaljord27 comments

"Apple Made EA Delay Plants vs. Zombies 2 on Android" is a bad HN headline, for the following reason.

Nowhere in the article does it say that Apple MADE EA delay Plants vs. Zombies 2 on Android. There are no claims there of threats or promises of consequences, explicit or implied, if EA didn't delay it.

The article quotes somebody as saying that Apple PAID EA to delay Plants vs. Zombies 2 on Android. I don't follow the Gaming Industry, but my understanding from reading around is that it is not unusual for platform owners to pay (or offer to pay) companies for limited-time exclusives. If the claim is true, and anybody feels aggrieved at this, they should feel aggrieved at EA for accepting the deal, not at Apple for offering it.

Furthermore, an update says that Apple denies the substance of the quote. It would be more helpful to know the exact wording of the denial.

Apple has on a few occasions* threatened business partners with reprisals if they didn't go along with their (possibly-illegal) schemes, so the exchange of cash (if it happened) doesn't necessarily exempt Apple from blame.

* e.g. threatening to sue Palm over patents, if they didn't agree to the no-hire agreement, and blocking a publishers app from the app store

There is a VAST difference between MADE and PAID. Apple did not MAKE EA do anything it didn't want to do.

Or blocking Random House's ebook app if they did not agree to an iBookstore deal.

Chief Apple cheerleader Gruber himself finds that "worrisome" here: http://daringfireball.net/2013/06/siege_mentality_indeed

Honest reporting earns fewer eyeballs.

Popcap (who make Plants vs Zombie) had previously had an Android exclusivity deal with the Amazon app store for the first release of the game:

http://www.fastcompany.com/1753671/amazons-android-march-pop...

So it's not like the company is doing anything groundbreaking with this move.

I did always seems strange to me that the "Android doesn't have tablet apps" poster child was Twitter, which a) is built into iOS's share system, and b) was rumored to be in the process of being bought by Apple.

More generally, being "highlighted" by Apple's editorial team is regularly touted as being the key to success in the App store so they've got a lot of power, even without handing over truckloads of money directly. Making a big deal about your Android app would just generally fall under the banner of "don't piss off Apple".

This has quite a precedent in the console gaming world. Microsoft paid Rockstar to release GTA IV DLC exclusively on 360 for a year, pay Activision to release COD maps a month earlier on 360, and pay Bethesda for timed exclusivity on Fallout and Skyrim DLC. Sony for their part pay for "extra" levels on stuff like Assassin's Creed that only appear on the PS3 version.

While certainly a legitimate business tactic, I can't help feel it is bad form to pay for someone else not to (temporarily) have something, much better to actually fund unique stuff.

Sounds like Apple is denying this is true.

But even if it were, platform exclusivity is a very common practice in gaming.

Microsoft paid Bethesda for exclusivity on Skyrim content. As a consequence PC and PS3 DLC was delayed substantially every time.

The characterization in the title is certainly wrong. "Made" EA delay it? No, EA and Apple agreed on a deal just like EA has done with Microsoft and probably Sony in the past, and will do again.

This title should be changed.

I'm not sure, even if this was true (which is being denied) what the problem is here. It's not as though paid platform exclusivity periods are anything new; they seem to be relatively common on consoles.

It seems interesting precisely because this is common on consoles and hasn't previously been a thing for mobile, no?

Perhaps this indicates yet another point of maturation for these platforms.

Plants vs Zombies 1 for Android was an Amazon store exclusive for a while, and one of the Angry Birds games was a Samsung exclusive for a bit. There were also the Tegra exclusive games, which were mostly permanent exclusives (on Android only; they were usually ports of iOS games).

or yet another point of possible lock in, which can lead to (other) monopolistic practices as time goes on.

Apple's never done them before. It's not necessarily a problem, just 'news'.

I think the GP's issue is with the headline, which childishly states that Apple 'made' EA deny Android gamers PvZ. Let's talk like grown-ups: they made a deal.

That's not true: Apple has an exclusivity agreement with Misfit Wearables regarding their fitness tracker product (Misfit Shine)

Interesting. By 'never done them before' I'm referring to platform exclusivity agreements for games, though, as the original poster pointed out they are a 'normal thing' on consoles.

Are platform exclusivity agreements for iOS a common thing now for devices and applications? How many of those is Apple signing - dozens? hundreds?

I believe the exclusivity for Shine is just for retail. Apple made a deal to be their exclusive (physical?) retailer, just as they have done many times before, like the Phillips Hue and a few other cases and accessories.

As well as the Philips Hue color-changing LED bulbs.

It reveals the degree to which Apple feels threatened by Android. On the consoles it's taken for granted that both consoles have large numbers of paying customers and that the porting costs are negligible compared with the potential gain of developing and releasing on both. That doesn't seem to be the prevailing wisdom when it comes to Apple vs Android.

It's also interesting that not even a "truckload" of cash could stop them releasing in China.

Assuming that a second-hand report of an in-house "town hall" speech by an EA executive is true.

re: China sales figures, the idea that far more money can be extracted from Android users by going "free-to-play" seems to me more disturbing than encouraging. Gaming is going to seriously suck IMO if everything goes that way.

I would have paid for PvZ 2. I didn't buy anything when playing, it would have felt like cheating.

> UPDATE: Apple is denying the substance of the comments made by Gibeau.

> A company spokesperson described Giant Bomb's story as "not true" and said no money was exchanged.

I'm curious about the revenue from android and ios ecosystems. It's very well possible that EA decided that there wasn't enough money in the android base to justify engineering resources (especially since it's free to play on ios: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/plants-vs.-zombies-2/id59798...)

If you read the rest of the article, they've already developed an Android port for the Chinese market, so I doubt it'd take substantially more in the way of engineering resources to bring that to other countries.

Apple says no money changed hands, and that's probably true. Just like no money changed hands in the Android KitKat deal. Still doesn't make either transactions not about the money.

Perhaps Apple has agreed to a higher revenue % of the in app purchases, this could lead to a significant amount of money. (a.k.a. truckload)

Apparently "made" == "paid".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com