sprgit8

> Epic wouldn't be clamouring so hard for App Store presence and iOS users

Do you see deliberately kicking themselves off of Apple platforms as "clamoring so hard"? On the contrary, Epic saw the platform was terrible for shooter games and driving extremely little value, and thus was happy to fight the monopoly on behalf of their _other_ main consumer - game engine developers.

> they were losing ungodly money after millions of iOS based gamers stopped playing Fortnite

Sorry but this is just laughable, and the numbers are all there in the lawsuit already. Almost no one played Fortnite on IOS. Some players installed on mobile but the majority solely used it as a web frontend to purchase cosmetics. Thus robbing Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo of their commissions for creating the platforms that players _actually_ play on.

> leech money off you or your kids like Fortnite.

If it wasn't obvious you have some weird bone to pick already, this certainly proves it. Epic's monetization model is wildly less predatory than the vast majority of mobile games. Why are you speaking so confidently about something you seem to know nothing about?

> [iOS] is actually providing Epic a ton of value and profit > Apple offers developers significantly more than just a games engine. (comment from threeseed)

Apple sells hardware to consumers (above cost), then blocks consumers from actually using the hardware they own, and developers from distributing software for it, without paying Apple a monopolistically-high cut of sales. All Apple provides to developers is access to consumers who are blocked from their own hardware, and a nominal file distribution via CDN. A game engine provides an order of magnitude more value to developers than a CDN file distribution platform offers.

If Apple was providing real value to developers they wouldn't be so deathly afraid of competing with other app distributors.

This is just a guess from a UE game developer, but:

a) Epic makes Unreal Engine and runs an asset store that includes sounds and music. Why not include bandcamp and their huge catalog in that store?

b) Epic makes Fortnite, which has tons of music industry tie-ins through purchasable emotes, song tracks, and free in-game concerts. Bandcamp sounds like a great avenue to expand existing agreements to sell music through Fortnite.

c) Epic also acquired Harmonix, which is the original developer of Guitar Hero and various music game spinoffs. Who knows wtf they're doing with Harmonix, but Harmonix+Bandcamp seems like an easy business strategy. "Buy this album on bandcamp and get it in the new Harmonix game too", and vice versa.

Epic has their hands in an awful lot of pies these days, and their layoff statement seemed to be a straightforward admission that their eyes were bigger than their stomach.

In your analogy, why did this successful, profitable company (Bandcamp) need to be acquired?

Following that, why did Epic choose to get rid of a successful, profitable, independent sub-company that would have helped keep Epic profitable?

It sure looks like Bandcamp was already failing and unprofitable, and selling out to Epic was a desperate attempt to keep the company alive. Songtradr seems to agree with Epic that bandcamp is not solvent and cannot continue operating as it was.

This sucks because Bandcamp is great, but it's not hard to see the writing on the wall. All Epic did here is inject cash into bandcamp's corpse to keep it alive for an extra year or two, before it had to cut the IV drip.

That seems like a rather obviously wrong take. There were ample companies supporting Epic (or rather, fighting Apple) before they filed their lawsuit, which was also long before Epic acquired bandcamp.

08/2020 Epic files suit against Apple and Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple

09/2020 Discussion of Epic vs. Bandcamp and app store fees: https://www.shacknews.com/article/120550/tim-sweeney-on-why-...

05/2021 "The trial ran from May 3 to May 24, 2021" from the same wikipedia link.

03/2022 Epic acquires bandcamp, a year after their trial. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/arts/music/epic-games-ban...

Why would Epic acquire bandcamp as a "pawn" to use a year after their trial concluded? It's far more reasonable to assume Epic had a legitimate business interest in Bandcamp, and if anything, the execs of the companies had started talking due to the (concluded) lawsuit and shared interest in not losing 30% of their revenue.

I've heard the Netherlands one mentioned, but I don't get at all how that nor the anti-steering provision here would actually function. Were the dating apps IOS-only? Were the alt-payments embedded in the mobile app?

In this case, anti-steering stops Apple from preventing mobile apps from mentioning the mere _existence_ of other platforms. This doesn't have to be an embedded "pay with Epic" link, it could be a text blurb that says "Save 30% by buying on epic.com", might not even be a link. How could Apple possibly demand a fee in that scenario?

The only possible way to handle this would be to renegotiate terms to split payments by-platform for players regardless of where they make the purchase. But why would Epic ever negotiate terms like that when a court just threw out the anti-steering provisions universally?