THE V-BUCKS STOP HERE - Landmark videogame legal debate seen as opening shots in war to determine the future of the digital marketplace

Yes we are living in a global resurgence of fascism because fascist ideology is on the rise in a huge way. I don’t want to get too off topic but one of the main defining aspects of fascism is the protection of corporate power and an uneasy alliance with traditional elites.

Well it doesn’t have to be a fascist regime. Communist governments claim State-owned enterprise is free of Capitalist greed… but we all know that’s not true.

Even the pirates of the 1400’s tried to promote a system supposedly free of money itself! But it always boils down to a group of “ringleaders” somehow being above some other people in some shape or form.

We can’t all be leaders. So there will always be the many who need to be led. There will always be at some point the surrendering of power to a few.

Which in some ways is where this question, albeit @Quinn kind of wandered into a deeper version of it, segues into Apple vs Epic. It’s a battle to decide who stays on top and who can define where that top position is.

It has happened because the means are within the reach of either party and the masses (of V-Bucks buyers) are there to be swayed (by Epic) or denied (by Apple). Both are forms of power activity in organized structures.

1 Like

What is interesting is supposedly this war started after a brief email exchange between Epic and Apple over a “proposed value system” which Apple chose to pass on to its Legal team with instructions to give a strongly worded reply.

So there might have been some kind of negotiation, but neither was willing to back down or back up.

That’s exactly what Epic tried at first lol. They don’t give a shit about consumers.

I don’t see users profit from legal disputes like this. If we decide that micro transactions are bad, especially for games which include kids in their target group, only regulation can do something about it.

Um…what? I can’t find any evidence of this, please share it.

While I wouldn’t want to proof this in the general sense, this current debate does not even involve the users. It is just about which company gets a fraction of the income. Turning it into a medial campaign with pre-made propaganda targeting their underaged consumers and comparing the situation to Orwell’s 1984 makes me doubt they value their customers as reasonable and self-responsible beings.

2 Likes

Just check the documents submitted in the court case? It’s right there lol

Is Trump even right wing? He’s been divorced like four times so he’s not culturally right wing, his attacks on immigration are purely ideological because all Republicans mass import immigrants to work for their companies, no new wars have been started. He’s more moderate than Bush, who I wouldn’t exactly call a fascist.

Granted the Overton window has shifted right, I’d rather not have police because I’m ideologically opposed to the state and would rather have people police themselves with guns. Biden and Trump both don’t interest me with their devotion to the police but I don’t think we’re in fascist land. People have been allowed to riot for months now, which is good for democracy in my opinion.

1 Like

I’d say in a good democracy people are demonstrating, not rioting :thinking:

2 Likes

Same thing. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter

2 Likes

Epic basically “asked” Apple for permission to be allowed to launch either an in-game purchase option that went direct to Epic, or allow Apple to include the Epic Games Store as an installable iOS app. This has shades of the Steam vs Origin vs Epic Games Store wars - a war that didn’t involve any platform owners.

Apple then used lawyers to respond, saying that allowing such would threaten the very survival of the Apple “platform”.

Interestingly, Google recently announced it would be opening Android to allow multiple Non-Google App Stores to operate:

Ideally this should be where the Judiciary can lay down the law and decide what people can or cannot do in this market space for the sake of the interest of the general public.

The debate between Apple and Epic basically boils down to “it is within my rights to do X and this is only fair.”

Google’s announcement about allowing competing App Stores to run on Android though is interesting. Perhaps they already know how things will turn out in the end? OR… they see it as a chance to drill a hole through Apple’s defence that keeping a “closed environment” is necessary to a platform’s survival?

With Google’s announcement, Epic could actually paint a picture where Apple’s biggest rival can have a version of the Epic Games Store running, and if (surprise!) Google takes a stand and says “Platforms can live while opening their borders”… Apple will take a huge hit!

Watch that space, folks! Grab your popcorn!

Yes, I knew all of this, how does this relate to them trying to get an increased revenue split (which is what my comment was asking for evidence of) by asking apple first? All this details is their initial asking of Apple to bypass Apple Payments or make a new storefront, neither of which is inherently bad. Maybe i’m reading this all wrong?

Though I do find the Google thing very interesting, meaning Epic is clearly getting through on some level.

1 Like

100% split sounds a lot higher than 70% to me

1 Like

Epic’s argument, if you take it up rote, is that if Apple agreed to the “100% split” for In-App purchases it could make life better for Developers (“Developers! Developers! Developers!”) through increased earnings and also for their Customers through lower costs. The implied promise is that this would improve the profile of the Apple App Store and drive more core sales which should make Apple happy too.

Except Apple run it already as a closed garden and access to the Apple App Store is gated with an Apple device… which is to say in Apple’s mind: “Everybody who bought an Apple device is already a happy Apple customer.”