December 13, 2021

WTAF?! The Epic Games Store has a shopping cart!

It only took Epic three years of R&D to add the single most basic ecommerce feature of all to their digital store front. Mazel tov, Tim Sweeney! You did it!

From Rock Paper Shotgun:

This happened a couple of days ago, but we probably shouldn't let it pass unremarked. After three years of R&D, the Epic Games Store has added a shopping cart.

There's an eight second video announcing it, beacuse [sic] why not:


"If you’ve shopped online before, the cart works exactly as you’d expect," says the announcement post. You can hit an "Add to cart" button on game pages that, uh, adds it to your cart, and repeat the process until you've got all the items you want and are ready to checkout.

At the point of checking out, you can enter a creator code if you want 5% of your purchase amount to go towards a particular creator. There's also a "move to wishlist" button if you decide to save a purchase for later. 

OMG, a wishlist button? Not only a shopping cart, but a wishlist button, too? Be still, my heart! /s

Do you remember when the EGS had a roadmap? Do you remember when Epic removed all the projected deliver-by dates from that roadmap, because they weren't able to meet any of them?  

EGS Road Map as of Aug. 7th, 2019

Back then, I was roasting Epic for not planning to have a shopping cart added to their Game Store for another six months; that was two and a half years ago. 

I don't know what's more mind-blowing: 

  • the fact that the EGS finally got its long-delayed shopping cart, just days after I'd finally resigned myself to the fact that it wasn't ever going to happen; 
  • the fact that it look Epic Games three years to get this done; or 
  • the fact that they're shouting it to the whole world on YouTube, instead of burying it in a blog post, or something. 

No, really, who at Epic thought this YouTube video was a good idea? Are really they so out of touch that they think this is some of flex? They even call this a "giant leap" for Epic Games! The shopping cart itself seems to have been a "Friday night news dump" situation, because it wasn't there on Thursday; why drop the feature in the dead of night on a weekend, only to then make a point of drawing attention to its existence?

BTW, the like:dislike ratio on that video is currently sitting at 68:400 -- that won't be visible for too much longer, though, because YouTube, so clearly what Epic should have done is hold this announcement until YouTube removed the dislike count for them, to at least avoid the public humiliation of being so brutally, publicly ratioed. Why drop the video now?

Also, the comment section of the video is amazeballs:

Seriously, though, knowing that I can finally add both free games of the week to a cart, and then "buy" them with one transaction rather than two, is one for the win column, as far as I'm concerned. All I need now is for Epic to release a Linux-native client, complete with (Valve's) Proton compatibility layer, so that I can actually run some of those free games on my Pop!_OS PC, and I'll finally be able to play some of those games that I've payed absolutely nothing for, and didn't care about enough to buy on Steam. 

I still have zero intention of paying money for anything on the EGS, incidentally. With Valve releasing their own Linux-based gaming system next year, and Epic only just having barely managed to add a feature to their store that's been standard on web stores since the 1990s (seriously, the 1990s), I somehow don't think that Valve are checking their rear view for EGS. 

Sleep easy, GabeN. You're still definitely winning this one.

September 10, 2021

EPIC'S ROLL OF THE DICE COMES UP SNAKE EYES: Judge Gonzalez Rogers rules against the Fortnite publisher on almost every part of their lawsuit with Apple

The verdict is in: The iOS App Store is not a monopoly under the Sherman Act, Epic owes rent for having kept Fortnite on the App Store for months without paying for access to Apple's customers, and the amount owed is 30% of all revenues collected outside Apple's In-App payment system. Also, Apple don't have to put Fortnite back on the App Store, and can go ahead with cancelling Epic's developer accounts, which could push Unreal Engine games out of the App Store, permanently.

On the plus side, developers other than Epic can use other payment collection services now, and can tell customers about those other options in their apps (and link to them from the apps), but Apple has not been ordered to give away access to the App Store for free. Apple is still owed; not only can they continue to charge for access, they can charge whatever fee they wish for that access, specifically including the 30% that Epic was calling excessive and unfair. Epic, of course, are not going to benefit from this point of the ruling because Fortnite is not on the App Store, and the ruling did not enjoin Apple to restore Fortnite to the App Store.

That's the substance of the ruling which just came down from Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Apple cannot put themselves between developers and their customers; the 30% App Store fee, however, is still legal, and very much in force, as evidenced by the fact that Epic are being ordered to pay 30% of all monies earned by their iOS app during the months when the app was still available in spite of Epic being in breach of the App Store's Terms of Service.

Be very clear on this point: If Apple is hosting your app on their App Store, thus giving you access to the ecosystem which they built, and which they constantly maintain and improve at considerable cost, then Apple can legally charge you a 30% fee for that access. They just can't intercept all of your revenue in order to deduct that fee, something which they'd largely already stipulated in the other lawsuit which was settled a couple of weeks ago.

So yes, Apple is correct in claiming that this ruling definitively exonerates the app store/walled garden ecosystem business model. The iOS App Store is not, in fact, a monopoly under the Sherman Act, and not a target for antitrust action under that Act.

Apple could appeal the injunction which orders to them to allow developers to use other payment methods, but I don't expect them to; they had already agreed to do basically all of this already, in that other case which was settled in front of this same judge. Apple are not losing anything here which they hadn't already decided to let go.

The same is not true of Epic. Apple do not have to do business with Epic, in any capacity; not only that, but they owe Apple money, since they're in breach of their contract and spent months refusing to "pay their rent." Tim Sweeney has clearly bet the farm on this dice roll, and clearly does not have a viable business with a loss this complete on the book, so I am not at all surprised to see that he is losing his shit over how badly this ruling went against him.

Epic will definitely appeal this ruling; they've already said as much in statements. I don't expect that appeal to go any better than the initial lawsuit did, though, since Apple is not in violation of the Sherman Act, and can't be forced to do business with a company that apparently is not above signing agreements in order to breach them, so that they can use that breach as a pretext to sue.

IGN has a reasonable take on the ruling:

A judge has finally ruled in the Epic vs. Apple lawsuit, most notably issuing an injunction in Epic's favor that forces Apple to permit developers on its platform to link to outside payment options within their apps.

[...]

However, this was the only point on which Epic won its case. The court's final order [...] declared it "cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws."

[...]

Apple did counter-sue Epic for breach of contract, and the judge ruled in favor of Apple on this point. The court has ordered Epic to pay out 30% of the $12,167,719 in revenue Epic collected from users in the Fortnite app on iOS through Direct Payment between August and October 2020, plus further damages. In total, Epic will pay Apple at least $3.6 million.


Hoeg Law has another, better take on the ruling, from the point of someone who actually practices law, for anyone who's willing to stare at the text of this ruling for two-and-a-half hours while Phil Hoeg reads and explains it.

Prognostication time

I guess it's time to grade my earlier prognostication on this one, in which I predicted that Epic would lose, and badly; that Epic would end up paying damages to Apple afterwards; that Apple would not be forced to give developers free use of their App Store; and that Apple would not be arbitrarily forced to reduce the App Store's 30% fee. I don't know that Epic will end up paying Apple's legal fees, though; otherwise, I was correct across the board.

I'm calling that an A.

And yes, I'm still expecting Epic to also lose Epic Games v Google, in a similarly resounding fashion. I'm not expecting any court, anywhere, to force Google, or Valve, or any of the Epic Game Store other competitors to basically cease being viable businesses simply because Epic haven't yet figured out how to make a viable digital distribution channel of their own.

Update:

I finally made it all the way through Hoeg Law's two-and-a-half hour video, and can confirm (a) that I'm very glad to have not pursued law as a career, because OMFG, do I ever not want to read 185 pages of mostly padding in legalese, and (b) that Epic will not be paying Apple's legal bills. I've therefore knocked a point off my prognostication grade, from A+ to A. Better you than me, Phil Hoeg; I can only imagine how much work it was to read through all 185 pages of this fucking rock to find the nuggets of gold, and I do appreciate it.

Another point of clarification: while Judge Gonzalez Rogers' ruling didn't specifically disallow the 30% fee that Apple charges for access to the App Store, while specifically ordering Epic to pay for the revenues collected from the iOS Fortnite customers at that same 30% rate, she wasn't particularly convinced by the Apple's attempts to justify the 30% rate. Hoeg Law's video notes several places where Gonzales Rogers calls out Apple for not really having any clear justification for the 30% number; she just declined to mandate a change to some other rate, since she didn't have enough information to decide what that rate should be.

Another thing which becomes clear on hearing two-and-a-half hours of the decision's text is the extent to which Gonzalez Rogers really didn't like Apple or their business practices, and really wanted to rule against them... and might have, had the plaintiff been anyone other than Epic Games, who were bringing the suit only after having deliberately, and needlessly, breached their contract with Apple. There is a lot of the text of this decision which is basically giving other potential litigants, e.g. NVidia, or Microsoft, hints about the lawsuits that they could bring, and the sorts of arguments that might have been made which she'd have ruled in favour of, if Epic had thought to make them.

There was a lot of shade thrown at Epic's "expert witness," too; if that guy's career as a paid expert witness isn't ended by this ruling, then I can only conclude that all of his clients are stupid, and deserve to loose any lawsuits that he's contributing to.

Phil did disagree with me on one point. He assumes that both Epic and Apple will appeal the parts of this ruling that went against them, with Apple appealing the injunction that Gonzalez Rogers based on California law, but declared must apply nation-wide, and Epic appealing basically everything else. Epic have already announced that they will, indeed, appeal the nine points of ten that went against them, declaring that they will fight on, and also hilariously that they will be bringing Fortnite back to the App Store, at least in South Korea, as if Apple don't have a say in that, for some reason.

Apple, for their part, have not decided yet whether they will appeal or not. I still don't think it would be worth their while to appeal an injunction that gives them the rest of the year to do, nation-wide, things that they've already agreed to do elsewhere, or been mandated to do in other jurisdictions (like the aforementioned South Korea). I think Apple might just let this point go; Phil Hoeg, who is a corporate lawyer, thinks otherwise. I stand by my prediction, though, so we can add this to the prognostication list for when Apple do decide what they want to do here.

September 03, 2021

"Microsoft reportedly broke Windows 11 by injecting ads"

As someone who spent most of this blog's early years documenting the evils of Microsoft's Get Windows 10 campaign (that's small "e" evil, as in the banality of evil... but yes, it was still evil), a headline like the one above is obviously going to get my attention.

The story itself is... well, a delightful documentation of the banality of evil, exactly as you'd expect it to be, by Rich Woods at XDA:

Ever since Windows 10 was introduced, Microsoft has been pushing through ads in its operating systems, and that’s obviously not changing with Windows 11. It started with the infamous Get Windows 10 app that would force itself upon Windows 7 and 8.1 users, often presenting misleading options that would trick you into upgrading. That was a long time ago, and today’s ads aren’t as nefarious.

Except when they break things. Yesterday after releasing new Windows 11 builds in the Dev and Beta channels (two different builds, mind you), Insiders reported that their Start Menu and taskbar were crashing. As it turned out, it was caused by Windows 11 delivering ads, as was reported by Daniel Aleksandersen, who dug into the issue.

First of all, Microsoft did publish a fix [...] in order to bring your PC back from a crippling issue that was caused by Microsoft sending advertisements to it, you need to make a change to the registry.

Yes, that's right... in order to prevent Microsoft from pushing unwanted advertising through your PC operating system, you have to edit the registry, something which Microsoft typically advises against for all but advanced users.

This means that Microsoft have, once again, turned the Windows operating system into malware... or, more precisely, adware, but of a type which the user cannot remove (since it's the operating system), and which only advanced users can work around, by doing something which Microsoft recommend against when they're not recommending you do it.

It's at this point that I'd just like to remind anyone who's interested that Linux exists, and that it's much more user-friendly now than ever. Seriously, System76's Pop!_OS distro, with its very slick Cosmic UI, is what I'm using right now, and I haven't had to open the damn terminal since I installed it. Everything just works, while leaving me as much in-control of the system as I want to be, and my OS isn't doing anything untoward while my back is turned.

Sadly, Windows users cannot say the same.

August 26, 2021

Why platforms aren't your friends: OnlyFans edition

I've linked to Dan Olson's excellent YouTube video, "Why platforms aren't your friends," before. If you haven't watched it yet, you should, because the points he raises are equally applicable to Vidme (the specific platform he's examining) as they are to any other platform that's trying to lure content creators into joining them, including the Epic Game Store... and, yes, OnlyFans.

OnlyFans, for those who haven't been paying attention, recently made headlines by doing a Tumblr, shedding an unknown portion of their market value by banning the sexually-explicit creators whose content had been propelling the platform's success in the first place. Tumblr dropped from a value of $1.1 billion when they were first bought by Yahoo, to $3 million when they were resold by Yahoo a few years later, after having banned porn creators from the platform, a drop of 99.73%, OnlyFans' losses probably aren't that dire just yet, but the trend is already clearly similar.

For OnlyFans to decide that they also want to follow this path is, to say the least, somewhat baffling, but Olson's video gives some insights:

  1. OnlyFans clearly did not know which content creators/contributors (CCs) they wanted to attract at launch, and made no effort to attract any type of CC in particular. This, naturally, resulted in them attracting CCs who were being kicked off other platforms... and, given the nature of the service they provide (i.e. a somewhat intimate interaction between CCs and their followers), that mostly meant creators of sexually suggestive and/or sexually explicit content. 
    • This could have gone very badly; other platforms that launched with no clear idea who they want as CCs have ended up being a haven for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, domestic terrorists, grifters and con artists. OnlyFans were very lucky: they ended up attracting sex workers.
  2. Having realized that their platform was attracting sex workers, OnlyFans did nothing to discourage them, instead choosing to profit from their presence while basically turning a blind eye to that presence. They were aided in this wilful blindness by OnlyFans' lack of discoverability and content moderation tools. 
    • The feature set your platform launches with is your statement of values; these are the things you care the most about, and which you spend time and money developing before you even went live, to ensure that they'd be baked into the platform going forward. OnlyFans did not have features; they did not value anything, except money. 
  3. Having profited from the presence of sex workers, but valuing nothing except money, OnlyFans then decided to chase even more money, by jettisoning the sex workers who'd made them successful in the first place. The backlash was swift, and clearly damaging. Sex workers, having been told that they and the money they earn for OnlyFans are not welcome, began moving to other platforms like JustForFans and Fansly.
    •  We're all just friends... until there's a windfall of investor money on the line, at which point fuck you. We're friends... until we're not friends.

Which brings us to now, and the desperate back-pedalling of OnlyFans, as reported by WIRED:

Less than a week after OnlyFans announced plans to ban porn from its platform due to pressure from its banking partners, the subscription site announced Wednesday that decision may have been premature. Instead of eliminating sexually explicit content on the site, the company said in a tweet, it had “secured [the] assurances necessary to support our diverse creator community,” and “suspended” its policy change, which was slated to go into effect on October 1.

This seems like a reversal of their terrible, greed-fuelled decision, but look more closely; OnlyFans are not cancelling the policy change, or acknowledging the value of sex workers to their platform. Instead, they're only "suspending" the policy change; this gives the impression that they haven't given up on it entirely, rather just wanting a break from the backlash and time to regroup.

[...] many creators who scrambled to find alternatives in the wake of last week’s announcement do not see this turnaround as a victory. “If this is a win, it’s a temporary one,” says Anshuman Iddamsetty, a nonbinary creator who uploads content dedicated to fat pleasure under the psuedonym Boarlord. “I’ve never seen a platform reverse course like this ever. The language they chose in their announcement worries me. ‘Suspend’ doesn’t instill confidence. And they refused to mention sex workers or erotic laborers by name—they went back to the careful doublespeak of ‘creator’ and ‘all genres.’ We’re long past the point of dancing around the stakes. The porn ban could return October 2nd.”

Boarlord isn't the only OnlyFans CC who finds this seeming retreat to be less than adequate; others are continuing their moves to competing platforms.

All of this was predictable; OnlyFans had the cautionary tale of Tumblr to warn them. But they refused to heed the lessons of history; refused to codify into their platform's structure that sex workers are not only valuable, but welcome; and they are still refusing to admit that they don't have a business without these creators of sexually suggestive and explicit content. And so, OnlyFans are losing them, along with the revenue they earned, and have thoroughly sabotaged any value they might have had to any other potential stake-holders, including both creators of the content (without which they have no product to sell) and investors. Welcome to Tumblr territory.

So, what can OnlyFans do to repair things? At this point, probably nothing. This is another point from Olsen's video: by the time you've realized what sort of a platform you've accidentally ended up with, it's already too late to change. OnlyFans is so thoroughly associated with porn that it's become something of a meme; YouTubers joke about creating an OnlyFans to offset declining Adsense revenue. Nobody else is going to want to associate their brand with OnlyFans; sex workers were the only people for whom the OnlyFans brand was valuable. Now, it's not even valuable to them, and OnlyFans' waffling has already hurt them:

“Workers still lost subscribers in this confusion,” says artist and adult content creator Trapcry. “I think they changed their minds, not for the sake of sex workers, but because they realized the backlash would hurt their pockets more in the long run.”

Trust is a delicate thing. It takes a lot of hard work to build it, and only moments to lose it forever. OnlyFans haven't even begun to do the work which would be required to rebuild trust with their content contributor community; until they do, they will only be able to watch helplessly as that community heads for the exits. 

Tumblr is still hanging on, as are Vidme, and Vimeo, and any number of other essentially failed platforms. I expect that OnlyFans will join their ranks: earning just enough money to keep the lights on, but not attracting enough traffic to grow again, and never again attracting a content contributor community that anyone would want to be associated with, even for the memes. 

Because OnlyFans still don't have any apparent values except money; they still don't have a statement of values, i.e. a feature set, which would set them apart; they still haven't explicitly stated who they want on the platform, or what they're doing to attract those people to the platform, or to retain them.  

As Olson puts it, the charitable reading that they were simply unprepared; the less charitable reading is that they were rent-seekers, internet grifters looking to make some money off the hard work of others... and the internet already has enough of those.

August 06, 2021

Epic v. Apple: Round Two. Fight!

Much as Activision Blizzard have deservedly dominated video gaming news for the past few weeks (and look like they'll continue to do so), it bears remembering that ABK aren't the only video game company behaving badly. Tim Sweeney's Epic Games, who:

yes, that Epic; they're still in court, and apparently it's now Apple's turn to start firing back, and whoo boy! are the details ever fun to read.

As reported by PC Gamer:

Various documents have been coming out from the ongoing Apple vs Epic legal case in the state of California, and here's a full rundown of the core of Apple's (pretty decent) defense [...] Apple's lawyers executed what one can only call a drive-by on the Epic Games Store, which Epic's lawyers had been claiming was comparable to the App Store.

"Epic Games Store is unprofitable and not comparable to the App Store" the lawyers began, rather bluntly, "and will not be profitable for at least multiple years, if ever." Ouch! 

Ouch, indeed! 

Apple's legal eagles are just getting started, though -- now it's time to break down just how far from profitable the EGS is:

"Epic lost around $181 million on EGS in 2019. Epic projected to lose around $273 million on EGS in 2020. Indeed, Epic committed $444 million in minimum guarantees for 2020 alone, while projecting, even with 'significant' growth, only $401 million in revenue for that year. Epic acknowledges that trend will continue in the immediate future: Epic projects to lose around $139 million in 2021."

[...]

"Epic lost around $181 million on EGS in 2019. Epic projected to lose around $273 million on EGS in 2020. Indeed, Epic committed $444 million in minimum guarantees for 2020 alone, while projecting, even with 'significant' growth, only $401 million in revenue for that year. Epic acknowledges that trend will continue in the immediate future: Epic projects to lose around $139 million in 2021."

[...]

"At best, Epic does not expect EGS to have a cumulative gross profit before 2027."

But wait! There's more!

Part of Epic's case against Apple is that it wants the ability to have the Epic Games Store on iOS, and the other reason it keeps bringing the store up is that Epic's commission rate on the store is 12%. This is rather neatly countered by the observation that, well, iOS and the Epic Games Store are two entirely different things: "While Epic’s commission is lower than Apple’s, it does not offer all the services that Apple provides. EGS is essentially a storefront—it lacks the integrated features that make the App Store a desirable platform for consumers and developers."

The Apple wonks end by pointing out that Epic's basis for claiming exclusionary conduct from Apple is that the iOS store was not designed to host other stores. Which, I mean, of course it was. "Epic’s allegations thus depend on the notion that Apple’s design and implementation of its own intellectual property can constitute exclusionary conduct. That theory fails as a matter of law."

Now, this is the part where I say, for the record, that I am not a lawyer. Even if I were a lawyer, it would Canadian law I'd be practicing, not California contract law. That said... that looks pretty devastating to me, as far as Epic's case goes.

As I said at the top of this post, I have serious problems with the way Epic went about bringing this suit in the first place. The obvious bad faith that preceded their removal from Apple's App Store just rubbed me raw; the fact that a PR campaign, aimed squarely at Fortnite players, for some reason, was all prepped and ready to go before the removal had even happened speaks pretty clearly to what their intentions had been right off the jump. As a matter of principle, I don't think the courts should be rewarding Epic for that behaviour.

The second problem deals with Epic's creative definition of the word "monopoly" in this context, one which even they admit is on shaky legal ground... while also admitting that current anti-trust law in the U.S. probably doesn't cover the App Store in its current form. So bringing an an anti-trust suit against Apple is, essentially, legally frivolous, since Epic knew from the outset that the law wasn't on their side.

That left only the claim that Apple's 30% cut of the proceeds of App Store sales was excessive and unfair... a claim for which Epic also had no evidence, unless one counts their own Game Store... which, yes, only takes a 12% cut, but is losing money hand-over-fist, with no end in sight for at least another six years. I can see why Epic want the California court system to order Apple, and Google, and Valve to chop their own revenues by two-thirds, reducing them from profitable businesses to money-losing enterprises that the EGS might hope to catch up to, but again, I don't think the courts should be rewarding Epic that richly for bringing what looks like an utterly frivolous, money-and-time-wasting legal action.

Ethically, Epic have acted in bad faith and deserve to lose this one. Legally, it looks like Epic have no case, and deserve to lose this one. And, given how weak Epic's case has looked so far, especially compared to the can of whoop-ass that Apple's legal team just opened up on them... I have a feeling that they're going to lose this one.

Prognostication

I'm calling it now: In the matter Epic v. Apple, the latter will prevail, and Epic will end up adding Apple's legal and court costs to their non-stop Game Store losses. The only reason Tim Sweeney isn't sweating the outcome of this doomed legal adventure is that he is Epic's majority shareholder, and thus can't be fired or reigned in by Epic's board of directors in any meaningful way.

Incidentally... Epic's suit against Google? It's probably weaker that their suit against Apple, since Google only allow the installation of apps outside of Google Play (Apple don't); Epic actually went that route, initially bypassing Google entirely, with no restrictions or retribution from Google over the matter. It's tough to argue monopoly when the alleged monopolist have gone out of their way to create and maintain Android as an open platform, on which users can do basically anything they want. I predict that Epic will lose that case, too.

And, yes, that thought does make me just a little bit happy. 

#FuckEpicGames

Updated Aug. 29th, 2021

We're still waiting for the judge to decide Epic v Apple, but in the meantime, and for people who find my layman's take on these matters less than satisfying, here's a much more expert opinion, from an actual lawyer:

An Antitrust Epic (Playlist)

Now, whether or not you agree with Richard Hoeg (I don't always), I did find it interesting that he had all the same problems with the details of Epic's case, and the ethics of Epic's approach to this matter, that I did. The "pot calls kettle black" nature of Epic, whose own Game Store has been profoundly anticompetitive from its inception, arguing that Apple's App Store is anticompetitive for doing much, much less, feels like hyperbole at the very least, if not outright hypocrisy, and I can't recall if ever I called that out, specifically.

August 03, 2021

Activision Blizzard's crisis of systemic abuse finally delivers its first high-profile resignation

Like many, I've been watching the unfolding story of Activision Blizzard's crisis of failed leadership and resulting employee abuse with horrified fascination. From:

  • the moment that the details of the court papers were reported out, complete with butt plug business trips and at least one employee harassed to the point of suicide; 
  • through the abhorrent, insulting initial responses to the lawsuit from ATVI's leaders, who mostly seemed to think they could bluff their way out of this one; 
  • to the apparent reasonableness of Bobby Kotick's official response to the whole mess, which initially tried to at least strike the right tone, although it later turned out to be the announcement that he'd hired union-busting law firm WilmerHale to staunch the bleeding of ATVI's legal liability, and didn't appear to be much concerned with actually improving the situation for employees at all;

ATVI's flailing responses have demonstrated, as clearly as anything could, that the leadership of that company see employees as interchangeable and essentially disposable and easily replaced, and care only for limiting their own costs. That shouldn't have been a surprise; the aforementioned Bobby Kotick just finished pocketing $155 million USD in bonuses following a year in which he also laid off nearly a thousand employees, not because ATVI didn't need people doing those jobs, but rather because they wanted cheaper people doing those jobs.

I've avoided commenting on the situation though, simply because I didn't feel like I really had much to add to the conversation. What does one say? Yes, the details are horrifying. They are also not surprising; women in the video game industry have been complaining about these same problems for a long time now; only specific details were missing, details which we now have. 

It seems to me that ATVI is a fish that's been rotting from the head down for a long time now. The fact that so many more lurid, damning details are still coming out, now that the press has actually started digging, would seem to indicate that there's basically no end of this insanity. Seriously, guys, a Cosby Suite? One company demanded a Misogyny Tax before doing business with you, and told you why, and had you barred from Black Hat, and you still didn't see any reason to actually take a real look at yourselves until now?

And the failures of leadership just keep coming! Fran Townsend, now billed as "Activision Blizzard's Torture Apologist Executive," has responded to Bobby Kotick's promise that leadership were listening to employees by blocking those same employees on Twitter. Not a good look.

And so, with all of this swirling, and with ATVI's share price dropping by 12% and counting in less than a month, the next thing that I expected to see was for rats to start fleeing this obviously sinking ship. It's too late for them to avoid having the stench of this follow them to other gigs; even people like Mike Morhaime and Chris Metzen, who'd left ATVI before the scandal broke, have seen their legacy indelibly tarnished by the failures of their own leadership here; after all, most of the behaviour described in those court filings happened while they were in charge. 

But still, I was waiting for someone with a greater sense of shame than Fran, or maybe just less intestinal fortitude, to decide that it was time to "spend more time with family," or to "pursue new opportunities," or some similarly meaningless PR pablum phrase. The only remaining mystery was: which rat would flee the sinking ship first?

Well, today we have the answer to that question, and it turns out to be no less a person than Blizzard president J. Allen Brack. Yikes.

From Blizzard.com's own announcement:

Starting today, J. Allen Brack will be stepping down as the leader of the studio, and Jen Oneal and Mike Ybarra will co-lead Blizzard moving forward [...] The following is a message from J. Allen Brack:

“I am confident that Jen Oneal and Mike Ybarra will provide the leadership Blizzard needs to realize its full potential and will accelerate the pace of change. I anticipate they will do so with passion and enthusiasm and that they can be trusted to lead with the highest levels of integrity and commitment to the components of our culture that make Blizzard so special.”

There's also a lot of investor-friendly boilerplate about how Oneal and Ybarra are totally qualified to do this job, and how they'll do a great job, so there's no reason at all for shareholders to be taken aback by the fact that Blizzard's president resigned suddenly with immediate effect in the midst of a leadership crisis; you can read the full text there if you like. We'll "hear more from Jen and Mike soon," apparently, and I for one can't wait to hear how they plan to set about "rebuilding [our] trust."

But for the moment, let's ignore them, and focus on the fleeing rat du jour. Brack is not, apparently, being fired for having done a terrible job leading Blizzard, although he would appear to have done a terrible job leading Blizzard. He's not resigning to take responsibility for his failures to ensure that Blizzard employees had a safe and inclusive place in which to work, although he's clearly failed on that front, too. No, according to reporting from Jason Schreier, Brack is leaving to "pursue new opportunities," as per an internal email announcing his departure. Not an email from Brack, though; the email came from Daniel Alegre, who is apparently Activision Blizzard's president (Brack was only Blizzard's president).

As Schrier points out, it's noteworthy that Oneal and Ybarra are designated as "co-leaders" of Blizzard, not "co-presidents" of Blizzard. Apparently, they've been given a typically corporate bullshit opportunity to take on more responsibility, but without actually having any more authority, or more pay, or even proper titles, for their trouble. It's pretty clear that "Bobby" will be the one issuing marching orders to his new Blizzard hench-people. I am not sanguine about the possibility of meaningful reform happening, but I suppose we'll see.

The other noteworthy detail here? Brack hasn't, apparently, penned or posted a proper farewell letter to Blizzard's employees, or even Blizzard's fans, the way Morhaime and Metzen both did when they left. I wonder why that might be?

One thing seems clear. WilmerHale have a row to hoe if they're to stop the bleeding here. Because Activision Blizzard's ongoing scandal has become exactly the type of scandal that someone embroiled in the scandal hates to see: one being kept alive, and in the headlines, by a steady drip-feed of new, lurid, details.

Drip. Cosby Suite. Drip. Misogyny tax. Drip. Blizzard's president suddenly resigns, but without actually speaking about the scandal in his resignation statement, and without bidding a proper farewell to Blizzard employees and fans. Drip, drip, drip.

UPDATED: 

Activision Blizzard's"Senior People Officer," Jesse Meschuk, has also stepped down. As reported by Bloomberg:

A human-resources executive, Jesse Meschuk, also left the company this week, according to an Activision Blizzard spokesperson. Meschuk was the senior people officer at Blizzard and the unit’s top HR representative.

There are no specific details as to exactly when or why Meschuk stepped down, and no statement was issued at the time, but it appears that Meschuk may actually have beaten Brack out the door. 

Drip, drip, drip...

July 06, 2021

Here's another pernicious thing about Windows 11

I just came across this gem from at ExtremeTech, and had to share it:

I Will Never Use a Microsoft Account to Log Into My Own PC

Preach, Brother!

His reasons cover the entire gamut, beginning with the fact that Windows 11's new online and account requirements literally make it harder to him to do his job, and progressing to the fairly fundamental point that his PC is not, in fact, the internet:

To me, my PC and “the internet” are two entirely different things. I connect to the latter to download files, read news, and watch content, but it is not the totality of my personal computer. Using an online account to log into my personal PC breaches the distinction between the two. Weird as it is — because I’m willing to admit this is a personal oddity — I find that distinction matters to me. It actually matters a lot. I don’t want my local Windows account to be synonymous with an online login.

But that's not the biggest reason why Hruska is digging in his heels about this. No, the biggest reason, the real deal breaker, is simply that Microsoft keep trying to force the issue.

My problem with Microsoft and non-local accounts is this: Since the introduction of Windows 10, Microsoft has pulled every dirty trick in the book. It has obfuscated the ability to create a local account by hiding it in unclear language. It has deployed installers that hid the option to create a local account unless you were offline when you ran setup. It has deployed “Get Windows 10” tools that were so aggressive, they acted more like malware than a product built by a Fortune 500 company.

June 26, 2021

"Android apps, forced Microsoft accounts, telemetry, oh my!"

Given how curmudgeonly my immediate reaction was to this week's Windows 11 announcement, I was beginning to wonder if I'm just being far too cynical about all of this. Nobody else was making that much noise about the six-year-old telemetry and data collection that was bundled into Windows 10 (and later back-ported to Windows 7). The biggest substantive criticism of W11 seemed to revolve around its hardware requirements (especially TPM 2.0); the next-biggest criticism was about the removal of the ability to reposition the taskbar from the bottom of the screen to the one of sides.

Apparently, though, other people just needed a little time to catch up; por ejemplo, Jez Corden, at Windows Central:

In our heavily connected, heavily surveilled world, anxiety about government and big tech overreach is at a fever pitch. And Microsoft has increasingly fallen on the wrong side of this argument.

At the Windows 11 event yesterday, Microsoft had an opportunity to meet some of these concerns, founded or not. Yet, it chose not to. [...]

In Microsoft's Windows 11 blog post, the word "privacy" doesn't appear once in the copy, which doesn't exactly bode well for its messaging. Windows 11 will force users to use a Microsoft Account in its free Home Edition, which already speaks of a business model where your data is the monetization engine. Even if you're using the world's best VPN, it's not exactly going to protect your data from going directly to Microsoft if you're signed in. [...]

Microsoft is also enlisting another doubted tech giant, Amazon, to bring Android apps to Windows 11. Amazon is under heavy scrutiny already for the way it treats its workers among other things, but combining this with Android adds another layer of concern. Android is oft-painted as an insecure, privacy-apathetic platform. True or not, the prospect of an Amazon-fronted Android subsystem in Windows 11 compounds data fears.

June 24, 2021

Microsoft just revealed their next version of Windows, and I have more questions than answers

So, it's official: contrary to what they'd said previously, Windows 10 will not be the last version of Windows that Microsoft releases. Windows 11 is definitely coming, it's definitely called Windows 11, and today we got a look at some of its sexier features.

First, the good ...

Windows 10 is very pretty. A lot of people, myself included, hated the flat, designed-for-touchscreens Windows 8, and while Windows 10 restored the start menu, it didn't fix the ugly look of the thing. Windows 11 was very clearly designed to mimic the much, much prettier Aero Glass UI of Windows Vista and Windows 7, and it's a huge improvement.

Gone, too, is the ugly "live tile" blue void that takes up space next to W10's start menu. Live tiles still exist, but Microsoft has renamed them to Widgets, and banished them to their own sub-menu; those who are interested can call up the Widget menu using the button on the task bar, and ignore it otherwise.

Windows Updates have apparently been improved as well, with smaller updates loading in the background, rather than shoving themselves to the fore and preventing users from doing anything else while the updates happen. They've also finally found a way to get some Android apps into the Windows Store, too, although it's the much, much smaller subset of Android apps that Amazon have on their app store.

... which brings us to the less-than-good ...

June 23, 2021

The Math Has Not Changed: XBox Game Pass is still not a good deal for the average consumer

It's been a good while now since I last posted about how, for the average consumer, Game Pass is simply not as cost-effective as just buying the games you're actually interested in. My conclusion, based entirely on the numbers, was that most consumers would be better-served by just buying what they want. 

Well, E3 has happened since then, and Microsoft and Bethesda showed off all the games that will be "coming day one" to game pass... eventually. Naturally, this has caused a lot of people to lose their minds. 

Paul Tassi's take, over at Forbes, is pretty typical:

It’s clear that Microsoft is slamming the accelerator on Game Pass, with or without a console attached to it, and they’re going to try to not just have a large roster of old games, but continue the idea that every new first party game debuts there, and now that includes all future Bethesda games too [...]

Sony, meanwhile, has taken the opposite path. This generation they’re not only sticking with selling individual new releases as they’ve always done, not rolling them up into any sort of subscription, but also increasing the price of their PS5 games from $60 to $70 [...]

It’s not ideal for each game you go to purchase [...] but once you really start digging into this math, the longer this goes on, and the more games are released for both systems, maintaining a roster of games on PS5 is going to be very, very expensive compared to Xbox.

Let’s say you want to play 12 Xbox Series X first party games over three years, and 12 first party PS5 games over three years. 

No normal consumer is going to want to do this. 

April 12, 2021

VR has failed to thrive in the pandemic

This isn't how it was supposed to play out. 

As the COVID-19 pandemic's first wave gathered speed, and fortunate souls like me switched from meatspace commuting to tele-commuting, I started seeing more and more takes like this one, from CNBC:

Virtual reality is booming in the workplace amid the pandemic. Here’s why.

After years of promises and false starts, Covid-19 has driven a record number of workers remotely and could finally usher in their regular use of VR and AR at home — or at least give the tech a push on the path to mainstream.

A PwC report last year predicted that nearly 23.5 million jobs worldwide would be using AR and VR by 2030 for training, work meetings or to provide better customer service. According to a report by ABI Research this year, before the pandemic the VR market was forecasted to grow at a 45.7% compound annual rate, surpassing $24.5 billion in revenue by 2024. Virtual reality used within businesses is forecasted to grow from $829 million in 2018 to $4.26 billion in 2023, according to ARtillery Intelligence.

The alert among you will have already spotted the repeating pattern here: a click-bait headline that talks about a VR boom as if it's happening, then immediately follows with a sentence that only says that it could happen; and "analysts" with skin in the VR game, bullishly predicting that VR will grow into a multi-billion dollar business in the next five years, in a report published a year earlier, before the pandemic had even started. In short, a lot of speculation with no substance, breathlessly presented as if CNBC were reporting on something that was already happening.

We've been seeing this same pattern play out for years, in no small part because analysts like PwC have been making these same predictions for about five years now, without the predicted VR boom ever happening, but COVID-19 changed a lot of things. Did it change this one? Was this actually VR's hour, come round at last?

April 11, 2021

Confirmed: Epic's big gamble is actually a loss

Or, as Kotaku put it, "Epic CEO Tim Sweeney Is Very Excited About The Epic Games Store Losing A Ton Of Money." This revelation apparently comes to us by way of Epic's own court filings in their ongoing war of legal attrition against Apple, which the eagle-eyed and awesomely-named Tyler Wilde spotted, and wrote about for PC Gamer.

Epic Games has spent the past two years shoveling Fortnite money into the Epic Games Store, making over 100 exclusivity deals and giving away free games every week. We knew Epic was spending a lot of cash to get customers onto its store, but didn't have many specifics until [...] we learned this week that Epic committed around $444 million to Epic Game Store exclusivity deals in 2020 alone.

[...] A "minimum guarantee" is just another way to refer to an advance: It means that Epic guarantees the publisher a certain amount of money whether or not their game actually sells enough to cover it. For example, Epic put down $10.45 million for Control.

[...] Some of those deals must be for exclusives releasing in the future, but according to Apple's learnings, Epic is going to eat "at least $330 million in unrecouped costs from minimum guarantees alone" if you also consider 2019's deals.

I'd posted about Epic's big gamble back in 2018, and have opined before about how Tim Sweeney's arrogant approach was likely doomed to fail; for more, check out "Metro:Exodus proves several of my points about Epic's new marketplace," "PR Communications 101: Sarcasm = Mockery," or "Why platforms aren't your friends" (although that last one was basically an excuse to embed Folding Ideas excellent video on essentially the same subject).

Suffice it to say that I am not at all surprised to learn that Epic are losing money on the EGS; given how much money they were spending to basically bribe both developers and consumers into adopting it, I would have been far more surprised to learn that they were turning a profit. Interestingly, Epic's exclusivity agreements appear to work exactly the way I always thought they did: like the royalty advances of book publishing and other, similar industries, but even I did not predict losses on this scale; apparently even Fortnite's huge haul isn't enough to keep pace. 

I'm also a little surprised that we're learning about these losses at all; I was expecting this information to remain well-buried for a long, long time. I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised, though, given the broad extent of Apple's document pulls from all and sundry in the matter of their legal battle with Epic Games; the California judge overseeing the proceedings described it as Apple having "salted the Earth with subpoenas" from a variety of industry players, including Valve Software. This likely means that Friday's bombshell is likely only the first of many; there are a lot of previously confidential, behind-the-scenes dealings which are about to become part of the public record. That's very exciting. Consumers could be on the verge of learning a lot about the workings of an industry that we previously could only guess at.

For now, though, we can only shake our heads in mock disbelief at the extent to which Epic's Game Store has flopped. Given that the service launched in 2018, and is still hemorrhaging money with no end in sight, I have doubts as to whether Epic can actually turn this around. The brand damage here may just be too deep, and the stench of flop sweat and failure is unlikely to attract new business partners eager to associate their valuable brands with Epic's radioactive one. 

Even worse for Epic: the Fortnite revenue which has been funding the EGS to this point is also down, from $1.8 billion in 2019 to less than $500 million in 2020:

[...] Epic said that players spent $700 million on the Epic Store in 2020, but third-party game sales only accounted for $265 million of that spending.

No wonder Sweeney has resorted to litigation! At this point, the EGS's only hope may be to find a sympathetic judge who'd be willing to "flip the board," disruptive the game of the entire video games business on their behalf. Given how much room to run Judge Hixon is affording to Apple, though, I would recommend that Sweeney not count too heavily on the tree of that particular lawsuit bearing the sort of lucrative fruit that the EGS needs in order to stave of death by starvation, especially since their entire legal argument is that the 30% cut is unnecessary. Apple can now counter that argument by simply pointing out that Epic's 12% cut is losing them money hand over first, and clearly not a sustainable business model. Look for that lawsuit to badly for Epic.

Will Epic's epic-scale Game Store losses cause the company to course-correct?

Probably not, alas. Sweeney is still Epic's majority shareholder, which means that he's basically able to do whatever he wants with the company. Epic's next-largest shareholder, Tencent Holdings, who own 40% of Epic, do have the sort of resources required to put pressure on Sweeney, but they can't simply vote him out as CEO, or off Epic's board of governors, which will limit their options... assuming they're even inclines to intervene here, which is far from certain. For all the suspicion that surrounds any Tencent acquisition, their management style has so far been pretty hands-off, at least with their interests outside of China.

Of course, even Epic Games can't sustain this kind of burn rate forever; eventually, they're going to have to make changes in order the stop the bleeding, and put in place some sort of plan to "return to profitability" (corporate code of mass layoffs). Given that their legal battle with Apple has only served to make the industry-standard 30% cut to the platform look more essential than ever, and that Epic has done almost nothing to earn back the trust and good will of the Steam community (which, at this point, includes basically all of the PC gaming community), and also given that efforts to repair their brand and rebuild their business can't even start until the Apple lawsuit, at least, is either dropped or settled, I'm starting to have serious doubts about Epic's long-term prospects. I beginning to wonder if Epic will be able to survive at all, in the medium-to-long term.

In the near term, however, while Epic still have a fat war chest and a loyal Fortnite fan base, I expect that the PC gaming industry news is going to be very, very interesting. Watch this space...

April 06, 2021

Well... that was quick

As reported by CNN:
As always, I am surprised only that people are surprised.
 
NFTs, for the uninitiated, are non-fungible tokens, essentially digital certificates of authenticity for digital content. Because they're encoded on the blockchain, they can't easily be duplicated or counterfeited, and each is unique, which is appealing to people cursed with a compulsive collecting habit.

They aren't, however, the actual pieces of content that they're linked to; the blockchain is already enormous, and adding the entire piece of a digital work to the chain would be prohibitively expensive. The digital works in question are stored separately, and can be moved, altered, or deleted without altering the NFTs themselves, resulting in a digital certificate of authenticity for something which doesn't exist anymore.

So NFTs aren't actually certificates of ownership in any convention sense. Additionally, the licenses that they encode are almost always specifically worded to exclude any sort of copyright, so someone spending millions of dollars on an NFT can't even sell copies of the thing they've "paid for." In essence, NFTs are an elaborate mechanism for adding bragging rights to what is, effectively, Patreon
 
What could possibly go wrong? Apart from the environmental impact of bitcoin mining, of course, which is enormous.

A secondary effect of NFTs' collapsing value might also mean a collapse in the price of Ethereum. Most NFTs are encoded on the Ethereum blockchain, specifically, so a bursting NFT bubble might just burst the Ethereum bubble, too. That would make PC gamers happy, since a burst in the Ethereum mining bubble could mean a quick sell-of of the equipment used to mine that particular cryptocurrency, including tens of thousands of the latest PC graphics cards, which ease both the current supply shortage of those parts, and drive their prices down to something approaching MSRP.

Still... I have to shake my head at the whole thing. What were people thinking?

February 25, 2021

EA course-corrects, will allow new Dragon Age sequel to be a solo RPG... just like all the other Dragon Age games

You know that the bar is really fucking low when this counts as a good thing.

As reported by Jason Schreier at Bloomberg:

Video game publisher Electronic Arts Inc. has made a major pivot on the next game in the popular Dragon Age series, allowing the developers to remove all planned multiplayer components from the game, according to people familiar with the matter.

Dragon Age is a series of fantasy games from the EA-owned developer BioWare. The next Dragon Age, which doesn’t yet have an official title or release date, had previously been designed with a heavy multiplayer component, said the people, who asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak to the press. In recent months, it has transformed into a single-player-only game after EA was stung by a recent multiplayer flop.

That "recent multiplayer flop" was, of course, Anthem, further development on which was stopped by EA earlier this week. Up until that point, EA had been all in on loot-box-laden "live service" games, with their corporate strategy depending heavily on developing and publishing only "live service" multiplayer games going forward, but after lukewarm reception for Star Wars Battlefront, the PR disaster that was SW:BF2's planned loot box system, and the utter embarrassment that was Anthem's release, it would seem that they're rethinking that strategy.

And, yes, this is a good thing. Here's hoping that other AAA developers follow suit, giving up on forcing free-to-play monetization into full-price games, and return to just making good, feature-complete, finished games again.