Epic v. Apple, round one: A split decision, sort of

I guess that it's time to talk about Epic's war-of-choice against Apple.

For those who haven't been paying attention, here's the Coles Notes version. Epic Games, developers of Fortnite, deliberately breached the terms of the agreements with Apple and Google which allowed them to have Fortnite on both the iOS App Store and Google Play. Apple and Google both acted in accordance with the rules of said agreements, and removed Fortnite from both the App Store and Google Play.

This is when Epic, who very clearly wanted exactly this outcome, launched a well-prepared PR campaign against, primarily, Apple. They clearly intended to mobilize Apple-using Fortnite fans against the Cupertino company, intending to litigate their dissatisfaction with Apple's Apple Store payment terms in the court of public opinion, even as they also filed a lawsuit against Apple seeking an injunction to force their own desired payment terms on them "temporarily," clearly hoping that having those payment terms in place for the years it would take to resolve the lawsuit would essentially make it impossible for Apple to ever go back, whether Epic actually prevailed in court or not.

Apple, naturally, are having none of this. They make billions of US dollars every single year from their 30% cut of App Store transactions, and every incentive to "go to the mattresses" in defense of one of their main sources of revenue. And, as it turned out, banning Fortnite from the App Store was only one way they could express their displeasure with Epic's antics: they revoked Epic's developer license, effectively banning their Unreal Engine, and all games based on that engine, from the App Store as well.

Epic, clearly panicked by this drastic and rapid escalation of a fight that they'd clearly thought would be waged entirely on Epic's terms, filed for another injunction, asking the court to block Apple from killing the Unreal Engine dead. And at the end of yesterday, a federal court judge ruled on both injunctions. The result? Basically, it's a draw. The reasoning behind that draw, however, is quite interesting.

Here's how Valve should "fix" Steam Because Steam ain't perfect, either...

Having gone on at length about the problems with Epic's storefront, and with their profoundly consumer-dismissive approach to... well... everything, it's only fair to spend some time and words on the issues that Steam actually does have, which GabeN should probably attend to. Because after 16 years in service, it's fair to say that Steam's pipes have some rust and corrosion on them, and really could use a good cleaning.

Gabe! Buddy! My nearest and most excellent friend (that I've never met in person, and who doesn't know me from Adam, but whatevs don't@me)! I have some advice for you; a five-step process that will clear a up a whole bunch of that embarrassing clutter that's causing so much agita, lately. Take these ideas, and use them in all good health.

Epic's other other problem

When Epic announced that their digital storefront would be opening itself up to games from other publishers in a bid to eclipse Valve's Steam service, the general reaction from developer-friendly games media outlets was positive. People who spent a lot of time talking to developers, and none at all talking to average consumers, were convinced that Steam was desperately in need of a new competitor, one that would somehow succeed where GoG, Origin, Uplay, and even Microsoft's built-in Windows 10 storefront had not.

The assumption, one which even Epic seemed to share, was that Fortnite had given Epic a large enough base of customers that could be leveraged to take market share away from Steam, while their richer-for-developers revenue cut would necessarily pull disgruntled indie devs away from the more established platform. I have doubts about both points, of course, but it turns out that we're didn't need to wait all that long for the loyalty of Epic's customer base to be tested. The test has come in the form of a competing game: Apex Legends, which combines Battle Royale and Hero Shooter gameplay into a package that's become the top game on Twitch, dethroning Epic's Fortnite less than a week after its launch.

This is the customer base on whose loyalty the success of Epic's storefront depends, already abandoning Epic in favour of a newer, shinier game that is every bit as finished and polished as Fortnite, but with the more conventional look and gameplay of the Titanfall series. These are the customers that are supposed to abandon Steam, which they've been happily using for years, and buy into yet another ecosystem, even though that ecosystem offers nothing by way of features that are absent or inadequate on the platform they already use.

Metro:Exodus proves several of my points about Epic's new marketplace

When I posted at length about Epic Games' new storefront, and why it was a much bigger gamble than a lot of people were assuming when it was announced,  fair chunk of that post was about two big points:

1. Steam has a very loyal customer base, who will not be happy if strong-armed into buying into any other ecosystem. Nobody uses Microsoft's storefront, either, remember.
2. Individual indie games, no matter how good, are simply not big enough to act as system-sellers. Yes, having indie games on their platforms did wonders for Steam (and later for the PS4 and eventually Nintendo Switch; even Microsoft's XBox division belated came around to the need for them) but no one indie title or indie developer was responsible for that, and none of them are individually essential to any platform's success.

The sole possible exception to point #2 would, of course, be Fortnite... which launched on Steam, and arguably owes its success to Steam's existence. It's also the only reason that Epic Games have a hundred million or so customers with Epic accounts, customers who don't want anything from Epic except more Fortnite.

The fact that Fortnite players are likely not looking to Epic to satisfy their hunger for varied, non-Fortnite gaming experiences, something which Fortnite can't offer many of anyway, was a clear weakness that Epic needed to address, so it's no surprise that they were actively trying to lure other developers to their storefront, up to and including "poaching" them away from Steam after they'd already announced planned Steam launches. None of those early indie exclusives had moved over to Epic after already selling their product on Steam, but it really was the obvious next move.

It should be no surprise that Epic found some greedy indie dev willing to screw over their Steam customers in an ill-advised "hardball" power play, but I will admit to being slightly surprised that the makers of Metro:Exodus volunteered to be exactly this kind of test case so soon. The problem? Up until five minutes ago, the game was being advertised as a Steam launch, and has been available for pre-order on Steam.

Oh, and the move to Epic came with a $10 price drop, which wasn't immediately offered to customers who'd already bought the game on Steam.

And then there's the fact that the makers of Metro:Exodus are still advertising the game and its DLC on Steam, even though neither the game nor its DLC can be installed from Steam.

Screwed-over Steam consumers are, naturally enough, pissed, and threatening to boycott the game's launch entirely... which, in a world where The Pirate Bay exists, means that they're planning to play the game anyway, but just not pay for it, because fuck Epic and fuck the makers of Metro:Exodus for this egregiously anti-consumer bit of bullshit. All of which has the makers of Metro:Exodus threatening to boycott PC gaming entirely in the future... because that's going to help, isn't it?

Epic Games' big gamble

Having mentioned Epic Games' storefront in passing in my last post, I suppose it would behoove me to elaborate a bit on my thoughts on the issue. Because I'm firmly of the opinion that Epic Games will not become any more a competitor to Steam than any of the other already-existing online storefronts: Origin, Uplay, GOG, Itch.io, etc., for several reasons.