The Epic Games Store Officially Launches on Mobile Devices - IGN
www.ign.com
After months of waiting, Epic has finally released a mobile version of the Epic Games Store, which is now available for Android devices worldwide as well as EU iOS devices.

Honestly I know people here are against Epic, but Google Play is such garbage that I welcome the epic store on Android.

    • Nibodhika@lemmy.worldEnglish
      373·
      3 months ago

      But they didn’t. Let’s look at the facts:

      1. There are alternative stores on Android since forever.
      2. From 1, Opening a secondary store on Android was always an option.
      3. 30% they claim is abusive is the industry standard, i.e. no one is taking advantage of their monopoly to enforce that, because even in markets without a monopoly that’s the amount charged.
      4. Epic lost their lawsuit against Apple, which was the only company he was suing that actually enforced a monopoly in their platform.
      5. Secondary stores are allowed on Apple in the EU as a result of DMA which has nothing to do with Epic.
      6. From 5, Opening a secondary store on Apple is now an option regardless of what Epic did.

      So you have one company that sued two others to be able to launch their store there, one of the companies wasn’t preventing them from doing so, and they lost their lawsuit against the other one. Completely unrelated to that, the EU forced that second company to allow third-party stores. Conclusion, Epic’s lawsuit has nothing to do with this announcement.

        • Nibodhika@lemmy.worldEnglish
          62·
          3 months ago

          I’ve already addressed this in other replies below. This goes beyond the existence of app store and into the abusive nature of them. Here’s some light reading for you.

          Irrelevant, the news from OP is that secondary stores are now allowed on Android and iOS. Not defending Google or anything, but whatever abuse they did is irrelevant to this point. The fact remains, other stores exist on Android.

          You’re just repeating yourself. Number go up, I guess?

          No, 2 is a conclusion from 1. You didn’t even got through 1 properly trying to bring whatever bad things Google might do with their power, fact 1 is there are other stores on Android, fact 2, which is a conclusion derived from fact 1 is that Epic could have released their own store there regardless of the lawsuit. This takes Android off the picture from the remaining of the discussion.

          Your parents should have taught you when you were 5 that just because other people are doing it doesn’t make it okay.

          That’s not the point, if someone claims that a company is using their monopoly power to force a high tax on developers, but the tax is the same on every other store regardless of being monopoly or not then their argument is bullshit. Why do you think developers pay 30% to Steam? If they thought Steam didn’t provided value they would just not release there. But they do, therefore 30% is not abusive, it’s what developers are willing to pay for the service.

          Well the EU picked up where the US failed. That’s why they have an app store. But Epic continues the fight regardless. As mentioned elsewhere, they won their lawsuit against Google with the state of California stating Google’s app store is indeed a monopoly. Epic is responsible for both.

          No they didn’t, DMA is an extension of GDPR and P2B Regulations, it has nothing to do with Epic.

          Highly doubt that that is a coincidence. It has everything to do with Epic.

          Like I told you in your other reply, laws as complex as DMA don’t get written in a short amount of time, it’s impossible for these to be related.

          You’re repeating yourself again.

          Again, I’m drawing a conclusion from a point before. From 1 you have 2 which means the lawsuit has nothing to do with Android, and from 5 you have 6 which means their lawsuit had nothing to do with iOS either, since those are the two platforms being discussed we have the overall conclusion that the lawsuits and this announcement are unrelated.

          You haven’t disproven any of the propositions, nor found any logical error with the conclusion from those propositions (in fact both times you thought the conclusion was just a repetition of the proposition before). Just claiming I’m wrong is not gonna cut it, unless you have any facts that counter anything I said my conclusion stands.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
          152·
          3 months ago

          I’m pointing out that what the article is showing (Epic opening their own app store) was always an option for them. The court ruling on Google’s app store didn’t enable that. It was always an option. This isn’t true on the Apple side, though. A non-Apple app store on iOS would be a significant change.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
              91·
              3 months ago

              Your comment was:

              they’ve taken Apple, Google, and Samsung to the cleaners over this shit.

              The article is talking about a new app store. A new app store wasn’t part of “this shit”. Yes, Epic sued and got changes to Google’s app store pricing, but that has nothing to do with this article’s topic. I’m not that invested in this conversation, but you asked why I responded and that’s why. I hope you have a fantastic day!

                • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  81·
                  3 months ago

                  Read better.

                  Oh my, this is embarrassing for you. Look at my very first line in my quote:

                  "Nothing prevented Epic from opening their own Appstore on Android. "

                  So is this where I tell you to “read better”?

                • Nibodhika@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  51·
                  3 months ago

                  The iOS version also has nothing to do with their lawsuit of Apple, they lost that one. It’s due to an unrelated law in the EU, which is why this is only available in the EU.

        • Nibodhika@lemmy.worldEnglish
          81·
          3 months ago

          The state of California also determined that 30% tax was okay for Apple to charge, so they’re not very objective with their determinations.

          • Rose@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            3 months ago

            One was a jury trial and the other wasn’t. Google had plenty of records of their internal communications but Apple had a different practice. This article by The Verge does a decent job at highlighting the differences.

        • Zorque@lemmy.worldEnglish
          94·
          3 months ago

          You mean the same fee every store under the sun charges? Epic is the only one that doesn’t, and they pretty much just do it for marketing.

          They are not the good guys. They’re Elon Musk before he took the mask off, though it slips through now and then.

                • Zorque@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  42·
                  3 months ago

                  None of that means Google wasn’t exploiting anticompetitive measures to ensure everyone has to pay their exorbitant 30% tax in their app store.

                  Something he repeats ad nauseum.

                  I find it hard to believe someone so invested in this outcome knows nothing about it.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        41·
        3 months ago

        Yeah. I’ve had Amazon’s for a very long time. There was never anything preventing epic from making their own store. Epic was trying to make Google play store host the download for the epic game store.

        • Stovetop@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          3 months ago

          It’s a bit more than that, though. Epic lost their lawsuit against Apple but they won theirs against Google.

          Google was colluding with OEMs to stifle competition on Android, and that practice was determined to be anticompetitive. Sure you could always jump through the Google-mandated hoops and install a third-party store, but then you could also always install other browsers on Windows even when Internet Explorer was the default, and that was also determined to be anticompetitive.

          • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            Which is silly, since Apple has gone beyond colluding, and simply blocks everything they can within their walled garden. You’ve never even had the option to install other app stores or sideload apps on an iPhone. Meanwhile, you’ve always been able to on Android. For the past several years it will even hold your hand and highlight/show you what options you need to allow to do it within the OS.

            • Stovetop@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              3 months ago

              I agree, but that’s what the courts decided. IANAL but I’m assuming it hinges on the pretense that Android is supposed to be an open ecosystem where partners and OEMs are given fair treatment, while iOS is a top-to-bottom “product” controlled by a single company that makes their own business arrangements.

              In short, Apple deciding to block Epic from having their own app store, fine. Google bribing/coercing Android OEMs to prioritize the Play Store and not pre-install or facilitate the Epic Store, not fine.

              I don’t think the courts would have cared if Google locked down their own Pixel phones to block out Epic, but it’s the act of throwing their weight around as the OS provider to their business partners (the OEMs) that they took issue with.