Does what Epic is Looking for in App Stores What Other Game developers Really Need? -
While mobile app and game developers struggle to breathe under an unpopular duopoly tax that is 30% almost all mobile game revenue worldwide, Epic Games has emerged as the game industry's leader fighting for the right to open computing on mobile.
privately asked both large and small game studios alike what they wanted to see, and this is the answers they gave to see.
Background: The Slow Death of Open Computing, and the 30% tax on apps
Computing has never been more accessible than it is now. For a long time games and software creators have relied on the open computing on PC as well as Mac platforms because it allows creators to make titles whenever they like, enjoy a direct relationship with their customers and select payment options that work for them. There was no barrier-keepers- just a computer, players or game. However, the game has evolved.
Now, over half of users' screen time is on mobile devices -- an increase in the sharein addition, nearly 90% of the global smartphone OS market shares is shared between Apple or Google. Due to the dominance of mobile market share as well as strict controls over game distribution and online commerce, the realm of open computing is now in danger like never before, imposing a great cost to consumers as well in the form of app developers and game makers.
Case in point Both Google as well as Apple's app stores require a 30 percent charge on the game sales and other products in games distributed by their platform. Apple controls 100% of the distribution of games and ecommerce on iOS devices. However, Google lets OEM marketplace apps as well as the sideloading of mobile games however, it severely limits third-party in-game payment for games that are distributed via Google Play.
Google Play does offer a third-party payment integration option for just a handful of game developers by way of their " user choice billing" test; however "user option billing" comes with pricey evergreen market fees of 26% even if you use your own payment provider and assume all the risk and compliance obligations for payments.
The net effect of Apple and Google's dominance over this huge portion of computing worldwide is that they have a default 30 percent tax on mobile games as well as applications, which is paid by players, which is disregarded by game developers and blocks open computing and ecommerce. In light of this hold on free computing, gamers both small and large believe that it is time to make changes.
What do game developers who aren't Epic
The team here at embarked on a months-long quest to interview game studios both big and small about the things they wanted to see happen with the policies of mobile apps store. Though not everyone was on the same page about every point, here are the three most important points they mentioned they wanted:
1. iOS to support sideloading games with no scare screens.
iOS has long restricted "sideloading" applications and games -- in which apps are downloaded from outside the App Store from the site of the developer or other marketplace. Sideloading allows freedom for players to purchase and developers to sell and distribute games however the creator decides and that the user agrees to go along with. Android does allow sideloading apps and games but only in conjunction with a series of sloppy warnings referred to by the name of "scare screens" which warn mobile phone owners of the dangers associated with "downloading software from the internet." Many of the game developers we spoke to felt Apple should be able to support sideloading. They also felt that Apple as well as Google shouldn't use over-the-top self-serving scare screens which denigrate software distribution beyond their storefronts for apps.
2. Let you have unlimited "steering" and embedded payments via third-party payment platform.
Both Google as well as Apple restrict the possibility of displaying prices and payment options offered by third-party payment services that are not part of the app store. That means that the exact purchase could be available for cheaper prices for the user, but game developers can't steer their players to those choices, or link to additional purchases, or even embed the third-party experience of purchasing into their games. Though many of the game designers we spoke with found great benefits to transactions made through apps, the majority of preference was to give players and developers the choice by doing away with steering or embedded restrictions on payment.
3. A 0% cost for embedded and steering payments as well as embedded fees.
Allowing steering and embedded payments is something else, however the way Google has done it is that, as we've seen in its "user option billing" pilot, having the capacity to take action and the motivation to make money from the thing are two separate things. The pilot of "user option billing" offering a massive 26% cost for transactions made through third-party payment providers, combined with the fees those providers charge, this equates to a $0 gain for most game designers. We spoke with game developers who felt zero was an appropriate amount for transactions not in the app store. Nevertheless they were all in favor that there be some type or financial incentive for app stores that could help to increase the downloading and use of games. Of course that a cut of 26% of every third-party transaction forever is quite different from the notion that game designers thought would be fair.
What's next?
There are many other subtle desires regarding the way the app stores function that developers would like to see, these three desires are the core of what developers feel would bring about real change in open computing for mobile.
About
