Is What Epic Wants for App Stores What other Game Developers Actually Want? -
As mobile game and app developers scream for air in the face of a player-gouging 30% duopoly-tax almost all mobile game earnings worldwide, Epic Games has emerged as the official leader of the gaming community in its fight for open computing for mobile.
privately asked both large and small studios of games alike what they wanted, and here is what they said they wanted to see.
Background: The Slow Death of Open Computing, and the 30% App Tax
Computing has never been less open than it is today. Historically, video game and software creators have relied on the open computing using PC as well as Mac platforms as it has enabled developers to release titles as they wish, maintain an intimate relationship with their customers as well as select payment methods which work best for them. There were no gatekeepers -- just a computer, players, and a game. However, the game has evolved.
Today, over half of the time spent on screens for computing is spent using mobile devices, a share that's growing -as well as more than 90% of the global smartphone OS market shares is shared between Apple as well as Google. Because of this dominance on mobile market share as well as tight controls on game distribution and ecommerce, the world that is open to computing now in peril like never before. This is causing a huge cost to consumers as well as game and app developers.
For instance Both Google as well as Apple's app stores enforce a 30% cost for sales of games and products in games distributed by their platform. Apple has control of 100% of the distribution of games and ecommerce on iOS devices, while Google lets OEM marketplace applications and sideloading of mobile games, however, it severely limits third-party in-game gaming payments to games sold through Google Play.
Google Play does offer a third-party payment integration option for only a few game designers via its " user choice billing" test; however "user option billing" has a pricey annual marketplace charges of 26% even when you choose to use the payment processor of your choice and assume all the risk and compliance obligations for payments.
The result of Apple as well as Google's control over such a huge share of computing worldwide is that they have a default 30 percent tax on mobile games and apps, which ends up being paid by the players. It and is not shared with developers of games, and hinders open computing and ecommerce. Because of this monopoly in open computing, developers of games both small and large believe that they must change their ways.
What Do Game Developers Who Don't Have Epic Games Want?
Our team at commenced on a months-long quest to interview game studios both large and small on what they wanted to see happen in mobile app store policies. Though not everyone was on the same page about each aspect, these are the three most important items they said they would like to see:
1. iOS to support sideloading games that do not display scare screens.
iOS has been restricted for a long time "sideloading" games and apps -- in which the application is downloaded out of the App Store, from the developer's website or a other market. Sideloading allows freedom for players to purchase games and for developers to market and distribute games, in any way they choose and that the user agrees to accept. Android does allow sideloading games and apps, but only with the dreadful warnings known in the form of "scare screens" which warn mobile phone owners of the risks of "downloading software off the web." Many of the game developers we spoke to thought that Apple should be able to support sideloading. They also felt it is important that Apple and Google shouldn't use excessive self-serving screens that disparage software distribution outside of their own storefronts for apps.
2. Let you have unlimited "steering" and embedded payment via third-party payment platform.
Both Google as well as Apple have strict restrictions on the ability to surface prices as well as purchase options provided by third party payment service providers outside the app stores. That means that the exact purchase could be available for cheaper prices for the user, but game developers aren't allowed to steer their players to those alternatives, provide links to different purchase experiences, or embed purchases from third party vendors into their games. While many game developers who we talked to found tremendous value in transactions through store apps, the general choice was to offer gamers and developers the option to eliminate steering or embedded restrictions on payment.
3. 0% fee for steering and embedded payments.
The ability to allow steering and embedded payment is an issue, but like we've witnessed with Google's "user preference billing" pilot, having the capacity to do something and the incentive financially to do the thing are two separate things. In the case of "user choice billing" offering a massive 26% cost for transactions from third party payment service providers, combined with the fees those providers charge, this equates to a $0 advantage for the majority of game developers. We spoke with game developers who thought that the 0% rate was fair amount for transactions not in the app store. However most seemed to be in favour for some kind of financial reward for the app stores that could help to increase the downloading and use of games. Naturally, a 26% cut of each transaction made by a third party is a far cry from what game developers thought was fair.
What's Next
There are many other nuanced wants around how apps operate, which game developers wish to hear about, three demands are at the heart of what developers feel would drive true change in open computing for mobile.
About
