What Epic is searching for on the App Stores What else do other game Developers really want? -
At a moment when creators of mobile games and mobile applications are screaming to be heard in the midst of the duopoly tax of 30% that players pay almost all the mobile gaming earnings all over the world, Epic Games has emerged as a top gaming enterprise striving for open computing for mobile.
Privately, they questioned both big as well as small-sized studios on what they would want to see in games and here's the answers they wanted to listen to.
Background: The gradual death of Open Computing, and the 30 percent tax apps have to pay
The world of computing isn't more accessible than it is right now. For a long time, the software and games business relied on open computing on PC and Mac platforms to allow creators to create titles whenever they needed, remain in the direct communication with their gamers, and select the best payment options that met their needs. The absence of gatekeepers was a blessing for a computer an individual player, or game. However, the game is evolving.
At present, over half of the time spent on computers is spent on smartphones. This percentage has been growing. Additionally, nearly 90% of all market for smartphone OS are divided among Apple and Google. Due to this dominant position on smartphones and tight controls on distribution of gaming and commerce, the future can be accessible via computers is at risk more than ever previously. This is causing a huge cost to players as well the app developers and gamers.
In this case, it's an issue that both Google and Apple's App Stores have a 30% charge for game sales as well as other related games items available through their respective platforms. Apple owns the exclusive owner of the gaming distribution and the commerce is carried out through iOS devices. But, Google allows OEM marketplace apps as well as loading games on mobile devices with sideloading. However, it severely limits payments made by third parties in game which are sold through Google Play.
Google Play does offer a payment integration feature for third party companies for only a few game designers via"user choice billing " user choice billing" trial. However "user preferred billing" is a costly forever-lasting fee for marketplaces that range between 26% to 36%. This is even if you choose to make use of the payment processor of your choice and assume all the risks and obligations associated with payments.
The result of Apple and Google's dominance of the vast majority of the world's computing market, is the fact that they have to pay a default 30 percent tax on mobile games as well as apps. The tax is paid by users, but doesn't go to game designers which impedes the free use of computing and online commerce. In light of the dominance it has over free computing, creators of games, both big and small believe there is something that needs to be changed.
What can game designers do if they don't Epic
Our staff embarked on a months-long quest to meet with game studios, both big and small about what they wanted to see happen with regard to the policies of mobile apps store. Although not all of them agreed with all the points discussed, they did agree on these three of the most requested items they would like to see:
1. iOS to support sideloading games with no scare screens.
iOS is long-time restricted to "sideloading" games and applications that are downloaded outside within the App Store, and through the websites of the developer, or from other marketplaces. The app allows users to buy games, as well as developers to distribute and sell games as they wish and that the user is willing to comply with. Android permits sideloading of applications and games but with the dreadful warnings known as "scare screens" which warn people using smartphones of the dangers of "downloading apps from the internet." A majority of the game designers interviewed believed Apple might allow sideloading. They also believed that Apple as well as Google must avoid excessive self-serving screen that degrade the sale of software beyond their own apps stores.
2. There is the possibility of allowing unlimited "steering" and embedded payments through third-party payment platforms.
Both Google as well as Apple restrict the ability to surface prices in addition to payment options that are offered by third party payment service companies that are not available on the app store. The same products can be sold with a cheaper price for gamers and customers, but game designers can't direct customers to such options, offer links to various buying options, or incorporate the third-party experience of buying in their games. While many of the developers we talked to found tremendous advantages to using app store, the vast majority of their preference was for providing gamers and developers with the ability to purchase through controls on steering or payments.
3. The steering fee is not charged. Neither is an embedded payment.
Allowing steering and embedded payments could be problematic but, as we've seen in the Google "user preference billing" pilot, the ability to implement something in addition to the need to make money by doing it are two different factors. When it comes to "user billing choices" with a massive 26% cost for transactions that are made via third-party payment services as well as their costs that are not a cost advantage for the vast majority of game creators. The game designers we talked to thought that zero is the appropriate amount to pay for transactions not available in the app store. But the majority of them appeared to have been for application that can help boost the playing and downloading of games. Naturally, taking cutting 26% of every third-party transaction for the rest of time is a cry from what game creators considered fair.
What's next?
There are also other and specific rules about how the app stores function that developers wish to have, these three demands constitute the basis of what they believe to be the biggest change to open computing in mobile.
About
David Nachman David is CEO of , a reliable complete e-commerce service provider to software firms. David is charged with managing the company's expansion and success, based on its experience in providing top-of-the-line eCommerce solutions for the expanding marketplace of software. In the past 20 decades, David is in positions that ranged from functional vice president to CEO of businesses with a high growth rate such as Vision, Velocify, and HireRight.
This article was originally posted this site
Article was posted on here