Apple is stealing money from their users. If you signed up through Apple, then bought V-Bucks through the App Store, and never created a full Epic account for use with other devices. You're screwed. Apple disabling Sign in With Apple leaves these users with nothing. This is incredibly screwed up for Apple to do this, and completely sours me on the service knowing that if Mozilla gets their developer certification cancelled for whatever reason, my Firefox account is gone along with my Pocket account. What a boneheaded move from Apple, this move only harms the users of the app, not Epic.
Not a very smart comment. Many falsehoods. No understanding of the facts.
If Apple released and Android phone then I'd avoid it simply because I really try hard to limit my exposure to anything from Google (and FB and Microsoft and... )
That is why google[dot]com is blocked at my home firewall (along with over 5000 other scumbag owned domains, not all google I might add)
The sheer number of packets (sometimes tens of thousands) that get blocked on a daily basis just shows how deep the snooping on our lives the likes of Google, Facebook etc have gotten. They are always switching to new domains and ip addresses. It is a game of cat and mouse just to keep them out.
Google is in a race with Facebook to see who can get to full 'Big Brother' status the first.
Thinking of buying something? Those [redacted] sites probably know what it is and where you are going to buy if before you do.
I'm just waiting for the targetted ads that flash up before you when you are on your way to buy said item. all of them desperately trying to persuade you to buy another brand and/or use another outlet. We won't have to wait very long got this, if it isn't already happening.
Allow Epic back into the App Store(assuming they follow the rules), use the money made from Fortnite to fund a competitive game engine and 1st party games. That game makes enough damn money to at least fund half the project. Would be a blow to Epics face.
There are lots of available engines already. Amazon open-sourced Crytek's engine:
Unity is a strong competitor too, Nintendo used it for Super Mario Run. The Unity company is valued at a few billion but hasn't made a profit. Apple could potentially get a deal with Guerilla Games with their Decima engine or EA with Frostbite.
The Lumberyard engine above has a couple of million lines of code, mostly C++ and is cross-platform. Apple has a minimal engine in the form of SceneKit:
They could make that more fully-fledged. I think something like Dreams would be better for Apple to make:
People build games inside that game so it's all runtime and no coding needed. This could be used on an iPad. Apple could add Swift scriptability like Playgrounds and people could publish games directly through the app.
I don't think a single platform engine would appeal to 3rd party devs as much as a cross-platform engine but it could pick up a lot of users if it's much more accessible to people. It's all about how much money it can make in the end. If a simple engine cuts production time from 3 years to 1 year then it can be worthwhile to target a single platform. They can have templates for different game types like racing, MMORPG, fighting etc and users just have to switch the assets. Then they can create a market for content creators to produce assets through the store.
Apple doesn't need to do this in response to Epic though. The better outcome is that they resolve the dispute. If they don't resolve it, then the games market will decide what to do. I expect Unreal Engine will still be allowed to be used for games. In the scenario that Epic is cut off from iOS development completely, the situation gets trickier but game devs will probably switch to Unity for projects that include mobile.
Epic seems to think they have a lot of people on their side but they really don't. Apple's terms are completely reasonable and used by most other platforms. They make a one-off payment from people who buy into the platform and have a service charge for people profiting from the platform, which gives them recurring revenue while allowing everyone involved to profit and set their own prices. Big companies like Facebook, Amazon, Epic, Tencent, Microsoft all want to own the platform but find themselves at a loss when they have to play by other people's rules so they try to attack them until they get control but they'll fight to protect control of their own platforms.
Allow Epic back into the App Store(assuming they follow the rules), use the money made from Fortnite to fund a competitive game engine and 1st party games. That game makes enough damn money to at least fund half the project. Would be a blow to Epics face.
There are lots of available engines already. Amazon open-sourced Crytek's engine:
Unity is a strong competitor too, Nintendo used it for Super Mario Run. The Unity company is valued at a few billion but hasn't made a profit. Apple could potentially get a deal with Guerilla Games with their Decima engine or EA with Frostbite.
The Lumberyard engine above has a couple of million lines of code, mostly C++ and is cross-platform. Apple has a minimal engine in the form of SceneKit:
They could make that more fully-fledged. I think something like Dreams would be better for Apple to make:
People build games inside that game so it's all runtime and no coding needed. This could be used on an iPad. Apple could add Swift scriptability like Playgrounds and people could publish games directly through the app.
I don't think a single platform engine would appeal to 3rd party devs as much as a cross-platform engine but it could pick up a lot of users if it's much more accessible to people. It's all about how much money it can make in the end. If a simple engine cuts production time from 3 years to 1 year then it can be worthwhile to target a single platform. They can have templates for different game types like racing, MMORPG, fighting etc and users just have to switch the assets. Then they can create a market for content creators to produce assets through the store.
Apple doesn't need to do this in response to Epic though. The better outcome is that they resolve the dispute. If they don't resolve it, then the games market will decide what to do. I expect Unreal Engine will still be allowed to be used for games. In the scenario that Epic is cut off from iOS development completely, the situation gets trickier but game devs will probably switch to Unity for projects that include mobile.
Epic seems to think they have a lot of people on their side but they really don't. Apple's terms are completely reasonable and used by most other platforms. They make a one-off payment from people who buy into the platform and have a service charge for people profiting from the platform, which gives them recurring revenue while allowing everyone involved to profit and set their own prices. Big companies like Facebook, Amazon, Epic, Tencent, Microsoft all want to own the platform but find themselves at a loss when they have to play by other people's rules so they try to attack them until they get control but they'll fight to protect control of their own platforms.
The problem is most developers use Unreal and Unity. I want Apple to create an engine specifically for their Apple Silicon/A-series chips. Something that can take Unreal Engines market share. At least 10% of it will be a big hit to Epic.
Dreams reminds me of a game engine idea I've had for a while but on a larger scale. I think coding is a barrier of entry to a lot of people.
I've had this console in mind where the gamers are also developers and no game can cost more than 99 cents. The hardware I designed(hobby, not serious) ran 16 bits on ARM. So basically no limitations but the graphics. No loading screens and virtually no size limits.
Also, the amount of damage Epic is taking from removing their game from Apple platform really shines light on how big Apple is in the gaming industry. Debunking years of people claiming Apple isn't a big part of gaming when fact show it's much bigger than we imagined.
This seems unnecessary and will land more as a problem for users. I'm not sure what Apple thinks they're gaining by this move, but I imagine it'll mostly just make customers who are probably already a bit on Epic's side go even further towards them.
I'm pretty sure Apple thinks they're the adults in this situation making sure the rules get followed. They know it's a bad situation, but the best thing they can do here is apply the rules as they're laid out - otherwise they'll face accusations of favouritism and discrimination.
And guess what, the rules haven't been thoroughly debugged yet. But Epic pushed this in front of a court of law, and the courts will be satisfied that Apple is at least being consistent. Everything else is histrionics.
Apple is stealing money from their users. If you signed up through Apple, then bought V-Bucks through the App Store, and never created a full Epic account for use with other devices. You're screwed. Apple disabling Sign in With Apple leaves these users with nothing. This is incredibly screwed up for Apple to do this, and completely sours me on the service knowing that if Mozilla gets their developer certification cancelled for whatever reason, my Firefox account is gone along with my Pocket account. What a boneheaded move from Apple, this move only harms the users of the app, not Epic.
Apple is not stealing money from their users and they are not disabling Sign-in with Apple. Don't be fooled by EPIC's propaganda.
Comments
https://github.com/aws/Lumberyard
This is being used for Star Citizen:
Unity is a strong competitor too, Nintendo used it for Super Mario Run. The Unity company is valued at a few billion but hasn't made a profit. Apple could potentially get a deal with Guerilla Games with their Decima engine or EA with Frostbite.
The Lumberyard engine above has a couple of million lines of code, mostly C++ and is cross-platform. Apple has a minimal engine in the form of SceneKit:
https://developer.apple.com/scenekit/
They could make that more fully-fledged. I think something like Dreams would be better for Apple to make:
People build games inside that game so it's all runtime and no coding needed. This could be used on an iPad. Apple could add Swift scriptability like Playgrounds and people could publish games directly through the app.
I don't think a single platform engine would appeal to 3rd party devs as much as a cross-platform engine but it could pick up a lot of users if it's much more accessible to people. It's all about how much money it can make in the end. If a simple engine cuts production time from 3 years to 1 year then it can be worthwhile to target a single platform. They can have templates for different game types like racing, MMORPG, fighting etc and users just have to switch the assets. Then they can create a market for content creators to produce assets through the store.
Apple doesn't need to do this in response to Epic though. The better outcome is that they resolve the dispute. If they don't resolve it, then the games market will decide what to do. I expect Unreal Engine will still be allowed to be used for games. In the scenario that Epic is cut off from iOS development completely, the situation gets trickier but game devs will probably switch to Unity for projects that include mobile.
Epic seems to think they have a lot of people on their side but they really don't. Apple's terms are completely reasonable and used by most other platforms. They make a one-off payment from people who buy into the platform and have a service charge for people profiting from the platform, which gives them recurring revenue while allowing everyone involved to profit and set their own prices. Big companies like Facebook, Amazon, Epic, Tencent, Microsoft all want to own the platform but find themselves at a loss when they have to play by other people's rules so they try to attack them until they get control but they'll fight to protect control of their own platforms.
The problem is most developers use Unreal and Unity. I want Apple to create an engine specifically for their Apple Silicon/A-series chips. Something that can take Unreal Engines market share. At least 10% of it will be a big hit to Epic.
Dreams reminds me of a game engine idea I've had for a while but on a larger scale. I think coding is a barrier of entry to a lot of people.
I've had this console in mind where the gamers are also developers and no game can cost more than 99 cents. The hardware I designed(hobby, not serious) ran 16 bits on ARM. So basically no limitations but the graphics. No loading screens and virtually no size limits.
Also, the amount of damage Epic is taking from removing their game from Apple platform really shines light on how big Apple is in the gaming industry. Debunking years of people claiming Apple isn't a big part of gaming when fact show it's much bigger than we imagined.
And guess what, the rules haven't been thoroughly debugged yet. But Epic pushed this in front of a court of law, and the courts will be satisfied that Apple is at least being consistent. Everything else is histrionics.