Does What Epic wants for App Stores What other Game Developers Really Want? -
While mobile app and game developers gasp for air under an unpopular duopoly tax that is 30% for nearly all mobile gaming revenues worldwide, Epic Games has emerged as the de facto game industry's leader in its fight for open computing on mobile.
Privately, they asked large and small studios for games what they wanted in a game, and here's the answers they gave to hear.
Background: The Slow Decline of Open Computing, and the 30% tax on apps
The world of computing has never been more accessible than it is now. In the past, video game and software developers have relied on open computing with PC and Mac platforms because it has enabled creators to make titles whenever they like, enjoy a direct relationship with their customers, and choose payment solutions that are suitable for their needs. No gatekeepers were in placeall you needed was a computer, players, and a game. The world has changed.
Now, over half of the time spent on screens for computing is on mobile devices -- which is growingin addition, over 90% of the global smartphone OS market share is split between just Apple or Google. Due to the dominance of mobile market share, and the strict controls over game distribution as well as e-commerce, the future of free computing has been put now in peril like never before, imposing a great price on consumers as well in the form of app developers and game makers.
Case in point the two cases, Google as well as Apple's app stores enforce a 30% charge on the sales of games and in-game items distributed through their platforms. Apple is the sole control over 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 payments for games distributed through Google Play.
Google Play does offer a third-party integration of payments for a limited number of game designers by way of their " user choice billing" trial but "user preference billing" comes with pricey evergreen market fees that range from 26% to 36%, even if you bring your own payment service provider and assume all the risks and obligations of payment.
The result of Apple as well as Google's control over such a huge share of global computing is that they have a default 30 percent tax for mobile games and apps. This tax, being paid by the players. It and is not shared with developers of games, and hinders free computing as well as e-commerce. In light of this hold on free computing, game developers both small and large believe that something has to change.
What do game developers who Aren't Epic Want?
The staff at our company embarked in a long-running quest of a few months to interview game studios both large and small on what they would like to see happen regarding rules for mobile apps. Although not all of them agreed on each aspect, these are the top three items they said they would like to see:
1. iOS to support sideloading games with no scare screens.
iOS is long-time restricted to "sideloading" applications and games -- in which the app is downloaded outside the App Store and downloaded from the website of the developer or alternative market. The sideloading feature allows users to purchase and developers to sell and distribute games however they choose and that the user agrees to comply with. Android allows sideloading of games and apps, but only with cumbersome warnings known in the form of "scare screens" that warn mobile phone owners of the dangers associated with "downloading software off the web." Many of the game designers we talked to felt Apple should allow sideloading, and they believed that Apple as well as Google should not make use of excessive self-serving screens that disparage software distribution outside of their own app stores.
2. You can allow unlimited "steering" and embedded payment through third-party payment platforms.
Both Google and Apple restrict pricing and purchase options that are provided by third party payment service providers that are not part of the app store. The same item may be offered at a better price for the user, but game developers can't guide their users to these choices, or link to additional purchasing experiences, or integrate the third-party experience of purchasing into their games. While many game developers we spoke with found great benefit in using apps, the majority of preference was to give players and developers the choice of steering away from and embedded payment restrictions.
3. A 0% cost for embedded and steering payments as well as embedded fees.
Offering steering or embedded payments is one thing, but like we've witnessed with Google's "user option billing" pilot, the capability to perform something as well as the motivation to make money from it are two different things. The pilot of "user preference billing" with a staggering 26% fee for payments from third party payment service providers in addition to the charges those providers charge, this amounts to no benefit for most game developers. We spoke with game developers who believed that 0% was a fair cut for transactions outside the app store; however they were all in favor for some kind of financial reward for the app stores that could help to increase the adoption and download of games. However the cut of 26% of every third-party transaction forever is a far cry from what game developers thought was fair.
What's next?
Although there are numerous subtle desires regarding the way apps operate, which game developers would like to hear about, three demands are at the heart of what they believe would drive true change in open computing in mobile.
About
