Is What Epic wants for App Stores What Other Game Developers Really Want? -
In a time when mobile game and application developers scream for air in the face of the duopoly tax of 30% that players pay almost all mobile game earnings globally, Epic Games has emerged as the leading gaming company in its fight for open computing for mobile.
privately asked both large and small studios of games alike about what they would like to see in a game, and here's what they said they wanted to hear.
Background: The Slow Death 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 games and software developers have relied on open computing on PC as well as Mac platforms since it allowed developers to release titles as they wish, maintain the direct contact with their players, and choose payment solutions that work for them. No gatekeepers were in place- just a computer, an individual player or game. However, the game has evolved.
Today, over half of people's computing screen time is spent using mobile devices, a share that's growing -in addition, nearly 90% of the global smartphone OS markets is divided between Apple as well as Google. Thanks to this domination on mobile market share, and the strict controls over game distribution as well as e-commerce, the future that is open to computing in danger more than ever before. This is causing a huge price on consumers as well as game and app developers.
In this case, both Google and Apple's apps stores require a 30 percent charge on the game sales and other games-related items that are distributed via their platform. Apple controls 100% of everything related to game distribution and commerce through iOS devices. However, Google allows OEM marketplace apps as well as loading mobile games with sideloading, however, it severely limits third-party in-game payment for games that are distributed via Google Play.
Google Play does offer a payment integration service for third party companies to a limited number of game designers by way of their " user choice billing" trial but "user preference billing" comes with pricey evergreen marketplace fees that range from 26% to 36%, even if you choose to use your own payment provider and assume all the risks and obligations of payments.
The result of Apple and Google's dominance over such a huge share of the global computer market is that they have a default 30 percent tax on mobile games as well as apps, which ends up paying by users, but and is not shared with game developers, and stifles free computing as well as e-commerce. Because of this monopoly on free computing, game developers large and small believe something has to change.
What Do Game Developers Who Aren't Epic Want?
The staff at our company embarked on a months-long quest to speak with game studios large and small on what they wanted to see happen with mobile app store policies. While not everyone agreed on every point, here are three of the most popular items they said they wanted:
1. iOS to support sideloading games with no scare screens.
iOS is long-time restricted to "sideloading" applications and games -- in which apps are downloaded from outside the App Store, from the website of the developer or other market. It allows players to purchase games and for developers to distribute and sell games however the developer sees fit and that the user agrees to go along with. Android does allow sideloading apps and games but only with the dreadful warnings known in the form of "scare screens" that warn users of mobile phones about the risks of "downloading software off the web." The majority of game developers we spoke with thought that Apple should be able to support sideloading. They also felt that Apple and Google should not use the excessive self-serving screens which denigrate software distribution outside of their own apps stores.
2. You can allow unlimited "steering" and embedded payments through third-party payment platforms.
Both Google and Apple place severe restrictions on the ability to surface prices and payment options provided by third party payment service providers that are not part of the app store. The same item can be offered at a better price for the user, but game developers can't steer their players to those options, link to other purchasing experiences, or integrate the third-party experience of purchasing into their game. Although many developers who we talked to found tremendous benefit in using app stores, the overwhelming preference was to give gamers and developers the option by doing away with steering or embedded restrictions on payment.
3. Zero fee on steering or embedded payments.
Allowing steering and embedded payments is an issue, but like we've witnessed with Google's "user preference billing" pilot, the capability to do something and the motivation to make money from that are two distinct aspects. In the case of "user option billing" featuring a still-massive 26% charge for payments that are made via third-party payment services, combined with the fees they charge, this is a zero-cost advantage for the majority of game developers. The game developers we interviewed believed that zero was an appropriate amount for transactions not in the app store. However most seemed to be in favour that there be some type payment for app stores that could help to increase the downloading and use of games. Naturally that a cut of 26% of every third-party transaction forever is a far cry from what game developers thought would be fair.
What's next?
While there are other specific, nuanced requirements regarding how app stores operate that game developers wish to have, these three demands are at the heart of the issues that developers believe will be the most significant change to open computing in mobile.
About
