Fortnite changes payment methods on phones, removed from stores.

[SilentPony]

The difference with the Marvel Spidey thing, is that it's not, as I understand it, a difference in price. It's not "these people are paying more, and thus they get the better game with Spiderman", which is what your "deluxe versus normal example implies. No what's happening is that EVERYONE is paying the same "normal package" price, but those people over there are getting extra stuff for the SAME money you are paying.

So a more accurate comparison is that we all paid for coach seats on a plane, but my coach seat came with a blowjob and free booze, and yours didn't.

Of course there's a difference in price. Its a Playstation exclusive. The price is a Playstation. You can get a used Ps4 for about $250, plus a $40 controller, all just to play Spider Man. So the extra charge is $290 + tax.
Why does no one remember its a console exclusive, meaning you need to pay for the console to play?!

Marvel's the Avengers without Spider Man is $60. Marvel's the Avengers with Spider Man is $60 + $290. It straight up costs way more to play as Spider Man.

 

[Worgen]

As a person that doesn't play Fortnite or any games on Mobile devices.

Why should this situation with Epic suing Google and Apple concern me?

Then it probably won't affect you at all. This could have a large impact on walled garden type stores, but those really only exist on mobile devices and really only apple devices.

 

[happyninja42]

Of course there's a difference in price. Its a Playstation exclusive. The price is a Playstation. You can get a used Ps4 for about $250, plus a $40 controller, all just to play Spider Man. So the extra charge is $290 + tax.
Why does no one remember its a console exclusive, meaning you need to pay for the console to play?!

Marvel's the Avengers without Spider Man is $60. Marvel's the Avengers with Spider Man is $60 + $290. It straight up costs way more to play as Spider Man.

.....you say this as if nobody on the face of the earth already HAS a ps4

*looks over at his ps4* Oh shit! Where did that come from?!

 

[Elvis Starburst]

.....you say this as if nobody on the face of the earth already HAS a ps4

*looks over at his ps4* Oh shit! Where did that come from?!

I'm betting the response is more or less gonna be "And thus you already paid the extra price for Spiderman." Either way, it sounds like a lot of excuse making for what is essentially gated off content. Those who want the other content but chose the "wrong" console gets completely screwed over in this scenario. Console game exclusives and character/content exclusives in multi-platform games are very different things as well, before we start getting into that debate

 

[happyninja42]

I'm betting the response is more or less gonna be "And thus you already paid the extra price for Spiderman." Either way, it sounds like a lot of excuse making for what is essentially gated off content. Those who want the other content but chose the "wrong" console gets completely screwed over in this scenario. Console game exclusives and character/content exclusives in multi-platform games are very different things as well, before we start getting into that debate

Seeing as I bought the console like 2 years ago, to play a plethora of other games, it's hardly an "extra price" solely for Spidey. But just to clarify, I am not a fan of what playstation is doing. SilentPony's analogy was really bad, that was what I was responding to.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Seeing as I bought the console like 2 years ago, to play a plethora of other games, it's hardly an "extra price" solely for Spidey. But just to clarify, I am not a fan of what playstation is doing. SilentPony's analogy was really bad, that was what I was responding to.

I know, so was I. The first part was in response to you, the rest was in response to him

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Ah, big companies fighting. My favorite fight to watch from afar and occasionally throw peanuts at the combatants.

I do have to say though, while I care nothing for Fortnite, many people in my country and other developing countries are able to enjoy it because of the low barrier to entry. You just need a phone and a data plan, and poof, you're gaming. As far as I understand it, existing players can still play, but to deny possible millions of people something fun to do with their friends or just as a pastime in the middle of a pandemic is a huge dick move.

 

[xmbts]

I can only say I hope they all bankrupt each other.

To speculate on their actual case though I don't see what ground they have to stand on, they agreed to the rules of the storefront, then broke them. Attempting to weaponize the games popularity to bully the middleman is something they should have attempted before agreeing to the TOS.

 

[Gordon_4]

I can only say I hope they all bankrupt each other.

To speculate on their actual case though I don't see what ground they have to stand on, they agreed to the rules of the storefront, then broke them. Attempting to weaponize the games popularity to bully the middleman is something they should have attempted before agreeing to the TOS.

I feel pretty confident Apple and Google can outlast Epic on that front.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

If Epic's lawyers work like their engineers do, they'll end up submitting roadmaps for filing motions six months from now.

 

[SilentPony]

I know, so was I. The first part was in response to you, the rest was in response to him

No my analogy was really good. Imagine if you purchased an executive club pass on an airline. Doesn't matter that you have to pay for individual tickets like everyone else, you've already purchased an upgraded pass. Everyone still goes to the same location, everyone gets there at the same time. But you purchased upgrades ahead of any individual trip - kinda like any premium service ever made, ever. Kinda like using money for transactions, and the more money you pay, the higher quality your transaction. You know, basic economic principles.

You already paid.

That's the whole point of console exclusives. What, did you think you didn't pay anything extra to play Bloodborne? Oh Im sorry, was having BloodBorne the 'complete' console experience and Sony removed it from the Xbone store, thus meaning Microsoft players get less?
How have you all forgotten what console exclusive content means? Is Nintendo 'removing' Mario games from the Playstation and Microsoft stores, using their evil corporate power to keep others from having a game? Or do they own something, and they're willing to sell it to you. And before you say something like "But all consoles are getting Avengers!" A. that's not true, its not coming out on any Nintendo consoles(but we don't talk about that because...raisins) and B. Sony isn't selling you the Avengers game, they're selling you the Avengers game with Spider Man. Different product, for a different price. The price difference being a Playstation, which I feel the need to point out you will not have if you don't buy one(gifting aside).

And no, not every single person in the world owns a Playstation 4, and to think so is absurd. That's like saying everyone has an iPhone. They don't.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

What, did you think you didn't pay anything extra to play Bloodborne? How have you all forgotten what console exclusive content means?

No, I don't think we have. I'll re-emphasize and elaborate a bit more. A game made exclusively for a console is the benefit you've gained by paying for that one specific console, yes. Further to that, by textbook definition, a specific character on a multi-platform game is console exclusive content. I do agree with you on that front. However, I don't agree it's quite the same thing, or at least holds up the same way, in the case of a multi-platform title's exclusive content compared to a console exclusive game you cannot buy on another console.

When a console exclusive game comes out, you absolutely cannot play it on opposing hardware. Some games flat out don't exist without the help of certain companies. Look at Bayonetta 2 and Nintendo. In the case of a multi-platform title, and one company decides to wall off content that other console buyers cannot get, then it creates a disparity between buyers of the game. HappyNinja42 already went into this before. Is that the price you pay for buying one console and not the other? Sure, I guess. Is it fair in the case of a multi-platform game? I don't believe so. It's one company throwing the middle finger to the other side and saying "You're getting less value than our version cause you clearly bought the wrong console" and anyone who couldn't possibly have foreseen Spiderman, a character they may want to play as, being added exclusively to the PS4 on a game they wouldn't have known was coming out before they bought the system, is told to deal with it.

It's simply a shitty practice in my eyes, and I think Jim agrees. It might not be "cutting out" content, as it might not have been there in the first place. But let's be real, it probably was. GameStop/Walmart/Target exclusive bonuses for games have been a thing for years. It punishes people for not buying more games, more consoles, or simply buying the "wrong" ones at the "wrong" places. I'm sure very easily could've had Spiderman in all versions. But they'd rather give consumers the FOMO treatment instead. And trying to justify it with the price tag of an entire console is ludicrous.

Oh Im sorry, was having BloodBorne the 'complete' console experience and Sony removed it from the Xbone store, thus meaning Microsoft players get less?

No need to sound so salty over the discussion.

And no, not every single person in the world owns a Playstation 4, and to think so is absurd. That's like saying everyone has an iPhone. They don't.

He didn't say everybody on the planet has one though, give his post a re-read

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

As a person that doesn't play Fortnite or any games on Mobile devices.

Why should this situation with Epic suing Google and Apple concern me?

It shouldn't. Its three mega-corporations squaring up with each other because each thinks their money mountain could stand to be bigger. I'm not entirely sure it should concern you even if you did play Fortnite or other such games

 

[sXeth]

Honestly didn't know that; I thought jailbreaking was required. In my defense, last time I used an iPhone was a decade ago.

I'm in tech support, so I run into pretty often.


The two main ones are the "tech support" that calls you from spoofed phone numbers putting their junk on, or occasionally you get some parent who downloaded some thing thats meant to let them view their kids phone screen live (sometimes those work, most of the time they're equally a scam, even the ones that work are usually loaded with other stuff)

 

[CriticalGaming]

No, I don't think we have. I'll re-emphasize and elaborate a bit more. A game made exclusively for a console is the benefit you've gained by paying for that one specific console, yes. Further to that, by textbook definition, a specific character on a multi-platform game is console exclusive content. I do agree with you on that front. However, I don't agree it's quite the same thing, or at least holds up the same way, in the case of a multi-platform title's exclusive content compared to a console exclusive game you cannot buy on another console.

When a console exclusive game comes out, you absolutely cannot play it on opposing hardware. Some games flat out don't exist without the help of certain companies. Look at Bayonetta 2 and Nintendo. In the case of a multi-platform title, and one company decides to wall off content that other console buyers cannot get, then it creates a disparity between buyers of the game. HappyNinja42 already went into this before. Is that the price you pay for buying one console and not the other? Sure, I guess. Is it fair in the case of a multi-platform game? I don't believe so. It's one company throwing the middle finger to the other side and saying "You're getting less value than our version cause you clearly bought the wrong console" and anyone who couldn't possibly have foreseen Spiderman, a character they may want to play as, being added exclusively to the PS4 on a game they wouldn't have known was coming out before they bought the system, is told to deal with it.

It's simply a shitty practice in my eyes, and I think Jim agrees. It might not be "cutting out" content, as it might not have been there in the first place. But let's be real, it probably was. GameStop/Walmart/Target exclusive bonuses for games have been a thing for years. It punishes people for not buying more games, more consoles, or simply buying the "wrong" ones at the "wrong" places. I'm sure very easily could've had Spiderman in all versions. But they'd rather give consumers the FOMO treatment instead. And trying to justify it with the price tag of an entire console is ludicrous.



No need to sound so salty over the discussion.



He didn't say everybody on the planet has one though, give his post a re-read

To be fair, one of your points breaks down a little bit because you refer to the spider man reveal being playstation only as if people already have bought the game on other systems. But the game isnt out. And this announcement comes 2 months before release. Giving people plenty of time to cancel pre orders for xbox and pc if they need to and buy it on playstation.

This announcement hasnt kicked anyone in the dick because no money has exchanged hands for the game yet.

The first class treatment on an airplane is a perfect analogy of this. Or even different airlines basic trips. If two airlines offer to fly you to the same place for the same price and one airline has meal service for the flight but the other doesnt, then is the first airline denying you a meal because they arent providing meal service for the second airline?

No, they are offering a better product to bring in customers over their competitors. It is fucking basic business.

Spiderman is a free update that wont be out until people dont care about the game anyway. Previews have not been great.

OT: you know Epic is crazy and they probably wont win this suit. If they wanted to cut the middle man then they should just make their own phones.

I think if they really wanted to fuck with Apple they would release an app that allowed you access to the Fortnite .apk file without using the store. The same way you can already do that on android devices.

Why sue when you can go around them and they couldnt do anything about it?

 

[Worgen]

OT: you know Epic is crazy and they probably wont win this suit. If they wanted to cut the middle man then they should just make their own phones.

I think if they really wanted to fuck with Apple they would release an app that allowed you access to the Fortnite .apk file without using the store. The same way you can already do that on android devices.

Why sue when you can go around them and they couldnt do anything about it?

This is a really weird suit, I think you are right about them not having a good chance of winning, but what is even stranger is that they are apparently not going for any money directly. I mean if epic wins then they will end up making more from their cash purchases which would be a lot, but they are trying to position themselves as the good guys, standing up against the monolithic corporation by doing this and directly putting out calls to action to attempt to weaponize gamers against apple.

 

[JoJo]

I can only say I hope they all bankrupt each other.

To speculate on their actual case though I don't see what ground they have to stand on, they agreed to the rules of the storefront, then broke them. Attempting to weaponize the games popularity to bully the middleman is something they should have attempted before agreeing to the TOS.

The Terms of Service can't override laws against anti-competitive conduct, which is what Epic is claiming Apple is engaging in, rightfully or wrongfully.

 

[xmbts]

The Terms of Service can't override laws against anti-competitive conduct, which is what Epic is claiming Apple is engaging in, rightfully or wrongfully.

I suppose that makes sense, though that's pretty rich coming from the guys who spent half of 2019 sniping exclusives to force a faster adoption rate of their own storefront. Which, I know, is irrelevant to the case at hand.

 

[happyninja42]

I know, so was I. The first part was in response to you, the rest was in response to him

Yes I figured that, but I wanted to clarify my stance, since, well, you know how people are on the internet, about reading intent in a post.