Does what Epic wants for App Stores What other Game Developers Actually Want? -
While mobile app and game developers gasp for air under a player-gouging 30% duopoly-tax almost all mobile game earnings globally, Epic Games has emerged as the official leading gaming company in the fight for open computing in mobile.
Privately, they asked large and small studios of games alike about what they would like to see in a game, and here's what they asked to hear.
Background: The Slow Death of Open Computing, and the 30% tax on apps
Computing has never been more accessible than it is now. Historically games and software developers have relied on open computing with PC as well as Mac platforms because it allows developers to release titles as they like, enjoy an intimate relationship with their customers, and choose payment solutions that are suitable for their needs. No gatekeepers were in placeonly a computer a player or game. The world has changed.
Now, over half of users' screen time is on mobile devices -- an increase in the sharein addition, over 90% of the global smartphone OS markets is split between just Apple or Google. Due to the dominance of mobile market share, and the strict controls over game distribution and online commerce, the realm of open computing is now in danger more than ever previously, and bringing a significant price on consumers as well in the form of app developers and game makers.
In this case the two cases, Google and Apple's app stores require a 30 percent cost for purchases of games as well as games-related items that are distributed via their platform. Apple has control of 100% of all game distribution and ecommerce on iOS devices. On the other hand, Google lets OEM marketplace apps and sideloading of mobile games, however, it severely limits third-party in-game gaming payments to games sold through Google Play.
Google Play does offer a third-party integration of payments for just a handful of game designers by way of the " user choice billing" trial but "user option billing" is accompanied by expensive evergreen marketplace charges of 26% even if you use the payment processor of your choice and accept all the responsibility and risk of payments.
The result of Apple and Google's control over such a large share of computing worldwide is that they have a default 30 percent tax on mobile games and apps, which ends up paid by players, is held back from game developers and blocks free computing as well as e-commerce. Due to this stranglehold in open computing, game developers big and small are convinced that it is time to make changes.
What Do Game Developers Who Don't Have Epic Games Want?
Our team at commenced on a months-long quest to talk with game studios large and small on what they would like to see happen in the policies of mobile apps store. Though not everyone was on the same page about every point, here are three of the most popular things they told us they wanted:
1. iOS to support sideloading games with no scare screens.
iOS is long-time restricted to "sideloading" applications and games that are sideloaded when apps are downloaded from outside the App Store and downloaded from the site of the developer or other marketplace. The sideloading feature allows users to buy and developers to sell and distribute games in whatever way the developer sees fit and that the user agrees to comply with. Android does allow sideloading applications and games, however only with cumbersome warnings known in the form of "scare screens" that inform users of mobile phones about the risks of "downloading software off the web." A majority of game developers we spoke with believed that Apple should allow sideloading, and that Apple and Google shouldn't use over-the-top self-serving scare screens that disparage software distribution outside of their own apps stores.
2. You can allow unlimited "steering" and embedded payment from third-party payment platforms.
Both Google and Apple restrict the ability to surface prices and purchase options that are provided by third party payment service providers outside the app stores. The same item may be offered at an affordable price to the player, but game developers can't direct their players towards those options, link to other purchases, or even embed the third-party experience of purchasing into their games. Though many of the game designers have found great value in transactions through store apps, the general preferred option was to allow users and developers the ability to choose to eliminate steering or embedded restrictions on payment.
3. A 0% cost on steering or embedded payments.
The ability to allow steering and embedded payment is an issue, but the way Google has done it is that, as we've seen in its "user choice billing" pilot, the ability to take action and the financial incentive to do the thing are two separate aspects. The pilot of "user option billing" featuring a still-massive 26% fee for payments made through third-party payment providers in addition to the charges they charge, this amounts to no benefit for most game developers. The game developers we interviewed felt the 0% rate was fair amount for transactions not in the app store; however they were all in favor for some kind of financial reward for the apps that help drive the adoption and download of games. However the cut of 26% of every third-party transaction forever is a far cry of what developers believed was reasonable.
What's next?
Although there are numerous nuanced wants around how the app stores function that developers wish to have, these three wants constitute the root of what they believe would drive true change in open computing on mobile devices.
About
