Tim Sweeney: Android is a Fake Open System, and iOS is Worse (venturebeat.com) 87
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney opened a game event in Las Vegas today with a call to make the industry more open and liberate it from the monopolistic practices of platform owners such as Google and Apple. From a report: In a talk about his vision for games in the next decade, Sweeney alternated between criticizing all of the big players in the game industry to criticizing specific players with examples of how their behavior isn't good for consumers or for competition. [...] Sweeney called Android a "fake open system" for putting up barriers in front of users when Epic Games wanted to enable players to sideload Fortnite directly from the Epic Games site, rather than through the Google Play store. Sweeney said that Google put up "scary" pop-ups in front of users about the risks of sideloading (viruses, malware) and other steps that users had to engage in order to get Fortnite on Android. Epic also had in "tough discussions" with Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to make Fortnite available as a crossplay title (meaning you can play against people on other systems, and your progress, items, and so on are available regardless of device) across the platforms.
One of the principles that Sweeney argued for was that "gamers should be free to engage in any game with their friends anyplace they want without any unnecessary friction." He said that the platforms have been too balkanized, and Microsoft lost a whole decade of progress as it tried and failed to make its Windows marketplace more like Apple's closed system. Microsoft has since backed off on that. Gamers and game vendors should be "free of lockdown." He drew a comparison to Visa and Mastercard and the global credit card payment system, where vendors charge 2.5% to 3.5% fees for transactions, while store vendors such as Steam, Apple, and Google charge 30%. He said the global payments industry is proof that highly profitable companies can arise from just taking the 2.5% to 3.5% cut.
One of the principles that Sweeney argued for was that "gamers should be free to engage in any game with their friends anyplace they want without any unnecessary friction." He said that the platforms have been too balkanized, and Microsoft lost a whole decade of progress as it tried and failed to make its Windows marketplace more like Apple's closed system. Microsoft has since backed off on that. Gamers and game vendors should be "free of lockdown." He drew a comparison to Visa and Mastercard and the global credit card payment system, where vendors charge 2.5% to 3.5% fees for transactions, while store vendors such as Steam, Apple, and Google charge 30%. He said the global payments industry is proof that highly profitable companies can arise from just taking the 2.5% to 3.5% cut.
Re: (Score:3)
Irony critical mass has been achieved.
Re: Again with the complaints (Score:3, Insightful)
Not sure if his complaint about Android is entirely merited - the virus/malware disclaimers are warranted, and even windows has done that since way back in the XP days.
Even then, the way Android works now allows a developer to issue an app store that can then load its own apps at any time without malware disclaimers, as the permission for sideloading is now per application rather than global.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if his complaint about Android is entirely merited - the virus/malware disclaimers are warranted, and even windows has done that since way back in the XP days.
There is no reason any such warnings would not apply equally to app store applications which have proven themselves to contain malicious payloads affecting millions. Google has demonstrated itself completely unable and unwilling to address the problem.
Android security model is nothing like Windows. Each Android application runs in its own jail. Escape is the operating systems fault and damage without escape caused by worthless ambiguous take it or leave it demands in the form of androids permission syste
Re: (Score:3)
Google do take down apps in the play store, so if you're shilling for Apple's superior vetting of apps, that's been proven to be porous too, so you're barking up the wrong tree.
Also, suggesting that efforts to sandbox make the vendor somehow complicit or worse than Windows is just ridiculous. It's like saying that putting up a guard rail that an idiot can still jump over means you have failed, when there's always a better idiot. Windows "modern" apps are sandboxed too, are they somehow now worse off in your
Re: (Score:3)
Google do take down apps in the play store, so if you're shilling for Apple's superior vetting of apps, that's been proven to be porous too, so you're barking up the wrong tree.
This is funny as shit. I strongly dislike Apple's policies and behavior... at least Android is open source even if actively sabotaged by systemd like proliferation of closed Google play services. At least users have the ability to load software not vetted by a central monopoly.
Comparing Google play store with Apple app store is like comparing a three musketeer with a milkyway bar to see which one is better for you. It's a stupidly pointless endeavor.
Google takes shit down sure but malware is still rampan
Re: (Score:2)
Google takes shit down sure but malware is still rampant
And in which environment is that not true? If you think sideload has concerns of warning fatigue, how much fatigue is involved in "nothing can be trusted"?
Re: (Score:2)
And in which environment is that not true?
A Walmart super store.
If you think sideload has concerns of warning fatigue, how much fatigue is involved in "nothing can be trusted"?
This is exactly the message that should be conveyed to users. It is misleading to explicitly warm of sideloads being unsafe and yet say nothing about risks from play store.
Re: (Score:2)
So when you install Microsoft Office on a Microsoft Windows system from the Microsoft Store, it should be warning you that there are risks involved in installing their software on your system?
Where's the line here?
At the very least the play store has the capacity to check /every/ app against known malware signatures and remove those apps, and it does.
Sideloaded apps are never removed, ever. You can't test them en mass because there's no "back end" storage to scan.
The risk profiles are very different.
Re: (Score:2)
At the very least the play store has the capacity to check /every/ app against known malware signatures and remove those apps, and it does.
Much more than that, Google actively does malware analysis on every app uploaded to the play store, meaning it goes far beyond signatures.
Re: (Score:2)
So when you install Microsoft Office on a Microsoft Windows system from the Microsoft Store, it should be warning you that there are risks involved in installing their software on your system?
I would say yes it should on anti-trust grounds unless there is a functionally similar level of sign off by Microsoft offered to other third party vendors on the store on FRAND terms. This would by necessity include a substantial background review of the software vendors business as well as manual code reviews by Microsoft or trusted third party.
Otherwise if everything is lights out more or less automated scans there should be a warning because there is no way for Microsoft or Google or Apple or anyone els
Re: (Score:3)
What the report that says:
Google said it removed 700,000 rogue apps in 2017 and that 99 percent of apps with abusive contents are identified and rejected before anyone can install them.
Try those numbers against the protection against infected sideloaded apps.
But regardless, if you're saying "yes" to the Microsoft example then you are saying WARNING WARNING WARNING to everything, which means 99.99% false positive which means, zero warnings are heeded and you're worse off.
It's like saying you either use condoms with your wife or you might as well go around bare-backing prostitutes. That's pure troll logic.
Re: (Score:1)
Try those numbers against the protection against infected sideloaded apps.
But regardless, if you're saying "yes" to the Microsoft example then you are saying WARNING WARNING WARNING to everything, which means 99.99%
335,000,000 malicious apps installed in a single month all on Google play but umm ..yea all is grrrrreeeaaaaattt!! 99.99% ... NOTHING TO SEE HERE...
false positive which means, zero warnings are heeded and you're worse off.
What it would actually do is create incentives for an ecosystem of meaningful levels of vetting so users can make more informed decisions.
You don't walk into a Costco or even a Walmart full of unknown quantities. Every single product for sale, every single vendor has been reviewed by real people and are continuously on the hook for performance. In Internet la
Re: (Score:3)
This is exactly the message that should be conveyed to users. It is misleading to explicitly warm of sideloads being unsafe and yet say nothing about risks from play store.
Again, those risks are way overstated, mainly by people who have something to gain by overstating them.
Re: (Score:2)
Google takes shit down sure but malware is still rampant
No, it's not. That's just something Apple fanboys, windows phone fanboys, clickbait news articles, and antivirus vendors like to say, but it's not at all grounded in reality. Sure, the term "rampant" is subjective, but every time you read some clickbait headline talking about "millions" of android devices being exposed to some odd malware you've never heard of, two rules apply:
1. Android has 2.5 billion active users, "millions" really isn't that much.
2. Odds are, the headline you just read isn't even applic
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the term "rampant" is subjective, but every time you read some clickbait headline talking about "millions" of android devices being exposed to some odd malware you've never heard of, two rules apply:
1. Android has 2.5 billion active users, "millions" really isn't that much.
I literally just laughed out loud. Usually when I type LOL I normally don't even smile.
2. Odds are, the headline you just read isn't even applicable to you, primarily because either you speak English, and/or you aren't part of an ethnic or political group that the particular state actor was targeting.
https://www.techrepublic.com/a... [techrepublic.com]
Re: Again with the complaints (Score:1)
Depends on your definition of malware. If you include spyware as malware - which I do - then the overwhelming majority of apps in the Play Store are malware. Like 99% of them. Since Google itself is in the spyware business they make pretty much zero effort to prevent it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason any such warnings would not apply equally to app store applications which have proven themselves to contain malicious payloads affecting millions.
Yes, there very much is. Apps installed from third parties don't have the advantage of being vetted by Google's automated malware analysis - the same malware analysis that malware authors themselves do not have access to. It is neither practical nor beneficial to run antivirus software on a phone for this exact reason. Idiots who did or do install that only do so because they believe whatever companies like Symantec tell them, usually in the form of embedded advertising by paying a newspaper to publish an a
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there very much is. Apps installed from third parties don't have the advantage of being vetted by Google's automated malware analysis - the same malware analysis that malware authors themselves do not have access to. It is neither practical nor beneficial to run antivirus software on a phone for this exact reason.
Anti-virus software only detects known signatures. It is worthless against app vendors coding their own malware. There is no known general capability for a software system to detect innocent mistakes that are exploitable let alone intentional ones.
(really, the actual percentage of Android users who have ever been impacted by malware is less than a hundredth of a percent, and even among those, most are in Asia where the standard for what qualifies as malware is much lower, even among end users -- enough so that sites like AV-comparatives.org maintain an entirely separate metric for Asian markets.)
The vast majority of apps on Google play store are malware.
https://www.techrepublic.com/a... [techrepublic.com]
https://threatpost.com/google-... [threatpost.com]
The enumerated permissions are very granular, but most people just ignore them.
LOL permissions get less and less granular with each new version of Android and they remain take it or leave it DEMANDS. I'm old enough
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but how many complaints compare with stupidity like complaining that it warns you about the dangers of sideloading?
Installing random software is dangerous. You do want users to stop and think very carefully about where they are, who they're getting the app from. You don't want to teach users to just install random shit like it was Win95 and they just learned how to computer.
And I get almost all my apps from F-Droid! Yeah, warn me first, make me click a couple things before adding a new app I downloade
Re: (Score:2)
You do want users to stop and think very carefully about where they are, who they're getting the app from.
Any warnings should be exactly the same regardless of source.
What makes Google worse than sideloading is lack of warnings and the fact installing apps from app store gives people a false sense of security. They assume apps have been meaningfully vetted and don't have to stop and think because its on Google. This makes the Google play store far more dangerous than sideloading.
You don't want to teach users to just install random shit like it was Win95 and they just learned how to computer.
While the application security models are way different between Windows and Android this is exactly what Google is actively encourag
Re: (Score:2)
Google play services is itself invasive malware. It constantly records your location, contacts, apps, removes software it no longer wants you to have and leaks details about your every action.
You dug yourself a bit of a hole there for multiple reasons, including that all of that can be turned off, not to mention doesn't do anything at all if you aren't signed in to a google account. More importantly, the part about where it removes software -- that's used for removing malware.
Re: (Score:2)
[Google Play Services] doesn't do anything at all if you aren't signed in to a google account.
How can you claim to know that? It's closed source.
I've been asking this question since 2013, and the only thing I'm sure of is that no one's really sure what information Google gets from Android devices without a Google account.
Nowadays I'm running LineageOS for microG, [microg.org] so the answer to the question doesn't really affect me anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Any warnings should be exactly the same regardless of source.
That is fucking *nonsense*.
You're arguing that browsers should treat HTTP and HTTPS the same, or not warn you if an HTTPS certificate is self-signed, or invalid.
Side-loaded apps can't have their signatures verified. They're untrusted. You can't verify where they came from, even.
This isn't an argument against the practice- I side-load crap on my Android devices all the time. But the warning is relevant.
I don't know if you're trying to leverage plausible ignorance to shill, or if you really are just this
Re: (Score:2)
That is fucking *nonsense*.
You're arguing that browsers should treat HTTP and HTTPS the same, or not warn you if an HTTPS certificate is self-signed, or invalid.
It's only nonsense when you confuse encryption with trust.
Anyone can get a certificate. DV certificates in no way vouch for the content of a site or integrity of the operators who run it. They don't speak to whether or not the content of the site is at all trustworthy.
Side-loaded apps can't have their signatures verified.
Of course they can.
They're untrusted. You can't verify where they came from, even.
Lets say the app is signed and has a valid signature. So what? Is that supposed to be akin to flipping off the evil bit? Is the user now supposed to have confidence the app won't melt their phone into a pile of goo?
This isn't an argument against the practice- I side-load crap on my Android devices all the time. But the warning is relevant.
Warn
Re: (Score:2)
It's only nonsense when you confuse encryption with trust.
You know what the difference between a side-loaded app, and one that is loaded via the store? Trust.
Its certificate checks out. That's it.
Anyone can get a certificate. DV certificates in no way vouch for the content of a site or integrity of the operators who run it. They don't speak to whether or not the content of the site is at all trustworthy.
Nobody said certificates verify trust of content- but they *do* verify trust of origin, which you, the user can then use to decide whether or not you trust it.
Of course they can.
They can if your device has the CA cert, which oddly enough, it seems nobody has Epic's. Now that being said, Epic is more than free to petition the phone makers to have theirs included. Best of luck to them.
Lets say the app is signed and has a valid signature. So what? Is that supposed to be akin to flipping off the evil bit? Is the user now supposed to have confidence the app won't melt their phone into a pile of goo?
Of cou
Re: (Score:2)
By that argument, browsers should warn on every HTTPS site you go to that it may be hacked,
Re: (Score:2)
You know what the difference between a side-loaded app, and one that is loaded via the store?
I don't know... Where the zip file came from?
Trust. Its certificate checks out. That's it.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Last I checked Google play store does not have a monopoly on code signing. What prevents someone from checking a signature outside of the play store?
Nobody said certificates verify trust of content- but they *do* verify trust of origin, which you, the user can then use to decide whether or not you trust it.
Whether or not you trust who you are getting software from is what is important in my view. Whether or not that software also happens to be signed I frankly don't care about or see much of any real world value in.
Of course not, but the alternative of not having signature checking is that literally anything can be installed from anywhere, period, with any way to verify authenticity of the source. Sounds awesome.
So? Literally anything the end user decides they want
Re: (Score:2)
Educate yourself, and we can continue this discussion.
You're right- Google doesn't have any monopoly on code signing. Which is why, if Epic were somehow able to get their CA in the list of trusted CAs that shipped with Android phones (Current, usually just Amazon, Google, and the Manufacturer) then they could sign as well. Or they could potentially get one of those 3 parties to sign their stuff.
There would be no warning then.
The signature *cannot*
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell you don't understand how the CA system works.
Educate yourself, and we can continue this discussion.
When people have nothing substantive to say the derisive commentary is sure to follow.
You're right- Google doesn't have any monopoly on code signing. Which is why, if Epic were somehow able to get their CA in the list of trusted CAs that shipped with Android phones (Current, usually just Amazon, Google, and the Manufacturer) then they could sign as well. Or they could potentially get one of those 3 parties to sign their stuff. There would be no warning then.
The signature *cannot* be verified, because Epic cannot sign their zip using a trusted CA. Changing that is on them, not Google.
Keep talking about signatures and I'll keep explaining why they are meaningless in this context.
What's important is whether people trust who they are getting software from not whether or not it is signed. If I go to Mozilla's or VLCs website and download packages for Android I don't give a fuck about cryptographic signatures. I'm not appreciably and more or less safe in giving a fuck. If I elect to trust integrity of th
Re: (Score:2)
What's important is whether people trust who they are getting software from not whether or not it is signed. If I go to Mozilla's or VLCs website and download packages for Android I don't give a fuck about cryptographic signatures.
And that makes you a fool.
Do you think the OS verifies what *site* the APK came from?
What if it's local? What if it's installed by some otherwise browser-privileged piece of malware. What if it's malware in the browser.
You keep talking about cryptography. This isn't about that. It's about verifying origin.
The derision is well earned by you. You lack the fundamental understanding of trust chains, and are trying to give an opinion on a topic that you're clearly unqualified to weigh in on.
Re: (Score:2)
And that makes you a fool.
Good grief what is this the 4th grade?
Do you think the OS verifies what *site* the APK came from?
What I think is the person downloading it knows where they got it from.
Could they be wrong? Could they have chosen unwisely? Absolutely.
What if it's local? What if it's installed by some otherwise browser-privileged piece of malware. What if it's malware in the browser.
If the software you are using to download is compromised and you don't have some independent means of verifying integrity of software prior to installation then yes you would be pretty much fucked wouldn't you?
You keep talking about cryptography. This isn't about that. It's about verifying origin.
Are you seriously asserting code signing isn't cryptography?
The derision is well earned by you. You lack the fundamental understanding of trust chains, and are trying to give an opinion on a topic that you're clearly unqualified to weigh in on.
Even if true it's completely irrelevant.
The fact of the matter is
Re: (Score:2)
Good grief what is this the 4th grade?
Is this a stupid question?
Act like a fool, and be called a fool.
What I think is the person downloading it knows where they got it from.
It's not about downloading. This isn't complicated.
The OS sees only a binary. It needs to verify the origin of the binary. All major operating systems have a provision for this. Debian/dpkg, Red Hat/yum, Mac, iOS, Windows, Android.
They understand this problem, and that's enough. It doesn't really matter if you do or not.
The fact of the matter is Google does not competently validate app store vendors nor apps themselves. No invocation or knowledge of cryptography can change that.
You're stating an orthogonal problem as evidence for irrelevance of something else.
That's stupid.
You argued that we shou
Re: (Score:2)
Step up or shut up.
You neither stepped up nor shut up, so what does that make you according to your own diatribe?
So, just reinvent SteamOS? (Score:5, Insightful)
SteamOS + Linux was supposed to be that, right?
Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Should ban game exclusivity to Epic? Should they also be available on Steam, Windows Live, etc?
>> Gamers and game vendors should be "free of lockdown."
Unless they are locked down by Epic, of course.
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, that's the first thing I thought of, too. He's a hypocrite.
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Criticising that it isn't good for competition? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like introducing that console concept of buying popular exclusives to your crappy platform because you can't win any other way and don't have even a pittance of the features of the competition?
You mean like giving discounts to publishers on your crappy platform who also happen to use your games engine because otherwise they would publish on a more popular platform?
You mean like throwing endless money at giving away titles for free because the only reason people use your crappy platform in the first place is because you force it upon them if they want to play Fortnite and you're upset that people otherwise don't buy things through your crappy platform?
I think at this point we can conclusively say that whatever Tim Sweeney says, the exact opposite is what is best for the games industry (reads: players). The only interest Sweeney has in the industry is ensuring publishers pay him money.
And no, I don't want a shitty sideloading launcher on my phone. That is a disease related to PC gaming.
it smells up in here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sweeney is no saint. His monopolistic stench emanates as well. He is more than cozy in bed with other monopolistic and entities and likes them just fine. He is only bitching about the others because their monopolies does not benefit his monopolistic wants and desires.
Go ahead... pot, tell us what color the kettle is again?
Re: it smells up in here... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I am indeed, because everyone is of colour. The entire fucking phrase "people of color" is a racist scam!
Re: (Score:3)
Disclaimer: being 100% sarcastic
Re: (Score:2)
Depends if your printer is subtractive or additive. If it's subtractive (like most) then white is the absence of colour.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were, as I was, using color to mean light rather than pigment (the obvious contextual definition of color we were using) then you get white.
Just your standard pun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:it smells up in here... (Score:4, Insightful)
He just wants ransomware to have frictionless access to your devices, why are you being such a downer?
Re:it smells up in here... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's more of a "not even wrong" scenario. It's too woolly-headed to be wrong.
His beef isn't that he doesn't have access to Android source to fork. Nor is it that Google forces him to use the Play store. His beef is that users get a warning when they install APKs from unknown sources.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is though, is Apple and Googles control acceptable, can this individual and their company be used to target Apple and Google for monopolistic practices. Remeber this, the enemy of you enemy, is your tool to beat the piss out of your enemy. Same goes for using Apple to target Epic, if it is to your advantage use them.
Sure they are no better but can they at this time be used to gain more fair access for the end user, to promote more competitive services for the end user, to break up any percepti
Pot? Kettle? Both? (Score:2)
Re:Pot? Kettle? Both? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Sideloading safe Apps (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I would be reticent to install an app from any political party on my personal devices.
Funny coming from Epic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
But his launcher is cheap. Think of all the money publishers could keep with the 88/12 split.
Never mind Steam has more active users
Never mind Steam has more spend per user.
Never mind Steam has far more features and is a full on platform with services and not just a shitty launcher.
Never mind Steam lets developers keep 100% of the profit if they distribute Steam keys themselves.
Nope everything is bad for gaming except things Epic says. The Sweeney will save us all. All hail lord Sweeney.
The only thing epic a
This is far from the most "Epic" example (Score:2)
Google warning users that sideloading can be dangerous is not fundamentally anticompetitive. Sideloading *is* dangerous for most users and is an oft-used attack vector by malware.
This on the other hand, is fundamentally anticompetitive...
Google's AOSP documentation suggests the use of proprietary components over open-source components in the Android open-source source code. And with no disclaimer that it's proprietary. For example:
Source version: https://android.googlesource.c... [googlesource.com]
Rendered version: https:/ [android.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A few thoughts come to mind (Score:5, Insightful)
First: “gamers should be free to engage in any game with their friends anyplace they want without any unnecessary friction.” This is a bit ironic coming from the guy who shut down Rocket League on macOS/Linux. I don't have a Windows machine and I don't want one.
Second: Why should the makers of a mobile OS allow a method for sideloading? And why in the name of all that's holy should I, as a consumer, advocate for this? Whatever you think about the security of pre-vetting apps in the OS default store, there is at least SOME attempt to ensure the application isn't a complete pile of virus-laden garbage. My mobile device is the computer I use the most often, the one that tracks every single place I go, that is used to manage 90% of my communication, it's my payment method, it's where I handle most of my banking actions. It's my camera, it's my GPS, and it's my calendar. My home gaming console is a device dedicated to playing games. One of those devices will totally hose me if it is compromised, whereas the other will cause me some minor annoyance and maybe regret over a lost saved game. These devices are not equivalent. These devices absolutely should NOT both use the same security model. It is ridiculous that anyone would claim a locked-down, secure OS is the wrong approach for a mobile device because of inability to play a free-to-play game like Fortnite.
He simply does not want the platform to get a cut of the sales. End of story. I wish he would at least have the integrity to say it, rather than couching it as a noble attempt to push for user freedom.
Re:A few thoughts come to mind (Score:4, Insightful)
Second: Why should the makers of a mobile OS allow a method for sideloading?
Especially for a company that is known first and foremost for introducing a launcher and then buying up exclusive titles and preventing companies distributing on Steam on a platform that was historically open and free (PC).
Re: (Score:2)
Second: Why should the makers of a mobile OS allow a method for sideloading?
I's a huge governance / anti-trust / aggregation of power problem to allow a single company total control over all execution. It breeds hostile anti-consumer behavior.
Whatever you think about the security of pre-vetting apps in the OS default store, there is at least SOME attempt to ensure the application isn't a complete pile of virus-laden garbage.
SOME attempt? This doesn't sound reassuring to say the least.
My mobile device is the computer I use the most often, the one that tracks every single place I go, that is used to manage 90% of my communication, it's my payment method, it's where I handle most of my banking actions. It's my camera, it's my GPS, and it's my calendar.
Personally I think its batshit insanity to put anything of value on a cell phone.
One of those devices will totally hose me if it is compromised, whereas the other will cause me some minor annoyance and maybe regret over a lost saved game. These devices are not equivalent. These devices absolutely should NOT both use the same security model.
There are more mobile gamers than console gamers in the world.
It is ridiculous that anyone would claim a locked-down, secure OS is the wrong approach for a mobile device because of inability to play a free-to-play game like Fortnite.
What's ridiculous is the "locked-down secure OS" part. Smart phones are not that... not in any way shape or form. You are wrong for assum
Re: (Score:2)
Fees (Score:2)
I am not so sure how to convince anyone that larger margins are required by the digital store fronts. Servers do not costs as much as renting a retail space. There is not much marketing. And QA, at least on Steam, is non existent (see games that do not start due to mis
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that 30% cut seems a fairly high on a store front.
Indeed 30% is high for a store front.
It's quite a bargain for a platform that provides cloud services, network services, crossplay services, network remote play functionality, social systems for gaming including online game making functions, forums, customer review systems, rewards and trading platforms, an entire VR cross compatible ecosystem, a modding service, a mod management workshop, ...
honestly I'm sure there's other things I've forgotten.
Oh that's right, customers can actually buy more than one thin
Running costs? (Score:2)
30% is maybe a little high, but then again they also don't limit how many times each user might download each game, or how many updates there might be or update size.
Dismiss valid points, forget his own issues (Score:3)
There are real issues with allowing sideloading apps easily on mobile. Stores (Play Store/AppStore) are no silver bullet against malware, but make it way harder. If any site could tell you "touch this button" to install anything, the situation would be much worse. Dismissing that and complaining that warning users about real security risk is bad.
What's worse is that Epic's the one thing trying to coerce whole userbase into their own platform nowadays. Saying with a straight face "Games should be free of lockdown" can't be anything else than a joke in his position.
Where have I heard this before... (Score:2)
Oh yeah...
Microsoft popping up ominous messages when it detected DR-DOS on one's computer.
``Don't Be Evil'' is now such a distant memory. Now it's more like ``Do Whatever Evil You Can Get Away With''.
Re: (Score:3)
Shady fucking browser manufacturers.
Re: Where have I heard this before... (Score:1)
It's trivially easy to get a TLS cert. No competent scammer is going to self-sign.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever work in an ISP?
You think the phishes that come in are competent?
The vast majority of the time, modifications to the target pages aren't even comprehensible.
Lol. (Score:4, Insightful)
Visa and Mastercard do vastly more transactions than any gaming company/platform does in sales. He's right about Android being a fake open system and iOS is worse. He's also a massive fucking hypocrite with Epic being among the biggest turds in the current AAA gaming company cesspool. Are there actually people with an interest who don't see through this shit? It's not even disguised a little.
Disclaimer: I have yet to make an Epic game store account; nor will I. If you check out gg.deals you can see them trying to buy customers every day.
Re:Lol. (Score:4, Funny)
You know what, I hadn't pirated a game in approximately 8 years. Then Metro: Exodus was announced as an Epic exclusive. It was quite a good game that I enjoyed. It remains on my Steam wishlist.
Sweeny vs Sweeny (Score:2)
Tim Sweeny: Android and iOS are too closed, and it's bad for consumers!
Also Tim Sweeny: We are helping the industry by shelling out millions for EGS exclusives in our closed ecosystem, and it's good for consumers!
What companies are making a profit taking.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Serious question, because it sure as hell isn't the credit card companies.
That might be what they charge the retailer, but that's not remotely the only profit that they make.
Pot calling kettle black (Score:1)
What the fuck is your Epic Store, then, Tim?
Great, so why not get started? (Score:2)
Well Tim, you could start by collaborating with Valve and the rest of the Open Source community on the Linux Gaming front.
Time has shown no proprietary system can be trusted to remain open indefinitely - not even Windows.
epic is a fake open system (Score:2)
epic store is worse then all those things he lists.
Alternate headline: (Score:1)
Not the same thing (Score:2)