Recently, the legal battle between Epic and Apple Inc set off waves again. This was originally a rights struggle between Apple Inc and Epic, but now Microsoft Corp, Sony Group Corp and Amazon.Com Inc have joined the already anxious war.

Microsoft Corp strongly opposes Apple Inc's practice of taking 30 per cent of App Store profits and said that Apple Inc's arbitrary behavior would have a profound impact on the game experience of iOS users. Apple Inc had previously put Epic's illusory engine on the banned list because he had gone to court with Epic. And now most of the games in App Store are unreal engines, if the ban is thoroughly implemented downlink, then many games will be officially banned by Apple Inc.

With Microsoft Corp standing in line, the rights and interests litigation war between Apple Inc and Epic will become more and more fierce, this third trial also spread a variety of positive and negative news between the two companies, this time Apple Inc can hold the position of App Store? Or will Epic open a new App Store mode? That's what we're going to talk about today.

Is platform cut a poison for game makers?

It is not uncommon for the platform to take a share of profits. Epic, the party concerned, has had a lot of disputes with Steam, the world's largest game platform, for example, questioning the 30% percentage of Steam, arguing that the platform should not exploit game developers through hard provisions, but should pay more attention to how to enhance the experience of using the platform.

This time, I went to court with Apple Inc because of the 30% share of the platform profits. For Mini Game manufacturers, the 30% achievements in the platform draw are promotion fees and protection fees. After they are paid, they can be honored on the home page recommendation of App Store and can enjoy a series of platform services brought by Apple Inc.

But for big manufacturers like Epic, this charging mechanism undoubtedly infringes on their desire to maximize their interests. Epic holds the world's hottest chicken online game IP "Fortnite", naturally does not want to be bound by Apple Inc's platform rules, 30% profit cut for the revenue of hundreds of millions of "Fortnite", is undoubtedly a huge profit.

This is the difference between the orders of magnitude of manufacturers. Small manufacturers pay 30% of their profits to get the favor of the platform. After all, for them, no matter how much the price is announced, it is not as good as a proper push from the platform. Big manufacturers are different, the game harvest profit is huge, what they need is the player group of the platform, not the service content of the platform, these game companies want to maximize the benefits of the game more than the dispensable platform promotion.

Is Epic really the activist warrior who wants to win back the interests of the major game makers? That's not necessarily true. Although the services of the platform are not important for large manufacturers, a good and excellent platform experience is still the first choice for game users. Apple Inc's cut is to some extent to maintain the advantage of this platform. The reason why App Store's model can exist on Apple Inc products for so long is precisely because of its high-quality service content.

Rather than saying that 30% of the platform is the poison of game manufacturers, it is better to say that this is a stumbling block to maximize the interests of game manufacturers. The purpose of the existence of the platform is to make the existence of games more conspicuous and more convenient for users to download and use. In this regard, Apple Inc's commission method is actually not much of a problem, after all, there are many platforms have a higher percentage, and even need 55% of the high-profit extraction platform, such a comparison of App Store is already quite conscientious.

Is platform control a good thing for game makers?

It was mentioned earlier that Microsoft Corp will strongly support Epic's appeal for rights protection, not only because he wants to break the platform rules made by Apple Inc, but also because Microsoft Corp Apple Inc app store rules also block their game services.

Apple Inc doesn't seem to have much say in the game industry. after all, who uses Apple Inc to play games? But as far as the rising platform of mobile games is concerned, the users of Apple Inc's iOS system can not be ignored.

Android user resources are carved up by various mobile phone manufacturers, but iOS user resources are monopolized by Apple Inc alone. Apple Inc, who holds the resources, naturally has the right to make rules, which makes Apple Inc a prerequisite for making rules arbitrarily on the iOS platform.

Domestic platform TapTap, like Microsoft Corp, chose to support the rights protection practice of Epic, and CEO of its parent company Xinxin Network also expressed its attitude towards this matter. He 100% supported the Epic approach. After all, we can also see the reason from TapTap's practice of not dividing into platforms for many years.

"it is quite certain that every service and every payment that we will not be able to use on mobile phones in the future will have to pay a mandatory tax of more than 30% to mobile phone manufacturers. Instead of clinging to today's vested interests, mobile phone manufacturers are waiting to be broken by more warriors like Epic in the future. It is better to change your mind earlier and devote more time and energy to things that can promote the progress of the industry. "

Apple Inc, who grasps the initiative, has indeed shown their strong side in this incident, and at the same time, it can not help but make players worry that such a compulsory treaty will eventually bite back on the players themselves, will Apple Inc's arbitrary situation escalate again, and will the charging items of the iOS platform be followed by a dominant one? After all, Apple Inc even the illusory engine decided to completely ban, this point did not take into account the feelings of users.

The platform may have the ability and power to impose sanctions on manufacturers who try to oppose the rules, but now Apple Inc, who is in charge of the user resources of the iOS platform, can regulate it? Now the banned unreal engine is the most widely used engine in the game industry, which isolates many game experiences of iOS users. Is Apple Inc really thinking about users?

What does platform cooperation mean for game manufacturers?

It has always been a prudent matter for game manufacturers to cooperate with which game platform. after all, it is related to the long-term development of the game, which platform has its development potential, which platform's rules are drawn, and which platform's user resources. it determines which platform the game manufacturer will cooperate with.

Most manufacturers who pay attention to the game experience will choose to cooperate with the mainframe and PC platform, while those who focus on portability and a wider user base will choose the mobile platform, which is based on the style of the platform and the user group they have, because it is related to the game operation and development prospects.

For game manufacturers, how to earn more benefits under such commercial cooperation is the core issue of game development; for the platform, how to maintain the control of platform users in the case of operating platform is the most important.

The dispute between the two is also around these issues. Epic insists on maximizing the interests of game manufacturers, which is bound to be supported by small manufacturers and independent studios. Apple Inc, on the other hand, maintains a high-quality platform level and continues to receive a quantitative profit cut on the ground of maintaining the operation of the platform. This is the most fundamental contradiction of interest between the platform and the game manufacturers. As players, we are in a hurry to stand in line to support which side. We might as well take a look at the follow-up development of things first.

Generally speaking, Epic raising the anti-flag against Apple Inc is also a good thing for players. Apple Inc's strong control of the iOS platform does need some external forces to break the situation. If it continues, it will only make Apple Inc more unscrupulous on his own platform.