[applecrazy]

> devs who feel that they can supply their own marketing and payment processing can do it themselves.

The issue I have with that is that then a ton of companies think it's a good idea to ship a crappy "launcher" that needs to run on startup, taking up resources in the background while providing little to no added functionality. We can see that with PC games; it used to be just Steam, but now there's the Epic Games Launcher, Origin, GoG, and a bunch of more obscure launchers that need to be installed to play particular games.

[simion314]

And this is a good thing, competition between this stores is good for the users, some users got free games, some developers got better deals.

The "needs to launch on startup" is FALSE , you can have this launchers set no to start at all and you launch the game and the launcher will start if needed (not all Steam games need Steam in background).

FYI GOG launcher is optional, you can just download the game from the website with a browser and then install it as in old times.

Competition is good and except the Epic drama I did not see anyone complaining the GOG, HumbleBundle, itch.io or downloading from Patreon is a bad thing for PC. I expect though if Apple blocks all launchers on the new OSX for ARM then an army of people will say that downloading a small game directly from Patron is too complicated and insecure for the average Apple user mind.

[danielheath]

It's not a good thing that I need 6 stores installed to play the games I've bought, each with their own updater pulling several gigabytes a week off the net just to keep the store app up-to-date.

I'd be interested to see whether any jurisdiction would hand down a consumer mandate for unbundling the DRM component from the storefront app; the former only updates occasionally.

[simion314]

Better to have the option of 5 stores that you can launch when and if you want then only have a Windows/Apple Store that will have more expensive games, will censor stuff based on "american values", will DRM shit so you can't say swap a .dll with something that works better(some old games that work bad on Win10 can be fixed by using a different directx.dll), you could not mod the games - basically you are telling PC people that a console is the best thing because it has 1 small advantage but it fucks you in 12 different ways(more expensive stuff and no freedom)

[Gorbzel]

Simply put, none of the things you’ve said are better are actually better.

Launcher apps are garbage, but you just move right past that to one single game that can be downloaded directly out of hundreds that can’t.

[simion314]

Fortnite is not the only game rejected by Apple. There are many small games that have versions for Windows,Mac,Linux and Android but not iOS.

You are ignoring that except the exclusives you can game most of your games on one store. I do not support exclusivity for one store either and I would prefer I always had the option to buy the products directly from the developer. Like my Intellij subscription I don't want that Microsoft or other big american company gets 30% of the money this hard working developers deserve because I am forced to use a middle man.

[phepranto]

I find it hard to believe that all stores combined patch a single gigabyte in a week, let alone every store patching multiple gigabytes. The size of the stores and their patches are negligible compared to installing any modern game.

[TeMPOraL]

Competition is good for the customer when the goods are commodities. Media - books, songs, videogames - are mostly non-substitutable goods: if you want to watch Star Wars, you won't settle for an episode of Friends instead. As soon as exclusive releases are allowed, customer benefits from competition evaporate.

[tasssko]

the commenter is right and you have missed the point. There is no competition in this space. You can only get Fortnite from the Epic Games Launcher.

[AnthonyMouse]

But the Epic Games Launcher is free and doesn't preclude you from using any other launcher/store for anything else, so how does that harm competition?

By contrast, if I want iMessage on my phone, Epic has to distribute Fortnight to me though Apple.

[Fnoord]

The irony is that Epic pays companies a sack of money to have exclusive right for a title, to have it temporarily only available on EGS. I don't like to be bound to any launcher or store. Apple doesn't force you to only use their own launcher; only on their own platform, or if you use their platform to complete the sale (which sounds as odd as it is).

[AnthonyMouse]

> The irony is that Epic pays companies a sack of money to have exclusive right for a title, to have it temporarily only available on EGS.

But that doesn't require you to use EGS for anything else, and the cost of using multiple game stores is minor, because installing them is free.

And how do you mean that Apple doesn't force you to use only their own launcher and platform? If I want iMessage, I not only have to buy their phone hardware, and their platform, and get it from their store, I also have to get everything else from their store even if I don't want to. To avoid this I would have to buy two separate phones at a cost of hundreds of dollars, with two separate phone contracts and phone numbers, and then carry them both around. Nobody is going to do that, whereas installing multiple game stores on your PC is the rule rather than the exception, exactly because you can easily have more than one on the same device.

[Fnoord]

The thing with games and such creative content (such as also movies and series) is the hype is after release. If you watch Game of Thrones a year later because that is when it is available, you end up with spoilers.

> To avoid this I would have to buy two separate phones at a cost of hundreds of dollars, with two separate phone contracts and phone numbers, and then carry them both around.

I believe you can use iMessage on iPadOS and macOS as well. You can even use a Mac as relay via Airmessage [1]. Its true that some Apple software is specific to their platforms though.

Its annoying having to use different IM clients or different e-mail addresses or different store launchers. They each use their own resources, each have their own attack surface, requires maintenance, and I need to remember who/which to use where. An abstraction layer like Lutris (or Pidgin/Bitlbee/Jabber/..., or (Neo)Mutt instead of e.g. Yahoo Mail) is my preference. This way, you stick to the same UI.

Just to be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with your disliking of Apple's practices. Its just that I find Epic's behaviour also annoying, and its precisely them who complain.

[1] https://airmessage.org/

[simion314]

Apple is even worse:

- as a developer you don't get "a sack of money" but you get a 30% tax (larger then Epic

- as a user you don't get free games, discounts or the option to wait for the exclusivity to expire. On top of that you will never(probably) have the option to touch the game files and mod it.

[Razengan]

This is the same as with consoles, and people are fine with it.

The App Store also pays out more revenue to developers than other stores, a major reason being that you can literally access all the users on iOS by publishing on just one store.

[pjmlp]

If I want a store competition I go to shopping mall.

The only store that has a place on my devices is the OS vendor store.

[harpratap]

No one's stopping you from using only Apple store. Why force your choice on other consumers? Let people decide what's best for them

[pjmlp]

They have the choice to buy other brands.

[dr_dshiv]

They also have the choice to avoid smartphones altogether. What they want, though, is the ability to use apple hardware and non-apple software. The only reason they can't is because Apple won't let them, unless they pay a 30% commission

[coldtea]

The only reason the want to use the Apple hardware is because Apple makes it and comes with Apple software and Apple roadmaps.

If being more open magically offered the same quality all kind of third party open platforms would have flourished.

But even in the semi-closed Android you have 95% of mobile malware according to surveys, devices abandoned without updates after 1-2 releases, tons of crap trojan apps, widespread spyware, and so on...

A third party app store can be fine at first. "You can chose whether to use it or not" after all.

Then some major software only comes for that store, and now you don't have either a unified store, or a way not to use 2 stores (since you need the software).

Then each major vendor (Google, Adobe, Amazon, etc) make their own app stores on the platform. Because, why not?

Oh, and Facebook can demand you get their app from their store, where it comes with all kinds of private API abuse and surveillance (some of this might be solvable with stronger sandboxing, if it's not deemed "anti-competitive" itself).

Then there are all kinds of minor stores, luring your less tech savvy parents, siblings, etc, with BS offers, more malware, pirated versions of software, etc.

Oh, and there are "free" stores, you can just install, all kinds of shady stuff that ocassionally roots your iPhone with 0-days and is not revocable.

Suddenly app developers don't feel so good about this ability to have multiple stores. They mainly wanted lower Apple rates, but now they have to ship to different stores, track different vendor rules, and so on. And if they stick to a store or two, they're less discoverable. Now you have meta-services that ship your app to many stores and handle the hassle. But they can not do much for the free stores that give pirated copies of your app, or full title+branding+UI rip-offs of your app by small e.g. Chinese devs.

And if one of the big app stores gets popular, they now have control over the platform too. Apple wants to move forward with an API change? Not so fast, the big app store doesn't agree (similar to how Apple was beholden to the goodwill of Microsoft and Adobe back in the day).

[dr_dshiv]

Apple owns the marketplace on their platform. When they undermine competing payment systems using their monopoly power then they appear to be acting anticompetitively in a manner that is against the consumers best interest.

This is only an issue when they use their monopoly power to undermine consumer interests.

[dr_dshiv]

Why is this any different from Apple saying that you can't download other software on your Macbook, unless you pay Apple 30% and buy it from their store?

[pjmlp]

One cannot buy a house besides a landing lane and then complain planes are taking off and landing all day long.

If iOS doesn't offer what they want, don't buy Apple, plain and simple, there is nothing more to discuss and the judge will set this straight.

[yazaddaruvala]

When I bought my iPhone I knew that I could only use the AppStore. I actually bought the iPhone because of the AppStore, the strict rules Apple has for developers and I prefer that no side-loading can occur.

If you or any consumer feels lied to, misled or falsely advertised to, they should return their device to Apple.

If enough people choose non-Apple products then Apple might change its position. Until then, buy a different brand.

[rhn_mk1]

The GoG launcher doesn't fit here as an example; it's entirely optional.

[Crosseye_Jack]

Unless you want to play online.

Some of the titles on the store allow peer to peer connection multiplayer which doesn’t have any drm checks. But most titles that use servers to simplify matchmaking or connection with other players have a check that validates that gog galaxy is logged into an account that has purchased the game.

[thaumasiotes]

No, GoG Galaxy is not entirely optional. It is required to run many newer games, and can be required even if you're not trying to play multiplayer.

I don't understand how this is supposed to be compatible with GoG's marketing as "the DRM-free home for games".

[speeder]

What game requires GoG Galaxy?

EDIT: even googled it, found out Darkest Dungeon by default install a version that does need GoG Galaxy, but the DRM-free version is available on GoG site too, just need to choose that downloader instead. But that was it. Didn't found any other obvious complaints of GoG Galaxy being required.

[thaumasiotes]

Northgard requires Galaxy for single-player content. It's not subtle about it.

Your response says more about what you can tell with a quick google search than anything else.

I'm fascinated that I've been complaining about this here on HN for months, and the only response I ever get -- which comes up every time -- is "what are you talking about, that's not true". This isn't a matter of opinion. It's not even difficult to check. And yet, there are so many people whose worldview apparently rests on the opposite of the facts.

[Crosseye_Jack]

Looks like in the case of Northgard their conquest mode has some server side stuff happening in that mode which then requires the use of GOG Galaxy :-S

https://www.gog.com/forum/northgard/warning_gog_galaxy_is_re...

[rhn_mk1]

When checking Northgard, Galaxy seems to be required for "online content". So it at least seems right that Galaxy is not optional for some stuff.

However, I haven't found any evidence that Galaxy is required for single player. In fact, I found evidence to the contrary: the game has a Linux version, where Galaxy is not available.

[thaumasiotes]

Jesus Christ. Your failure to find evidence is not an argument. It's not hard to find!

Here's a prominent forum thread in the Northgard forum on GoG: https://www.gog.com/forum/northgard/warning_gog_galaxy_is_re...

Note that title: "Warning: GOG Galaxy is required to use conquest mode."

Conquest mode is a single-player mode. In fact, it's the only mode that allows you to use any of the Northgard DLC content. Without running Galaxy, all you can do is run through the story campaign.

What is your mental model of my commenting here? I posted a rant complaining about deluded people contradicting the basic facts every time I bring this up, and that's the comment you responded to in order to... demonstrate an example? Did you really think I was just making it all up?

[vbezhenar]

If you don't like their launchers, don't use their apps, it's simple as that. They're free to create a software in a way they feel appropriate. You're free to use or not to use that software.

[DonaldPShimoda]

If you don't like the App Store, don't use an iPhone, it's simple as that. They're free to manage their platform in a way they feel appropriate. You're free to use or not use that platform.

---

I'm not necessarily saying I think Apple is in the right, but your argument doesn't hold because it works equally well when applied at a higher level, which runs counter to your point.

[canofbars]

>If you don't like the App Store, don't use an iPhone

This is not the main issue, its on the other end. If you are a developer, and you don't like the App Store, you have no options. You can't publish on an alt store because those are not allowed. So your only option is to not provide services to 50% of your customers and thats assuming the google play store doesn't have the same issue you are avoiding.

A real world example of this is vape companies provide an app which lets you do things like lock your vape so kids can't use it. Apple said those apps are not allowed on the app store. The vape company has no options, they just can't sell products to apple users now.

The problem is these tech companies hold way to much power. It would be like if 2 landlords owned literally every single block of land in the entire country. Now normally it would be fair for the landlord to pick which types of businesses to rent out to but when both options say your business isn't accepted and the only alternative is to build your own island in the ocean and create a civilisation on it so you can open your store then something is seriously wrong.

[jbverschoor]

Same for Nintendo, PS, Xbox, Android. And the other 'appstores' - steam, epic, etc

Quite frankly, the lockdown of the OS and rejection of this is one of the primary reasons I'm on iPhone.

[tasssko]

I couldn't agree more. It will only get worse if companies are allowed to create their own Appstores. Using these devices is already a difficult user experience we should be doing more to protect consumers who have already invested in the ecosystem. Apple is indirectly doing this.

[tomxor]

> Quite frankly, the lockdown of the OS and rejection of this is one of the primary reasons I'm on iPhone.

_You_ are neither the vendor OR the citizen in the parent comment's metaphor, trying to build or be part of a civilization in the middle of the ocean.

Please do not try to justify a restriction because you happen to personally be happy with the current offering, the world is larger than you. There being more freedoms for others will not stop you from restricting yourself.

[canofbars]

Yes all of those examples should also be liberated.

[vbezhenar]

So you're happy as a consumer that developer's freedom is taken away from them, but you have more freedom. That's understandable, but you should realize that some developers value their freedom and will just avoid such a locked-down platform. There are plenty of apps missing in iPhone because of that.

[yazaddaruvala]

Good! As an iPhone user, I’ll wait for the app to become popular enough that Apple correctly integrates it.

Case and point, Swipe keyboards. It was the biggest missing feature for three years when I moved from Android to iPhone. I still preferred my iPhone!

[jbverschoor]

There’s no need to have access to things I don’t want them to.

There is no need for them to ask for my payment information in a way that can be fraudulent.

There are many reasons for them why they’d want to reduce subscription cancellation and other dark patterns.

There is no reason for them to be able to install anything, or run arbitrary code on my device.

If epic wants to do business with me, they can go through my secretary/lawyer/firewall (Apple).

I’m more than 10x likely to spend money on apps, so I think that more than evens it out.

Which apps are missing? I’m so t see any added value in another AppStore. Heck, I’d love for Apple to lockdown OS X so that adobe’s store/updater is banned. Wishful thinking

[pjmlp]

Developers are free to target other platforms, some of them are doing PlayStation exclusives.

[Lev1a]

That's not so simple with the hypocrite named Epic who preach about competition being better for all while buying exclusive distribution rights from devs/publishers on PC, sometimes even for games that had been long announced to be coming out on Steam and/or were crowdfunded on that and other premises.

Case in point: "Satisfactory". I was pretty excited about the game when it was first shown, then found later

* it would be removed from Steam,

* I'd have to get an account for another store,

* use a store made by some incompetents who couldn't implement basic functionality like a "shopping cart" even months after release (does it have one by now?)

* give part of my money through Epic to fucking Tencent and install a piece of Chinese spyware on my PC in order to run it. Also no implicit Linux support because no Proton and because Sweeney loves to bend over for Microsoft exclusively.

[jfim]

You can buy it on Steam now: https://store.steampowered.com/app/526870/Satisfactory/

[Fnoord]

Sure, years later.

Compare to Iron Harvest, for example.

You could invest in the development via Kickstarter. Which boils down to making the project happen (due to lack of otherwise investors aka due to crowdfunding). Now, basically right after release, you can buy the game from Steam, too, but you pay full price for it (in contrast to the crowdfunders).

Contrast this to EGS. Stuff gets released on Steam many months later, say 6 months or a year, due to EGS getting the sack of money for being the sole distributor. Then, they release for full price on Steam. Why would I pay full price for a 6-12 month old game? I won't.

[colejohnson66]

A recent example of Epic exclusives was Borderlands 3. It was highly anticipated, and then it came out that it would be exclusive to EGS for 6 months. I refuse to use EGS (for my own reasons), so when the hype died down after a few months and it arrived on Steam, I forgot to buy it. In fact, I still keep forgetting.

[Fnoord]

I get free games every month with Amazon Prime. I can only use this via the Twitch launcher (doesn't even work on Linux AFAIK).

Borderlands 3 I bought when it came out on Steam, I believe in start of Steam release it was on sale. Else I wouldn't have picked it up, simple as that. They release DLCs for the game, so that's nice, and keeps it a little bit alive I suppose.

Guild Wars 2 recently launched on Steam (like 8 years after release). I cannot merge my Guild Wars 2 account to Steam though, so its useless to me.

Humblebundle, in contrast to platforms like EGS, yields you serials you can apply to a launcher, usually Steam. That's convenient, but I suppose it isn't for people who don't want to use Steam.

Though I'm a heavy Steam user, so Steam being the defacto standard is fine with me.

I don't want another launcher, therefore I either use Steam or use Lutris to abstract all other launchers (and emulators and such).

[Lev1a]

After they had held the game hostage for a year my excitement for the game was very much gone and I didn't buy it in the end.