The Great Video Game Business and Financial (In)Stability Thread

Agathos wrote:
(arguments about capitalism in general)

And yet they have somehow figured out it's in their best interests to pay these people, while it still eludes the game industry.

Yep, my wage history as a game tester was $10/hour in 2002, $12, 28k annually, $40k annually, $12.25, $14 by around 2010. These were all in the most expensive counties in the US. After joining Amazon things got much better.

My best guess is that it comes down to culture and the old, "Oh, you get paid to play games? That must be fun."

Less this. That's what your Aunt says and everyone who hears you say "I'm a game tester"

Or the game industry exec looks at the QA department and assumes it will always be full of dumb kids, because whenever one of those kids wises up, they disappear.

More this. They've always gotten away with paying certain fields crap and generally having no idea how to run QA. On Guitar Hero 3 they had well over 100 unskilled testers playing for 8,12,16 hours a day. They just didnt know how to do it any better. Some big studios probably still do it this way.

Better ones make technical investments in QA to multiply a tester's effectiveness. Pay is still not great but better than minimum wage at the low end and competitive with junior engineers at the high end.

So I'd still recommend anyone thinking of testing to go learn C# and Unity or C++ and Unreal instead.

Or...become a Systems Engineer working for the DoD. Testing Command & Control systems is a lot like playing a video game.

Nevin73 wrote:

Or...become a Systems Engineer working for the DoD. Testing Command & Control systems is a lot like playing a video game.

I read an article a while back about drone operators who modded a 360 controller so they could use it to fly the drone instead of the controller from the same supplier. Not because it was cheaper, but because all the pilots were already intimately familiar with the controller.

Jonman wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Or...become a Systems Engineer working for the DoD. Testing Command & Control systems is a lot like playing a video game.

I read an article a while back about drone operators who modded a 360 controller so they could use it to fly the drone instead of the controller from the same supplier. Not because it was cheaper, but because all the pilots were already intimately familiar with the controller.

A friend of mine works on remote-controlled submersibles and the newest version of their interface accepts controller input for exactly that reason.

I worked in game development in 2000-2001 as an associate game producer on games released for the Playstation 1 and Dreamcast. Was making 20k/yr translating design documents, writing lines for the voice talent, providing game design feedback, compiling QA results, and building an automated build and submit system to send builds to the publishers.

Several times I sat with the company accountant, and showed all my bills/expenses receipts for Top Ramen etc trying to figure out if there was anything additional I could cut to try and stop losing money on a monthly basis. Silicon Valley wasn't exactly cheap back then either, and 20k didn't go far when most of the money went straight to your slumlord.

Any time I talked with the studio owner asking for additional money to help I was basically told "This is the Games Industry, everybody wants to work here, if you don't want the money, we'll replace you with someone living with their parents who will"

When my savings ran out, I had to resign and move back home. Because I left before the games were released I never appeared in the credits for either.

The crazy thing is I had built up that savings working in TV, another notorious industry with low wages. Where my desire to be a camera operator and technical director found myself competing with those with dreams of being on air, who were willing to work for next to nothing as a camera operator just to get their foot in the door

And then I went from the games industry to work in sports facility management, another place...

Moral of the story don't work in the entertainment industry if you want a livable wage

Now THIS is a spicy meatball.

Epic has apparently enabled direct payments in their iOS/android Fortnite app, letting users buy their virtual currency directly (and at a discount!) rather than buying via store payments. AFAIK this violates the terms of both stores, so it looks like a very big "you guys going to ban us for this while you're under antitrust scrutiny?" gauntlet.

Apparently in US antitrust law it's a big deal whether or not the behavior drives up actual consumer prices, so the fact that they're directly offering lower prices via the alternate payments is pretty relevant.

Personally I'm a fan. It's a gutsy bet but the change they're trying to create is needed.

Fortnite has now been pulled from the iOS store. Not sure about the Android version.

I am sure that I wouldn't have to look very long for Gamers™ with galaxy-brain takes on how Epic trying to cut out middle men and give customers more for their money is actually a diabolical act that pushes Tim Sweeney ever closer to eclipsing Hitler and Stalin on the list of history's greatest monsters.

Well this should be fun. Apple v Epic is not something I was expecting. While I have some issues with Epic this will not be one of them.

fenomas wrote:

Now THIS is a spicy meatball.

Yep, it's about time that this got thrashed out, and Epic is in a good place to throw the gauntlet down.

I get that Apple set up this entire ecosystem, and distribution and review costs them money, and hence they want a slice of money generated by things running in that system. But when that walled garden comprises something like half of the addressable mobile market, we're definitely getting into anti-trust territory.

It gets particularly hinky for things that already have a fully independent money processing system and have no need for Apple's help with that. It feels stupid that I can't buy an e-book with the Amazon app on my phone, and have to fire up Safari to do it.

As ever, rather than both sides sitting down at a table and working this out like adults, the insatiable lawyers shall open their cavernous maws, and gorge themselves once more.

So Apple already removed Fortnite from the app store and then in less than an hour later Epic already filed a 61 page lawsuit, which means this was all premeditated and they knew exactly what would happen as soon as they announced this.

I can't get too worked up about it. I think 30% cut is too high, but I've always thought that since the iOS app store came out. I do think some amount of cut is reasonable to pay for the value Apple is delivering through their whole ecosystem of app store, updates, cloud data, certification, etc. Probably closer to 5-10% than 30%, but not nothing. Epic obviously sees value in reaching those customers, or they would never have tried to enter the ecosystem in the first place. Also Apple is not stopping them from lowering the price on purchases made from other devices or the web to compensate.

I think they are both in the wrong and I hope it can get worked out. In general I wish Apple would reduce their cut for everyone.

Response from Apple:

Epic enabled a feature in its app which was not reviewed or approved by Apple, and they did so with the express intent of violating the App Store guidelines regarding in-app payments that apply to every developer who sells digital goods or services...

Epic agreed to the App Store terms and guidelines freely and we're glad they've built such a successful business on the App Store. The fact that their business interests now lead them to push for a special arrangement does not change the fact that these guidelines create a level playing field for all developers and make the store safe for all users. We will make every effort to work with Epic to resolve these violations so they can return Fortnite to the App Store.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Response from Apple:

make the store safe for all users.

Right Apple, your 30% cut is making the store safer for users. Sure.
Thank god for our benevolent overlord.

LeapingGnome wrote:

I do think some amount of cut is reasonable to pay for the value Apple is delivering through their whole ecosystem of app store, updates, cloud data, certification, etc.

Definitely. Though it should preferably also be possible for others to compete with Apple on their hardware, delivering those ecosystems.

I've been frustrated about the whole Stadia and XCloud on iOS thing, so I hope any positive result of this extends to those services. There's no reason I shouldn't be able to play Stadia and XCloud games on my iPad.

BadKen wrote:

There's no reason I shouldn't be able to play Stadia and XCloud games on my iPad.

There's millions of reasons, and they each have a picture of George Washington on them.

I wonder if this is a long play by Epic.

Nail Apple for their 30%.

Take that ruling and walk up to Gabe/Steam and say: “we played nice, now change or we come after you too”

*This as someone who has no idea how corporate law works

staygold wrote:

I wonder if this is a long play by Epic.

Nail Apple for their 30%.

Take that ruling and walk up to Gabe/Steam and say: “we played nice, now change or we come after you too”

*This as someone who has no idea how corporate law works

Err, that ship has fully sailed, and it's called the HMS Epic Games Store.

IMAGE(https://i.redd.it/y3gijselpbf11.gif)

F' Apple in this case. I've thought Apple's 30% claim was bs ever since they tried to strong arm Amazon into giving 30% of all ebook purchases via the Kindle app (Amazon removed the purchase option instead). It's not like they don't make significant profits just on the hardware which is different to companies like Sony and the Playstation.

No platform really deserves the 30% that became the standard. It was arbitrary to begin with and they got away with it because developers had no other options and no bargaining power. These kinds of challenges are very welcome.

I don't think the 30% number is the key issue here. To me it's the stupid level of control Apple wants to exert over the content in their walled garden. They don't just take a 30% cut of sales in their store, they also want to prevent content from being monetized in any other possible way. Apps are forbidden from even saying "you can also buy this on our website".

And that's on top of my real issue with the app store, which is that they also exert editorial control over the content there. Their stance is openly "if you want to touch on controversial topics then sing a song or write a book; if you make an app we will absolutely reject it if it says anything we disagree with".

f*ck that, f*ck it hard. For a lot of people an iOS device is their sole access to the internet, and one company shouldn't be the gatekeeper (content-wise or commerce-wise) to that access. Three cheers to Epic for taking a principled stand.

Yeah, that's one thing that irks me about the game streaming thing. One of their excuses was they don't get to review every game. Well, they don't review every movie on Netflix or every song on Spotify either. Hypocrites.

Apple doesn't gatekeep the internet, you can go to any website you want on iOS. They do gatekeep their app store. I agree some of the censorship is heavy handed, however I also don't think it should be a free-for-all. It is not near as bad as you make out and there are tons of apps with controversial stuff. I'm pretty sure there is also no rule against apps showing info on buying on the web instead of in the app, I have seen plenty of apps that do that. Even the Amazon Prime app did that until earlier this year when Apple relaxed the rules for streaming services. There is plenty to complain about with the iOS app store without exaggeration.

I bet Epic doesn't care about the censorship at all, it is all about the 30% tax for them.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Apple doesn't gatekeep the internet, you can go to any website you want on iOS. ... there are tons of apps with controversial stuff.

Only if you define "controversial" to mean stuff that somebody else might not like but which Apple has expressly approved. Also apple doesn't gatekeep web pages per se, but they do prevent you from seeing web pages without using their browser (alternate browsers on iOS are reskinned versions of safari). That has obvious implications for ad-blocking and so on.

LeapingGnome wrote:

I'm pretty sure there is also no rule against apps showing info on buying on the web instead of in the app, I have seen plenty of apps that do that.

AFAIK any app doing that is violating app store terms. Famous example here is the Netflix app, which last I heard says something like "users who subscribe to netflix can log in here", because iOS terms don't allow them to say "you can subscribe at our website", let alone provide a link.

LeapingGnome wrote:

I bet Epic doesn't care about the censorship at all, it is all about the 30% tax for them.

I tend to doubt they come out financially ahead from all this, even if they completely win their legal fight in record-breaking time. They'd make more money staying in the app store and selling more aggressively.

Over the next 10+ years? They'll absolutely come out ahead. Epic has big plans and if they can be on all the platforms and reduce the profit they share with other platform holders this is absolutely worth doing.

That's definitely possible, sure. But there's no guarantee that they win their case, or even that the case is fully resolved in 10 years.

I mean, presumably Epic hopes to come out ahead in the long term. But it's hard to believe they're doing this solely because they expect to profit - picking legal battles with the richest company ever to have existed isn't exactly the safe way to make money.

If Epic winning helps others escape the Apple tax burden then I'm all for it. It's really questionable to me what my 30% Appstore tax is buying me in addition to the 30-50% overhead I'm already paying for Apple hardware.

Ehh, I'd be happy as long as there are market forces in play. I mean, payments are complicated and risky; if Apple solves that problem so well that a developer thinks their solution is worth a 30% cut, that's all well and good. But wanting full control over how everyone on their hardware makes money... not so much.

LeapingGnome wrote:

I'm pretty sure there is also no rule against apps showing info on buying on the web instead of in the app, I have seen plenty of apps that do that. [...] There is plenty to complain about with the iOS app store without exaggeration. ;)

App Store Review Guidelines

3.1.1 In-App Purchase:

If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc. Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.

3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services:

Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multiplatform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.