406
Apple Terminated Epic’s Developer Account
(www.epicgames.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
406 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
59086 readers
2312 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Lmao. I’ve no love for Apple, and even less for Epic. It’s like two grotesquely unlovable toddlers are throwing a hissy fit in their little sandbox and I’m here for it.
Yes, it's kind of funny with Epic complaining about fairness, when they arrange exclusivity agreements for their own game store. 🤪 And they actively sabotage it working on Linux.🤔
Regardless of the irony, someone needed to start this fight with Apple, so it might as well be them.
Between the two of them, I'm not willing to "support" either, but I'm slightly more inclined to hope Epic comes out on top because they're not also in a hardware dominance position. Epic can be as shitty as it likes about certain platforms, but they at least can only affect their games. They aren't gatekeepers to a massive audience of users, and by far one of the largest gates at that. The Epic store actually has competition.
Between an abusive developer and an abusive gatekeeper, the gatekeeper is the bigger issue.
Absolutely.
Ok, I really don't get Epic hate. Sure, they're using shitty practices to attempt to compete with the megolith Valve is, and it sucks. However, how are they sabotaging it working on Linux. They made Easy Anti-cheat work on Linux, which is huge, and also UE5 seems to run better on Linux than Windows by most accounts I've heard, including my own experience.
Make reasonable complaints all day, but sabotaging Linux compatability is not something they're doing.
For example they discontinued support for Rocket League on Linux (and Mac) after buying Psyonix.
It's got a platinum rating on ProtonDB. It looks like the native versions aren't being supported anymore, but they still work. I don't blame them. The game has gotten a lot smaller over the years and I'm certain there's very few Linux players on it. Regardless, the Windows application seems to work perfectly fine for Linux users. Yeah, native is ideal but it costs extra money to maintain two (or three) versions.
Anyway, you can't say they're sabotaging Linux support when they also purchased EAC and had them add Linux support. They may not be perfect with Linux, but they aren't sabotaging it.
Edit: Why is this being downvoted? If you want to downvote you should be able to articulate why. What is the expectation for them to do? The game has clearly been on the decline for a while, and I'm sure they've got the numbers for their player counts by system. They have limited money and need to support the game still. Why would they waste it on supporting a native Linux version if it isn't being played and the windows version works perfectly on Linux? If they didn't want Linux to exist, why would they make EAC work on Linux? Explain how you think they're actively trying to harm Linux (sabotage) instead of merely maybe hurting it as a side effect passively.
https://imgflip.com/i/8id8kp
Silly you, you should know that it is not allowed to say anything that could be construed as remotely positive about Epic (or anything negative about Valve/Steam, for that matter) on this site.
Meanwhile GOG attempts to compete by offering features that other platforms don't offer, like DRM-free installers and a multi-platform game launcher.
If Epic got to #1 place, what guarantees there are that they would stop using exclusivity deals to hinder their own competitors? It might just be that we end up with a more anti-competititve market leader, and then what would be the benefit of having overtaken Steam?
I like GoG. They don't hold any control over the market though. I wish they did, but they aren't competing.
I can agree that GoG doesn't have a large share of the market, but I'm still unconvinced of the benefit of this call for competition for competition's sake when it's introducing anti-competitive practices. Usually we want competition to push back against anti-competitive practices.
Epic takes less revenue than Steam.
They both have anti-competitive practices. They're just different practices. Epic tends to favor helping developers and Valve tends to favor appealing to users. Valve doesn't need to force exclusivity because games have to take a loss to not use them, because they're already the market leader. There's no knowing what Valve would be doing if they were the underdog, but people need to stop assuming Valve is good. No company is ever good.
No company is good but that doesn't mean they are all equally, identically bad.
We have seen what Valve did when it was not the market leader because it didn't spawn in such a place. What they did is lock their own games to their own platform, which is something most other PC storefronts do or did at some point.
We did not yet see what Epic would do if it would got to the top. Is it even guaranteed that they would continue to take less revenue?
And really, if all companies are bad, what's the point of rooting for Epic to overtake Steam?
I'm not rooting for epic to overtake steam. I'm just against the people who hate Epic just for the sake of hating Epic. It's cool to hate them I guess, but it doesn't usually make sense. The biggest real issue is their store client sucks, but Steam wasn't always as good as it is now either.
They don't owe Epic any respect or reasons to dislike them either. For all this "all companies are bad", you are being a bit picky over when they can or can't be judged.
I gave you my reasons why I don't like them. They are not jumping into the game client market in the early 2000s, they are did it 2018. They have had the blueprint ready, with many examples, but they didn't care to match the other alternatives in the market. Which in itself wouldn't be such an issue, but it does leave a bad taste when they make themselves the only option where to buy certain games. I don't hate them because it's cool, I hate them because they inconvenience me.
Tim Sweeney is pretty openly against any Linux support for some reason so I think that soured Linux gamers against them.
I have been gaming on Linux for 15 years and it is so much better these days, but we are still not a 1st party target. I get why, but it sucks to be ignored and told to just deal with it forever. I spend as much or more on hardware and software than windows gamers (except for a Windows license I suppose) and I guess I have to vote with my wallet.
Epic (the game engine and middleware developer) and Epic Store (the one that sells games) seems to have different priorities. Customers of Epic game engines and middlewares want linux supports, so they provide it. Meanwhile, Epic Store don't want the burden of maintaining linux ports for their games, so they remove supports for linux in games they acquired.
The only sad thing about this is that only one of them can lose the lawsuit.
Ehhhh they could both throw endless millions at lawyers for no real result
🤣
fight fight fight fight fight fight
oh shit that one is eating a whole lotta sand
By their own quote of the law, there's no wording that would stipulate that apple has to allow epic to have their third party app in apples app store. Just that they would have to essentially allow it to be side loaded, or installable in some way onto the phone.
But really, why should and app store have to foot the server bill for another company to get to install an app intended to make money while giving none to the company that owns and operates an app store?
I sure as hell wouldn't.
Did you read the article?
But there is a satisfying FAFO aspect to this.
fabulous amphibian feeling its organ ? fat alluring fungiform obelisk ?
(I will look this up, it's just a good opportunity to practice my English)
Fuck around and find out.
Basically a vulgar way to say that if you do something very stupid, don’t be surprised when something bad happens.
Very vulgar and tbh very beaten, redneck level childish expression mostly used overtly in bullshit reactions with almost zero regard to the context.
I mean yeah it's mostly used by meatheads who get excited that somebody got punched, regardless of context...but I'm not exactly clutching my pearls at the use of a gasp bad word.
Dunno why that got down voted even though it agrees with and elaborates on the comment I replied to.
It is just a statement. I didn't even urge, encourage or request anybody to stop using that, so not even pressing on the toes of anybody except really insecure people like the other commenter on your level.
Hell, it is used by those insecure people who can't handle a criticism about their beliefs, usually in context where the subject is women, minorities, people living difficult lives, people enjoying crazy shit harming no one (else), rebellious populations that are directly or indirectly fucked by the colonialism.and fight back with whatever they have, even if it looks primitive in the face of their adversaries firepower.
And here I am making just one criticism about the use of a word that has almost become the Reddit's "this" in Lemmy political environments, and I'm the one clutching pearls or being insecure.
LOL someone feels insecure about something lol.
No kidding. As “that guy” who is siding with Apple on this ….. seems like they’re playing with fire
This might also be a LAMF moment.
Out of curiosity, what companies do you love?
Edit: oddly unpopular question lol
Edit2: a lot of people seem to think this question is a statement.
No company is your friend.
Probably none, but one can dislike some more than others.
It's pretty silly to love a company: they're not human and behave as a sociopath would.
To love a company (which is really just to love their brand) is just to be easilly influenced by marketing and having a tendency to simplify one's view of the world down to labels to make it easier to mentally understand it - in consumer terms it means that when you're making a purchase decision you can just take the mental shortcut in your decision of directly choosing the "loved" brand, rather than needing to evaluate products and their suitability for you to make an informed buying choice, which is cognitivelly more costly.
While "brand love" is understandable and not abnormal, it's not a quality but rather it's just a pretty flawed cognitive shortcut that goes against making informed choices, so expecting it from others is like expecting that everybody has a specific mild character flaw.
You do your thing - it's your life and your money - just don't think that others must share that same reductive way of making purchasing decisions.
Do my thing? What statement did you assume I was making by asking a question?
Your question as formulated has the expectation that people must love some company.
From that I assumed that you yourself "love" one or more companies and hence use "love" for companies in your purchasing decisions.
My "do your thing" applies to you making purchasing decisions following "love" for companies. A different stating of the idea I was trying to pass in that sentence is: "You do your purchases guided by love for companies if that's your way, just don’t think that others must share that same reductive way of making purchasing decisions."
They said they “have no love for Apple,” which has the expectation that they must have “love” for another.
I was simply asking them. (Not you)
That expectation makes no logical sense.
"Having no love for Apple" does not imply that one "must love some other company" because "loving no company" implies "having no love for Apple".
This is probably why you got the downvotes: there are plenty of people around whose relation to companies does not involve loving any of them and who don't like it when others expect them to.
Personally I neither downvoted nor upvoted your original post as I don't really mind if you expect that since it's quite a common way people behave in this day and age of Marketing-heavy Consumer Society and you're not harming anybody by asking even if your ask carries an erroneous assumption.
I don’t really give a shit, I just thought it was an interesting response to a simple question. People love to get mad, and it’s fascinating.
Three's
🎶 Come and knock on my door...🎶
A company? None. Black diamond's products I own? I love their products like close friends
No corpo
I think that’s a fair question, but the answers you’ve gotten is accurate. I don’t really believe that there are any ”good” profit-driven companies.
Technically companies are just entities and don’t really have any morals assigned to them, good or bad, but they become bad when their increasing strive for profit ends up hurting people. These people could be their workers (like all AAA gaming companies), their customers, or some more or less unrelated third party (like soda companies ruining water sources).
Since the pandemic, landlord companies in my country have gotten incredibly greedy. They got a sudden massive cash infusion by increasing rents by an absurd amount, so each year since they’ve been asking for equally absurd amounts. Their CEOs are pocketing extreme sums, and then moan about how they don’t get enough money to keep the company afloat.
They’re trying to circumvent decades of precedence in how rent negotiations work, and it’s threatening the living situation for millions of people. It’s just evil.
The question was misinterpreted by all as a statement.