NOTE: This isn't a "Why won't Epic release Fortnite on the Windows Store?" thread. It's a thread about openness at the expense of security, especially given Epic's approach to releasing Fortnite on Android. Read the entire OP.
Google's recent disclosure of a vulnerability in Fortnite's installer on Android, combined with Tim Sweeney's response (not to mention his track record on open platforms), has gotten me to thinking about how potentially dangerous Tim's stance on 'open' platforms is. I want to start by saying that there's nothing wrong with releasing games on open platforms, but giving people the choice to install content from closed platforms is still really important.
Anyway, onto the discussion...
Tim's totally fine with releasing Fortnite on Windows, but not via the Windows Store. It's no huge secret that Tim hates the Windows Store and everything it stands for, but releasing Fortnite via the Windows Store wouldn't keep Epic from continuing to support its existing Windows installer, launcher and games. While it's okay to support open platforms, there's something to be said for giving people who don't necessarily otherwise need access to those open platforms the choice to install content from a centralized, secure location. And please, spare me the whole "But the Windows Store is garbage!" argument; it works fine for a lot of people, myself included, and the fact that it doesn't work for you doesn't mean that other people shouldn't get to use it.
Tim hates the Windows Store, so surely that'd mean no iOS release of Fortnite, right? Of course not, because Tim likes money, and he'll set aside any reservations he has against a closed platform when he has no other means of reaching that platform. I mean, it's not like it'd make sense for Tim to uphold his strict standards and just, I dunno...release the game first on Android, the main competitor to iOS that happens to be a HELL OF A LOT MORE OPEN. Anyway, the Android release of Fortnite is where things get even more interested.
Tim's totally fine with releasing Fortnite on Android, but not via the Google Play Store. I'll give Tim some credit here because he at least showed his true colors and stated the fact that he didn't want to share a cut of the revenue with Google as a primary motivator for bypassing the Google Play Store. Of course, he included his usual spiel about open platforms and whatnot, despite securing a timed exclusivity agreement with Samsung and even going so far as to set restrictions on which devices could run the game. Thankfully, a hacker removed said limitations and offered a separate installer for download for anyone who wanted to bypass Epic's restrictions. Gee, it's almost like forcing people to side-load an app while putting your own restrictions in place makes people do even shadier shit in order to install your product. See the problem yet?
Tim's oblivious to the concept of being responsible, even if it's staring him in the face. While I won't deny that Google would benefit hugely from having Fortnite on the Google Play Store, I don't think any malice was involved when Google released details of the recent vulnerability in the installer for Fortnite on Android. What Tim needs to realize is that Google didn't *have* to disclose the vulnerability at all, but it's sort of in Google's best interest to do so when some dipshit releases what'll inevitably be a huge popular side-loaded app and doesn't understand what sort of security concerns it presents. Google took the high road and disclosed the vulnerability per its usual process.
Tim's response:
Yeah, Tim, and it probably wouldn't have been a problem if you'd simply released Fortnite through the Google Play Store.
Tim's stance on openness is part of a bigger problem. I love my win32 apps, and I'm sure you love your win32 apps, as well. That doesn't mean that I get to force my preference for how to install apps in general on people who simply aren't as aware or concerned of the security risks that're out there. There's nothing wrong with giving people choice, even if that means releasing your app in a closed app store as ONE OPTION. If you take something huge like Fortnite that people are chomping at the bit to get their hands on and require that your audience compromise its security and resort to bad practices simply to preserve some of your profits, then you're being hugely irresponsible. And doing it under the guise of "being more open" just makes you a pile of garbage, especially when you've shown clear support for closed platforms in the past.
Oh, and speaking of openness, where's that Linux port of Fortnite, Tim?
tldr; Tim Sweeney is irresponsible at best and a greedy hypocrite at worst.
Thoughts?
Google's recent disclosure of a vulnerability in Fortnite's installer on Android, combined with Tim Sweeney's response (not to mention his track record on open platforms), has gotten me to thinking about how potentially dangerous Tim's stance on 'open' platforms is. I want to start by saying that there's nothing wrong with releasing games on open platforms, but giving people the choice to install content from closed platforms is still really important.
Anyway, onto the discussion...
Tim's totally fine with releasing Fortnite on Windows, but not via the Windows Store. It's no huge secret that Tim hates the Windows Store and everything it stands for, but releasing Fortnite via the Windows Store wouldn't keep Epic from continuing to support its existing Windows installer, launcher and games. While it's okay to support open platforms, there's something to be said for giving people who don't necessarily otherwise need access to those open platforms the choice to install content from a centralized, secure location. And please, spare me the whole "But the Windows Store is garbage!" argument; it works fine for a lot of people, myself included, and the fact that it doesn't work for you doesn't mean that other people shouldn't get to use it.
Tim hates the Windows Store, so surely that'd mean no iOS release of Fortnite, right? Of course not, because Tim likes money, and he'll set aside any reservations he has against a closed platform when he has no other means of reaching that platform. I mean, it's not like it'd make sense for Tim to uphold his strict standards and just, I dunno...release the game first on Android, the main competitor to iOS that happens to be a HELL OF A LOT MORE OPEN. Anyway, the Android release of Fortnite is where things get even more interested.
Tim's totally fine with releasing Fortnite on Android, but not via the Google Play Store. I'll give Tim some credit here because he at least showed his true colors and stated the fact that he didn't want to share a cut of the revenue with Google as a primary motivator for bypassing the Google Play Store. Of course, he included his usual spiel about open platforms and whatnot, despite securing a timed exclusivity agreement with Samsung and even going so far as to set restrictions on which devices could run the game. Thankfully, a hacker removed said limitations and offered a separate installer for download for anyone who wanted to bypass Epic's restrictions. Gee, it's almost like forcing people to side-load an app while putting your own restrictions in place makes people do even shadier shit in order to install your product. See the problem yet?
Tim's oblivious to the concept of being responsible, even if it's staring him in the face. While I won't deny that Google would benefit hugely from having Fortnite on the Google Play Store, I don't think any malice was involved when Google released details of the recent vulnerability in the installer for Fortnite on Android. What Tim needs to realize is that Google didn't *have* to disclose the vulnerability at all, but it's sort of in Google's best interest to do so when some dipshit releases what'll inevitably be a huge popular side-loaded app and doesn't understand what sort of security concerns it presents. Google took the high road and disclosed the vulnerability per its usual process.
Tim's response:
Yeah, Tim, and it probably wouldn't have been a problem if you'd simply released Fortnite through the Google Play Store.
Tim's stance on openness is part of a bigger problem. I love my win32 apps, and I'm sure you love your win32 apps, as well. That doesn't mean that I get to force my preference for how to install apps in general on people who simply aren't as aware or concerned of the security risks that're out there. There's nothing wrong with giving people choice, even if that means releasing your app in a closed app store as ONE OPTION. If you take something huge like Fortnite that people are chomping at the bit to get their hands on and require that your audience compromise its security and resort to bad practices simply to preserve some of your profits, then you're being hugely irresponsible. And doing it under the guise of "being more open" just makes you a pile of garbage, especially when you've shown clear support for closed platforms in the past.
Oh, and speaking of openness, where's that Linux port of Fortnite, Tim?
tldr; Tim Sweeney is irresponsible at best and a greedy hypocrite at worst.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
