You are doing this to everyone on this thread that disagrees with you, saying that only those who agree are the ones who read everything.
I respond this way when people ask questions that're already addressed within the OP. I wouldn't expect everyone to read the entire thread, but the answer to that person's question was right in the OP. And appending various points I've made throughout the thread will only make the OP longer, meaning that fewer people would read the OP.
Because Epic has to give 30% to MS in that scenario. In addition it does harm users by locking down an open platform (PC) to a shitty closed storefront (Win Store with it's myriad associated issues)
OP's post doesn't make sense. Epic is consistent. If it's an open platform they will go their own way without engaging 3rd party storefronts. If the platforms are fully enclosed then they will use the platform's store such as PS4, Switch, Xbox and iOS.
So the premise is OP's post which clearly pushing Windows Store is simply either disingenuous or silly. Windows Store is not necessary and considering minuscule amount of customers it's not worth the effort (or the income cut).
Windows store is trash. Nobody should be supporting it in any way as long as it is trash. Good on Tim.
Oh, I agree. The OP's point doesn't make sense since the Windows store isnt owed any release from Epic or any other developer. makes financial sense to keep the 30%.
I really don't see the problem here. I never heard Tim Sweeney state that he was against iOS or "closed" platforms. I believe what he didn't want was Microsoft to change Windows so you could only install apps through the Windows Store. I do not think that is a controversial opinion and I think everyone (including everyone at MS) agrees that allowing non-Windows store apps is a good thing.
BTW, iOS probably got support first because iOS is a more profitable platform. I am confused about why you are outraged that Epic makes rational business decisions.
I'm totally cool with Epic using an actual open platform to do business as they wish. On iOS, and consoles too, they have no choice, those are locked down platforms, so your comparison is totally moot.
On PC and on Android, they make use of their own popularity and the freedom given to them by the platform to maximize their profits. Not every developer could do this, so having a centralized store (Google Play, or Steam and other clients on PC) is still good, but I appreciate that no one is forced to any one Store.
As for "security": I assume OP that you are not aware how often literal malware and spyware is shipped via the Play Store, until Google reacts? The fact that Epic fixed the vulnerability so quickly shows that they care about security.
All platforms have the possibility to be compromised in some way, including Google's very own Play Store (which has had malicious content in the past). However, Epic's decision to force users to sideload the game while disabling device security functionality (on Android), given the target audience of the game, is seriously irresponsible.
No one in their right mind would choose to make the primary content delivery service for their game the Windows Store. Its a buggy, broken, slow and ultimately not very popular piece of junk.
I strongly disagree with your post OP. There is no open platform on Apples devices, but there is on Windows and Android so it makes sense to support these. Also, I can't praise Sweeney enough to stand up against the Windows Store and Microsofts efforts to push PC gaming into a walled garden. If Microsofts ends up improving UWP and their store, it's thanks to people like him, and not thanks to people using the store in it's current state anyway.
Yeah my implication was that it will stop being trash once MS abandons their UWP nonsense (at least for games on it) as well as fixes its general usability and interface.
As said many times before in this thread: on PC and Android he has a choice, on Apple devices and consoles he hasn't. He never said that all closed ecosystems are bad. He just doesn't want to see the few open ecosystems left being closed, and I fully support him for this.
And that completely ignores the end point of this. And why Epic is right to refuse the Windows Store (for their own selfish reasons). If the Windows store does take off and become the standard way for gamers to purchase items, it'll be the end of all other platforms. UWP will become the default standard and lock everyone else out. Steam being the market leader has no effect on Ubi running Uplay. UWP becoming the standard does.
And yet, you can only buy Microsofts core games in the WinStore as a locked down and encrypted UWP app. Sweeney has stated many times that he doesn't want this to become the future of PC gaming, and I strongly agree with him on this matter.
Thoughts? Every since Tim came out against UWP, we've been having these kind of threads focusing on Tim specifically more and more. As if Epic is solely Tim.
And why would anyone other than MS support that hot garbage that is the current Windows Store? For the majority, it simply isn't worth the time and effort.
It's crazy how many people are stuck on the Windows Store aspect of this conversation, given the fact that I only listed it first because it was chronologically the first thing relevant to my argument. The developer can still distribute an installer for UWP apps outside of the store. I'm aware that Epic doesn't owe Microsoft anything as far as Windows Store releases go, but I want to point out that UWP allows you to side-load apps, meaning that releasing an app on Windows Store doesn't mean that you can only install that game from the Windows Store. Lastly, I understand that releasing an app (or game) on the Windows Store doesn't make sense if you're developing exclusively for it, but adapting a win32 app for release on Windows Store isn't the ordeal that a lot of people think it is.
Wait, is Tim Sweeney calling ALL the shots as to where and how Fortnite is released?!
This. Unless this is true, OP is just shooting hyperbole out his ass.
No, but he's CEO, and I'd expect what a CEO says to even vaguely mirror the actions of the company for which he/she is CEO. Surely he has some say in the matter. I understand the aspect of him having to run a successful company, but to be so outspoken about your stance on something and run a company that doesn't adhere to your own personal beliefs seems like a bit of a conflict to me.
He is also totally fine with the Sony lock in.
Do what I say, don't do what I do.
He is a total hypocrite. As long as it makes them shitloads of money, he is ok with it.
Yeah, I didn't include consoles in my initial argument, but I have to wonder if Tim was aware of Sony's policy beforehand.
I must have dreamed the existence of Windows S...
I can't speak for Windows S (as I'm not sure if it can run/install win32 apps installed from the Windows Store), but Windows RT (Windows S' predecessor) was intended to only run UWP apps so the overall OS could take advantage of the improved resource management that UWP apps were guaranteed to support. Note that there was more of a tablet push with Windows RT (and Windows 8), though, so I can see where Microsoft was going there. I do know that Windows S has a similar goal, but I think Microsoft's come to accept that win32 isn't going away (especially since Microsoft itself still uses desktop applications for development...and even still has a lot of people using Windows 7 there).
Windows S wasn't made for you. It was made for people who end installing 20 toolbars because an ad on a website told them to.
Yeah, as someone who bought his dad a computer, only for that computer to gradually be overtaken by malware to the point that I couldn't even remote into it to fix problems anymore, I wish people would see the value in the existence of something like Windows S.
Actually, it is no more "Windows Store". It is "Microsoft Store" now and Fortnite is on Microsoft Store, but compatible for Xbox One consoles.
Yeah, I'm aware of the change. I find Microsoft's re-branding to Microsoft Store kind of confusing, as it matches the branding for Microsoft's own physical stores, and I feel as though I never really know which one I'm dealing with in some sense if I use the browser-based versions of Microsoft's storefronts.
If he really cared they would only release Fortnite on open platforms (PC and Android) to push people to open platforms. But, Epic cares more about money than the open/closed platform issue.
I don't think Epic should ONLY release Fortnite on open platforms, but nothing Epic's done since releasing Fortnite on Windows has indicated that Epic has any interest in giving open platforms any sort of advantage. Granted, when you look toward the future, what're you gonna do with that .exe or .apk when Fortnite goes under? It's not as though having access to it on an open platform is gonna restore the server-side stuff that you need to make the game work if/when Epic shuts everything down.
