Various documents have been coming out from the ongoing Apple vs Epic legal case in the state of California, and here’s a full rundown of the core of Apple’s (pretty decent) defense. Apple’s lawyers carried out what can only be called a drive-by of the Epic Games Store. Epic’s lawyers claimed that it was similar to the App Store.
The lawyers stated that Epic Games Store was not profitable and could not be compared to the App Store. They also said that Epic Games Store would not be profitable for several years, if ever. Oh!
It’s also interesting to note that Apple’s legal eagles continue to discredit the Epic Games Store. “Epic lost $181 million on EGS for 2019 Epic expected to lose $273 million on EGS by 2020. Epic provided $444 million of minimum guarantees in 2020, and projected that it would lose only $401 million revenue in 2020, even though it experienced’significant’ growth. Epic admits to this trend and projects that it will continue into the future. Epic expects to lose $139 million by 2021. If we consider the lower numbers, Epic would have to invest $493 million in 2019 on its part. Epic has already acknowledged that Epic will need to recover at least $330 millions of these costs. Epic doesn’t expect EGS to make a cumulative profit before 2027.
This all must be considered in context of Epic’s plans for the Epic Games Store. Epic can also write off large amounts of money as future investments. If all goes according to plan, the Epic Games Store could become a major player in game distribution.
Epic is making a case against Apple because it wants Epic Games Store on iOS. The other reason Epic keeps bringing up Epic Games Store is that Epic has a 12% commission rate. This can be countered quite well by the observation, “While Epic’s commission rate is lower than Apple, it doesn’t offer all of the services that Apple offers.” EGS is basically a storefront. It lacks the integrated features that make App Store attractive to developers and consumers.
Apple wonks conclude by noting that Epic’s reason for claiming exclusionary behavior from Apple is that Epic’s iOS store was not intended to host any other stores. It was, and it was, as I said. “Epic’s claims are based on the idea that Apple’s design, implementation and use of its intellectual property could be considered exclusionary conduct. This theory is not supported by law.”
Although the Epic Games Store may provoke venom, it is actually quite acceptable these days. It’s also hard to argue with the free games that are a large part of that sunk expense (only one made a profit apparently). You can only say one thing about the half-billion dollars: Epic can afford it.
