Epic Games, the creators of the battle royale sensation Fortnite, have been pretty averse to releasing their hit multiplayer game on Google Play. Citing Google's 30% cut as a deterrent, the company made their game accessible as a third-party software downloadable outside of Google's app store. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney commented that “30 percent is disproportionate to the cost of the services these stores perform, such as payment processing, download bandwidth, and customer service.” Epic even went as far as to request for an exemption to the 30% cut in December; a request that was unsuccessful.

However, operating as a side-loaded app might not be the optimal decision as it leaves out a significant chunk of potential users and Android flags third-party apps as a potential security risk. Epic Games released a statement about revising their decision:

After 18 months of operating Fortnite on Android outside of the Google Play Store, we’ve come to a basic realization. Google puts software downloadable outside of Google Play at a disadvantage, through technical and business measures such as scary, repetitive security pop-ups for downloaded and updated software, restrictive manufacturer and carrier agreements and dealings, Google public relations characterizing third party software sources as malware, and new efforts such as Google Play Protect to outright block software obtained outside the Google Play store.

Fortnite is now available as a free-to-play title downloadable from the Google Play store. Find the link below!

Google Play Download Link
SOURCE

 

[PrincessLillie]

If they were installed prior to the "Play Protect" update to google services they'll be fine, but try updating them without flushing all google services updates from your system and it will be blocked.

I installed it only a few months ago (Play Protect was already implemented in Google Services) and Play Protect isn't complaining.

 

[FAST6191]

If the play store is too expensive for you, you probably shouldn't be buying games of any type. Also, you think the EGS is a competitor?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



No, exclusives in general are bad. Regardless of platform. If Epic and Sweeney really cared about the consumer? They wouldn't opt for exclusives. They would instead try to better the EGS experience by making it truly user friendly and offering an enhanced social platform. Unfortunately that's all on the back burner. Do they even have a cart yet for multiple purchases?

Exclusives on consoles is different to exclusives on PC between downloadable shops which is different again to theoretically open devices like android but with a dominant method like seen there.

As for opting for exclusives then if your price matches then you need content. Else we have FAST6191's gaming platform, 100% of income to the devs but with nothing on it then nobody cares. Content is king and all that.

On user friendly and enhanced social platform... seems like those things people whine about just to have something to whine about. Also we do have this little thing called the internet wherein you can chat, discuss media, review things and share information on the matter.

 

[Deleted member 414991]

If they were installed prior to the "Play Protect" update to google services they'll be fine, but try updating them without flushing all google services updates from your system and it will be blocked.
Happens to me all the time with non-play store apps on my smart tv. Eg, every time there's an update for Typhoon I have to manually remove all updates for Play store and Google services before the update will install.

I've never had that happen and have plenty of non-play store stuff installed and updated.

 

[Meepers55]

Their reasoning comes off as kind of an excuse to me. The ability to sideload apps is one of the many reasons people use Android in the first place. To say that "scary, repetitive security pop-ups" is what's preventing their Android user-base from growing is being a little dishonest here.

The real reason, at least how it seems, is that most Android users who are competent enough to sideload apps are older and don't care about playing Fortnite; even if they do, chances are they own a PC or console and choose to play it on there. Anyone who does want to play Fortnite on Android is probably too young and technologically inexperienced to sideload an app, thus they are stuck playing a Fortnite rip-off that they found on the Play Store.

That would be a far better explanation for their decision to put the game on the Play Store. I can see why they chose not to say this, but they could've at least tried their hand at a better excuse.

 

[zeveroth]

Easy as pie to disable Google Play Protect. Should have put this on epics website.

 

[jeffyTheHomebrewer]

so youre telling me it wasnt on google play before????? why???

 

[GBADWB]

Okay, I get it, but I'm not one of those people who literally "can't wait" for the next big game. I'll happily wait for the steam release and then buy from which ever store is cheapest. That wouldn't happen at all if there wasn't any competition. I mean look at Sony and Microsoft. Sony has so many more exclusives than Microsoft but that pushes both companies to fight harder to do better because, even though it might be annoying, if Sony slips they know Microsoft will have all the exclusives next round. That makes things better for the consumer, as each company tries to outdo the other.

I'm no fan of exclusives but what's the alternative? No competition at all?
Some exclusives (and most have been timed and not permanent) are way better than EVERYTHING being exclusive to steam!

And this is the mistake people fall into.games arent exclusive to steam because steam buys them out (it's coexisted fine with any of the other launchers, be it origin, uplay, GOG or such). Only some end up exclusive to Steam because of the fact that they want to use Steams resources/tools that they give to the developer. Steam offers a key generation tool to allow 3rd party sites to be able to sell steam keys, a controller UI in order to allow games that dont support Dinput to work on titles and many other features, such as the workshop (which is why games like Skyrim got moved onto steam). They didn't get on steam because steam bought them out, rather its because it has consumer friendly/dev friendly features that some other platforms have.

Albeit there are some titles on epic that do use its features, as games like Dauntless utilize unreals feature to be able to easily cross platform on games that utilize unreal engine 4. But buying out exclusives for the sake of manhandling customers over is NOT pro-consumer for a platform at all. There's a reason why people take a dump on Epics commitment to making their storefront and platform. They bought out a game and offered you a worse experience outside of it. That's the reverse of being pro consumer.

It got so bad last year in march that Epic did not allow for the selling of 3rd party keys for exclusive titles on other sites, before it backtracked on it due to the fire it got.

 

[drewret]

who does this effect really

 

[FAST6191]

And this is the mistake people fall into.games arent exclusive to steam because steam buys them out (it's coexisted fine with any of the other launchers, be it origin, uplay, GOG or such). Only some end up exclusive to Steam because of the fact that they want to use Steams resources/tools that they give to the developer. Steam offers a key generation tool to allow 3rd party sites to be able to sell steam keys, a controller UI in order to allow games that dont support Dinput to work on titles and many other features, such as the workshop (which is why games like Skyrim got moved onto steam). They didn't get on steam because steam bought them out, rather its because it has consumer friendly/dev friendly features that some other platforms have.

Albeit there are some titles on epic that do use its features, as games like Dauntless utilize unreals feature to be able to easily cross platform on games that utilize unreal engine 4. But buying out exclusives for the sake of manhandling customers over is NOT pro-consumer for a platform at all. There's a reason why people take a dump on Epics commitment to making their storefront and platform. They bought out a game and offered you a worse experience outside of it. That's the reverse of being pro consumer.

It got so bad last year in march that Epic did not allow for the selling of 3rd party keys for exclusive titles on other sites, before it backtracked on it due to the fire it got.

So they can give a library over and have de facto exclusivity or give some money for development/offer a better deal and gain the same? 6 of one, half a dozen of another there. Silver handcuffs are still handcuffs, though in this case neither prevent me from playing a game (the 6 people on Linux or Mac that cared about native aside).

so youre telling me it wasnt on google play before????? why???

It says in the OP. Google take a 30% cut off the top of anything that comes in and seemingly weren't willing to compromise enough on that so bypassed them by offering it as a sideload. However as "give me convenience or give me death" seems to be a thing then they found it cut enough of their potential market that they had to reconsider that position.

 

[GBADWB]

So they can give a library over and have de facto exclusivity or give some money for development/offer a better deal and gain the same? 6 of one, half a dozen of another there. Silver handcuffs are still handcuffs, though in this case neither prevent me from playing a game (the 6 people on Linux or Mac that cared about native aside).

The difference is how the handcuffs were put on. If the handcuffs were put on because the dev wanted to use certain features that reach the end user (e.g crossplay, mod workshop) that is consumer friendly. If the handcuffs were put on because the dev wanted to make more money, that is NOT consumer friendly, because the user never sees any improvement in it.

When an IP owner decides to chase profit and offer exclusivity in some form, the end product starts to suffer due to lack thereof, of competition. In a non platform related comparison, its equivalent to how NFL games before 2008 (where the license was given to many companies) to after 2008 (where EA gained exclusive rights to the NFL). Same could be said about how EA handled the Star Wars IP

 

[FAST6191]

The difference is how the handcuffs were put on. If the handcuffs were put on because the dev wanted to use certain features that reach the end user (e.g crossplay, mod workshop) that is consumer friendly. If the handcuffs were put on because the dev wanted to make more money, that is NOT consumer friendly, because the user never sees any improvement in it.

When an IP owner decides to chase profit and offer exclusivity in some form, the end product starts to suffer due to lack thereof, of competition. In a non platform related comparison, its equivalent to how NFL games before 2008 (where the license was given to many companies) to after 2008 (where EA gained exclusive rights to the NFL). Same could be said about how EA handled the Star Wars IP

Still not seeing the difference in steam exclusivity and epic exclusivity. Devs want to make more money so they avoid having to roll their own and take Steam's offerings.

I would also argue source exclusivity as per the second example is barely related to this discussion, and arguably more a fault of general lack of competition trying properly (for as much as people seem to like names to match league tables a good game means more).

 

[GBADWB]

Still not seeing the difference in steam exclusivity and epic exclusivity. Devs want to make more money so they avoid having to roll their own and take Steam's offerings.

yeah which is pro dev and not necessarily pro consumer. Actions that are pro developer and pro consumer are two completely different actions, and in the end as end users, people should strive for the latter.

The difference would be services in the end. Take for example if a game like tabletop simulator was a game on epic games and not steam. Do you think that the games would be the same?

The current answer is no, because part of the experience is being able to use the mod workshop to play a bunch of other board games. The mod workshop is a service that is provided along with the product.

If a game that is using Unreals crossplay feature the reason why its exclusive, than that's okay because that's design choice picked so that consumers get a product that has the service of having crossplay.

If a game is taken simply for just so other stores cant sell it, that's bad for the consumer because it removes the competition of price or services(if any that is valued to the customer) if they exist.

 

[FAST6191]

yeah which is pro dev and not necessarily pro consumer. Actions that are pro developer and pro consumer are two completely different actions, and in the end as end users, people should strive for the latter.

The difference would be services in the end. Take for example if a game like tabletop simulator was a game on epic games and not steam. Do you think that the games would be the same?

The current answer is no, because part of the experience is being able to use the mod workshop to play a bunch of other board games. The mod workshop is a service that is provided along with the product.

If a game that is using Unreals crossplay feature the reason why its exclusive, than that's okay because that's design choice picked so that consumers get a product that has the service of having crossplay.

If a game is taken simply for just so other stores cant sell it, that's bad for the consumer because it removes the competition of price or services(if any that is valued to the customer) if they exist.

Something that frustrates Steam and either spurs it into giving something to me I want or leads to their demise is a win any way I look at it.

Why fight your own wars when you can trick someone else into doing it for you?

 

[GBADWB]

Something that frustrates Steam and either spurs it into giving something to me I want or leads to their demise is a win any way I look at it.

Why fight your own wars when you can trick someone else into doing it for you?

You're making it sound like I'm only pro steam or something, which I'm not. I quit Dauntless myself due to a decision they had made with epic when it came to forcing everyone off their standalone client and starting an epic account in order to preserve the name of your character. Dauntless had 0 to do with steam

 

[MetoMeto]

Pinnacle of stupid games!

 

[DoggaDude]

Now there's something worse than malware on the Play Store. Fantastic.

 

[StuH-62]

fortnite bad, minecraft good

It is indeed bad tho.

 

[TotalHonesty]

bruh mobile versions of games (at least for me) have terrible controls. Mobile bad, console good