Sony charged publishers a royalty on cross-play games if it made more money on other platforms

14br-consoles-1920x1080-wlogo-1920x1080-432974386.jpg

As the court case between Apple and Epic Games rages on, more and more documents revealing the inner workings of these companies are being released. Today, Epic disclosed emails with Sony during their negotiations to enable cross-play in Fortnite back in 2018. For those who don't remember, Sony was the one holdout to freely enable cross-play between the major consoles, PC and mobile platforms, citing security concerns and assertions that these games were best on Playstation. Finally, in September of 2018, they enabled cross-play on Fortnite, calling the program an "open beta," before fully opening it up over a year later, in October of 2019.

Now, thanks to court documents compiled by The Verge, we know exactly how set against cross-play Sony was. In an email exchange between Joe Kreiner, Epic’s vice president of business development, and Gio Corsi, Sony’s senior director of developer relations, we can see Epic's offer to Sony for enabling cross-play. Epic would offer data that Sony had requested, plus other marketing data, offer exclusive skins to Playstation Plus subscribers, would brand their E3 presence with Sony, and offers to go out of their way to let Sony "look like heroes" when it comes to the cross-play announcement. They also mention that Sony's companywide license for Unreal Engine 4 would be expiring in about a year from then, and offer to extend it as that license has "some of the best terms we've ever offered for UE4." There's even an offer to spitball further ideas, and suggest that perhaps Epic could commit to a game at the launch of the next iteration of PSVR. Sony didn't agree, shooting back that "many companies are exploring this idea and not a single one can explain how cross-console play improves the PlayStation business."

E0eh9-gXsAMupde1.png E0eg40OXsAIjG_G2.png

Sony did eventually agree though, after establishing a revenue sharing system that would see it compensated if there are more players using PSN to access a game than there are paying for in-game purchases through Playstation. Essentially, since Sony takes a 30% cut on all in-game purchases made through PSN, it isn't worth it to them allow PSN's infrastructure to support a game when the paying players are making their purchases through other platforms, so Sony would make the game publishers pay the difference. The graphic below lays out the exact detail of its revenue sharing:

PZp6sni.png

While it's unclear if Sony is still enforcing this policy, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney spoke on the matter and made no mention that the policy had ended. He also stated that Sony was the only platform holder with this stipulation and that Epic had to agree to these terms to get cross-play enabled on Fortnite.

:arrow: Source (courtesy of The Verge)
 

1c4rus

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
51
Trophies
0
XP
150
Country
Japan
I wish Epic would success to guide the way for the future radical changes for game stores as a whole. It was indeed a stylish action to move the issue to the court and requires some balls to pull the trigger where no one ever tried before. So there is a reason why they've got place in '2021 TIME100 MOST INFLUENTIAL COMPANIES' list. This would benefit countless of developers in the end, whether it will be Epic or else but one thing is certain, they did spark the torch. It's pity to see how some people lacks of understanding or deliberately choose not to see the big picture while still thinking it's all matter of Fortnite.
 

MikaDubbz

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
3,846
Trophies
1
Age
36
XP
7,295
Country
United States
This? This move by Sony AND the move by Epic? This is what a Monopoly looks like folks. This is morally bankrupt business practices. Epic could afford to offer so much and spread so much shit in a hidden deal we probably wouldn't know about unless this case occurred. Pushing Sony as "heroes" and all that, this is no different than gaming propaganda, which is all epic's good at.

As for Sony? Demanding free money because of different platforms purchases and only getting the deal because they are that big a name platform? That's also disgusting business practices. This is the Real "Apple Games" here. That they went after Apple who only requires a 30% cut of app-related purchases is literal small time compared to, you guessed it, Sony demanding 30% and Royalties based on other platforms, shows just how legitimate this case really is.

Lemme prose that again for those who don't get it:

Apple gets: 30% cut of all third party iPhone Store purchases including micros.

Sony gets: 30% cut of all third party PSN store purchases, including micros. Royalties based on purchases done on other platforms/payment platforms because that's 'not lucrative enough'.

Apple gets sued.
Sony doesn't.

Anyone who thinks Epic is the good guy is daft in the head. Apple sure as hell ain't a good guy, but in this case Epic literally had planned for this lawsuit down to a lawsuit draft and propaganda video long before the first shot was ever publicly fired. Epic came into this planned for a Propaganda war, and their victory is not good for any 'walled garden' - including real life stores as it will eventually reach out there.
When it comes to the case of Epic vs Apple. I absolutely view Epic as the lesser of the 2 evils. I hate them, but I'm all for what they're fighting Apple for in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrossOut

VartioArtel

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
442
Trophies
1
XP
2,751
Country
United States
When it comes to the case of Epic vs Apple. I absolutely view Epic as the lesser of the 2 evils. I hate them, but I'm all for what they're fighting Apple for in court.
What Epic's fighting for in court is horrible. It will echo to ALL forms of 'walled gardens' eventually, and work to argue that I could walk into Best Buy and sell Tacos for all I care and that all money would go to me. It's a HORRIBLE idea. You may not grasp that argument well, but under the law that's exactly what this basically relates to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrossOut

MikaDubbz

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
3,846
Trophies
1
Age
36
XP
7,295
Country
United States
What Epic's fighting for in court is horrible. It will echo to ALL forms of 'walled gardens' eventually, and work to argue that I could walk into Best Buy and sell Tacos for all I care and that all money would go to me. It's a HORRIBLE idea. You may not grasp that argument well, but under the law that's exactly what this basically relates to.
Sorry I just don't agree at all. Dictating what apps can or can't appear on your platform is disgusting. It's one thing to not allow it in your store, fine, but at least be like Android and let the user install the game through other means. This has always been one of the many reasons why I'd never buy into Apple's awful disgusting exclusive and proprietary ecosystem. No thanks. You keep fighting the good fight Epic!
 

VartioArtel

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
442
Trophies
1
XP
2,751
Country
United States
Sorry I just don't agree at all. Dictating what apps can or can't appear on your platform is disgusting. It's one thing to not allow it in your store, fine, but at least be like Android and let the user install the game through other means. This has always been one of the many reasons why I'd never buy into Apple's awful disgusting exclusive and proprietary ecosystem. No thanks. You keep fighting the good fight Epic!


Bestbuy can choose what games can or can't appear in their stores. IN the same way, Apple can choose what games do or do not show up in their store.

As for sideloading apps? That's basically akin to asking if you want to let someone else walk into the area and solicit oranges in front of Best Buy, rather than my earlier simile of selling them in the story.

There are definitely some points Epic have.

Almost All of them are basically shot in the foot considering they literally brought this whole situation upon themselves and they chose to try to go around the agreement they agreed upon with Apple.

OFC Apple has some weakpoints in their arguments too, but they have a hella better argument than most, much as I hate 'em.
 

MikaDubbz

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
3,846
Trophies
1
Age
36
XP
7,295
Country
United States
Bestbuy can choose what games can or can't appear in their stores. IN the same way, Apple can choose what games do or do not show up in their store.

As for sideloading apps? That's basically akin to asking if you want to let someone else walk into the area and solicit oranges in front of Best Buy, rather than my earlier simile of selling them in the story.

There are definitely some points Epic have.

Almost All of them are basically shot in the foot considering they literally brought this whole situation upon themselves and they chose to try to go around the agreement they agreed upon with Apple.

OFC Apple has some weakpoints in their arguments too, but they have a hella better argument than most, much as I hate 'em.
Hey if you got a boner for Apple, I get it, Apple users are so loyal they'd walk off a cliff if Cook told them too, so I get it. But I'm coming from a place without bias for either company as I detest both companies. And as far as I can see, Epic absolutely has the viewpoint I agree with so much more here.
 
Last edited by MikaDubbz,

VartioArtel

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
442
Trophies
1
XP
2,751
Country
United States
Hey if you got a boner for Apple, I get it, Apple users are so loyal they'd walk off a cliff if Cook told them too, so I get it. But I'm coming from a place without bias as I detest both companies. And as far as I can see, Epic absolutely has the viewpoint I agree with so much more here.
I don't own a single Apple product and refuse to own one. I also vehemently tell my family never to buy Apple Products.

Furthermore you can find proof I absolutely abhor Epic and their Epic Lame Store throughout this forum.


That you even try that move is proof you think someone needs to be an Apple User/Shill in order to 'defend' them. Surprise: I'm not. Your only line of argument is now dead in the water.
 

tabzer

This place is a meme.
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
5,844
Trophies
1
Age
39
XP
4,911
Country
Japan
Trying to give more money to developers by getting less cut on their store.
Fighting with apple for them and others to be allowed to have their own payment method without apple in the middle.. thus making things cheaper.
Giving free good games for free...

Dunno.. i think those are good things.

Sorry, the first sentence was my point. The second was a tongue-in-cheek jab.

Being a competitor in the market is a good move for diversity, but I'm not about to pretend that they are doing it for the good of gamers as their incentive.
 
Last edited by tabzer,

MikaDubbz

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
3,846
Trophies
1
Age
36
XP
7,295
Country
United States
I don't own a single Apple product and refuse to own one. I also vehemently tell my family never to buy Apple Products.

Furthermore you can find proof I absolutely abhor Epic and their Epic Lame Store throughout this forum.


That you even try that move is proof you think someone needs to be an Apple User/Shill in order to 'defend' them. Surprise: I'm not. Your only line of argument is now dead in the water.
I get it bro, you support Apple in this case here, I don't, let's just move on, cuz you are not at all convincing me to be in favor of Apple here and I'm not even gonna try and change your mind, I see you're set with your views, misguided as they may be.
 
Last edited by MikaDubbz,

tabzer

This place is a meme.
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
5,844
Trophies
1
Age
39
XP
4,911
Country
Japan
I get it bro, you support Apple in this case here, I don't, let's just move on, cuz you are not at all convincing me to be in favor of Apple here and I'm not even gonna try and change your mind, I see you're set with your views, misguided as they may be.

A breach of contract is good if...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AboodXD

VartioArtel

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
442
Trophies
1
XP
2,751
Country
United States
I get it brio, you support Apple in this case here, I don't, let's just move on, cuz you are not at all convincing me to be in favor of Apple here and I'm not even gonna try and change your mind, I see you're set with your views, misguided as they may be.
No, I don't 'support' Apple. I realize that Apple is in the right legally. There is no question on that.

One can come to the conclusion Apple's within their legal rights, without being in favor of one of the scummiest companies in the world. But you can't seem to accept that your view is horribly narrow.

What you are attempting to set a precedent for would be that companies would be allowed to:

A: Load games onto Switch/PSN from outside websites, and use their internet networks, because you are rationalizing that anyone should be able to do the same with Apple (which is exactly what you're asking for here).

B: Companies not needing to front fees to platform owners such as Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Google, etc. Because every company can push Side-loading (often advertised on their 'store pages') and direct purchasing fees to circumvent.

C: That by proxy, anyone could setup a shop inside a Best Buy by similar proxy as any store counts as a 'walled garden'.

D: That Epic is totally legal in breaking contract multiple times with no repercussions.

I don't usually resort to harsh language, but since you insulted me TWICE mind you ("Hey if you got a boner for Apple, I get it, Apple users are so loyal they'd walk off a cliff if Cook told them too" and "I see you're set with your views, misguided as they may be."), let me just say you need to get your head out of your arse if you think that Epic is in any way, shape, or form, in the right here. This whole situation is so grotesque because of How epic handled this whole situation.

Had they simply filed a lawsuit, this would not be a problem. The issue here is they didn't. They first patched in a game that broke their contract with Apple. This contract forbade them from making a direct-money purchase system in their app. This is nothing new, it's rather standard practice and has been for roughly a decade plus now with online retailers of any sort.

Then second off they had prepared a pre-prepped video (1984nite) and launched it the moment that they were tossed off the App Store - as their contract said would happen. They used this video to claim that Apple was fascist in their actions when they were doing exactly what terms Epic agreed to when they loaded that update. I know, it's amazing, you play stupid games you get stupid prizes, but Epic don't care because they have people like you, so dumb they can't get their bias out of their system, to defend them.

THEN THIRD OFF! They had a pre-planned lawsuit prepped to claim that a monopoly exists... because they broke the rules and they wanted things to go their way or the highway.

This whole freaking thing has been Political theatre, using soft-headed individuals who don't understand they're being manipulated for a rallying cry in order to claim they don't need to follow the law as people agree with them.

I want to remind you that the Judge asked Epic if they'd be willing to release a copy of the game with the Apple-payment system enabled, and if they won the case they'd win the differences at the end of the case. They flat out told the judge no, and in classic Telltale Games method, the Judge will remember that.

If this was about offering the best to the userbase, if they wanted their fans happy, all they had to do was release a copy of the game with their direct payment system disabled again. The fans would have got the game, and they'd STILL get all the damn money difference as the judge would have rewarded them the money lost if they did find Apple in the wrong.

This was never about the playerbase. This was never about the law. This was always about pocketing even more money. Apple may be greedy, they may be corrupt, but in this singular case, perhaps the ONLY case, Apple is not in the wrong.
 

MikaDubbz

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
3,846
Trophies
1
Age
36
XP
7,295
Country
United States
No, I don't 'support' Apple. I realize that Apple is in the right legally. There is no question on that.

One can come to the conclusion Apple's within their legal rights, without being in favor of one of the scummiest companies in the world. But you can't seem to accept that your view is horribly narrow.

What you are attempting to set a precedent for would be that companies would be allowed to:

A: Load games onto Switch/PSN from outside websites, and use their internet networks, because you are rationalizing that anyone should be able to do the same with Apple (which is exactly what you're asking for here).

B: Companies not needing to front fees to platform owners such as Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Google, etc. Because every company can push Side-loading (often advertised on their 'store pages') and direct purchasing fees to circumvent.

C: That by proxy, anyone could setup a shop inside a Best Buy by similar proxy as any store counts as a 'walled garden'.

D: That Epic is totally legal in breaking contract multiple times with no repercussions.

I don't usually resort to harsh language, but since you insulted me TWICE mind you ("Hey if you got a boner for Apple, I get it, Apple users are so loyal they'd walk off a cliff if Cook told them too" and "I see you're set with your views, misguided as they may be."), let me just say you need to get your head out of your arse if you think that Epic is in any way, shape, or form, in the right here. This whole situation is so grotesque because of How epic handled this whole situation.

Had they simply filed a lawsuit, this would not be a problem. The issue here is they didn't. They first patched in a game that broke their contract with Apple. This contract forbade them from making a direct-money purchase system in their app. This is nothing new, it's rather standard practice and has been for roughly a decade plus now with online retailers of any sort.

Then second off they had prepared a pre-prepped video (1984nite) and launched it the moment that they were tossed off the App Store - as their contract said would happen. They used this video to claim that Apple was fascist in their actions when they were doing exactly what terms Epic agreed to when they loaded that update. I know, it's amazing, you play stupid games you get stupid prizes, but Epic don't care because they have people like you, so dumb they can't get their bias out of their system, to defend them.

THEN THIRD OFF! They had a pre-planned lawsuit prepped to claim that a monopoly exists... because they broke the rules and they wanted things to go their way or the highway.

This whole freaking thing has been Political theatre, using soft-headed individuals who don't understand they're being manipulated for a rallying cry in order to claim they don't need to follow the law as people agree with them.

I want to remind you that the Judge asked Epic if they'd be willing to release a copy of the game with the Apple-payment system enabled, and if they won the case they'd win the differences at the end of the case. They flat out told the judge no, and in classic Telltale Games method, the Judge will remember that.

If this was about offering the best to the userbase, if they wanted their fans happy, all they had to do was release a copy of the game with their direct payment system disabled again. The fans would have got the game, and they'd STILL get all the damn money difference as the judge would have rewarded them the money lost if they did find Apple in the wrong.

This was never about the playerbase. This was never about the law. This was always about pocketing even more money. Apple may be greedy, they may be corrupt, but in this singular case, perhaps the ONLY case, Apple is not in the wrong.

If it makes you feel better, I'll let you have the last words there, hell I'll even humor you and pretend that you've totally changed my mind. Go Apple!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skelletonike

ombus

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
541
Trophies
0
Age
38
XP
2,205
Country
United States
Sorry, the first sentence was my point. The second was a tongue-in-cheek jab.

Being a competitor in the market is a good move for diversity, but I'm not about to pretend that they are doing it for the good of gamers as their incentive.

Why care if they are truly doing it for them or all ? who cares if the consumers is the one who benefits for once ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tabzer

VartioArtel

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
442
Trophies
1
XP
2,751
Country
United States
If it makes you feel better, I'll let you have the last words there, hell I'll even humor you and pretend that you've totally changed my mind. Go Apple!
The funny thing is, it makes me feel better knowing you replied to that within 5 seconds of me posting it. It proves you aren't reading or listening to any view but your own, and prove every damn word I said about you and the other shills who blindly defend Epic like the brainless sheep they 'act' like they're saving, but personally put in those chairs in the 1984tnite themselves.

Congrats. I hope someday you break a contract and get sued, you damn sheep.
 

MikaDubbz

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
3,846
Trophies
1
Age
36
XP
7,295
Country
United States
Why don't you say something interesting like how breaching a contract is good. I could agree with you if you at least make an effort.
Lol, why make an effort, like I said, that guy is set in his ways, I know it's pointless to actually debate with someone like that.
 

MikaDubbz

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
3,846
Trophies
1
Age
36
XP
7,295
Country
United States
The funny thing is, it makes me feel better knowing you replied to that within 5 seconds of me posting it. It proves you aren't reading or listening to any view but your own, and prove every damn word I said about you and the other shills who blindly defend Epic like the brainless sheep they 'act' like they're saving, but personally put in those chairs in the 1984tnite themselves.

Congrats. I hope someday you break a contract and get sued, you damn sheep.
Hell yeah dude, Apple all the way!
 

tabzer

This place is a meme.
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
5,844
Trophies
1
Age
39
XP
4,911
Country
Japan
Lol, why make an effort, like I said, that guy is set in his ways, I know it's pointless to actually debate with someone like that.
Forget the guy for a moment. I just want to know about your opinion on breaching contracts, lol.

Why care if they are truly doing it for them or all ? who cares if the consumers is the one who benefits for once ?

So they are just less shit, for the time being?

Nothing they have provided has been useful to me, so I don't care that much.
 

The Real Jdbye

*is birb*
Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
23,261
Trophies
4
Location
Space
XP
13,819
Country
Norway
Now it makes more sense why there aren't many games on PS4 with crossplay. Few devs, especially smaller ones, would or could afford to agree to terms like these. I don't agree with their reasoning though. Fortnite is as popular as it is because it runs on anything (and it's f2p) so no matter what kind of device someone has they can play with their friends.
So what if Fortnite still didn't have crossplay on PS4? Even people who actually own a PS4 would by necessity end up playing the game on other platforms instead in order to play with friends who didn't have a PS4. Which means less microtransactions going through PSN and less money for Sony. On the other hand people who were already playing the game on PS4 and all their friends do too would be likely to stick with that even if they could play it on another platform, because it's what they're used to. So it's a win win. I heard PS is the most popular platform for Fortnite so I doubt they have had to pay Sony anything. And they probably knew that back then so it was a small chance to take.

I see where Sony are coming from, crossplay might not benefit them greatly and might even hurt them in some cases and maybe they see it as a risk, but not having it is just terrible for the end users. I would like it if every multiplat had crossplay as it would save me having to potentially buy a game multiple times and it would save some people having to buy another entire console just to play a game with their friends that they were already playing on another platform.

But it's not like there are many crossplay games on the Switch either. Minecraft has limited crossplay (crossplay is fully unlocked only on PC and mobile AFAIK) and there's Fortnite and that's pretty much it. So it seems like Nintendo is also somehow dissuading devs from making online crossplay. Microsoft are the only ones that don't care because they own the PC market as well.
 
Last edited by The Real Jdbye,
  • Like
Reactions: tabzer

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
    AncientBoi @ AncientBoi: 🥓 🍳 🍞 🍽️ 🥛