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."

​

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:

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.

Source (courtesy of The Verge)

 

[VartioArtel]

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

The consumers don't benefit, at all. The situation with the Apple Fortnite store the morning (yes, it was morning at the time) of the 'patch' that lead to this debacle is a rare exception. They offered a 'cheaper' purchase method in order to bait people to utilize the non-legal (as again - against Apple's ToS) option to sway public opinion.

Odds are that offer will be gone when this trial's over, regardless. Either they win and the price will be how it was before F-Day (when they got removed from the store), or they lose and if they do put it back up the price will again be where it was anyhow because that is the price on basically every other platform.

Most companies wouldn't change the prices. This is a benefit argument between two groups only: the alternate hosting platforms and the publisher. Not the consumers.

 

[tabzer]

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.

Some people here seem to think that Sony held a gun to their head, lol.

It's a contract. It was negotiated. Epic is as guilty as Sony is in this... for those looking for guilt.

 

[diggeloid]

I don't get the hate for Epic here, Sony is clearly being unreasonable assholes.

Sure, the EGS sucks and all that, but wtf how can anyone see this and rally behind Sony? Epic is trying to provide a feature that provides immense value to consumers, but Sony is just like Consumers?! Fuck that, what about our platform tax?!

I don't mean to be dramatic or anything, but Epic is literally exactly the same as the founding fathers of America, fighting a revolutionary war against an oppressive colonizer that only cares about collecting taxes. Epic is fighting for gamers' freedom!!

 

[FAST6191]

Wow, this is horrible, these attitudes are making me move away from Sony more and more, I hope it will change your attitudes in the future especially in relation to crossplay and crossave, I love playing on PS4 but being the only version without crossplay or crossave it takes me a long way to play such a game on PS4 because I am deprived of playing with my friends from other platforms or continuing my progress from one platform to another, until today I expect crossave on Genshin Impact and Paladins on PS4, but apparently this will not arrive so early and only regret remains to have chosen to play these games on the Sony platform.

Sony have been on my "don't buy unless absolutely necessary" list for many years at this point*. However I do have to ask why is this the straw that broke the camel's back?

*anti emulator in them vs bleem
anti mod chip I can forgive as a concept but the means by which they set about it...
region locking and anti import (see them vs electricbirdland).
them vs geohot
censorship in more recent times, and in quite a bit way vs anybody else. Somewhat amusing given it was being anti censorship that made them able to be a main player in a single generation.
stupid proprietary formats with little real benefit, and in the case of things like cell arguably a lot of downsides.
The list goes on for a while.

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

B: Companies not needing to front fees to platform owners such as Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Google, etc. Because every company can push Side-loading and direct purchasing fees to circumvent.

*looks at PC (at least prior to the rise of Steam)*
Yeah what a horrible world that would be.

 

[VartioArtel]

I don't get the hate for Epic here, Sony is clearly being unreasonable assholes.

Sure, the EGS sucks and all that, but wtf how can anyone see this and rally behind Sony? Epic is trying to provide a feature that provides immense value to consumers, but Sony is just like Consumers?! Fuck that, what about our platform tax?!

I don't mean to be dramatic or anything, but Epic is literally exactly the same as the founding fathers of America, fighting a revolutionary war against an oppressive colonizer that only cares about collecting taxes. Epic is fighting for gamers' freedom!!

Epic is fighting only for their own wallets. Nothing they are doing in this case benefits the consumer, only themself. If you cannot point of where we'd benefit from it, it doesn't exist. Why do I know this? Fortnite on the EGS has the same fees as any other platform (sans F-Day Apple Store patch). Mind you: that's first party platform, hence no 'tax', and they charge the same amount as on Sony, as on Switch, as on XBox, so on and so forth.

Sony is indeed being unreasonable assholes, but you also got to realize that Epic isn't suing those irreasonable assholes, they're suing Apple who doesn't have anywhere near as egregious behavior.

 

[Deleted User]

... I might be the minority in this Forum, but I actually do enjoy Apple products for what they are, both the MacBook Pros and iPhones I own. They do care more about Privacy than competitors which is why they're continually the Number 1 choice in Japan and are welcome in Mainland China.

Similarly, I enjoy the Sony PlayStation for what it is just as much as the Nintendo Switch.

If asked why, I would say it's because I have zero problems accepting their House Rules.
Then again, I'm not the type of person who creates a Private Profile in an online Social Media Service nor cries foul play when their morality standards are elusive to pin down.

If you don't like the Rules of the House Party you're in, don't let the door kick you on the way out.
Unfortunately, nobody in Epic seems to understand that base concept.

 

[tabzer]

... I might be the minority in this Forum, but I actually do enjoy Apple products for what they are, both the MacBook Pros and iPhones I own. They do care more about Privacy than competitors which is why they're continually the Number 1 choice in Japan and are welcome in Mainland China.

Similarly, I enjoy the Sony PlayStation for what it is just as much as the Nintendo Switch.

If asked why, I would say it's because I have zero problems accepting their House Rules.
Then again, I'm not the type of person who creates a Private Profile in an online Social Media Service nor cries foul play when their morality standards are elusive to pin down.

If you don't the Rules of the House Party you're in, don't let the door kick you on the way out.
Unfortunately, nobody in Epic seems to understand that base concept.

I always seem to like it when you post.

 

[Deleted User]

I always seem to like it when you post.

It has been a while since we interacted.
I hope things are going well for you.

 

[tabzer]

It has been a while since we interacted.
I hope things are going well for you.

Golden week is long for me. But I'm making good use of that time by supplying the service of trolling gbatemp.

 

[Kioku]

Normally I'd say Sony was in the wrong here, but since it was Epic they were dicking over, I'll allow it.

I'm not a fan of Epic, in any real regard... But I'm also an all or nothing kind of guy. It's a bad move, whether they charged Epic or Respawn/EA.

 

[tabzer]

I'm not a fan of Epic, in any real regard... But I'm also an all or nothing kind of guy. It's a bad move, whether they charged Epic or Respawn/EA.

It just shows that there is no standard and that we are in a state of constant flux. We have contenders A, B, and C... maybe it is ripe for the opportunity for a contender D to set a new stage? The more that we can get those royalty percentages lower, the more friendly the market will be for all developers.

 

[diggeloid]

Epic is fighting only for their own wallets. Nothing they are doing in this case benefits the consumer, only themself. If you cannot point of where we'd benefit from it, it doesn't exist. Why do I know this? Fortnite on the EGS has the same fees as any other platform (sans F-Day Apple Store patch). Mind you: that's first party platform, hence no 'tax', and they charge the same amount as on Sony, as on Switch, as on XBox, so on and so forth.

Is this a troll? None of that makes sense.

• How is cross-platform play not good for consumers?

• What "fees" does Fortnite charge on the EGS? Are you saying Epic is taking a 30% cut of revenue from...themselves? What does that mean?

• How does the fact that they're suing Apple support your argument that Epic isn't helping consumers? Their lawsuit focuses on (some of, but by no means all) the anti-competitive practices of Apple. Anyone who paid attention in school knows that fair competition is the only thing that helps consumers in a free market economy.

Look, I get it. lul le-fortnite is ghey amirite? But homophobia or whatever that is is no reason to post stupid opinions on the internet.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

Some people here seem to think that Sony held a gun to their head, lol.

It's a contract. It was negotiated. Epic is as guilty as Sony is in this... for those looking for guilt.

They basically did, they didn't give them a choice. Sony turned down any attempts to negotiate.

 

[tabzer]

They basically did, they didn't give them a choice. Sony turned down any attempts to negotiate.

I suppose it could be argued that Epic's bargaining position is weak. They did sign the contract though because Sony = $$$

 

[wormdood]

Fair enough, but they pay amazon for the use of the servers. While you think it's toxic that epic pay for the use of Sony servers.

You could argue that Sony shouldn't limit the game play to their own servers, but that isn't toxic.

If you want consoles then they need to generate enough revenue, if anything your suggestion is toxic

first of all I gave no suggestion to be toxic in the first place second of all they pay Amazon less money to operate the game than they pay Sony to distribute it and Amazon is the one that actually runs their shity game while Sony just collects revenue on top of that Sony has the highest console sales in history right now they do not need the money that they get off of fortnite in order to produce consoles lol

so it's not toxic to expect them not to charge a company based on the actions of players (not the company but the player) taken outside of playstation networks when they also take a large percentage cut like apple does

 

[chrisrlink]

Imagine a game where you can only lose. And it has 1,000 different endings.

many h***** games are like that the "lose to be dominated" formula is getting old for me on those games

 

[tabzer]

many h***** games are like that the "lose to be dominated" formula is getting old for me on those games

Lol. I've never played that kind of game. Got a recommendation?

 

[Kioku]

Is this a troll? None of that makes sense.

This coming from the guy who compared Epic to the founding fathers? Pot meet kettle.

• How is cross-platform play not good for consumers?

• What "fees" does Fortnite charge on the EGS? Are you saying Epic is taking a 30% cut of revenue from...themselves? What does that mean?

• How does the fact that they're suing Apple support your argument that Epic isn't helping consumers? Their lawsuit focuses on (some of, but by no means all) the anti-competitive practices of Apple. Anyone who paid attention in school knows that fair competition is the only thing that helps consumers in a free market economy.

He didn't say anything about crossplay. It's also not like Epic created the concept of cross platform play.

Their stunt against Apple is a grey area. You know they did it from a business standpoint. Sweeney does not care about you. He runs a business. He's in said business to make money. Hop off the train for a minute and take a long hard look at what they're doing.

 

[tabzer]

Epic being the founding fathers is the best this thread has to offer.

 

[VartioArtel]

Is this a troll? None of that makes sense.

• How is cross-platform play not good for consumers?

• What "fees" does Fortnite charge on the EGS? Are you saying Epic is taking a 30% cut of revenue from...themselves? What does that mean?

• How does the fact that they're suing Apple support your argument that Epic isn't helping consumers? Their lawsuit focuses on (some of, but by no means all) the anti-competitive practices of Apple. Anyone who paid attention in school knows that fair competition is the only thing that helps consumers in a free market economy.

Look, I get it. lul le-fortnite is ghey amirite? But homophobia or whatever that is is no reason to post stupid opinions on the internet.

>#1
Conflated this (Sony and Epic's scummy deals) with the Epic vs Apple. My bad. But in the same breadth my initial statement stands that if Epic wanted to sue any company for 'monopolistic' dealings, it would be Sony with their royalties for every PSN user who doesn't buy VBucks through the PSN store.


>#2
That's exactly my point. When it comes to Epic Vs Apple? Epic is putting down the same prices for every platform - even EGS. If the "Apple Tax" as they call it (it's not a tax it's a different thing altogether) actually mattered and they were pricing for the consumer, they'd be offering a price cut 24/7 since the game launched on the EGS version of the launcher. But they don't. Why? Because they don't need to take a cut out of it. It's about increasing the speed of their own inflow.

Instead of 1000 vbucks being £6.49/$7.99? If they cared about the consumer from the start and the prices were only about the consumer like they claimed when they launched the Apple-Direct-Payment system? The EGS version would be £4.60/$5.60 (Or rolled up to 4.99 and 5.99). Because that's how much they are getting when every other platform takes their 30% cut (give or take a per cents 'cause £4.54 looks awkward on a bill).

It's a sign of the proof Epic is lying to everyone who defends them about the EGS.

>#3
As noted above - Epic's suing Apple because their platform (iPhone vs PS4/5) and purchasing method (Apple Pay vs PSN Store) are 'linked' and they claim they are two seperate things. They claim the 30% price on the apple store for all purchases is monopolistic. That's a hard sell but that's a different story.

Sony conducts even scummier than a 30% "stocking fee" ("Apple Tax" as idiots put it) for purchases: which they already do. They charge for the difference in the # of purchasers via PSN and the # of purchasers via other platforms if there's a big enough difference (15%) between how much they're receiving vs the other platforms.

Let that settle in: If they wanted to help consumers because the 'stocking fees' were too high and making it harder for Epic to conduct business, the key target would be Sony/PS/PSN for these absurdity policies which make apples look nice. Apple isn't making any Crossplay 'royalty/tax'. Both Apple and Sony are both 30% for their store stocking fees (this is a known fact).

Also, I suggest you look up what 'fair competition' is. The 30% is standard market price, meaning it can't be an unfair policy. Because in essence the producers/storefronts here all offer the same prices. Apple also has the same effective style of walled garden market system as Nintendo, PS/N, XBOX, Google, up to even Supermarkets, Bookstores, and Bakeries (surprised?). They choose ultimately which offers are the most enticing and list them - although main stores also charge extra fees on top like advertising fees. You think 30% per purchase is bad? Try 25k-250k depending on store size on top of advertising fees and the sort. In fact look up this below link, 30% is a pittance in comparison to the cutthroat Real life markets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slotting_fee