The Fortnite battle is not only that Epic is pushing more money from Apple

It’s easy to roll your eyes at Epic Games’ “Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite” ad, which parodies a 1984 Apple commercial about the company fighting a monopoly. Can a gaming company valued at $ 17.3 billion really trade if it’s an underdog that puts it to the man? Then again, the alternative – rooting for Apple – does not seem much better. Apple is the most valuable company in the world; certainly it can live by taking a smaller commission from products sold at its store.

“Everything sucks at this,” complains gaming website Kotaku. It’s a sentiment I have seen echoed on social media, where some people say that in a battle between two tech giants, the only real winner is the corrupt mess of capitalism. After all, this problem comes down to money, and makes more of it.

But that skeptical narrative also flatters something else at stake in the legal battle between Epic Games and Apple. The language of the case is revealing. In it, Epic says it does not want monetary compensation from the proceedings.

“Epic is still seeking favorable treatment for itself, one company,” the document reads. Many people worry that this tussle will simply end up diminishing Apple on Epic Games while everyone else ignores it, but Epic’s lawsuit explicitly states that the company does not want any special treatment that cannot be offered to others. “Instead, Epic is looking for scams to allow fair competition in these two key markets that directly affect hundreds of millions of consumers and tens of thousands, if not more, of third-party app developers.”

Epic’s complaint against Google reads right, with Epic not seeking “favorable treatment” for itself, but a more open environment for everyone. Of course, winning this battle would mean that Epic Games would make more money, which would be “favorable” for them. But the implications of the lawsuit could go a long way for the gaming sector in general, especially when it comes to smaller game developers.

Image: Epic games

If Apple – or indeed any major retailer – took less than their normal 30% cut for apps and in-app purchases, it could make a world of difference for indie developers. The percentage that Apple takes is pretty standard on digital storefronts, such as Steam or the Nintendo eShop. But mobile devices are more only existent than dedicated gaming hardware, and seeing a notoriously idiosyncratic business move on such a thing could help this to sway other storefronts to recoup their commissions as well.

One recent viral tweet by game developer Emma Maassen states that if storefronts took a smaller revenue share, like the 12% that Epic Games takes on their own store, that extra revenue would have allowed their studio Kitsune Games to develop a new title without crowdfunding. The responses to the tweet include other Indians sharing similar opportunities that would have been possible with more equitable revenue sharing models across the gaming industry.

“The amount of extra stuff we can add to our game would be insane,” wrote indie developer Elwin Ver teams.

On platforms like Steam, the more you sell, the better you will be rewarded; the revenue share can go up to 20%. Probably a smaller developer needs that extra money more than a blockbuster studio. The bet of a smaller fee is higher for the small man, who typically cannot influence how these numbers look like. Epic it almost seems like picking up the mantle for her.

Is this giving Epic Games too much credit? Possibly. But the company seems to be taking the walk. In addition to offering a better revenue-sharing model on its own storefront than other major players, Epic has taken other progressive steps that help smaller developers across the board. Earlier this year, the Battle Royale maker announced that anyone using its own Unreal Engine would no longer have to pay royalties on the first $ 1 million in revenue, a move that would only affect Indians. This is on top of offering $ 100 million in grants to people who use the Unreal Engine in new ways, including the improvement of open source tools that help the community at large.

In practice, Epic appears to maintain the idea that an increasing tide will lift all boats. A smaller income share may mean less profit for gatekeepers in the short term, but if it enables makers to make more and do more, the long term tail is better for everyone involved.

It’s a generous philosophy that has become rare to see within tech. We live in a world where Facebook has destabilized democracy, Google has previously kept contracts with the government to improve weapons, food delivery services like Grubhub can contribute to the destruction of small businesses, and Uber threatens livelihoods. Algorithms tailored to engagement and expansion regularly betray people. Google’s old motto, “Do not be mean,” now seems like a joke.

To see a company like Epic Games, not only choose a fight, but trade fair about what it looks like seems wrong in a world where tech giants repeatedly fail us. Businesses can not act the way they want to best for everyone – no more.

But when I look at the messages surrounding Epic Games and their values, I do not see a soul-searching machine looking for number one. Instead of a completely depersonalized brand, Epic Games also exists as an extension of a specific idiosyncratic personality: founder and CEO Tim Sweeney.

I see Sweeney growing poetically about building the metaverse and destroying all the barriers that stand in his way, like some starry-eyed idealist. I see Sweeney, a billionaire who probably never needs to look at code again, excited talk about programming minutiae on social media. I see Sweeney quietly using his fortune to buy enormous areas of land for conservation.

What kind of business plan is it to take your video game from two of the biggest platforms available, for who knows how long? Why choose a fight that costs your boatloads money? Who accepts Apple and Google and thinks they can win? More than any large, modern tech company I can think of, Epic Games seems like the personal red of an optimist who believes in something bigger than himself, even if it’s unrealistic or crazy.

Speaking of unrealistic, perhaps it is naive of me to believe in the supposed noble intentions of an eccentric billionaire. Even so, if Sweeney succeeds Apple and Google – and this is definitely Sweeney’s fight, given his highly anti-monopoly Twitter feed – Epic Games will not be the only party to take advantage.