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

 

[Reploid]

Barely matters.

 

[smileyhead]

Epic even went as far as to request for an exemption to the 30% cut in December; a request that was unsuccessful.

Holy crap, that sounds hilarious.

 

[Bladexdsl]

stopped reading at FORTNITE

 

[Prans]

Barely matters.

Not to Epic apparently

 

[supergamer368]

Wait, you're seriously telling me that it wasn't on Google Play before? Boo hoo Epic, lose 30% of specifically money made from the Android version of ONE of your games when you're already loaded anyway. Honestly since they shut out a large portion of the Android userbase before, they may make even more money from it now.

 

[PrincessLillie]

Android flags third-party apps as a potential security risk.

Not true! (At least for Android 7.) I've had F-Droid (and several apps from it!) installed for months and Android hasn't flagged it!

 

[kcajjones]

I realise that people think epic should suck it up as they are one of the most successful and wealthiest developers/publishers at the moment, but if they could pressure Google to stop being so greedy it would potentially lower prices for all of us. It could also encourage more games to come to android. I don't think they should be heckled for this move. What they have achieved on pc with the epic game store is great. Giving steam a competitor in the digital games market is a long needed thing and can only be good for the consumer!

 

[duwen]

Not true! (At least for Android 7.) I've had F-Droid (and several apps from it!) installed for months and Android hasn't flagged it!

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.

 

[tech3475]

I'm surprised they don't just do what other companies do on iOS and just require purchases to be done outside of the app through a web browser.

No IAP = 0% cut for Google.

I realise that people think epic should suck it up as they are one of the most successful and wealthiest developers/publishers at the moment, but if they could pressure Google to stop being so greedy it would potentially lower prices for all of us. It could also encourage more games to come to android. I don't think they should be heckled for this move. What they have achieved on pc with the epic game store is great. Giving steam a competitor in the digital games market is a long needed thing and can only be good for the consumer!

I doubt it would have made much of a difference considering Apple also has a 30% cut, unless you mean they may bother making a mobile port at all with a lower percentage, but even then it's questionable given the nature of the mobile gaming market.

If anything were to happen, I suspect it will likely be a combination of legal and competition actually driving customers away.

I've also seen people dislike Epic store for their exclusivity agreements, including games which were already announced for Steam and half arsed store front. Only good thing about the store for me has been the free games. Although Epic seems to be becoming more of a publisher, so now there may be more justifiable benefits for consumers (e.g. if a game exists because of the Epic Store exclusivity).

 

[GBADWB]

I realise that people think epic should suck it up as they are one of the most successful and wealthiest developers/publishers at the moment, but if they could pressure Google to stop being so greedy it would potentially lower prices for all of us. It could also encourage more games to come to android. I don't think they should be heckled for this move. What they have achieved on pc with the epic game store is great. Giving steam a competitor in the digital games market is a long needed thing and can only be good for the consumer!

It's good for developers, its shit for consumers if the game they publish is exclusive. It's good when a game is published in 2 or more stores because the two stores have to compete by lowering the prices or offering a better service. This is equivalent to having competing standards. You want everyone to have the same standards because they then work on everything else to entice you to buy from them. If they are the only one providing the service, they have 0 reason to make their service better. I just hate that this argument that having a competitor for steam is better when the way they are approaching it is objectively making it worse as long as exclusivity is a thing.


When a dev sells a game on Epic for 60, or Steam for 60 at launch. it isn't better for the consumer until one either offers a service or a lower price period. getting 30% cut vs 10% cut is strictly a pro for the developers, and using that fact saying its good for consumers is silly.


or to simplify the situation. If one store sells spoons, but another store exclusively sells forks. how in the world is that pro consumer. Yeah you have two options, but realistically its 1 if you want something specific. This is more or less how most ISPs around the world are ran and to most people, ISP's are ran like hot garbage, and doesnt work in favor for the consumer at all.

 

[Godofcheese]

So when are they going to attack Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo? (They are also using 30%)
No? Never? That would risk them getting banned from publishing games on those consoles? Yes. Probably, maybe, most likely the case.

 

[nolimits59]

So when are they going to attack Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo? (They are also using 30%)
No? Never? That would risk them getting banned from publishing games on those consoles? Yes. Probably, maybe, most likely the case.

The PS4 is probably where there is the most fortnite BR players tbf, Sony has a lot to lose, they probably have nicely wrapped contracts that are giving Epic more money, but SONY have some exclusive stuff to sell ever 2-3months that are most likely in their advantage.

The article say "fortnite" but no, it's not fortnite, it's Fortnite BR, as Fortnite is not even available on any mobile device, including the switch.

 

[Axido]

Now that they decided to bow to Google they can start exercising bowing to Valve as well.

... or start start being consumer-friendly by offering the actual consumer prices and services that even Steam cannot compete with. Apart from that I'm still not interested in their store or anything they publish.

 

[Deleted User]

does that mean that they removed the "fortnite is not on google play" text? Aw that's a shame... *cough* sarcasm *cough*

 

[|<roni&g]

Can't wait for "battle royal" games to die off.

 

[FAST6191]

Hopefully the continue to offer perks or incentives to go outside Google's store. I am quite content for a lot of big players to be taken down a peg and give us back some nice open computing.

 

[kcajjones]

It's good for developers, its shit for consumers if the game they publish is exclusive. It's good when a game is published in 2 or more stores because the two stores have to compete by lowering the prices or offering a better service. This is equivalent to having competing standards. You want everyone to have the same standards because they then work on everything else to entice you to buy from them. If they are the only one providing the service, they have 0 reason to make their service better. I just hate that this argument that having a competitor for steam is better when the way they are approaching it is objectively making it worse as long as exclusivity is a thing.


When a dev sells a game on Epic for 60, or Steam for 60 at launch. it isn't better for the consumer until one either offers a service or a lower price period. getting 30% cut vs 10% cut is strictly a pro for the developers, and using that fact saying its good for consumers is silly.


or to simplify the situation. If one store sells spoons, but another store exclusively sells forks. how in the world is that pro consumer. Yeah you have two options, but realistically its 1 if you want something specific. This is more or less how most ISPs around the world are ran and to most people, ISP's are ran like hot garbage, and doesnt work in favor for the consumer at all.

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!

 

[Stealphie]

fortnite bad, minecraft good

 

[Kioku]

I realise that people think epic should suck it up as they are one of the most successful and wealthiest developers/publishers at the moment, but if they could pressure Google to stop being so greedy it would potentially lower prices for all of us. It could also encourage more games to come to android. I don't think they should be heckled for this move. What they have achieved on pc with the epic game store is great. Giving steam a competitor in the digital games market is a long needed thing and can only be good for the consumer!

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 ---------------------------

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!

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?