According to The Verge , Google Play vice president of partnerships Purnima Kochikar said during the trial between Google and Epic Games that the agreement was approved and presented to Epic but not accepted. The purpose of the agreement is to prevent popular app stores from leaving the official Android store and sharing in-app purchase revenue, which is profitable for Google.
Google has been working hard to get Fortnite onto the Play Store.
Epic Games launched Fortnite on Android in 2018 directly through its website instead of the Play Store. That allowed the company to sell Fortnite's in-game virtual currency V-Bucks without having to pay the required commission for apps on the Play Store. Epic Games later caved to Google when it brought Fortnite to Android in 2020, citing "creepy, repetitive security pop-ups" and other factors that forced the company to do so.
But in late 2020, an antitrust lawsuit filed by Epic Games said its initial decision had sent Google into a "state of panic," citing internal documents that said Google feared "contagion risks" if other developers followed Epic's path. Google, the lawsuit claims, tried to prevent that by offering special benefits or even acquiring Epic Games.
In court documents, Google reportedly raised concerns if all top game developers left the Play Store within a few years of Epic Games’ decision. Specifically, Fortnite’s absence could result in a direct loss of revenue of $130-250 million, and then a larger loss of up to $3.6 billion if top developers left the store.
Kochikar admits that Google is worried about losing games on the Play Store, but that it’s not a concern. What they want is for developers to choose the Play Store and for them to make the investment in bringing their games to the service worthwhile, especially when those developers might have chosen to launch their games on Apple’s App Store first.
Epic Games, however, used the document to argue that Google fears competition in the distribution of Android apps and maintains the Play Store as an illegal monopoly.
Source link
Comment (0)