How Epic Games served Apple humble pie, 29/05/2025
It’s not quite Andor, but it’s a pretty good rebellion all the same
This week’s Video Games Industry Memo is sponsored by PXN
Are you Summer Game Fest ready? Great global game reveals deserve first-class asset security and delivery.
Ready to level-up your digital PR game? Request a demo today: pxn.world
How Epic Games made people care about digital competition to beat Apple
US trade court rules Trump tariffs “exceeded any authority”
Elden Ring: Nightreign promises to terrify trios in this week’s must plays
| Find me on Linkedin | Follow me on Bluesky | Wishlist my book | Email me |
Hello VGIM-ers,
A few quick points of business before we dive into this week’s missive.
First, I’ve finally set up Video Games Industry Memo’s Bluesky and Linkedin pages. Subscribe via both links to help me cement my status as a Q-list social media influencer.
Second, it is only a couple of weeks until Tom Regan and George Young, VGIM’s fearless freelance dream team, begin taking the reins over the publication through the summer.
If you’d like to try to pitch me an idea for my final VGIM slot in June that I have going, email me at george@videogamesindustrymemo.com and I’ll take a look at what you’ve got.
And finally, the next VGIM Insider article drops tomorrow. Become a paid subscriber to receive The Debrief by hitting the button below.
The big read - How Epic Games served Apple’s humble pie
Commentator’s curse: They think it’s all over? Well, it probably is now. Last week, Epic Games finally secured Fortnite’s return to the App Store in the US and EU after nearly half a decade of legal wrangling with Apple.
Poisoned pen letter: The game returned to iOS last Thursday after Apple finally agreed to honour a court order from District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rodriguez, after she wrote a strongly worded letter ordering the company back to court if it didn’t stop dragging its feet.
Freed to pay: The decision is a big win for Epic Games. As well as once again being able to reach the best part of a billion players in Apple’s ecosystem, the company is also free to direct consumers to buy in-game currencies in the US via a third party payment provider - allowing them, and every other games business business, to skirt Apple’s typical 30% app store fee.
Beating the beast: But it’s also important for another reason too. Apple’s humbling has shown that a combination of companies, courts and competition rules can tame the Big Tech beast. And if we look closely, that pathway to victory could prove handy in beating back monopolistic tech businesses across the world.
Changing times
Credit where it’s due: No-one would claim that Apple’s App Store, or by extension Google’s Play store, have not had a positive impact on the games sector. A big reason why the games industry generates the best part of $180bn in revenue each year is because mobile games can reach billions of players. Without the mobile storefronts, we wouldn’t have the modern game economy. And for that, we’re grateful.
Damn you, time: The problem for Apple is that the passage of time has a pesky habit of changing how we feel about things. Back in 2008, the App Store’s 30% cut of a one-off purchase of a small premium game retailing for about a fiver was a worthwhile price to pay for access to a global market. In 2025, taking 30% off every purchase made in a free-to-play game where the developer is on the hook for extensive ongoing development, marketing and infrastructure costs feels like a rip-off - especially when the market has matured and money is tight.
Squeezy does it: The mobile app stores have known for a long time that the deal isn’t sustainable. But as Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow argue effectively in their book Chokepoint Capitalism, the squeeze is precisely the point. By building a well-fortified walled garden for the billions of people that sit within the ecosystem, Apple had the best of both worlds. Pay the tithe to enter the garden. And if you break our rules, we’ll kick you out without offering you a meaningful way to get back in aside from following the rules. Rude.
The winner takes it all: By 2019, regulators around the world were aware that this was a problem too. For example, The Treasury, the UK’s moneybags department, said as much in a 2019 report about digital competition where they worried that Big Tech businesses like Apple“cannot be relied upon” to resolve ‘winner takes all’ problems within the digital ecosystem - particularly when their well-funded legal and lobbying teams stood ready to fight the regulator all the way.
A loser standing tall?: The problem was that no-one was standing up to Apple publicly. There were grumbles aplenty across the mobile games industry, which increased in volume after Apple made a blatant grab to control the invaluable mobile advertising ecosystem under the pretence of concerns about privacy. But regulators and developers alike needed a business with enough cultural power, deep pockets and an appetite for risk to pick a fight with Big Tech to turn behind-the-scenes bitching into effective public campaigning.
A message from our sponsor PXN: You’ve worked tirelessly for months to create a standout moment at Summer Game Fest and nothing can go wrong. We get it. PXN has a proven track record supporting some of the world’s biggest embargoed gaming announcements. We’re here to do the same for you.
Trusted by industry leaders such as Nintendo, EA, PlayStation, SEGA and Bethesda, PXN has decades of experience delivering secure asset management, driving blockbuster launches and redefining global PR strategies. Our best-in-class platform ensures materials are protected and distributed with precision timing to press and creators around the globe. We are Summer Game Fest ready. Are you?
Ready to level-up your digital PR game? Request a demo today: pxn.world
Epicly played
Boxing clever: Epic Games’s decision to square up to Apple and Google over Fortnite’s payment systems in August 2020 proved to be that effective campaign.
1980 Fortnite: From the moment it launched its #FreeFortnite campaign with its pastiche of Apple’s Nineteen Eighty-Four advert, Epic Games translated what could feel like a wonkish digital competition policy question into a personable argument about what is or isn’t fair.
Am we the baddies?: Apple’s reasons for restricting the use of third-party payment systems seemed reasonable for a long time. It argued that banning them was a way to protect consumers from possible harms off-platform, with Apple providing secure purchases instead. But by banning Fortnite, Apple made the policy look absurd to punters. Epic is a multi-billion dollar company running the biggest game in the world. To claim they couldn’t be trusted to process payments was ridiculous and removing Fortnite felt like overreach that punished players. As a result, Epic earned an invaluable public and publicity advantage over Apple from the moment the campaign launched - painting them as a baddie to be beaten.
App Fairness Assemble: Next, Epic effectively assembled allies around the cause. Its foundation of the Coalition of App Fairness in Autumn 2020 turned Fortnite into the tip of a spear behind which music businesses like Spotify and dating companies like Match Group - who made real in-roads on changing digital competition rules in the Netherlands - could push. This widened the human story behind digital competition issues, while also strengthening the public and private lobbying to strengthen efforts to break apart the app store.
Holding its nerve: And finally, Epic had the courage and conviction to pick the fight. Its decision to forego potentially billions of dollars of mobile revenue to keep Fortnite off mobile strengthened its argument. Its ability to face down hostile challenges from Apple, including a threat to ban all Unreal Engine games from the App Store, was also important for ensuring that the argument over digital competition rules could reach its conclusion.
Consent for change: As a result, Epic was able to keep its legal fight going with Apple at precisely the time when regulators across the world - including in the US, Europe and Asia Pacific - were scribbling new digital competition rules. This allowed regulators to push forward landmark changes to digital competition rules via the likes of the EU’s Digital Markets Act that would crack open Apple’s hegemony, safe in the knowledge that other popular ‘big tech’ players had their backs.
Sour losers
Limited gains: However, the reality is that Epic Games didn’t win much in its first round of legal wrangling. In the original September 2021 case presided over by Judge Rodriguez, Epic only won one of ten counts it brought against Apple. And while what they won was a biggy - namely, Apple should stop developers from steering to payment systems outside of its ecosystem - the Cupertino company could have reduced the damage by showing a touch of humility.
Self-inflicted pain: But Apple turned “a narrow legal loss into a broader institutional defeat”, as aptly put by Joost van Dreunen, because its aggressive behaviour towards Epic Games and its disregard to both the courts and regulators encouraged the hardest possible action against it.
Not very nice: While the company was well within its rights to appeal the ruling, its bad faith behaviour towards Epic Games such as threatening to ban all Unreal Engine games and then attempting to pull down a new App Store account created by the developer in March 2024 showed its hostile intentions.
Compliance issues: Meanwhile, its efforts to undermine new competition rules in Europe by slapping surcharges on developers using alternative payment systems, charging fees for downloads via alternative app stores and implementing scary messaging to discourage consumers from spending elsewhere proved Tim Sweeney’s argument that it was “maliciously complying” with rules.
Playing into its perception: The result is that Apple decisively proved Epic’s point for it. By behaving exactly in the way a multi-trillion dollar West Coast headquartered Big Tech business would, it gave people who have plenty of power - regulators, judges, policy makers - the perfect excuse to kick them as hard as possible.
Financial pain: It’s hard to say exactly how much this defeat will cost Apple, but the answer appears to be “a lot”. Van Dreunen estimated in his newsletter that it could cost the business the best part of $4.1bn, which is simultaneously a hefty price to pay and a rounding error for a business as big as Apple is.
Losing the game: However, the financial pain is arguably the least of Apple’s worries. The company has burned a lot of trust in the development community, raising questions about whether initiatives like its forthcoming game app is made in its interest or the communities. Its defeat on anti-steering practices and preventing the use of third party payment practices in the States means it’ll almost certainly lose on the issue globally, causing waves of damage to its game and app revenues. And with Apple’s aggressive behaviour being slapped down so firmly in California, competition regulators and politicians will be encouraged to pick more fights with Big Tech in the knowledge that they can be beaten.
Billionaire club: Of course, we do need to remember that Epic Games’s victory is less of a win for a plucky rebel alliance and more of a victory that only a multi-billion dollar business could win. Its triumph does not solve the yawning inequalities within the modern tech ecosystem by any stretch of the imagination.
Find the gaps: But its win does show Big Tech businesses can be beaten and that there are meaningful divisions between the titans that dominate our industries. And regulators, policy makers and companies who can find the gaps and lever them open may find that rolling back Big Tech’s power could be more achievable than they imagined.
News in brief
Tariffs trumped?: President Trump’s tariff regime has been dealt a severe blow by a US Federal court. The Court of International Trade ruled that Trump’s retaliatory tariff rules “exceed any authority granted to the President” under emergency economic power laws. The court has ordered that retaliatory tariffs - which are currently paused - are phased out in ten days, with further levies on China, Canada and Mexico also for the chop. The Trump Administration has already lodged an appeal though.
End of an era: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has ended its long-running attempt to block Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard. Andrew Ferguson, the chairman of the FTC, said it wasn’t in the public interest to continue to pursue efforts to block the deal. This prompted Microsoft’s Brad Smith to claim that the move was a “victory for players across the country.” It’s also another useful reminder that, as with the Apple case, the competition issues in games are much less around content and much more around the infrastructure which sells it.
Reputation fears: Jason Schreier at Bloomberg has picked up that both EA and Take-Two have said that using generative AI is a potential reputational risk to their businesses. We all know that publicly traded companies have to write reports to investors as if they’re filling out a risk assessment form for a school field trip to the knife factory. But to see two of the games industry’s more Darth Vader-ish businesses suggest that using gen AI could lead to a kicking from players should act as a bit of a warning sign for anyone being too keen to deploy it.
Clegg all over his face: Speaking of reputational problems for the generative AI industry, Nick Clegg, former Head of Global Affairs at Meta and notable charger of tuition fees, said that forcing AI businesses to seek permission to scrape copyrighted content would “basically kill” the country’s AI sector. For the record, and for those who want a throwback to the 2010 general election, I disagree with Nick.
Engaging in the Fan-dem: And finally, The New York Times reports that the Democrats are considering buying adverts in video games in an attempt to reach young men as part of a Speaking With American Men strategic plan. If only someone was writing a book about how video games have become a channel for influence for them to get advice off...
Moving on
Patrick O'Luanaigh has stepped down as CEO of nDreams. Tomas Gillo replaces him…Dr Elizabeth Milovidov has been appointed Head of Parental Advocacy at Roblox…Todd Green has been made the new President of King…David Burroughs has become Global Brand Marketing Manager at PLAION…And Thomas Bradstreet has popped up at Keywords Studios as its Community Manager…
Jobs ahoy
Ubisoft is hiring a Corporate Affairs Director - Public Policy in Montreal…Or if you fancy a policy job down under, try going for Roblox’s position as a Senior Manager, Public Policy, ANZ…A great job (and very long job title) going at Google if you’d like to be its Business Development Manager, Content Acquisition, Play Games Partnerships…And Flynn and Chase is hunting for an Investment Associate to support the games part of its private equity business…
Events and conferences
Unreal Fest, Orlando - 2nd-5th June
Summer Game Fest, Los Angeles - 6th June
Toronto Games Week, Toronto - 12th-18th June
Games for Change, New York - 26th-27th June
Develop, Brighton - 7th-9th July
Games of the week
Elden Ring: Nightreign - Rage at unnecessarily hard video games with two friends/masochists in the multiplayer focused DLC to From Software’s 2023 megahit.
F1 25 - See if you can make the Monaco Grand Prix more interesting than last weekend’s race in the latest entry in the popular racing series.
Disney Illusion Island - Mickey Metroidvania leaps from Switch to other consoles and Steam this week.
Before you go…
I’m off to Ireland for work next week, which I know will leave many of you longing for a taste of the Emerald Isle.
Fortunately, Barry O’Rourke has something for you to savour.
He interviewed Peadar McMahon of the delightfully named Buck Eejit Games about its plan to release the first big Gaelic football game in nearly two decades.