TheEpic vs. Applecourt case in the United States has come to an end with the presiding judge coming to a conclusion that neither side is going to be fully happy with. In a victory forEpic Games, Apple must allow developers to “steer” users toward alternative payment methods. However, it also found Epic’s argument that Apple is monopolistic wanting. In a rather hilarious turn, a key portion of the judge’s decision was based on the definition of a “video game,” which the court says neither Epic nor Apple adequately provided.
A major part of the Epic vs. Apple case revolves around Epic wanting to persuade the court thatFortniteis more than a video game, with itsCreative modeand its “Metaverse.” Obviously, that means that Apple wanted to say thatFortnitewas strictly a video game, as well as many of the other apps on its platform that may not necessarily fit that definition. The result of the battling, biased viewpoints was a muddy definition of what a video game is.
RELATED:Court Rules Apple Must Allow Third-Party Purchase Options in Apps
In its conclusions, the court decided to address this matter specifically, as it factored heavily into its decision. The most the court was willing to say aboutwhat a video game is, is that video games “appear to require some level of interactivity or involvement between the player and a medium.” This stands in comparison to other mediums that are consumed passively. The court also says, on a technological level, video games are actively “graphically rendered or animated” as opposed to being recorded.
The admittedly vague definition of a video game leads the court to state thatFortnite, despite its social and creative aspects, is still a video game. Even if aspects ofFortnitecould be considered as something other that gameplay, the court says thatFortniteshould be considered “by its parts instead of in its totality.” Given that Epic continues to marketFortniteas a video game and its users see it as a video game, the court chooses not to look atFortnite’s game modesas anything more than a part ofFortnite.
The ways this decision impacts the overall court case aren’t simply stated. Whether or notFortnitewas completely a video game may or may not have impacted the court’s ultimate ruling, but it was still a surprising point of contention betweenEpic and Apple. What the court did do was inform Epic as to how it could present a better argument aboutFortnitebeing more than a video game in the future.
With that in mind, both Epic and Apple are likely to continue pursuing legal remedy going forward. Even before the court case ended, Epic clearly showed that it was making an effort to explore unique digital opportunities – like with theMartin Luther King Jr. event. Still, it’ll be a challenge to define video games past the vague definition that the court provided, regardless of any future legal efforts on eitherEpicorApple’s part.
