l301更換廢墨墊圖解

重點 (Top highlight)

There’s a lot going on in the battle between Apple and Epic. And while you could and probably should argue that it’s about more than the 30% cut Apple is taking from Fortnite, that’s undoubtedly one core element.1 Those in the pro-Apple camp are quick to note that this is the standard cut in the gaming industry. As is Apple. And they’re not wrong. But that doesn’t make it right.

蘋果與Epic之間的戰斗 正在進行中。 雖然您可能并且可能應該辯稱， 這比蘋果從Fortnite 削減30％的價格要多，但這無疑是一個核心要素。1親Apple陣營的人很快注意到這是游戲中的標準削減行業。 蘋果也是如此 。 而且他們沒有錯。 但這并不正確。

As Takashi Mochizuki for Bloomberg reminded us yesterday, the whole 30% cut has a sort of humorous/fascinating history in the gaming industry:

正如彭博社(Bloomberg)的望月高史(Takashi Mochizuki)提醒我們的那樣 ，整個30％的削減在游戲行業中具有幽默/迷人的歷史：

But what was the 30% supposed to pay for in the first place? It was the Nintendo Entertainment System that first introduced the platform fee in the early 1980s. It began when Namco Ltd., the creator of Pac-Man and a major provider of arcade games at the time, wanted to expand its distribution via Nintendo’s nascent console — called the Famicom when it was released in 1983 in Japan. Namco got together with another game maker, Hudson Soft Co. (creator of Bomberman), to persuade Nintendo Co. to open its platform to outside software makers, according to Hisakazu Hirabayashi, an independent industry consultant.

但是，首先要支付的30％是什么？ 任天堂娛樂系統在1980年代初首次引入了平臺收費。 它始于Namco Ltd.(當時是Pac-Man的創建者，當時是大型街機游戲的主要提供商)想要通過Nintendo新生的游戲機(Famicom，1983年在日本發布)來擴大發行范圍。 獨立行業顧問Hisakazu Hirabayashi表示，Namco與另一家游戲制造商Hudson Soft Co.(轟炸機的創始人)一起，說服Nintendo Co.向外部軟件制造商開放其平臺。

Both were eager to be on Nintendo’s popular console, but Hudson couldn’t make its own cartridges, according to Hirabayashi. And so Namco proposed paying Nintendo a 10% licensing fee to be able to be on the console while Hudson paid an additional 20% for Nintendo to make its game cartridges. Nintendo agreed — and that two-component fee, licensing and manufacturing, became the basis of today’s 30% “tax.”

據Hirabayashi稱，兩人都渴望使用任天堂最受歡迎的游戲機，但哈德森無法制造自己的墨盒。 因此，Namco建議向Nintendo支付10％的許可費，以便能夠在控制臺上使用，而Hudson為Nintendo支付了20％的附加費以制造游戲墨盒。 任天堂同意了，分兩部分的費用，許可和制造費成為當今30％“稅”的基礎。

The 10% Namco proposed to pay Nintendo to get on to their console sounds reasonable. But a full 20% of the 30% fee we all now live with stems from Hudson paying Nintendo to produce the physical game cartridges.

10％的N amco建議向Nintendo支付以繼續使用其控制臺聽起來很合理。 但是，我們現在所生活的30％費用中，有20％來自哈德森付給任天堂生產物理游戲卡帶的費用 。

I don’t know about you, but it has been a looooong time since I’ve used a game cartridge. Maybe since the Nintendo 64? The world subsequently moved on to optical discs or memory cards, which are, of course, much cheaper to produce. More recently, the world has shifted to fully digital distribution. All iOS devices fall into the latter camp, obviously.

我不了解您，但是自從我使用游戲卡帶以來，這已經是很漫長的時間了。 也許自從Nintendo 64以來？ 隨后，世界轉向了光盤或存儲卡，它們當然便宜得多。 最近，世界已經轉向全數字發行。 顯然，所有iOS設備都屬于后者。

And yet Apple still charges the 30% fee to game developers. As do the other platform owners. It’s a standard because it’s a standard, even though every other standard for this business has changed.

然而，蘋果仍然向游戲開發商收取30％的費用。 和其他平臺所有者一樣。 這是一個標準，因為這是一個標準，即使此業務的所有其他標準都已更改。

Are there other costs associated with gaming infrastructure now? Sure. And soon streaming is going to be a big one, it would seem. But 20% big? Maybe! But the odds that the cut would be and should be the exact same as producing a physical cartridge to ship out to millions of customers seems… low.

現在還有與游戲基礎設施相關的其他費用嗎？ 當然。 看起來，流媒體很快將成為一個大問題。 但是20％大嗎？ 也許！ 但是削減的可能性和應該與生產要向數百萬客戶發貨的物理墨盒完全相同的可能性似乎很小。

The iPhone, of course, does a lot more than play games. And actually, the real history of the 30% cut from the App Store is seemingly more directly tied to iTunes. That is, Steve Jobs decided Apple should take such a cut of paid apps (this was an era before in-app purchases — but it became the standard there as well, of course) in order to “keep the lights on” in the App Store. And he likely chose that cut because it’s the same amount Apple got from the music labels when $0.99 tracks were sold in the iTunes Store. Back when such a thing was also still the norm. And became a standard.

當然，iPhone的功能不只是玩游戲。 實際上，App Store裁員30％的真實歷史似乎與iTunes直接相關 。 也就是說，史蒂夫·喬布斯(Steve Jobs)決定蘋果應該削減這樣的付費應用程序(這是在應用程序內購買之前的時代，但當然它也成為了其中的標準)，以便在應用程序中保持“開燈亮”。商店。 他可能選擇了降幅，因為當iTunes Store中的歌曲售價為0.99美元時，這與蘋果從音樂唱片公司獲得的收入是相同的。 回來的時候，這種事情仍然很普遍。 并成為標準。

With such arbitrary history in mind, you can see why developers are starting to push back against the 30%. The App Store has allowed businesses to be created that could never have been dreamed of when the iPhone launched. And game cartridges are more long gone than Hudson Soft itself. Yet the 30% remains.

考慮到如此隨意的歷史記錄，您可以了解為什么開發人員開始將30％的價格往后推 。 App Store允許創建iPhone推出之初就無法夢想的業務。 而且游戲卡帶比哈德森軟彈本身早已消失了。 然而，仍有30％。

If I were Epic, for my next troll, I would agree to pay the 30% but only if Apple mass-produces cartridges of Fortnite.

如果我是Epic，則在我的下一個巨魔下，我同意支付30％的費用，但前提是Apple大量生產Fortnite墨盒。

1 The bigger issue, of course, is that Epic nor any other gaming company can use their own payment plans or infrastructure within the App Store. Which is to say that if their game is on iOS and they make money from it, they have to pay Apple 30% of that money. Again, I don’t think anyone is saying Apple doesn’t deserve a cut for the platform and services they offer, but in an ideal world they would get at least part of that bounty by competing with the best offerings (such as in-app payments versus Epic payments or whatnot).

1當然，更大的問題是Epic或任何其他游戲公司都可以在App Store中使用他們自己的付款計劃或基礎設施。 這就是說，如果他們的游戲是在iOS上并且從中獲利，則必須向蘋果支付30％的錢。 同樣，我不認為任何人在說蘋果不值得的平臺和服務，他們提供了一個傷口，但在一個理想的世界里，他們會用最好的產品競爭 (如在-獲取該獎金的至少一部分應用付款與Epic付款還是其他付款)。

翻譯自: https://500ish.com/30-for-30-a48aafa1f766

l301更換廢墨墊圖解

總結

以上是生活随笔為你收集整理的l301更换废墨垫图解_30换30？的全部內容，希望文章能夠幫你解決所遇到的問題。

如果覺得生活随笔網站內容還不錯，歡迎將生活随笔推薦給好友。