70% of Japan smartphone games bypass in-app payment to avoid US tech giants
32 comments
·August 22, 2025ryankrage77
Apple and Google insist their walled gardens are needed for user safety and security, but they can't even catch popular apps violating their own policies. It casts (even more) doubt on their ability to screen for malware, phishing, etc, which are already rampant.
echelon
The DOJ/FTC need to end app stores on phones.
Two companies can't own all of computing.
Smartphones are the internet for most people, and two companies have installed comprehensive paywalls and distribution gateways.
It's unnatural how large and complete their monopolies are.
Call your legislator and demand web installs without scare walls and hidden developer flags. With no phony restrictions on app type, technology choice, JIT/runtimes, or UI adherence.
We need complete freedom on mobile.
ronsor
Yes, gacha games are always seeking the most optimal path from the player's wallet to the corporate checking account.
CBMPET2001
True, but Apple and Google were never any impediment to that beyond just skimming some off the top.
null
galkk
I just don’t understand - where the 30% take away by store number is coming from and why giants are fighting tooth and nail to keep it.
Obviously I don’t know economics and costs behind it, but from very uninformed point of view it feels that even 10% would still give quite a profit to stores, even after processor fees.
wmf
Retail stores have always charged 30-40% so that's where the number comes from. You can see the exact breakdown in Europe: it's x% for payment processing, y% for app review/downloads/updates, and z% for recommendations etc. They're fighting to hold on to it because it's billions of dollars of profit. Obviously the app stores do not need or deserve 30% but that argument could apply to any profitable company.
npinsker
IIRC Epic Games internally calculated that for their store the break-even point was around 9%. (They mostly run it as a loss leader at a default 12%, but with tons of giveaways and deals, so that percent can go as low as 0%.) So I think somewhere around 15-18% might feel “fair” to me, trying to take into account the value of the platform.
throwaway13337
Why wonder whats fair when we could let the market decide?
E-feudalism isn't capitalism.
The gatekeepers are governments without democratic representation. Wondering what fair exploitation looks like is choosing a warped perspective.
roflyear
That is exactly what happens if they can enforce payments: "you don't get to be on our store if you're bypassing this"
But it isn't what is happening if they are staying on the platform's marketplaces and also bypassing payments. There is no "market" effect there.
Not saying I agree with the 30%, but third party app stores exist. That is the market avenue (and no one uses them).
layer8
30% has been the video games cut going as far back as the NES. Mobile app stores adopted that standard figure.
simmerup
The fact you're thinking 10% is good enough is why you're not part of the cohort which is driven to be 100+ billionaires, more powerful than states, people
binary132
If more people would just be insanely greedy they would probably be billionaires too!
tyre
Many people are insanely greedy. Becoming a billionaire is exceedingly difficult. It’s not a matter of others simply not wanting it enough.
bluefirebrand
Maybe we should be identifying those types of people and preventing them from ever controlling anything?
I mean, if we ever want society to improve at all
hattmall
Maybe we need to limit them a bit more, but there's an evolutionary factor or purpose or something at play. I remember a psychology lecture where they talked about it and how in hunter and gather societies most people would be content for a while when they found a good gathering area, they would hang out and gather the food and eat. But they had certain people that didn't want to stay they just wanted to move on to find the next better gathering area and would practically be forced to eat and carry enough food before they could keep searching. Those people were important too, and I feel that's the psychology of billionaires today. There is never enough they don't even actually care about the bounty it's just the idea of getting more and more.
I also remember an experiment found that something like 8% of people swerve over to purposely hit turtles on the shoulder of the road. I would be much more interested in identifying and containing those people.
micromacrofoot
doesn't sound like freedom to me
micromacrofoot
they probably regret not making it higher, they're making mountains of money
2OEH8eoCRo0
It's an ungodly corrupting amount of money.
ekianjo
The market owner sets the rates. If you are not happy, good luck creating your own market with your huge user base.
BLKNSLVR
Title of the article itself seems to have changed to:
70% of Japan smartphone games bypass in-app payments to avoid IT giants
I think it should be:
70% of Japan smartphone games bypass in-app payments to avoid unnecessarily additional costs to customers
Or more inflammatorily:
70% of Japan smartphone games bypass in-app payments to avoid unnecessarily parasitic middlemen
anigbrowl
I edited the title to make it more informative. The original was confusing because I thought it might be about Softbank or SNS (social media) firms like LINE.
Cloudef
For parasitic games that certainly aren't just illegal casinos
micromacrofoot
yeah they're fighting over who gets more of our blood
jerlam
Does this take into account that many "smartphone games" are playable via multiple platforms, and would need a non-in-app payment process anyway?
cute_boi
I don't know why countries around the world aren't concerned with 30% fees to apple and google playstore.
owebmaster
They are. The US government smacks them with tariffs and lawsuits judged by themselves
shortrounddev2
>A Kyodo News survey found that among the top 30 best-selling game titles in 2024, at least 11 of the 16 offered by domestic companies have introduced payments through external websites.
~70% (of the top 16 Japanese Game titles, or, 11 of them)
Fuck google and fuck apple, but this isn't exactly a large sample
1523124
If we count by revenue, I am certain it will be the same.
eplawless
I'm sure it is by revenue.
kg
If you look at the data from places like https://revenue.ennead.cc/revenue you can see that there's not an even spread of revenue but instead a cluster of big winners towards the top.
If only those games weren't infested with micro/macro transactions to manipulate players out of their money in the first place. Mobile gaming is a cesspool of ads, gambling, greed, data collection, and bullshit all of which has been slowly spreading like a cancer to gaming on every other platform for decades. I'm not happy about Apple and Google demanding a cut of the action either, screw them too, but making these tactics even more profitable for shitty mobile game devs isn't going to benefit players.