The court in the Apple v. Epic case tried to figure out what video games are. No answer was found

The court has ruled on the dispute between Epic Games and Apple. During the hearings, attempts were made for legal purposes to establish what video games are, but without success.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers explains in her ruling:

“Unfortunately, no consensus was reached, as neither party provided evidence in support of an industry-wide accepted definition.”

Epic Games and Apple each tried to explain in their own way what games are. The head of the former company, Tim Sweeney, stated that they must include a mechanism for winning, losing, or scoring points, although he also acknowledged that in games such as Fortnite Creative, those systems are absent.

According to an Apple representative, games are “incredibly dynamic,” “they have a beginning and an end,” as well as challenges. The explanations did not convince the judge, who nevertheless touched upon this topic in her deliberations.

“At the bare minimum, video games appear to require some degree of interactivity or interaction between the player and the medium. In other words, a game requires that a player input effort or make choices that are then reflected on screen. This definition contrasts with other forms of entertainment, which are often passively experienced by consumers (movies, television, music).”

“Video games generally utilize rendered graphics or animation, as opposed to recorded footage in film or television. Furthermore, at a minimum, the video game market appears to be very eclectic and diverse.”

The judge emphasized that neither party presented a definition that would reflect the diversity of the industry. In the end, she concluded that for the purposes of this specific case, there is no need to define what exactly virtual entertainment is.