With an overwhelming success of Fortnite the Epic Games company had to decide what to do with it's newly accuired wealth and assets. By the information of techcrunch.com Epic Games made a staggering 3 billion US dollars in 2018 on Fortnite only. The funny thing is that Fortnite is a free to play game that makes money on inner digital purchases that do not have any significant influence over gameplay.
But a huge 125 million player base somehow manages to sustain company and provide Epic Games woth record breaking revenue.
And everything would be good and fine but recently Epic Games decided to challenge a gaming platform market that has been dominated by Steam for a many years. You see Epic Launcher is not very rich with available games and usually everyone will prefer to have their games on one platform and usually it would be Steam, but Epic decided that a good old exclusivity tactic, that some agree is a reason for console gaming downfall, would give Epic Store an upperhand in competition.
Unfortunately, but rather predictably, gaming community did not react to this tactics well and universal love for a developer of glorious Fortnite was replaced with universal hatred against Epic who are using dirty tactics and bribes in order to attract developers to their platform exclusively.
Sometimes decisions about exclusivity are so rushed that end product has all the tracks of previous digital keys like it was with Metro Exodus. Another game ,that has been 100% crowdfunded product with a loyal audience of developers who have been working on a classic games like Xcom:Enemy Unknown, called Phoenix Point recently announced that it is now and Epic Store exclusive, and received a huge backlash once again turning loyal followers in bitter haters.
Adding fire is a recent controversy that Epic Store Launcher is actually scanning a PC that it is installed on looking for a personal data regarding Steam account, data about games you play, friend you have and so on. Such information can become a pretty huge blow against Epic Games especially considering that 40% of companys business stake are controlled by Chinese company Tencent.
All i can say that exclusivity was always bad and it was a downfall for consoles that with each year become more and more irrelevant.
But what do you think?
1. Do you play Fortnite? Have you ever donated money in the game and why?
2. That move Epic games did, do you think that it is just a dirty trick or an actual try to bring more competition on the gaming market?
3. Just generally what you think about making any kind of product exclusive to a certain platform?
And everything would be good and fine but recently Epic Games decided to challenge a gaming platform market that has been dominated by Steam for a many years. You see Epic Launcher is not very rich with available games and usually everyone will prefer to have their games on one platform and usually it would be Steam, but Epic decided that a good old exclusivity tactic, that some agree is a reason for console gaming downfall, would give Epic Store an upperhand in competition.
Unfortunately, but rather predictably, gaming community did not react to this tactics well and universal love for a developer of glorious Fortnite was replaced with universal hatred against Epic who are using dirty tactics and bribes in order to attract developers to their platform exclusively.
Revievs from https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.epicgames.com
Sometimes decisions about exclusivity are so rushed that end product has all the tracks of previous digital keys like it was with Metro Exodus. Another game ,that has been 100% crowdfunded product with a loyal audience of developers who have been working on a classic games like Xcom:Enemy Unknown, called Phoenix Point recently announced that it is now and Epic Store exclusive, and received a huge backlash once again turning loyal followers in bitter haters.
Adding fire is a recent controversy that Epic Store Launcher is actually scanning a PC that it is installed on looking for a personal data regarding Steam account, data about games you play, friend you have and so on. Such information can become a pretty huge blow against Epic Games especially considering that 40% of companys business stake are controlled by Chinese company Tencent.
All i can say that exclusivity was always bad and it was a downfall for consoles that with each year become more and more irrelevant.
But what do you think?
1. Do you play Fortnite? Have you ever donated money in the game and why?
2. That move Epic games did, do you think that it is just a dirty trick or an actual try to bring more competition on the gaming market?
3. Just generally what you think about making any kind of product exclusive to a certain platform?
Comments
2. I think that there is no general idea behind this other than making the biggest amount of money possible. That is their business plan and we can like it or not, but if a company is big enough then probably those decisions are made by people who know a lot about business and market whereas social reception is just one of the factors. Diversity on the market is good for the economy, but again – there is no other reason to run a business other than making money. Bringing diversity is an opportunity that they decided to use.
3. I think that making a product exclusive to one platform is generally a bad move, because it harms the diversity that they wanted to introduce in the first place. On the other hand, if I were a CEO of such a company, then I’d probably consider such option as a success. It has a negative outcome, but there is nothing to be surprised by.
2. I think that it was purely a financial move and not a deep-schemed agenda trying to bring more competition around. Money is the most important factor also in the gamedev business.
3. I am not an expert as mentioned before, but my boyfriend wanted to play gwent and he had no option through one platform I guess. He is waiting until it will be launched on mobile. I think that people are discouraged from playing whenever the platform or environment does not suit them.
No, I do not enjoy Fortnite. Game mechanics just don't suit me. Yes, I have. I did it because I wanted to support studio who made game I played. Games needs money to develop, especially free ones.
2.
No monopoly is good for the market. There should be more alternatives to Steam but the problem is, there isn't any which provide as vast range of services as Valve does. And everyone values convenience so it is natural for people to boycott companies which makes them have games on million different platforms.
3.
It really depends on product. It is generally better to make games for different platforms but one needs to make good job porting its game to other platforms.
2. It's hard to say whether they did well. It's their product and they can do whatever they want. I do not often use platforms to buy games but it's probably good that there is competition.
3. From the company's point of view it can be good but also dangerous. It seems to me that if some company offers an exclusive platform and wants to compete with another platform, they should offer similar functions and offer
I tried to play this game. But I didn't like.Yes, I donated in the game, but only in online projects. I think the goal of all online games is the same, to achieve the fastest development.
2. That move Epic games did, do you think that it is just a dirty trick or an actual try to bring more competition on the gaming market?
We all know that in the game industry the main goal is to earn as much money. Therefore, all means are good. Few of the companies in the first place puts a quality story.
3. Just generally what you think about making any kind of product exclusive to a certain platform?
There are many projects that were exclusive to the XBOX or PS (Heavy Rain, Until Dawn, Beyond two souls, Detroit become human) , they showed themselves well and raised the sales of consoles. Most of these projects with an interesting plot and mechanics, this is a good way to make money and not lose face.
Unfortunately, but I'm not a fan of games, so I did not play Fortnite. In general, I think that any game or any stuff in virtual in-game shops are in most cases just a waste of money. Of course, the built-in payments help us to facilitate the game, and also often allow us to achieve further progress and achievements, but it is worth asking yourself - Are these additional skins, weapons or other items and accessories worth our hard earned money?
2. That move Epic games did, do you think that it is just a dirty trick or an actual try to bring more competition on the gaming market?
In my opinion Epic Games wants to increase share of market and bring more competition to it. Of course, we can also call such behaviour a dirty trick. However if these activities were carried out with care, surely it would be easier to adapt to users demandings.Company should not make such decisions and steps suddenly, but gradually over a longer period of time.
3. Just generally what you think about making any kind of product exclusive to a certain platform?
Of course, creating solutions for a specific platform is risky and limits the consumer market. As has already been mentioned, these solutions should be introduced with caution. However, we must not forget that such steps can help strengthen the position of our product on the market. Generally, I think that creating something exeptionally for a certain platform makes sense in many cases and, well, is one of known marketing strategies. When it comes to Epic Games case, I believe it is a bit too soon to decide if their move was succesful or not. I am certain they still have much to do, and maybe later thier market position will be easier to assess.
2. As we all know, the monopoly is bad. This leads to high prices and carelessness about the customer. So, in my opinion this is a good move, to enter the market.
3. Good and bad in my opinion. Good - why? Because it is an exclusive product and it should be. Other, mass production is massive.
Do you know that pubg saved Epic games, and i want to say that it’s just a moment luck.
1. Yes, but i dont like battle royal in fortnite.Yes, i do it in dota to buy a battle pass, or Dota+, because it’s give me some quests, and game is more interesting.
2. it’s a dirty trick and more competition on a game ranking. We know that Mr.Gabe really slow, i can understand people and companies like 4A Games(Metro), in Epic Games you dont have a lot of things like cloud save in steam, but Epic Games pay a lot of money to 4A Games
3. Sony do it from begin and it’s okay for me, because i understand that they can bring more money and do better games.
I usually dont spend money in F2P games and as such was in Fortnite.
The problem with Epic's platform is its quality and privacy issues, not how they bring Devs to their platform. They lack so many features as of now that it makes users angry, to the poit they dont want to use it at all. And here comes privacy issue, Epic's Launcher does some shady mining for steam data in the background as seen here , and for me thats a big no.
Exclusives are bad for Gamers but are neccesary for any competition in service and product fields, there would be no need for PS4 platform if not exclusives, same goes for Nintendo, that how companies sell you complementary products in case's of Epic its their service as a platform for games.
I have never played fornite, i'm not interested in it i think. Yes, i donated a lot of money when i was younger in online rpg games, because i wanted to be on top and donating money was the only way how i can be there.
2. That move Epic games did, do you think that it is just a dirty trick or an actual try to bring more competition on the gaming market?
I'm not sure. I'm not a fan of games, just because i played a lot only in 2-3 games in my life, but i agree, that making move like that will increase a number of competitors around the world. It's like a strategy to earn more money from gamers and to make those games more popular.
3. Just generally what you think about making any kind of product exclusive to a certain platform?
Making any kind of product exclusive to a certain platform can be good and bad. It's a lottery i would say. Nobody would tell you for 100%, that this will bring us millions of dollars. But in the other hand, the number of gamers is growing up and every exclusive game, that comes with a good marketing strategy can be popular enough with a good profit.
No, I’ve neither played Fortnite nor donated money in any game. I heard about this game but for some reason I didn’t feel encouraged. Maybe because of the kind of graphics I don’t like. And about donating money I feel like it’s a good way to support a creator but personally I’ve never paid for any digital good in a game.
2. That move Epic games did, do you think that it is just a dirty trick or an actual try to bring more competition on the gaming market?
I don’t know if we could say it was a dirty trick but for sure it was a move focused on making more money. If it’s good or bad – this is how business works. Epic games is so huge now, that they can afford the best analysts who would certainly know what they are doing.
3. Just generally what you think about making any kind of product exclusive to a certain platform?
In my opinion when we have 1-3 universal platforms like Steam, Origin etc. it is unnecessary to overcomplicate things and introduce new platforms by every other company and making something exclusive to it. A lot of humans’ actions in the last years were focused on a standardization and unification of things so moving for a trend-opposite direction should be done very carefully.
I have never played Fortnite. I dont like donating money to such games.
2. That move Epic games did, do you think that it is just a dirty trick or an actual try to bring more competition on the gaming market?
I can agree that this is financial move
3. Just generally what you think about making any kind of product exclusive to a certain platform?
Any king of such exclusive editions is bad for game, and gamers. They force you to buy whole game platform for one title.
2. I think it is a regular business.
3. the same as question 2. Money nowadays will always win.
I've never played Fortnite - I really don't like online games. I prefer games like Heroes of Might and Magic or especially cardboard games (“Magia i Miecz” is my favourite!). I’ve never donated money in the game. I think when it comes to supporting creators it’s seems fine, but it can be really bothersome and be only about money in the end.
2. That move Epic games did, do you think that it is just a dirty trick or an actual try to bring more competition on the gaming market? 3. Just generally what you think about making any kind of product exclusive to a certain platform?
Every company wants people to use their products, so it’s simply profitable for them to do it. Unfortunately, many companies, like Epic Games, doesn’t have such popularity among gamers to do it without loosing money and consumers. Their management made really horrible mistakes, because it brought only more hatred from their audience. I think that company has to develop their position in the industry to make exclusive products to a certain company successfully. For example Nintendo is making products only for their platforms and they’re totally successful.
Generally i dont like Fortnite. I prefer League Of Legends.
Anyway in my opinion this manipulation of the gaming market isn't cool.
And about questions:
1. As i said I dont play Fortnite, but i play League of Legends sometimes and i spent around 500-1000 PLN for it.
2. In my opinion it's a dirty trick, but business is a business and sometimes it's good to refresh the gaming market and force the creators of gaming platforms to take action.
3. In my opinion it's OK, when u make product exclusive to a certain platform, but creators should be fair against the competition. The most important thing is to make users happy.
1) Steam, being the most popular retailer platform, and considered by many the only, has long ago begun to dictate it's own conditions to whoever wants to put his product there. That often includes cuts and shares of at least 30% of all sales, with some extensions if you are planning to use additional Steam features and actually promote game there. As a result -- developers, who worked hard for many years and poured their souls into the game will get less than a half profit of it, the other half will go to our noble Gabe NeverPartThree (no personal offense, I actually respect Gabe Newell as a businessman and a good person). Epic Games, on the other hand -- demand less than 15% cut of sales, and, what's more, if your game is developed on Unreal Engine -- another successful product of Epic Games, you only required to pay less than 10%! It should be added that for those, who have chosen to use Unreal Engine for a commercial purposes, have to pay additional 15% profits if their game is not being released on Epic Store.
2) Whenever I see an article that claims the "downfall" of console games and never actually reasons why, I label this article as irrelevant. Sony is developing a new generation console, PS5, funded by the astonishing sale rates of PS4, and many exclusives are being released each year. As a console gamer myself, I can say that is it more than convenient and useful platform that I personally had a good time using. Thus said, with high sales and huge development focus on PS and Xbox platforms I cannot say that this model is everywhere near downfall. And Epic never bribed anyone -- it is called "An agreement on better conditions". Acquiring audience will certainly make Steam reconsider its old and unreasonable ways of digital redistribution.
In short -- having at least some competitors to Steam on PC market is more than good, especially for developers, and for those, who develop using Unreal Engine in particular, as thanks to soothing conditions, developers can actually receive full payment for their job, and, as a result, we can expect more high quality games and games, made with soul for the players, and not for the money.
I don’t think that’s a dirty move, it’s their product and they can release it wherever they want. Secondly, market competition is usually good for the customers. Those platforms will always try to improve if they want to keep they customers.
In my opinion, as a customer or a person receiving a product, it is a bad move.
It’s very annoying if you have to switch between multiple platforms. However, for the company it’s a good move, because many people can download it.
Exclusivity has always been in the price. No wonder such giants as YouTube and Netflix, besides popular films, make their own unique product. Without this, they would be all the same and they would have much fewer arguments to promote their product to the customer. So with everything and the gaming is no exception.
I’ve tried Fortnites br mode after PUBG, but it wasn’t my cup of tea. I can definitely understand the appeal of playing it competitively, just didn’t find it very fun. I’ve donated to ftp games before, some are worth the support.
2. That move Epic games did, do you think that it is just a dirty trick or an actual try to bring more competition on the gaming market?
More competition in the gaming market? Some publishers decided to keep their products of Steam and attained financial and critical success nonetheless. Steam doesn’t claim exclusivity of the products they sell. The reason Epic Games did so, is exactly because they cannot honestly compete. What they are trying to do is, to get a slice of that media distribution service pie. In the field of gaming I believe they are first to claim exclusivity being neither the producer of the product nor the producer of it’s intended console. This is a pure marketing move and one acting against the interests of the consumer. Unfortunately for the developers caught up in this affair, the consumers should speak up against it – with their wallets.
3. Just generally what do you think about making any kind of product exclusive to a certain platform?
Games are something of a special case where the product is sometimes meant for a certain console. Exclusivity to a platform however is an anti-competition, anti-consumer practice. In short, grab your pitchfork.
2. Business is hard and sometimes you need to dirty your hands to earn more money and more competition is always better for market.
3. In my opinion it’ bad idea you shouldn’t force people to buy another product only because they want to use your product. This is also they loss because there will be many players that will choose to abandon your product.
I think Epic games did a dirty tactic just to atract more people because theirs players were moving to the others platform.
Hmmm.. thats a tricky question, If a game is very good there will be many players who doesnt matter the platform they are uisng but i think epic games doesnt have much games they should proud of.
But this does not mean that I have a negative attitude towards them. On the contrary, to some extent I even envy the guys, who with great pleasure can discuss and support the conversation on this topic. This concerns not only the games themselves, their heroes, the game interface, but also the business models and strategies that the company adheres to their release.
I am amazed at the numbers in your post. 125 million, but I'm not one of them. Maybe sometime my detailed acquaintance with this industry will happen, and maybe even with Fortnight.
No I didn't. But I donated a small amount of money in other games, to spend less time playing and achieve goal faster. I think it's ok to pay developers for their work.
2. That move Epic games did, do you think that it is just a dirty trick or an actual try to bring more competition on the gaming market?
I think that competition is always good, and it's hard to compete with steam so company
is trying worst tactics of all, but who am I to blame. Google pays billions to Apple each year to be default search engine, and no-one blaming Google. The same is here, if company pays developers to be their exclusive distributor, I don't see problem.
3. Just generally what you think about making any kind of product exclusive to a certain platform?
It's developers decision, making games for consoles is easier than supporting legacy PC's. The same is applicable for mobile phones market, if something runs smoothly on iPhone, this doesn't means that app will run work on Android and vice versa. So it's only developers choice where to place their products, and if gamers want to blame someone, they need to blame creators, not platform.
2. I think it was simply a business decision that was an attempt to make more money.
3. I think that it always has been done by game manufacturers for consoles, platforms etc.- I don't agree with it but it won't change.