Top
200°

Epic Games Now Worth $17.8 Billion, Proving Exclusivity Signing Did Not Hamper Growth

For all the ruckus they caused as well as the accusations of 'stealing' games from the Steam storefront, exclusivity deals haven't hurt Epic Games.

Read Full Story >>
thegamer.com
The story is too old to be commented.
morganfell42d ago

"For all the ruckus they caused as well as the accusations of 'stealing' games from the Steam storefront, exclusivity deals haven't hurt Epic Games."

It is a nice supposition but quite impossible to prove.

coolbeans41d ago

You mean aside from its financial growth?

morganfell41d ago

No.

It is a relatively simple principle that apparently some people cannot grasp. I mean it is impossible to prove that the financial growth wasn't harmed. Had they attempted a more open, truly competitive and less controversial approach built on consumer service rather than holding games hostage, had they instituted forums and a workshop, built their offerings more for the gamer and less for the publisher would their growth have been better than what was announced? It is impossible to know and therefor the supposition that they were not financially harmed is impossible to prove. If they would have made one dollar more utilizing a different approach then technically they were hurt by their tactics. But that is machts nights and something that can never be proven either way.

Shane Kim41d ago

morgan

You just answered your own claim. Since there is no evidence of that, nothing can be said.

morganfell41d ago (Edited 41d ago )

@Shane,

I didn’t answer anything as I never posed a supposition or asked a question. I am simply stating that their hypothesis, which they are treating as fact, is impossible to verify. Remember, I am not the one with the claim but rather the one stating neither view can be claimed as fact.

rainslacker41d ago

As of now, there is no sign that Epic is hurting. It's game engine is still the most popular to use among developers, despite many 3rd party publishers making their own engines to save money. Fortnite hasn't taken a hit and is still doing well in it's revenue. EGS is growing it's user base, and as of now, I'd say the vitriol surrounding someone trying to take on Steam has died down, although still comes around at times. They're making money on their new storefront, and having the only place to get some games would suggest that they're growth was probably increased because of it....particularly since most people don't care about the store front like the forums would have us believe.

It is pretty easy to prove their financial growth wasn't harmed. They had financial growth. that is the one and only metric to measure it by.

morganfell40d ago

"It is pretty easy to prove their financial growth wasn't harmed. They had financial growth. that is the one and only metric to measure it by."

Actually no. Your supposition is that because they made $5 it proves they could not have employed another method during the same time to make $10. And that theory remains just that, a theory. I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing because I know that it is one of those things that lies beyond how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.

coolbeans40d ago

-"I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing because I know that it is one of those things that lies beyond how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop."

This feels so strange to me. This is the equivalent of laying back in a comfy chair with a nice glass of Old Crow to flex your infinite wisdom that "we don't know what we don't know." That's just a simple tautology.
I appreciate the specificity you're getting at with Shane Kim's quote too. There are other metrics worth considering to see what actions do or don't harm a company. But considering no other counter-factuals have been presented for Epic's doubled financial growth in ~2 years, I still don't see why this article can't make its original claim.

morganfell40d ago

Your agreement with the article still amounts to an opinion that lacks verifiable evidence. It is still refutable. This isn’t a case of “We don’t know what we don’t know.” That of which we are unaware is on full display and has been stated countless times. It’s the progression of a realistic and alternate possibility and of whose outcome we are all ignorant. Regardless of why you think I posted my initial remark, and you are off the mark by the way, your opinion on that matter does not alter the reality that the claim made by the article cannot be proven beyond doubt.

coolbeans40d ago

@morganfell

-"Your agreement with the article still amounts to an opinion that lacks verifiable evidence."

No, the noted financial growth (doubling in 2 years) originally stated still counts as verifiable evidence to supplement the article's stance.

-"This isn’t a case of “We don’t know what we don’t know.” That of which we are unaware is on full display and has been stated countless times."

Proceeding to connect these two sentences together is flabbergasting. What we are unaware of is ever-present... and you've literally planted your flag in the ground consistently reminding us of that as I'd just personified.

-"It’s the progression of a realistic and alternate possibility and of whose outcome we are all ignorant."

Fine. Since we're not privy to said alternate possibilities if Epic made different decisions these past two years, why not ground our claims & assumptions based on evidence we can realistically acquire? Within this framework, this can include other evidence which MAY show unintended effects where exclusivity deals did harm them in a tangible way.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 40d ago
coolbeans41d ago (Edited 41d ago )

Just to put this relatively simple principle into context: you'd literally need to be able to view Epic's financial statements between the reality we're both inhabiting and an alternate one. Since no one's capable of viewing that alternate reality, you're erecting an impossible standard for anyone to prove these types of claims. So, again, what renders such a rudimentary metric like a company's financial growth moot in this argument?

EDIT: Just to be clear on this point, I'm not against your enthusiasm for EGS to pursue more robust user features and have a more equitable storefront. I understand that POV.

W34KN35S41d ago

I like the way you think.

luckytrouble41d ago

Amazing what Fortnite cash and Chinese investment does for your bottom line. But sure, let's assume it's all EGS even though they have to be losing money with the constant free games.

Father__Merrin41d ago

Epic games has been amazing for gamers currently running through just cause 4 which I got for free

MasterChief362441d ago

It's a really fun game. I'm not sure I understand why it got such lukewarm reviews. It's not quite as fun as the third game, but still a good time!

Father__Merrin41d ago

its got some infuriating missions like protect the trasmitter ones although its not the most optimised it still looks pretty good

TheRealTedCruz41d ago (Edited 41d ago )

This doesn't prove anything. Would there have been higher growth, and more sales had, had the game been available on multiple storefronts? Likely yes but, obviously, the data isn't there.
Making that sort of statement is like "hey look! We released a long awaited sequel to a very popular title in the year 2020, where there are even more gamers, both PC and console. We're doing better than ever after release, so, obviously, being EPIC exclusive had no negative effects on growth and sales".

40d ago
Show all comments (21)