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
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community1360d ago
morganfell1361d 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.

coolbeans1360d ago

You mean aside from its financial growth?

morganfell1360d 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 Kim1360d ago

morgan

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

morganfell1360d ago (Edited 1360d 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.

rainslacker1360d 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.

morganfell1359d 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.

coolbeans1359d 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.

morganfell1359d 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.

coolbeans1359d 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 1359d ago
coolbeans1360d ago (Edited 1360d 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.

luckytrouble1360d 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__Merrin1360d ago

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

MasterChief36241360d 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__Merrin1360d ago

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

MadLad1360d ago (Edited 1360d 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".

1360d ago
Show all comments (21)
110°

Limited Run Games’ 3DO Releases Appear to Have a Major Problem

Two 3DO games recently reissued by Limited Run Games, Plumbers Don't Wear Ties and D, appear to have a major problem, according to customers.

Read Full Story >>
techraptor.net
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community11h ago
DaleCooper11h ago

D was a great, atmospheric horror game. It was worth the rental back in the day. Also, Limited Run Games sucks.

darthv7210h ago

LRG are just glorified overpriced reproductions.... and now they can't even get that last part right. I make better repros using my own stack of CD-R.

mastershredder9h ago

Just don’t. 3DO games were the worst. Imagine paying premium prices for a dog-crap version of a game. The era of barely trying or understanding their own tech and charging asinine prices… 3DN0. It’s best that you don’t admit that you had one of these.

Popsicle7h ago(Edited 7h ago)

The 3DO was ahead of its time and one of the first to enter the 32 bit console space. Yes FMV games are awful, but at the time there was a real thirst for games to look like movies. Removing the FMV games the 3DO had Gex, a solid Myst port, and was often the best place to play non-SNK (best on NEO GEO) near arcade perfect arcade ports. Their downfall was poor marketing and a high price point for a time when consoles were considered to be kids toys.

It was certainly superior to the “64 bit” Jaguar, which was falsely advertised as stronger hardware and had one of the worst console controllers in history.

CrimsonWing698h ago

Limited Run Games makes me sick. The prices they ask are ridiculous and then the whole burning discs instead of pressing them is pretty disgusting. This is a company that takes their customers for a ride and demands extortion level prices for a product, like we’re talking 2x to 3x more than MSRP.

80°

Hasbro's $1 billion bet on internal game development

Brendan writes; "Head of digital product development Dan Ayoub tells us about the toy maker's plans to get back in the game."

Read Full Story >>
gamesindustry.biz
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community18h ago
160°

Take-Two Interactive is closing two studios, including Rollerdrome developer Roll7

As part of previously-announced layoffs, Take-Two Interactive is closing Intercept Games and Roll7.

Read Full Story >>
windowscentral.com
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community1d 12h ago
LucasRuinedChildhood1d 12h ago (Edited 1d 12h ago )

I loved Rollerdrome and was looking forward to a Rollerdrome 2. 😐

Don't want to be melodramatic but as far you can be upset over video-game news ... bit heartbroken.

I feel like there's a trend of well made games like this going largely ignored by the gaming audience. It's quite frustrating. I hope the devs form a new studio but I suppose they'd have to start again from scratch.

JEECE1d 9h ago

"I feel like there's a trend of well made games like this going largely ignored by the gaming audience."

Yep. I'd love to know how many of us actually bought this game, rather than just getting it on Gamepass or PS Plus. Probably a shockingly low number. Steam concurrents topped out at 419.

I know it's anecdotal, but when I think of my favorite indie games, I still largely think of titles that came out in the 2009-2015 range. Maybe with less competition it was easier to stand out then, but I just felt like at that time there was more recognition of the really great indie games that were worth your time.

senorfartcushion1d 7h ago

Plus would have gotten them some extra money.

TheLigX1d 12h ago

Olliolli 2, olliolli world and rollerdrome are some of my favorite indies of all time. This industry is disgusting lately.

solideagle1d 12h ago (Edited 1d 12h ago )

it's not industry's fault, it's the consumers fault. Audience just wants to play shooter/Battle Royale etc...

Christopher1d 10h ago

No. It's the publisher's fixation on profit margins. They only want the most profitable of products. It's greed.

Inverno1d 10h ago

I wouldn't blame consumers entirely either. If shooters and Battle Royal is all we're given then it's all we've got to buy. If the AAA industry wouldn't follow trends so obsessively it'd be better varied.

JEECE1d 10h ago

There is fault to go around. Some of it is on consumers for sure. We whine constantly about live service games, but then we play them anyway and ignore better smaller titles.

But publishers and platform holders bear some responsibility too. You hear stories come out from indie devs who had big hits in the late PS3/360 to early PS4/XONE window who can barely move units now, and some of that is definitely failure to advertise and poor discoverability. During that era I felt like I reliably heard about the worthwhile indies, and now I don't.

Then there is the game pass effect (and PS Plus to a lesser extent). So many consumers have now been trained to expect to get indies with their subscriptions, they don't want to pay $20-$40 for them anymore.

ZeekQuattro1d 7h ago

When voting with one's wallet goes wrong. I prsonally have no problem with AA or indie games. Often times those are some of the best experiences to be had in gaming. Unfortunately a lot of gamers thumb their noses at indies however. There are success stories but there are just as many casualties or at least it feels that way sometimes.

LordoftheCritics1d 4h ago

It's the game.

Was fun for 10 minutes

JackBNimble1d 3h ago

Has anyone actually taken a look at the economy? If you're really looking to blame someone for layoffs and closers, then maybe blame the people at the top making the bad decisions tanking the economies.
It's like some of you live in a little bubble oblivious to what's going on around the globe.

TheLigX6h ago

Hey there big business shilling homie… the game was very profitable.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 6h ago
Gamble201d 11h ago

If the games made money the studios wouldn’t be closing. Blame consumers for not supporting “indies”

TheLigX6h ago

The games were profitable, you ding dong.

Killer2020UK1d 10h ago

I've got to disagree with the comments blaming consumers. Yes that is a part of it but by and large the money men are closing studios and sacking staff to increase profitability. Let's not forget the obscene salaries they're on compared to the people who actually make the games. Take 2 are not short of cash, this didn't have to happen.

JEECE1d 9h ago

The thing is, some of the Indie devs closing are really independent. In other words, we can blame Take 2 here, but who can we blame other than the consumers when a fully independent dev shuts down because their games aren't selling? There is an answer to that question, it just isn't greedy publishers, even if they are the most fun to blame.

CantThinkOfAUsername1d 1h ago (Edited 1d 1h ago )

Last year, Take-Two president and CEO both got paid 72M combined as a bonus. They could have paid the 600 employees they laid off 60K a year and still get half of that (36M). Strauss' compensation alone is 578:1 compared to a T2 employee's.

TiredGamer1d 4h ago

We created the industry by our purchasing decisions/actions. The industry is slowly imploding. At some point we may be left only with safe mainstays (COD, Fortnite) and franchise/movie tie-ins (Indiana Jones, Spiderman, Batman, Star Wars), along with a contingent of very low budget indie stuff if it can turn a profit.

Sad.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 6h ago
notachance1d 11h ago

ah damn, I loved olliolli series

monkey6021d 11h ago

I loved Olli Olli.

I wanted to like Rollerdrome a lot more than I actually did. Shame about the studio though

Show all comments (22)