Leaked court documents from the Apple vs. Epic Games lawsuit has revealed the amount Epic paid for the free games they give away.
Of all the things that this case has revealed, this may be the most problematic going forward for Epic. Now that devs can see what their peers have been paid, some are going to feel undervalued and start to barter their prices for more money. Some devs that may have initially thought Epic gave them a good deal might now feel like they've been shortchanged if they see another dev the feel they're better than got more money. Epic might end up regretting this lawsuit for everything that's come out so far, but THIS has the potential to be the most damaging.
Nothing revealed so far is good for Epic. As you mentioned. Developers now have a basis to analyse how much money they can take from Epic; However we also learned that Fortnite is basically keeping them afloat. But at the same time it is expected to have gonne down in revenue to almost 50% of it's original value and Fortnite eSports don't make any money and actually cost more to run than it is worth. That Unreal Engine to surprise of everbody don't actually bring much cash back to Epic representing less than 5% of their gross revenue, putting it below EGS. And that Epic in it's current form is almost a "hostage" of the console makers, in particular Sony where Fortnite make close to 50% of it's revenue. It's really bizarre how much we were wrong about Epic and how right we were at the same time.Before when someone told me that Epic was desperate to make EGS an actual source of money I would just shrug off. As I believed that Unreal Engine was their real cash cow. But now with Fortnite revenue going down and the true of their finances revealed. I can see how desperate they have being with this endeavor.
Yep.gonna be interesting to see the blowback effects of this trial from developers
dont forget Sony's (& every other console makers) 30% cut on every digital sale...
@vits not sure about that estuff money for fortnite, u cant quantify hype and engagement in money. yes setting up esports tourneys costs money. but if with those tourneys you can keep the most hardcore players playing your game, the 12 and 13 yo's will watch him on twitch playing fortnite and not pubg or another BR. "It's really bizarre how much we were wrong about Epic and how right we were at the same time.Before when someone told me that Epic was desperate to make EGS an actual source of money I would just shrug off" if you replace the word "we" with "I" it would make more sense. do you think they are setting up a store for shits n giggles? they are a company, they want to make money. its not kindergarten where you play shopkeeper for an hour and then pack your stuff and go back home for some orange juice.
@Michiel1989 " not sure about that estuff money for fortnite, u cant quantify hype and engagement in money. yes setting up esports tourneys costs money. but if with those tourneys you can keep the most hardcore players playing your game, the 12 and 13 yo's will watch him on twitch playing fortnite and not pubg or another BR." That is Epic own stance in the matter. To justify their EBITDA drop they pointed out and I quote: "Overestimated Esports opportunity". And a glance at their finnances say exactly the same. "if you replace the word "we" with "I" it would make more sense. do you think they are setting up a store for shits n giggles? they are a company, they want to make money. its not kindergarten where you play shopkeeper for an hour and then pack your stuff and go back home for some orange juice." Those are two different points. I used "We" because most of the analysis done on Epic revenue stream normally point out two things: First that Unreal Engine is a core part of their revenue and a cash cow. And Second that Fortnite decrease in revenue was caused by a shrinking player base. Both of them were proved wrong or at least partially wrong by the leaked documents with Unreal being below EGS and the drop in Fortnite revenue being attributed to a drop in conversion rate and in demand for cosmetic content. And no. I don't think they created a store for shits n giggles. But there is a enormous difference between creating a new revenue stream for diversification sake (as I assume they are doing) and creating one because their true revenue souce wasn't even a thing and their current largest revenue source is drying up.
You have a very good point there. Like, some might feel slighted given Epic thinks or sees their game as being of lower value. That said, Epic might have thrown some data around that backs up their asking price.
Yup, seems to me like Epic are shooting themselves in the foot here especially when I just can't see them winning the case. They're biting off more than they can chew with Apple.
I'm not sure it works like this. Epic didn't force no one to sell they games. It's a deal that both sides need to agree on price. Some of those games are old enough to practically stop generating any kind of income for the studio so a deal like this would be just extra on the top of what already was earned from the title. Win/win situation
That actually is how it works There's a reason companies don't like talking about their deals specifics. If you don't know what your peers are getting, then any price can seem like a good deal. But if devs start talking to each other on what they were given from Epic, they can now gage their own worth. It's the same basis as to why UFC fighters are so angry now. Each fighter has no clue what the other fighter is getting paid for said fight. When it was revealed that some fighters get next to nothing while their opponent gets top dollar, they were pissed. Some games are old sure. But even with age, some of those games generate more money than the brand new ones. See, the idea for Epic (and most companies) is to keep the market blind/ guessing so that they can't gage their actual worth.
If nothing else the least they're doing or asking to do is pay the developers more for their games by giving them a bigger share of the profit. I don't think any gamer should be against that. 30% is a lot and 12% isn't enough so there has to be middle ground. For bigger publishers and game selling millions that 30% really doesn't matter as much but for the smaller developer having to pay 30% is a lot I know the way epic game store did it by making games time exclusives pissed off a lot of PC gamers but as a gamer in general how could you be against them saying pay the developers more
Doesn't say how much GTAV was which is a shame. Would love to know how much they paid for that. RiME, Fez and Super Meat Boy look undervalued in amongst that list.
Lower than I thought they’d be
Now you have a choice to make: 1. Lambast Epic for the small amount they paid indie devs for their games. 2. Lambast Sony for making poor little ol' Epic pay a fee for crossplay in Fortnite in very specific circumstances.
Whilst crossplay is great for us end users (gamers), they only people, crossplay REALLY benefitted the most, was Epic. They saw huge increase in both user accounts uptake and £££. Can understand in some part, as to why Sony were not thrilled about crossplay. Prompting your competitors over your own company is something I'm sure sony were not to pleased about.
Oh yea, having a larger player base and being able to play with friends and family that may own other consoles doesn't benefit the players it only benefits Epic. Sony is always right.... Epic was only in it for themselves where as Sony trying their hardest to block crossplay definitely was not in self interest at all. Some of you guys on this site are fanboys to an almost psychotic level.
Imagine lambasting a company that held the market and had every reason to protect their profits when this proposed crossplay would very obviously result in less money for Sony lmao
That's not the issue (imo). Sony could have said no for those reasons and been within their right to do so. But they made weak excuses as to why it was impossible until one developer 'accidentally' enabled it and showed that there were no technical barriers. Then there's the nonsense about expensive licensing of steering wheels that aren't allowed to support both PS and XB despite costing more than the console itself.
Considering that Xbox never had the policy yet they still account for a disproportionately large percentage of revenue, I don't think it really would have hurt Playstation that badly.
It irritates me Epic didn't invest in unreal tournament, especially since fortnite isn't going to last forever. Could have had UT almost ready to go by now and hopefully revived arena shooters.
Wow... they didn’t have to pay for Metro redux? Old game but fairly small dev, I’m surprised they accepted the terms. Wonder if they felt it was free promo for its sequels
I was thinking the same thing. Maybe people will like it enough to buy the sequels.
I think the entire problem with this case is that Epic thought that with Fortnite they were rolling their balls in a wheelbarrow on their way to court. I'm not for either company in this case. The way Epic circumvented the payments without paying the platform holder their share is dirtbaggery.
I would be curious to see what Epic gave Rockstar to make GTA free
I don't think a lot because by now anybody who wanted to play GTA v probably did so by having it on epic game store Rockstar can make more money off the GTA online which is their bread and butter
Fortnite alone made Epic 9.2 billion $... geez. Keep playing and paying people, I'm getting a sh!tload of games for free on the Epic Games Store thanks to you guys :)
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.