Approvals 10/3 ▼
darthv72 (3) - 1081d ago Cancel
lodossrage (3) - 1081d ago Cancel
Vits (2) - 1080d ago Cancel
Orchard (2) - 1081d ago Cancel
380°

Court Doc Reveals How Much Epic Games Paid Devs for Free Games

Leaked court documents from the Apple vs. Epic Games lawsuit has revealed the amount Epic paid for the free games they give away.

Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community1080d ago
lodossrage1081d ago

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.

Vits1080d ago (Edited 1080d ago )

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.

Nitrowolf21080d ago

Yep.gonna be interesting to see the blowback effects of this trial from developers

lnfiniteLoop1080d ago

dont forget Sony's (& every other console makers) 30% cut on every digital sale...

Michiel19891080d ago

@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.

Vits1080d ago (Edited 1080d ago )

@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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1080d ago
excaliburps1080d ago

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.

PapaBop1080d ago

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.

DigitallyAfflicted1080d ago

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

lodossrage1080d ago

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.

neutralgamer19921080d ago

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

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1080d ago
Rebel_Scum1080d ago

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.

sourOG1080d ago

Lower than I thought they’d be

generic-user-name1080d ago

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.

Phoenix761080d ago (Edited 1080d ago )

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.

GottaBjimmyb1080d ago (Edited 1080d ago )

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.

FPS_D3TH1080d ago

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

Ryzza51080d ago

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.

Zhipp1079d ago

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.

Show all comments (27)
130°

Pocketpair Studio Boss Calls Out Tencent For Developing A Palworld Clone

The game in question appears to be dubbed Auroria on Steam, which shares a plethora of similarities with Palworld.

Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community15h ago
Inverno14h ago

No offense but Palworld isn't that original either, with that said… ew Tencent no thank you. I love the survival genre but all these half baked early access games have ruined the genre for me.

150°

With Larian Out Of The Picture, Will The Baldur's Gate IP Be In Safe Hands?

Huzaifah from eXputer: "With Larian Studios washing their hands of the IP, what is the ultimate fate of the legendary Baldur's Gate series?"

Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community16h ago
RaidenBlack17h ago

If anybody's gonna mention BioWare, then look at Archetype Entertainment, they're the new BioWare
or else
Obsidian is still a good choice but not independent anymore.

anast16h ago(Edited 16h ago)

No, WoTC is pivoting to mobile. They can use Larian's work to justify DnD Go and everyone will accept it.

RiseNShine16h ago

Short answer, nope. Long answer, f*ck nope.

Christopher16h ago

Honestly, we're talking completely new engine and none of Larian's built-in stuff with regard to environments and the like that they had from their past divinity game. No one is going to have that just ready to go. So, they need to shop for a dev studio that has a past game that shows what they want.

Obsidian doesn't have that, maybe the closest being Dungeon Siege 3 or Pillars of Eternity, but those are very basic, not as open, very little environment related and altering capabilities. So, we're talking a step way back on what Larian delivered. Zero scene experience to line up with what was done in BG3. Okay conversation tree designs, but still needs more complexity.

inXile has Wasteland 3 as a base model engine, and I think that's better than Pillars of Eternity from Obsidian. But, still needs to be more open world, more environmental effects, and a much heavier rules set adaptation. But, not a bad overall engine as a base, but still a ton of work. Zero scene experience to line up with what was done in BG3. Needs a ton of work on that entirely.

Tactical Adventure did the Solasta game. Really good and more accurate as far as 5e rules than BG3. But, again, if the expectation is similar to what made BG3 a big hit, engine isn't designed for moving the camera, is a bit outdated in graphics, doesn't have in-game scene elements, and needs much better writers/voice actors.

Owlcat of pathfinder games is another choice, even though they've recently moved on to WH40k licensed games. Again, though, the engine is the biggest issue here to match up, but it's a much better option overall than Tactical Adventure. Another question is writers/story telling, as much of their overall story telling bits are very limited with a lot of random worldbuilding elements that are just +\- of some attributes.

TBH, no matter who takes over, it's just not going to be like BG3 much like how BG3 isn't at all like BG1/2. And BG3 was so successful because of how much Larian was able to put in with their engine and how focused they were on players having ridiculous control over the story being told. I just don't see the next BG being the same and depending on what it is, it might be good but I'm not as big of a reach as BG3. It's way more likely players are going to go into BG4 (or its spiritual successor if it moves away from Baldur's Gate and into Neverwinter or something like Plansescape) expecting much of what is in BG3 with more options, new and older characters, and the same level of control over what they're doing. If it doesn't have that, regardless of who makes it, it won't be as successful, IMHO.

CrimsonWing6915h ago

Probably not, but maybe… just maybe…

Show all comments (6)
30°

Human Fall Flat 2 Delayed, Devolver Details Major 2023 Sales Decline

As part of its latest financial report, Devolver Digital has announced that upcoming physics platformer Human Fall Flat 2 has been delayed beyond 2025.

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

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community17h ago