I very much doubt Disney/Square would be satisfied with simply covering their losses. Same for stuff like getting Activision to release Tony Hawk with temporary exclusivity.
News Epic Games Store
- Thread starter Blizniak
- Start date
True, KH and Tony Hawk were probably more expensive than Control. But even if Epic paid 3 times as much for these games, there's still 400 million left for other games. It's a huge amount of money!
Completely funding games from the ground up that also requires marketing (which often costs a lot more than the game development itself) will drive up the 400 million pretty damn fast.
There are still a couple of unannounced projects where the creators will tell you ''only Epic made it possible'' and that will be complete bullshit 
For the truckloads of cash they most likely recieve I wouldn't expect them to say anything different (other than just say nothing).
I've read comments online that said the only reason the Kingdom Hearts franchise came to PC is because of Epic. I personally can't wait to see the SteamDB dates for those games. I'm betting they were added around 2019.There are still a couple of unannounced projects where the creators will tell you ''only Epic made it possible'' and that will be complete bullshit
The 440 million is revenue guarantee according to the document. I suppose this does not include their publishing funding.
That last paragraph seems, oddly antagonistic and libelous towards GOG with no evidence other than they focus on older titles.
Though the rest does seem to poke holes in a lot of Epic's arguments as I read it
I'm being mean and petty but the "no shopping cart" mention has me in tears
Apple: "Epic is charging 12% because EGS is shit"
I dislike Epic's exclusivity deals as much as the next Ge0force, but Apple is full of shit. Their "we are secure" line while slandering GOG is utter garbage.
thanks madjoki for sharing the documents
It's always cool to check the packages and see that kind of data hehe ^^I've read comments online that said the only reason the Kingdom Hearts franchise came to PC is because of Epic. I personally can't wait to see the SteamDB dates for those games. I'm betting they were added around 2019.
Both Epic and Apple deserve each other.
Apple are right about the App Store being a better product than the EGS though.
Reading through these documents and seeing the numbers is cool. I assume a large chunk of that projected loss is coming from exclusivity deals so hopefully that means they'll be ending it soon if they aim to achieve profitability by 2023.
I wonder how this case will turn out and if shutting down the walled garden for Apple will affect Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo at all. If it does I'll be enjoying the upcoming fireworks show.
I wonder how this case will turn out and if shutting down the walled garden for Apple will affect Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo at all. If it does I'll be enjoying the upcoming fireworks show.
You aren't setting a particularly high bar to clear.
Guess Square is full onboard the EGS moneyhat
I guess we also know who signed the exclusivity deal for KH. I was convinced it was Disney's decision. Very disappointed in Square.
Correctomundo, it's the big prize.
So, wait and see, but it sure looks like it's going to be a 2022 steam release.
I highly suspect it will due to what Square Enix decided to make exclusive so far.
Epic Games Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
139 million loss in 2021 so far???
Square Enix must be eating good.
Square Enix must be eating good.
Y'all gotta keep something in mind:
Steam brings in far more revenue from EGS does from digital game sales. EGS can stay around for another 5 years and it'd just be a joke of a store.
Steam brings in far more revenue from EGS does from digital game sales. EGS can stay around for another 5 years and it'd just be a joke of a store.
I think some arguments are well-taken, especially regarding the history of the cut, but then they undermine themselves by basically arguing in favor of the status quo. A lot of what Apple is saying is really irrelevant to the problems I have with the EGS, namely exclusivity deals. Underlining the lack of features is fair game, but when they go on to talk for pages about security I can't help think this is the usual "think of the children" fallacy.
It's not exactly a strong argument and even if Epic is clearly crap at securing their user's information and providing a good platform for its users, that doesn't make a lower cut automatically invalid on that single case's premise. I'm a bit disgusted at the argument Apple is trying to make here. The way they took GoG as an example of being vaguely insecure also was huge stretch. Re-reading it, they are clearly arguing that GoG is providing "insecure" content, which makes absolutely no bloody sense and not a single antecedent to back it up. Class act, really.
It further shows that to Apple, "security" while accurate in some cases is also used as a nebulous concept that's closer to the luxury aura they want their products to have for which people pay a premium rather than rooted in facts and reality.
That has been Apple's schtick for a long time now. Their whole argument has always been about how their walled garden guarantees that the users get "secure" apps.
And they justify their need for the cut (and therefore all IAP having to go through their payment system) as a necesity to keep that system.
The dig at GOG is a bit weird, yes sure they distribute some times cracked games, but they test them before probably more than Apple does.
From EGS deals to other fake worries, I'm sure that GOG will be the first victim.
We always talk about the moneyhatted games away from Steam, but it applies to GOG too.
I'm sure all the people worried about the 30% cut are also reeeally worried about the fate of GOG.
Avengers performance got Square so shook they'll sell out to anyone who gives them a dollar.
Oh well, Square releasing a game on Steam a year after it hits consoles, what's new?
Oh well, Square releasing a game on Steam a year after it hits consoles, what's new?
I should not be surprised Square has always found some way to disappoint me yearly. They have always been a publisher to accept a lot of exclusive deals. It just stinks...
GOG had to end their fair pricing program shortly after EGS hit the scene so that they could give publishers more favorable cuts. On the positive side, I see a lot more games hit GOG nowadays that probably wouldn't have shown up if CD Projekt didn't cut their rates. Additionally, GOG seems to be doing better and was slightly profitable the last time financial information was reported. (I linked a Reddit post for simplicity's sake, but you can read the financial report to confirm the information).From EGS deals to other fake worries, I'm sure that GOG will be the first victim.
We always talk about the moneyhatted games away from Steam, but it applies to GOG too.
I'm sure all the people worried about the 30% cut are also reeeally worried about the fate of GOG.
Hopefully GOG can carve out their own niche while Epic is on their crusade to "save" PC gaming.
Nothing says creative accounting and wishful thinking like increased losses year over year, with a current deficit of $131 million for a fiscal year thats only a couple months old suddenly becoming profitable.
Wasn't Square also the one who signed the exclusivity deal for Rise of the Tomb Raider with Microsoft? That pissed off lots of people and perhaps even damaged the reputation of the franchise
If I'm reading this correctly, Epic has lost $330 million in exclusives so far. However you can't say that exclusives have generated only $114 million since it doesn't include whatever they spent in 2019.
As far as I understood it, Epic expects to incur losses of $139 million for the entirety of 2021. I could be wrong though.
Yeah, that seems like a forecasted loss.
Still, reading they will not have a cumulative gross profit until 2027 is...wow.
That is unreal to see in their projected financials. Six more years of an overall loss is silly when you consider the potential of disruptive services like Game Pass, cloud services, and everything else on the horizon within the next few years. You are hedging getting enough of a slice of the pie before the possibility of pies becoming pizzas. If that happens, depending on how you have fledged, you could be looking at kicking the cumulative profit more years down the road, if it is even possible to reach depending on the market. Of course, it is possible things turn around and people purchase in droves.
I feel like Epic is being very optimistic about how quickly they're going to turn a profit and people who just took free games from them aren't going to flock to their store and become paying customers like they think they're going to.
I'd just like to point out that the strategic decision to spend all this money on exclusives and not spending a fraction of that on customer-facing features makes it clear all over again how dangerous for the platform Epic is. The order of magnitude involved boggles my mind. This is getting close to half a billion, far surpassing anything having a decent and open platform possibly could have cost.
Tim has been very upfront that EGS's goal is to woo developers and not focus as much on customer features.
He's just doing what he's been talking about the whole time. It sucks, but what can you do other than not support their endeavors.
The periodical giveaway of games means any user of that store owns a significant part of their catalogue without spending a single cent. What makes Epic think their users are going to start buying games anytime soon or in 2027?
That's the projected losses for the full year..., that makes more sense. Still think it's a rather optimistic view for them to say they'll turn it around that quickly
If I'm reading this correctly, Epic has lost $330 million in exclusives so far. However you can't say that exclusives have generated only $114 million since it doesn't include whatever they spent in 2019.
As far as I understood it, Epic expects to incur losses of $139 million for the entirety of 2021. I could be wrong though.
The huge money loss was always apparent but more so when Epic willingly gave out numbers and showed flat numbers in 2020 vs 2019, in a year where literally everyone else had explosive growth due to the pandemic. But what it really shows is the key problem Epic had from day 1: What's the reason to use EGS over Steam? The only logical answer was always disruptive things like paid moneyhats. Even EGS defenders would admit that was the only way they could compete with Steam.
So this brings me to the question I asked people in 2018 but for some reason it's treated as some kind of taboo in many places: Why does Steam need competition? Everyone always uses the tired adage of competition is always good but no one wants to really examine what that statement means. The implication of competition being good is that it will spur a war between companies to benefit consumers. But in reality this only really happens when the industry in question is largely stagnant, as in one or a couple of companies control it but don't really do anything with that power and usually make the user experience frustrating (like american ISPs for example, or Intel in the CPU market).
Was this happening to PC gaming? Think back to late 2018, were people going around saying "man I like PC gaming but steam just makes it too much of a pain in the ass"? No, people were happy and generally only concerned with late ports arriving or possibly never arriving. Was Valve doing nothing with their so-called monopoly? No, as has been proven constantly they bring out many new features every single year...it's just that they don't communicate that well and sometimes it's features you may not care about (so naturally that means they don't count).
So why did PC gaming need a massively disruptive and aggravating force? If the only way EGS or anyone can compete is by doing moves that aggravate consumers, that tells me that the industry was already in an extremely healthy place prior to their arrival. It was the answer to a non existent problem. I'm sure all of you have seen defenders say "well they can never compete or catch up with steam on features so they have to do this". That's not a clear sign that EGS is unnecessary?
Too often the online dialog (not here, in general I mean) gets emotional and hostile and you get accusations of being a fanboy or whatever, but for me the EGS thing was always a question of "what can you do for me" and their answer was "uhh idk take away your purchasing options I guess?" And that's all the answer could ever be, because their existence was never needed in the first place.
So this brings me to the question I asked people in 2018 but for some reason it's treated as some kind of taboo in many places: Why does Steam need competition? Everyone always uses the tired adage of competition is always good but no one wants to really examine what that statement means. The implication of competition being good is that it will spur a war between companies to benefit consumers. But in reality this only really happens when the industry in question is largely stagnant, as in one or a couple of companies control it but don't really do anything with that power and usually make the user experience frustrating (like american ISPs for example, or Intel in the CPU market).
Was this happening to PC gaming? Think back to late 2018, were people going around saying "man I like PC gaming but steam just makes it too much of a pain in the ass"? No, people were happy and generally only concerned with late ports arriving or possibly never arriving. Was Valve doing nothing with their so-called monopoly? No, as has been proven constantly they bring out many new features every single year...it's just that they don't communicate that well and sometimes it's features you may not care about (so naturally that means they don't count).
So why did PC gaming need a massively disruptive and aggravating force? If the only way EGS or anyone can compete is by doing moves that aggravate consumers, that tells me that the industry was already in an extremely healthy place prior to their arrival. It was the answer to a non existent problem. I'm sure all of you have seen defenders say "well they can never compete or catch up with steam on features so they have to do this". That's not a clear sign that EGS is unnecessary?
Too often the online dialog (not here, in general I mean) gets emotional and hostile and you get accusations of being a fanboy or whatever, but for me the EGS thing was always a question of "what can you do for me" and their answer was "uhh idk take away your purchasing options I guess?" And that's all the answer could ever be, because their existence was never needed in the first place.
see, sometimes you can post things I will agree on
It does, and it's wrong, and I'm still going to point it out
.