Epic Games General Thread - Its time to talk about what the AAA gaming industry does not understand about the PC console.


FireShot Capture 165 - Simon Carless on Twitter_ _Want to know how much $ the devs of those _ ...png

E0fFtYXVcAAqzRV.jpg
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: HIVidaBoheme, Pissmaster, Fagnacious D and 2 others
Holy fuck they're robbing developers blind here. They paid $225,000 for 3 million copies of Overcooked. That's like fucking 8 cents each, lmao. Super Meat Boy for less than 3 cents a unit.

If they did Gearbox this dirty for Borderlands 3 - I wonder how much money they left on the table.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Pissmaster, Catgirls are Love and Toolbox
Tanner Glass said:
Holy fuck they're robbing developers blind here. They paid $225,000 for 3 million copies of Overcooked. That's like fucking 8 cents each, lmao. Super Meat Boy for less than 3 cents a unit.

If they did Gearbox this dirty for Borderlands 3 - I wonder how much money they left on the table.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Super Meat Boy has been out for almost a decade before it was on Epic. Not unless they mean the sequel, Super Meat Boy Forever which looked like dog shit.
 
What a weird list
  1. What's the "Epic UA cost"?
  2. A million bucks for something called Mutant Year Zero?
  3. Only $63,000 for an Ubisoft game? Even if it's a fairly bad one, still, wtf? Why so cheap?
  4. Why is Metro marked as $0?
The amount they spent on those games seems almost random. The number of entitlements makes sense, though. Celeste has lower numbers than I would have guessed for how much I heard about it, and it didn't even get as many giveaways as This War of Mine, lol.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Toolbox
Pissmaster said:
What a weird list
  1. What's the "Epic UA cost"?
  2. A million bucks for something called Mutant Year Zero?
  3. Only $63,000 for an Ubisoft game? Even if it's a fairly bad one, still, wtf? Why so cheap?
  4. Why is Metro marked as $0?
The amount they spent on those games seems almost random. The number of entitlements makes sense, though. Celeste has lower numbers than I would have guessed for how much I heard about it, and it didn't even get as many giveaways as This War of Mine, lol.
Click to expand...
I can confidently answer one of these. I believe UA stands for User Acquisition - in this chart, it's the amount Epic spent over the number of new accounts whose first action was to acquire that game. In other words, it's the cost per new account acquired for each entitlement.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: HIVidaBoheme, Toolbox, PuffyGroundCloud and 1 other person
Pissmaster said:
What a weird list
  1. What's the "Epic UA cost"?
  2. A million bucks for something called Mutant Year Zero?
  3. Only $63,000 for an Ubisoft game? Even if it's a fairly bad one, still, wtf? Why so cheap?
  4. Why is Metro marked as $0?
The amount they spent on those games seems almost random. The number of entitlements makes sense, though. Celeste has lower numbers than I would have guessed for how much I heard about it, and it didn't even get as many giveaways as This War of Mine, lol.
Click to expand...
1. UA is User Acquisition. The main point of Epic's "Free Games!" is to get someone like you to sign up for the Epic Games Store. The idea is simple - once you've already gotten an account, gone to the store to make a "free" purchase, you might check out other things on the store and make a purchase. The more purchases you make, the bigger your library, the more likely you are to become a core "EG Store User" - which is their core business model.
2. I can't specifically speak to that one, but probably better negotiating on Funcom's part.
3. Ubisoft likely went low on "For Honor" because they're trying to drum up User Acquisition for their software by giving the game away for free. Similar to Epic's strategy - if you're given a chance to play "For Honor" for free and like it - you might spend money on the game (There are 3 season passes, 2 expansions, and other misc DLC).
4. I can't speak directly to it, but Metro might have been given/asked for different financial considerations. Metro runs on Unity (Epic's Engine) so they might have asked for a long-term discount on Epic's direct services for future releases instead of a lump sum. They still could have asked for a service that Epic provides in lieu of cash payment, which would be tracked differently (as an Operational Expense) instead of this sheet.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Pissmaster and HIVidaBoheme
Tanner Glass said:
2. I can't specifically speak to that one, but probably better negotiating on Funcom's part.
3. Ubisoft likely went low on "For Honor" because they're trying to drum up User Acquisition for their software by giving the game away for free. Similar to Epic's strategy - if you're given a chance to play "For Honor" for free and like it - you might spend money on the game (There are 3 season passes, 2 expansions, and other misc DLC).
Click to expand...
look up who owns funcom now. although, they're only publisher on that one.

for honor is a multiplayer game, where it's more important to get people into the game (so people have someone to kill, no one plays a "dead" mp game) and them milk them later. common practice, EA did the same when they gave away BF3 for free at some point and have the base games pretty much constantly on sale while already cheap as fuck (the practice ubisoft picked up). in ubi's defense tho they don't shit out new sequels every year, for honor is 4 years old, siege almost 6.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Pissmaster and Toolbox
OmnipotentStupidity said:
On that one count, yes. On everything else, Apple swept the floor with Epic.
Click to expand...
well that one count was the only important one. the rest was pretty clear from the beginning or just a hook to get a case going, tencent doesnt care about a couple of millions in backpay.
 
Stoneheart said:
Did they just break Apple?

www.theverge.com

Apple must allow other forms of in-app purchase, rules judge in Epic v. Apple

The app store model on trial.
www.theverge.com www.theverge.com

@AnOminous person of law, explain pls.
Click to expand...
These are really complicated issues where the long-term results are hard to predict. All I can really say is Apple seems happy while Sweeney is bitching up a storm. It just seems "in-app purchases" that don't go through Apple open the door to the worst kind of predatory gacha/gambling games, but it doesn't seem to prohibit Apple from just banning such games.

My spit take is basically Apple lost but Epic hasn't really won much if anything and Epic is the one that has to pay Apple $3.5 million. But this could cost Apple billions, it's just that Epic isn't going to get much if any of that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Toolbox, Hideous K, Slimy Time and 1 other person
AnOminous said:
My spit take is basically Apple lost but Epic hasn't really won much if anything and Epic is the one that has to pay Apple $3.5 million. But this could cost Apple billions, it's just that Epic isn't going to get much if any of that.
Click to expand...
well Tencent hurt apple, the money is not an issue. but can they sell their coin on itunes games without apple getting a cut now or do they have(and are allowed) to build their own app store now and is apple forced to allow 3rd party app (stores) now?
 
Stoneheart said:
well Tencent hurt apple, the money is not an issue. but can they sell their coin on itunes games without apple getting a cut now or do they have(and are allowed) to build their own app store now and is apple forced to allow 3rd party app (stores) now?
Click to expand...
From what I read, they're not required to use Apple's payment processor but Apple is still entitled to their %cut even if you use another payment processor so instead of Apple paying you you're now paying Apple and potentially cooking the books. Apple's not forced to host your app store or help you build one. What Apple ran afoul of was a CA law; the antitrust case was eviscerated.

But that doesn't really matter because at the end of the day Epic Games is still booted off of the App Store because the Judge looked at the contract and essentially said "Yeah, you blatantly broke the contract so Apple booted you off and decided they didn't want to do business with you any longer. I see no problems there." We'll see how it plays out and how/if Apple rewrites their terms of service, and that's before everything gets appealed since Epic is obviously butthurt about the result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sinner's Sandwich, Slimy Time and XMassAllYearRound
thanks @Catgirls are Love cant quote you right now, thanks nullbama... its very strange that apple is still allowed their share of profits if others arent allowed to build their own app store for ios...
 
@Catgirls are Love so does that mean that Epic and faggot Sweeny took a big fat L for pretty much nothing? Yes you can use your own/another payment processor but you still have to pay apple's cut for any purchases on their store, and for Epic they got booted off anyways, and no way after this is Apple going to put their shit on the site right? I'm also assuming that Apple could appeal the injunction if it's something they are confident on handling at appeals?

Just going by pure twitter salt it does seem that Sweeny has taken an L yet again, and that no one is buying his "standing up for the little guys/developers" bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back