Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney changed video game industry
newsobserver.com
newsobserver.com
I'd like to stake out two wins that define Fortnite's success, to me:
1. It's on every platform that matters, with crossplay.
That's hitherto largely unheard of for games; which is mostly a result of budget restrictions, middleware licensing, and partner contract limitations.
2. Its store combines time-limited access, games of chance, and vanity. You have to keep playing and keep spending in order to look how you want, and how you want to look is coerced to be ever changing by the continual churn of the store.
Cosmetics don't depreciate that much over a year. Chances are if you get something rubbish out of a loot crate then it'll always be around that price.
The best part is all the fruit of those learning and experience are now part of the Unreal Engine.
I remember games with 50-100 players and maps that were multiple square kilometers in size.
The base game did not have building or many interactive objects but there were a couple of custom mods that did.
With games where building stuff is just tacked on, you'll find that performance drops very quickly after just a few hundred objects are placed. This limits building significantly. The interactive objects point is also something that wasn't too common until recently (past few years). Skyrim had loading screens to go indoors so that they could have a lot of interactable objects indoors. If you went and put the objects from a few houses together then the game's performance dropped significantly.
Fortnite is more accessible being cross-platform and a more family-friendly (Rust has its share of naked people running on beaches/spawn points)
You missed the Day-Z mod for Arma 3 (released 2013), H1Z1 popularised the battle royale genre before shooting itself in the foot, and of course PUBG picking up the baton.
As for building in multiplayer you've got years of work before, putting aside Minecraft, you've got 7 Days to Die, Rust, Arc Survival:Evolved.
Fortnite's not even got particularly complicated building compared to many of those other games.
The article is total dross, Epic took an existing genre and slapped Valve's already proven monetization strategy on it. Other companies were already copying Valve before Epic. Both DOTA + TF2 have been free and make money from hats for over a decade! There's been jokes about it for years[1].
I'm not saying that Fortnite's not good, I'm not saying it's not a massive success, but revolutionary or innovative it was not. This puff piece is obviously written by a someone who hasn't got a clue about games.
You can even argue that they took a failed game's assets and cobbled together a battle-royale shooter and, almost accidentally, became massively successful. Right place, right time. Overwatch did much the same thing. Several other companies failed doing exactly the same thing (e.g. Battleborn, H1Z1)
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/12kirq/valve_market...
>As for building in multiplayer you've got years of work before, putting aside Minecraft, you've got 7 Days to Die, Rust, Arc Survival:Evolved.
7 Days to Die is graphically nowhere near what Fortnite is. Rust had its official release in the same year as Fortnite and ARK was literally made with UE4. That is, the technology Epic used to build Fortnite was used by ARK.
>The article is total dross, Epic took an existing genre and slapped Valve's already proven monetization strategy on it. Other companies were already copying Valve before Epic. Both DOTA + TF2 have been free and make money from hats for over a decade!
You're completely overlooking the part where Valve's initial idea for those games was to push Steam. That way even if the monetization strategy wasn't great it would pay off. Fortnite did not have such a plan initially (at least not that we know of). Valve also wasn't anywhere near first at making their games F2P and monetizing them with microtransactions. F2P games with microtransactions have been a part of Korean MMOs since the early 2000s. There were even private servers of other MMOs that essentially monetized in such a way.
You're not wrong that the battle-royale part of Fortnite was a second attempt at popularizing the game, but the tech to make Fortnite pushed UE4 forward quite a bit. Things like Distance Field Ambient Occlusion were things that might not have made it into the engine without Fortnite.
And games like League (not sure of Dota 2) and TF2 actually give you a slight advantage if you’re willing to pay. In TF2 different items will allow you to perform different attacks if you pay for them and MOBAs allow you to always play certain heroes if you pay for them. This is simply NOT the case with Fortnite and is more similar to Overwatch or CSGO in that regard.
In-game purchases are also different than standard loot boxes seen in other games as others have already mentioned. I won’t repeat myself but the key takeaway is 1) the game is 3rd person view so the perceived value of the cosmetic items is higher to the purchaser and 2) they’re NOT loot boxes.
I can really go on about their battle pass implementation vs the industry standard expansion packs or season passes (that games like COD MW or Apex have copied) or how they continue to innovate and significantly change the gameplay but your mind seems to have been made.
If someone comes in and combines the traits other games have but does it better than all of the rest while continuing to innovate, it is really just copying someone else’s strategy? Games like Arma 3 required mods and ones that “borrowed” the gameplay like PUBG and H1Z1 are clunky as hell to play and go for realism vs cartoon violence that Fortnite favors. Those three games are essentially interchangeable unlike Fortnite, which runs really well on everything but really just the Switch.
It also runs rather well across a wide range of hardware and devices.
What Epic actually did do well, was take the most popular game in the world at the time - PUBG, copy it to the T on their own engine, and release it for free (instead of the $20 PUBG cost). That alone made it the most popular game in the world, and allowed them to make money off it, and create ports on all available platforms.
Also, Unreal Tournament still holds a very fond place in my heart. I don't play games these days, but on the very rare occasion I feel like it, that's one of my major go-tos, just for the nostalgia of Facing-Worlds ;)
My brother and I would sit at the computer for hours building elaborate 8-bit worlds fueled mainly by our imaginations.
When I was 8 years old, I remember participating in a contest for which Tim Sweeney wrote me a personal letter. I’ve saved the letter. Here’s the link if you’re interested: https://www.dropbox.com/s/12o0qgg2y1uzd30/1990-91%20album%20...
Thanks, Tim! It’s not every CEO who goes out of his way to encourage a kid. You inspired me.
1) Live DJ show https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/47118989
2) Avengers Endgame promo https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/25/18516452/fortnite-avenger...
3) Star Wars exclusive trailer https://www.wired.com/story/fortnite-star-wars/
It's proving it is more than just a battle royale shooter..
https://blog.siggraph.org/2019/10/siggraph-spotlight-episode...
If it was his decision to make it free-to-play-but-not-pay-to-win, then a good deal of credit is his.
Him and Epic are getting a lot of hate on Reddit because of the exclusivity deals, but as a developer, I appreciate Epic trying to get the dev/store revenue split more generous for developers. Valve does the standard 70/30, and Epic is doing 88/12 I believe.
I don't think it's entirely Epic's fault about the releases being yanked from Steam or crowd sourced titles making changes. The developers had to sign the contract with Epic and Valve decided that they're too big to fail (which they might be by now) so they didn't try anything to counter.
The one thing that does suck from the gamer perspective is having to use multiple stores. As a dev and gamer I'm okay with this however as it helps the dev community at large in the long run if a viable store contender ever arrives.
Rev split was the best thing to happen to the game industry. Previously, game engines required ridiculous six figure contracts to even get started and meant a fixed cost regardless of the success of the game. We've had no shortage of amazing games thanks to this arrangement.
Steam had been pretty stagnant for years until EGS came along and started poaching exclusives (opinions of this tactic aside) and got them to finally improve their platform.
Even that isn't really novel; EA's Origin store did the same thing, until they gave up on trying.
Tl;DR he did alot of things but I don't really think he changed the game industry any more than league of legends or pubg.
Surprising that Google didn't back that effort with the whole Stadia push.
And there is still no Linux support in Epic store.
I wish epic game store didn’t exist.
And incompetence aside, Tencent made all their money they now use to bribe for exclusives with free to play “games”. And I don’t mean the likes of Fortnite. I doubt they even know what a honest business deal is.
It seems like Epic took the best bits of a popular formula and added a decent customer experience to it. Which, if I’m right, is a really nice message.
FWIW