Jump to content

~*Official War of the Tims (Sweeney/Cook) Thread*~ - update: The Game Awards is livestreaming oral arguments on Twitch


Recommended Posts

 

1 hour ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

Lolololo 

 

E0eh9-gXsAMupde?format=png&name=medium
Damn that makes Epic look bad.  We already know they act like toddlers, but this a new low.  "I can't think of a scenario where Epic doesn't get what we want." "Your license to use UE4 expires in May."

 

That's some fuckery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Not surprised at any of that stuff.  Sony charging pubs for cross-play makes

 

E0eh9-gXsAMupde?format=png&name=medium
Damn that makes Epic look bad.  We already know they act like toddlers, but this a new low.  "I can't think of a scenario where Epic doesn't get what we want." "Your license to use UE4 expires in May."

 

That's some fuckery.

 

Epic was right here. The vast majority of gamers minus some weird Sony fanboys were clamoring for crossplay. There was no scenario that Epic wouldn't get crossplay working on Playstation because Sony could only cover their ears and ignore they're customers for so long. Epic was offering to tightly integrate Sony's tools into UE, brand they're own E3 presentation was a PlayStation event, and make sure to have everyone know Sony was the hero here. Instead, Sony came out looking like they were dragged into allowing crossplay and then followed that up by invested hundreds of millions in Epic.

 

Sony is really bad at negotiations it seems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Epic was right here. The vast majority of gamers minus some weird Sony fanboys were clamoring for crossplay. There was no scenario that Epic wouldn't get crossplay working on Playstation because Sony could only cover their ears and ignore they're customers for so long. Epic was offering to tightly integrate Sony's tools into UE, brand they're own E3 presentation was a PlayStation event, and make sure to have everyone know Sony was the hero here. Instead, Sony came out looking like they were dragged into allowing crossplay and then followed that up by invested hundreds of millions in Epic.

 

Sony is really bad at negotiations it seems.

 

 

It sounds slimy only because I'm sure all business negotiations are inherently slimy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghost_MH said:


Epic was right here. The vast majority of gamers minus some weird Sony fanboys were clamoring for crossplay. There was no scenario that Epic wouldn't get crossplay working on Playstation because Sony could only cover their ears and ignore they're customers for so long.

 

They could be willfully ignorant as long as they chose to be.  Other bigger than Sony franchises like CoD and GTA never forced cross play.

Overall, it's a good thing that Epic pushed it.  But they were never entitled to it.  

 

1 hour ago, Ghost_MH said:

Epic was offering to tightly integrate Sony's tools into UE, brand they're own E3 presentation was a PlayStation event, and make sure to have everyone know Sony was the hero here. Instead, Sony came out looking like they were dragged into allowing crossplay and then followed that up by invested hundreds of millions in Epic.

 

They threatened to revoke their Unreal license.  All the positive 'ideas' were fluff to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

They could be willfully ignorant as long as they chose to be.  Other bigger than Sony franchises like CoD and GTA never forced cross play.

 

 

They threatened to revoke their Unreal license.  All the positive 'ideas' were fluff to that.

 

Is CoD and GTA bigger than Fortnite on Playstation? I know CoD is HUGELY popular on PC and sometimes gives Fortnite a run for its money when you include PC gamers. I'm also pretty sure Fortnite is bigger than GTA no matter the platform. Fortnite is a $9b franchise and nearly half of that money comes from Playstation players. That's likely why Epic was willing to push so much Playstation branding. That's also likely why Sony was both willing to cave on crossplay and then invested in Epic, themselves. Sony is taking their 30% cut, so that's a lot of money no matter what.

 

I mean, @ThreePi is right. All business negotiations are slimy.

 

I don't think Epic was threatening to cut they're UE license. Were they threatening to increase costs/cut Sony's discount? Absolutely.

 

In the end Sony got nothing but bad press and some shares of Epic stock. That's all on Sony. They should have gotten something out of that deal. Instead ask we got was a limp wristed press release that they were changing their stance with Fortnite as the beta.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghost_MH said:

Epic was right here. The vast majority of gamers minus some weird Sony fanboys were clamoring for crossplay. There was no scenario that Epic wouldn't get crossplay working on Playstation because Sony could only cover their ears and ignore they're customers for so long. Epic was offering to tightly integrate Sony's tools into UE, brand they're own E3 presentation was a PlayStation event, and make sure to have everyone know Sony was the hero here. Instead, Sony came out looking like they were dragged into allowing crossplay and then followed that up by invested hundreds of millions in Epic.

 

Sony is really bad at negotiations it seems.

I generally favor Epic in these disputes because I think them winning is better for customers, but I think the question Sony brought up is a good one. So what if Fortnight is the biggest thing on Playstation? If cross-play isn't good business for Sony, then why should they allow it? All the Epic points were along the lines of incentives to make the deal, none actually articulated why it would be good business for Sony to allow it, and I have a hard time coming up with reasons it would be.

 

Maybe allowing crossplay meant that gamers would spend more time in fortnight, which meant spending more money in game, and perhaps users tend to buy things on their "home" platform. If Playstation is the biggest platform for Fortnight, that could be an overall win for Sony, but that's a pretty big hypothetical since it would have to more than offset what users would buy on other platforms.

 

 

This is also what I generally think of all of these issues Epic brings up. I'd be very happy if Devs got more money for their games. I'd be delighted if other companies could run App stores on iOS. I think it would be great if all platforms supported cross-play for everything.

 

What I have a much harder time with is why it would be a good business decision for these companies to implement these things or further still, why the government should compel a company to give into these demands.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I generally favor Epic in these disputes because I think them winning is better for customers, but I think the question Sony brought up is a good one. So what if Fortnight is the biggest thing on Playstation? If cross-play isn't good business for Sony, then why should they allow it? All the Epic points were along the lines of incentives to make the deal, none actually articulated why it would be good business for Sony to allow it, and I have a hard time coming up with reasons it would be.

 

Maybe allowing crossplay meant that gamers would spend more time in fortnight, which meant spending more money in game, and perhaps users tend to buy things on their "home" platform. If Playstation is the biggest platform for Fortnight, that could be an overall win for Sony, but that's a pretty big hypothetical since it would have to more than offset what users would buy on other platforms.

 

 

This is also what I generally think of all of these issues Epic brings up. I'd be very happy if Devs got more money for their games. I'd be delighted if other companies could run App stores on iOS. I think it would be great if all platforms supported cross-play for everything.

 

What I have a much harder time with is why it would be a good business decision for these companies to implement these things or further still, why the government should compel a company to give into these demands.

 

In Fortnite's case, I don't know how long Sony could get away with eating the bad press. That is especially true with new consoles on the horizon. We probably would have seen more Epic "mistakes" like enabling crossplay here and there; especially toward the ramp up of PS5 pre-orders. That's why Sony is stupid for not getting something out of allowing crossplay. Sony thought they were negotiating from a stronger position than they actually were and that always comes back to bite you.

 

I doubt Epic wins their lawsuit against Apple in the US. If be amazed if it does. I'm the EU? That's a completely different question. The EU has always been more hostile toward perceived monopolies than the US has been in decades.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

 

 

 

 

Am I the only one that doesn't think those are terrible user acquisition numbers? $2.37 power user isn't terrible. Yeah, most folks aren't buying anything, but that's not a terribly high number to try to make up for. Seems free weekly games isn't much of a loss leader for them, so all their actual losses must be going into securing exclusives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Am I the only one that doesn't think those are terrible user acquisition numbers? $2.37 power user isn't terrible. Yeah, most folks aren't buying anything, but that's not a terribly high number to try to make up for. Seems free weekly games isn't much of a loss leader for them, so all their actual losses must be going into securing exclusives.

 

My clients are non-profits and their cost per donor is around $34, so yeah, $2.37 is pretty incredible; 7% is also a pretty nice return percentage (we hope for 1%), though I don't know much about that sector so maybe I'm talking out of my ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

My clients are non-profits and their cost per donor is around $34, so yeah, $2.37 is pretty incredible; 7% is also a pretty nice return percentage (we hope for 1%), though I don't know much about that sector so maybe I'm talking out of my ass.

 

That's the same thing I was thinking. I know people like to shit on Epic, but those numbers seem fine, great actually. That comes out to, what? $16.59 per paying customer? Is my math right? Someone correct me.

 

Either way, that just tells me that more gaming stores should be giving away older games all the time...except maybe Steam. I can't imagine they have much room for growth that's within their control.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Is CoD and GTA bigger than Fortnite on Playstation? I know CoD is HUGELY popular on PC and sometimes gives Fortnite a run for its money when you include PC gamers. I'm also pretty sure Fortnite is bigger than GTA no matter the platform. Fortnite is a $9b franchise and nearly half of that money comes from Playstation players. That's likely why Epic was willing to push so much Playstation branding. That's also likely why Sony was both willing to cave on crossplay and then invested in Epic, themselves. Sony is taking their 30% cut, so that's a lot of money no matter what.

 

I mean, @ThreePi is right. All business negotiations are slimy.

 

CoD and GTA were the biggest things until Fortnite.  Huge as they are/were, them going cross-platform was never a foregone conclusion.  Epic was being pompous here.

 

1 hour ago, Ghost_MH said:

I don't think Epic was threatening to cut they're UE license. Were they threatening to increase costs/cut Sony's discount? Absolutely.

 

They wanted Sony to do business on their terms.  But they'd throw Sony a few bones to pretend not to be giving an ultimatum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ghost_MH said:

Because audio encoding still kind of sucks because most people just don't care. Just think about how great phone screens have gotten while phone speakers are still pretty shitty.

 

I agree that in general, people don’t care about quality audio… but some of this is just physics, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess at some point Epic bought Artstation and gives 12% cut to creators (or 8% - 5%)

 

ArtStation-announcement-banner-1280x640-
MAGAZINE.ARTSTATION.COM

ArtStation is joining the Epic Games family. Together, we’ll accelerate the development and growth of the creator community worldwide. %

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

I agree that in general, people don’t care about quality audio… but some of this is just physics, right?

 

Yes and no. Yeah, physics makes it hard, but we don't know how hard. I mean optics in phones are also equally constrained by and those have seen some wild improvements because people care. Even then, if most people don't care about the speakers in their phones, even fewer care about the quality of the microphones. That makes most videos recorded on phones sound like shit

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

OLOLOLOLOLOLO

 

yakuza-2jpg-c731ec.jpg?width=1280
WWW.IGN.COM

Documents released during the Epic vs. Apple trial have revealed that the Japanese company won’t work with partners tied to organized crime.

 

 

Thats kind of rich considering the rumors around Yamauchi in the nes/snes era. Also Yakuza 1 & 2 HD did come out on Wii U.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

I know absolutely nothing of how the Yakuza games are made… do they consult with Yakuza members during development?

No. The early days they partnered with people who wrote crime drama to improve the stories but not the yakuza itself.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like a mini-E3 for me. I have never owned an Apple product and never used EGS, but I just love this constant drip feed of breaking news and revelations. 

 

I think my ideal outcome is Epic winning at the cost of Tim Epic burning the bridges with a lot of Epic's partners and customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best outcome is Epic winning sadly. Apple has continued to pull BS practices and just simply saying "well use another platform" is not a valid answer. My product can't use Google SSO for base authentication because to use it I have to have Apple SSO which has requirements that break my app (It's an app that uses your existing calendar accounts). Thus I'm barred from using other services because of this, not to mention their SSO wasn't properly secured in the early days and could be hacked.

 

-edit-

Make no mistakes, Epic isn't here to the savior of all people, They are only doing this for business reasons. Yet at the same time their issues are issues many app developers are having to put up with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The outcome of this case is really going to hinge on whether Epic's (probably correct) claims of Apple's monopolistic/rent-seeking practices are enough to overcome their unquestionable violation of a contractual agreement that in no way could be construed as being entered into under duress, fraud, undue influence, or any other provision that would make the contract null and void.

 

I still maintain that this would be an open and shut case in Epic's favor if they hadn't broken the contract with Apple, but still proceeded to sue them on the same grounds as they are now.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
APP.BOX.COM

TLDR

People were using bot accounts because Epic wasnt using any kind of account verification People would purchase Ubi games with stolen CC thru Epic. Epic would then push some kind of key to a Ubi account giving it the game. Epic was then getting hit by the chargeback by the bank but had no way to reverse the activation of the stolen key. 

Its amateur hour with these people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, SimpleG said:
APP.BOX.COM

TLDR

People were using bot accounts because Epic wasnt using any kind of account verification People would purchase Ubi games with stolen CC thru Epic. Epic would then push some kind of key to a Ubi account giving it the game. Epic was then getting hit by the chargeback by the bank but had no way to reverse the activation of the stolen key. 

Its amateur hour with these people.

 

This is the "extraordinary fraud" for which Tim Sweeney personally apologized to Yves Guillemot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...