They paid for the exclusives, so I would assume there is something in that contract that nets the dev enough money to not think about the underwhelming sales, right?
Yes.
My point is that the strategy of exclusives has not generated a large number of users that are actively spending money at Epic Games Store. Even the exclusives are mostly selling terribly, never mind games that are not exclusive.
My theory is that Epic have dialled back on this strategy, perhaps focusing on smaller/medium games, and so what we're seeing is mostly stuff that had already been signed. The publishing strategy is a different strategy, and maybe they are hoping these games can sell better if they are promoted as never ever ever coming to Steam, rather than just being a timed exclusive.
Kinda feels like we're seeing something similar to what would have happened to the MoviePass business model if they were backed by a very wealthy company with very successful but only tangentially related separate business model.
It seemed like a stunt to lure people into the platform. They don't need to do that anymore because it worked.
Which game that is not exclusive has sold well on EGS. If there's any data to back up this assertion, I'd love to see it.
They have certainly got people on their platform. They've trained them to get the free games, buy games at extreme discounts subsidised by Epic, or at a stretch maybe buy a game if it's not also available on any other store.
Had the strategy worked, we'd be seeing games sell well on Epic store without being exclusive. I've not seen any evidence whatsoever to suggest that is happening.
playtracker.net
