• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

mugurumakensei

Elizabeth, I’m coming to join you!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,369
I think you vastly underestimate the number here. These companies have entire teams that work on the algorithms powering things like recommendations, the people developing the client, the people developing the server side infrastructure, the business analytics, product management, curation, legal, etc. Searching for "App Store" on linkedin shows way more than dozens of people.


Most of the engineers I know who work on the App Store are part of iOS's platform team. Yea there's a lot of engineers working on the App Store but the question is how many are dedicated to App Store. The answer is going to be fairly few as most of the work can be reused outside of the App Store thus you wouldn't expect it to be accounted for there. Even the analytics is likely branched off so they can sell the tech to other companies as part of their sdk.
 

subpar spatula

Refuses to Wash his Ass
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
22,187
I actually don't know anyone who has bought a game off EGS.

In fact, I don't know anyone who has redeemed the free weekly game in a long time. It seemed fun for the first bit, but it dawns on you, "I'm never going to play this" and so you kind of stop collecting them.
 

senj

Member
Nov 6, 2017
4,506
Apple like has fewer than 30 employees on the store team unless they're really inefficient. Unless you start wanting to add on the teams for logistics, delivery, etc integration. At that point, you're accounting for your SDK, platform, and unrelated logistics (that exist only for apples physical stores) teams to inflate the costs of your store.
lolol no. The App Store has, bare minimum, just on the engineering side: a huge SRE team (this is a global site that sees billions of hits a day), a separate infrastructure team dealing with stuff like the underlying Search engine, the webdev team handling the content side (the thing you interact with on the web and in-app), a separate webdev team handling the iTunes Connect portal side (which unless something has changed recently, is a janky old WebObjects setup), the ingest tooling folks (there's a whole binary static analysis setup on the App ingest side behind iTunes connect that does a lot of things to try to rule out the App binary doing anything sneaky to call blacklisted APIs).

Here's just the number of different sub-teams listed for a recent job posting for an ObjC/Swift engineer for the App Store team:

"macOS/iOS Engineering, Full-Stack Engineering, Front-End Engineering, Back-End Engineering, Quality Engineering, Machine Learning Engineering, Data Science, Data Engineering, Site Reliability Engineering, Commerce Engineering, and Engineering Project Management."

Again, these are just App Store subteam areas of work. You really think there's 11 teams for 30 employees?

200 is probably underestimating it, and that's not even touching on the closely related Enterprise stuff, TestFlight, the Xcode provisioning team, the notifications services team, which is separate but ties directly into stuff on iTunes Connect's end, etc. And that's just the engineers – there's PMs and embedded product owners and so forth for each of these teams as well.

On top of this you've got actual QA folks, because Apple is big enough to swing them, hundred and hundreds of "app reviewers" paid to just fire the app up and apply those iOS store rules everybody hates, the content management team that does all the curation for the "Our favourite Apps" and related homepage sections, the biz team cutting all the deals for the promoted Apps and App of the Day stuff. You could add into that things like Apple Arcade as well. And then a whole management team on top of all this, because the App Store is a C-level report.

There's easily upwards of a thousand employees on the App Store teams.
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,154
lolol no. The App Store has, bare minimum, just on the engineering side: a huge SRE team (this is a global site that sees billions of hits a day), a separate infrastructure team dealing with stuff like the underlying Search engine, the webdev team handling the content side (the thing you interact with on the web and in-app), a separate webdev team handling the iTunes Connect portal side (which unless something has changed recently, is a janky old WebObjects setup), the ingest tooling folks (there's a whole binary static analysis setup on the App ingest side behind iTunes connect that does a lot of things to try to rule out the App binary doing anything sneaky to call blacklisted APIs).

Here's just the number of different sub-teams listed for a recent job posting for an ObjC/Swift engineer for the App Store team:

"macOS/iOS Engineering, Full-Stack Engineering, Front-End Engineering, Back-End Engineering, Quality Engineering, Machine Learning Engineering, Data Science, Data Engineering, Site Reliability Engineering, Commerce Engineering, and Engineering Project Management."

Again, these are just App Store subteam areas of work. You really think there's 11 teams for 30 employees?

200 is probably underestimating it, and that's not even touching on the closely related Enterprise stuff, TestFlight, the Xcode provisioning team, the notifications services team, which is separate but ties directly into stuff on iTunes Connect's end, etc. And that's just the engineers – there's PMs and embedded product owners and so forth for each of these teams as well.

On top of this you've got actual QA folks, because Apple is big enough to swing them, hundred and hundreds of "app reviewers" paid to just fire the app up and apply those iOS store rules everybody hates, the content management team that does all the curation for the "Our favourite Apps" and related homepage sections, the biz team cutting all the deals for the promoted Apps and App of the Day stuff. You could add into that things like Apple Arcade as well. And then a whole management team on top of all this, because the App Store is a C-level report.

There's easily upwards of a thousand employees on the App Store teams.
You're indirectly making the case that 30% is way too high. First, if we use your numbers and assume 1,000 staff, let's call it $200K/yr average, that's $200M. 30% of last years $72BN is $21,200M, which is much higher than the previous years $16,600M. Second, raking in that much profit relative to costs means they don't even need to attempt to be more efficient.
 

karnage10

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,531
Portugal
That's just evidence of Steam being popular. They have about 75% of the PC market. Of course devs are going to release there, whether Steam takes 30%, 20% or even 35%.
If it was jsut "steam being popular" than Microsoft store would have considerable amount of marketshare.

Think about it. Microsoft games have been toping steam charts yet their store hasn't managed to be more popular than steam.
The reason for that is because the same game on 2 different stores has more value on steam due to all the steam features. Steam isn't popular because it is an online store. It is popular because the features it has add a lot of value to the comunity.
Nobody wants to return to pre-steam where you have dozens of programs to do what steam alone does!
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,154
If it was jsut "steam being popular" than Microsoft store would have considerable amount of marketshare.

Think about it. Microsoft games have been toping steam charts yet their store hasn't managed to be more popular than steam.
The reason for that is because the same game on 2 different stores has more value on steam due to all the steam features. Steam isn't popular because it is an online store. It is popular because the features it has add a lot of value to the comunity.
Nobody wants to return to pre-steam where you have dozens of programs to do what steam alone does!
Let me ask you this, if EGS launched on day one with all the same features, how many people with ten years worth say of Steam games in their library and tens or hundreds of friends on the platform, and their payment info already entrusted there, would buy the same game on EGS instead of Steam? Not many I'm guessing. The stores could have all the same features tomorrow and then the argument would change to, "Well this is where I already have all my stuff.", which is absolutely fine and understandable. Years of loyalty means a lot of inertia. Hence the exclusives and the library building with free games.

Personally, I very rarely buy on Win Store because it's a buggy piece of crap. I routinely have issues with supposedly simple tasks like installing a game that I don't have on other stores, and one time I couldn't boot one of their own first party games because of a Win Store issue which multiple users reported on the official site for the game and nothing was done. Just last night I installed the recent Ori game and had to soft boot my PC afterwards. Before they work on more features it would be great if they got the most basic stuff working for everyone first.
 

senj

Member
Nov 6, 2017
4,506
You're indirectly making the case that 30% is way too high. First, if we use your numbers and assume 1,000 staff, let's call it $200K/yr average, that's $200M. 30% of last years $72BN is $21,200M, which is much higher than the previous years $16,600M. Second, raking in that much profit relative to costs means they don't even need to attempt to be more efficient.
Could be. I'd imagine you could dig up some info on operating costs from Apple's public fillings, and it will probably feature in their response to Epic. It will be interesting to see how that lines up with the back of the envelope math.

It's obviously a huge profit center for Apple, although that's not in and of itself illegal or going to get a court to rule against it.
 

Madjoki

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,238
Let me ask you this, if EGS launched on day one with all the same features, how many people with ten years worth say of Steam games in their library and tens or hundreds of friends on the platform, and their payment info already entrusted there, would buy the same game on EGS instead of Steam? Not many I'm guessing. The stores could have all the same features tomorrow and then the argument would change to, "Well this is where I already have all my stuff.", which is absolutely fine and understandable. Years of loyalty means a lot of inertia. Hence the exclusives and the library building with free games.

Earning trust is hard, yes. Even for Valve it took many years, people hated Steam more than EGS at start.
But Isn't that Epic's fault they are way late to the game? They spent better part of decade calling PC gamers pirates while Valve was building market, which they now want take pie of.
 

karnage10

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,531
Portugal
Let me ask you this, if EGS launched on day one with all the same features, how many people with ten years worth say of Steam games in their library and tens or hundreds of friends on the platform, and their payment info already entrusted there, would buy the same game on EGS instead of Steam? Not many I'm guessing. The stores could have all the same features tomorrow and then the argument would change to, "Well this is where I already have all my stuff.", which is absolutely fine and understandable. Years of loyalty means a lot of inertia. Hence the exclusives and the library building with free games.

Personally, I very rarely buy on Win Store because it's a buggy piece of crap. I routinely have issues with supposedly simple tasks like installing a game that I don't have on other stores, and one time I couldn't boot one of their own first party games because of a Win Store issue which multiple users reported on the official site for the game and nothing was done. Just last night I installed the recent Ori game and had to soft boot my PC afterwards. Before they work on more features it would be great if they got the most basic stuff working for everyone first.
I agree with you.
But IMO to enter a market and become the market leader or least try requires the competitor to at the very least do something new.
FOr example if EGS allowed people to sell and buy used games i'd bet that there would be a significant migration to EGS VS steam.

What i am trying to say is that steam is popular because it offers a significant feature set that many costumers value enough that they won't be convicned into other stores unless that store has a significant advanatge.
 

EloKa

GSP
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
1,909
Let me ask you this, if EGS launched on day one with all the same features, how many people with ten years worth say of Steam games in their library and tens or hundreds of friends on the platform, and their payment info already entrusted there, would buy the same game on EGS instead of Steam? Not many I'm guessing. The stores could have all the same features tomorrow and then the argument would change to, "Well this is where I already have all my stuff.", which is absolutely fine and understandable. Years of loyalty means a lot of inertia. Hence the exclusives and the library building with free games.
Doesn't stop anybody from at least trying to develop any features, does it?

Sweeney is on record saying that he does not believe customers are interested in features or that the EGS (or any store) is able to come up with new features that would cause a big move from customers to that store. So ... they aren't investing in research and development at all. Or in customer service.

Somehow every other new business that wants to provide a better service is able to deliver better / new features and a better product. EGS does none of that.
 

Ra

Rap Genius
Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
12,271
Dark Space
Let me ask you this, if EGS launched on day one with all the same features, how many people with ten years worth say of Steam games in their library and tens or hundreds of friends on the platform, and their payment info already entrusted there, would buy the same game on EGS instead of Steam?
It didn't though, so we'll never know.

I myself have argued that we are so entrenched into Steam that any other site will have an impossibility of an uphill battle, but we also have yet to see a company come with a strategy more complex than 'Barebones Client + Exclusive Content = Profit'.

Until someone actually comes at Valve on the feature level, the what ifs are irrelevant.
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,154
Doesn't stop anybody from at least trying to develop any features, does it?

Sweeney is on record saying that he does not believe customers are interested in features or that the EGS (or any store) is able to come up with new features that would cause a big move from customers to that store. So ... they aren't investing in research and development at all. Or in customer service.

Somehow every other new business that wants to provide a better service is able to deliver better / new features and a better product. EGS does none of that.
Is he wrong?

I probably fit into his definition of customers there. When I got into PC gaming more, creating an account with the clear market leader was the obvious choice. I now have Steam inertia due to having such a large library. AFAIK, I don't use any of the "features" Steam has. I mean I just install a game, play the SP of it, and that's it. OK I've looked at the forums, that has been useful. The SteamInput stuff makes life easy, although I've had no major issues using DS4Windows on every other non-Steam game. I mostly learn about new games here on ERA.

Even if there was some feature or set of features EGS could come up with that would make someone with a huge Steam library and social network buy there instead, couldn't Valve quickly implement something similar anyway?

I assume their hope is relatively new PC gamers are building their library on EGS, especially their younger Fortnite users, and then will stay in that ecosystem. Luring longtime Steam or GoG vets seems unlikely to me, no matter what their feature set is.

To your last sentence, I present the innumerable TV streaming options we've had since Netflix. OMG, it seems every network has their own now, all looking for a sub fee. CBS, NBC, AMC, Discovery, the list goes on.

EDIT: *If* stores allow games to launch at different prices, devs could release on EGS 10% cheaper, and still net a higher amount per unit sold. That sort of price difference might lead to some vets switching.
 
Last edited:

Madjoki

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,238
It didn't though, so we'll never know.

I myself have argued that we are so entrenched into Steam that any other site will have an impossibility of an uphill battle, but we also have yet to see a company come with a strategy more complex than 'Barebones Client + Exclusive Content = Profit'.

Until someone actually comes at Valve on the feature level, the what ifs are irrelevant.

Games for Windows Live?
Had even more features than Steam at time and exclusive content.
(Some of which like Achievements Valve shamelessly stole and somehow didn't get sued for)

charging fee from developers and monthly fee from users at start was probably big mistake
 

Csr

Member
Nov 6, 2017
2,036
Games for Windows Live?
Had even more features than Steam at time and exclusive content.
(Some of which like Achievements Valve shamelessly stole and somehow didn't get sued for)

charging fee from developers and monthly fee from users at start was probably big mistake

Wasn't the problem with GFWL that it was riddled with bugs, crashes, performance issues etc... for a lot of people?
It certainly was for me and several friends of mine.
One issue among others I had that I never managed to solve was that every time I opened the overlay, everything would slow down to a crawl. I eventually stopped bothering with anything that had it.

There were also games that were sold on steam that had GFWL.
 

senj

Member
Nov 6, 2017
4,506
Games for Windows Live?
Had even more features than Steam at time and exclusive content.
(Some of which like Achievements Valve shamelessly stole and somehow didn't get sued for)

charging fee from developers and monthly fee from users at start was probably big mistake
GFWL had a reputation for being notoriously buggy to the point of being essentially non-functional for many people. Like the Windows Store, but much much worse.
 

Firebricks

Member
Jan 27, 2018
2,141
Wasn't the problem with GFWL that it was riddled with bugs, crashes, performance issues etc... for a lot of people?
It certainly was for me and several friends of mine.
One issue among others I had that I never managed to solve was that every time I opened the overlay, everything would slow down to a crawl. I eventually stopped bothering with anything that had it.

There were also games that were sold on steam that had GFWL.

GFWL is by far the worst store front I had ever experienced. I got very few things to work properly. It had things that steam didn't at the time, sure. But steam actually worked.
 

Rubblatus

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,172
Let me ask you this, if EGS launched on day one with all the same features, how many people with ten years worth say of Steam games in their library and tens or hundreds of friends on the platform, and their payment info already entrusted there, would buy the same game on EGS instead of Steam? Not many I'm guessing. The stores could have all the same features tomorrow and then the argument would change to, "Well this is where I already have all my stuff.", which is absolutely fine and understandable. Years of loyalty means a lot of inertia. Hence the exclusives and the library building with free games.
Assuming they weren't pissing me off from the jump with their practice of last-second exclusivity money hats like they did with Metro: Exodus and all other features were the same, I'd have probably jumped in on games like Hades and (More recently) Kingdom Hearts. Again, that's assuming all of the same features at the time and not pissing me off at the jump with last-second exclusivity buys.

Now if they had all the same features but their own version of Steam Input (Let's call it Epic Input) that launched with the EGS-exclusivity ability to map multi-button macros and/or keyboard keys to Xbox Elite controller paddles? Shit man, I'd have absolutely prioritized purchasing more games for the platform that I anticipate using a controller for. I've spent money for that exact feature in the past on ReWASD licenses to make games like Devil May Cry 5 and Monster Hunter World so much more intuitive and fun to play.

But no, EGS has slept on that kind of thing for over two years and now Steam Input supports that sort of thing natively as of this past January. So what can alternate-universe EGS offer me to improve my game experience over Steam now?
 

dex3108

Member
Oct 26, 2017
22,786
And this is what I've heard, too - that a lot of EGS PC games are not selling nearly enough copies to make back the 'guaranteed' sales number. Maybe Epic would say that this was intended too - some of the guarantee is just a write-off to get people onto the platform. But I don't personally think that EGS is trending to Epic's medium-term revenue goals.

newsletter.gamediscover.co

Epic vs. Apple - notes from a platform streetfight

I read all 700 pages, so you didn't have to.
 

Igniz12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,490
I actually don't know anyone who has bought a game off EGS.

In fact, I don't know anyone who has redeemed the free weekly game in a long time. It seemed fun for the first bit, but it dawns on you, "I'm never going to play this" and so you kind of stop collecting them.
I stopped collecting because no one was signal boosting them anymore lol.

Guess it does prove your point, even though I want to collect the EGS freebies the fact that its all free and being given out like candy I cant truly give enough of a feck to check and see if there is anything worth grabbing for that week myself.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
17,242
Sydney
How are they going to turn it around in a couple of years if they're spending a fortune on exclusivity deals and they're not meeting minimum sales guarantees? The second they have to cut back on those deals or change the terms to be less favorable, they're going to lose their own value add and go into a death spiral.

This seems like a doomed endeavor.
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,154
How are they going to turn it around in a couple of years if they're spending a fortune on exclusivity deals and they're not meeting minimum sales guarantees? The second they have to cut back on those deals or change the terms to be less favorable, they're going to lose their own value add and go into a death spiral.

This seems like a doomed endeavor.
So long as they're doing enough revenue that 5% of it covers their development costs, and that's probably not a very large number two years from now, then they should be profitable. That's if they pulled back on all exclusive deals, which are currently being easily funded with a small amount of Fortnite profits.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
17,242
Sydney
So long as they're doing enough revenue that 5% of it covers their development costs, and that's probably not a very large number two years from now, then they should be profitable. That's if they pulled back on all exclusive deals, which are currently being easily funded with a small amount of Fortnite profits.

What I'm getting at is the exclusives are supposed to be the thing that draws users into the ecosystem to make it profitable generally.

But if even exclusives aren't meeting their minimum sales guarantees doesn't that suggest there's going to be a bigger problem overall? The loss leader isn't doing it's job?
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,154
What I'm getting at is the exclusives are supposed to be the thing that draws users into the ecosystem to make it profitable generally.

But if even exclusives aren't meeting their minimum sales guarantees doesn't that suggest there's going to be a bigger problem overall? The loss leader isn't doing it's job?
That's true about growth expectations vs reality. You said death spiral. That suggests constantly losing money until they go out of business. They're losing money right now because of the exclusives. If they stop those in a couple of years, you're right growth may slow, but that doesn't mean they'll be unprofitable or be in a death spiral.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
17,242
Sydney
That's true about growth expectations vs reality. You said death spiral. That suggests constantly losing money until they go out of business. They're losing money right now because of the exclusives. If they stop those in a couple of years, you're right growth may slow, but that doesn't mean they'll be unprofitable or be in a death spiral.

Oh well what I'm kind of speculating the death spiral to be is that if the exclusives aren't acting like enough of a draw, Epic starts cutting back on them and making the terms less favourable, which in turn worsens the userbase issue, which in turns makes Epic cut back on them etc etc
 

City 17

Member
Oct 25, 2017
913
User Banned (1 Week): Antagonizing Fellow Member; Prior Warning for the Same

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,154
Guys and gals, Don't bother with Sheepinator
He's tried every argument that Sweeny couldn't even dream of since day zero (2018/19?), thousands of post backed up by nothing, moving goalposts and so on. I'd have thought that he's Tim himself if I hadn't seen this much free time dedication.


Yeah, that was to be expected.
You're @'ing me just to ask everyone to ignore me. I don't even remember your ID, but obviously something I said got to you. What are these moving goalposts you're accusing me of?

"I now have Steam inertia due to having such a large library." - Me yesterday here, yeah that's totally something Tim would say. If you have a point to make, try making it and without the personal attacks.
 
Last edited:

City 17

Member
Oct 25, 2017
913
You're @'ing me just to ask everyone to ignore me. I don't even remember your ID, but obviously something I said got to you. What are these moving goalposts you're accusing me of?
You wish.

You know those posters that fill every thread with made up statements 24/7, get refuted everytime, and come back again and again, and make it unreadable for anyone? Posters who whenever folks in the know see them, say oh it's that guy, don't bother..? (Not an actual question)

It was an observation similar to anyone who had followed older Epic threads, when this thing still had some steam, no pun intended, but it dried up, yet you can't let it go, even when Tim has lost hope, I salute your dedication.

And no, why would I necro like more than half of your +15k post history in such threads? Sorry dear, don't have as much free time.

Earning trust is hard, yes. Even for Valve it took many years, people hated Steam more than EGS at start.
But Isn't that Epic's fault they are way late to the game? They spent better part of decade calling PC gamers pirates while Valve was building market, which they now want take pie of.
Spot on.
 

Mentalist

Member
Mar 14, 2019
18,177
EGS probably would've been more popular if it didn't enter the market to the chorus of sycophantic media chorus trying to convince gamers that being forced to pay more money for less features was "good for games, but they just don't realize it yet, but the benefits of competition will trickle down to them".

I was pretty happy about their early focus on indie titles, even with timed exclusivity, and had no issues supporting them; until they started pulling crap like Metro Exodus, last-minute Kickstarter moneyhats (Outer Wilds, Phoenix Point), etc.

EGS is a shoddy product with terrible consumer-facing messaging, and that's why it's not picking up momentum. Anyone that uses isthereanydeal or gg.deals will never buy the "exclusive games make more COMPETITION" narrative, and that just makes Epic, and every media outlet that tries to prozelyte on their behalf appear bold-faced liars.
 

Sandersson

Banned
Feb 5, 2018
2,535
Let me ask you this, if EGS launched on day one with all the same features, how many people with ten years worth say of Steam games in their library and tens or hundreds of friends on the platform, and their payment info already entrusted there, would buy the same game on EGS instead of Steam?
Wait what? Free games with functionalities that are in the same ballpark with Steam and sleeker UI? Why on earth wouldnt people jump to that?
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,154
User Warned: Antagonizing Fellow Member
You wish.

You know those posters that fill every thread with made up statements 24/7, get refuted everytime, and come back again and again, and make it unreadable for anyone? Posters who whenever folks in the know see them, say oh it's that guy, don't bother..? (Not an actual question)

It was an observation similar to anyone who had followed older Epic threads, when this thing still had some steam, no pun intended, but it dried up, yet you can't let it go, even when Tim has lost hope, I salute your dedication.

And no, why would I necro like more than half of your +15k post history in such threads? Sorry dear, don't have as much free time.
That went exactly as I expected. You baselessly claimed I've been "moving goalposts" for years yet you don't remember a single example, nor can you find one in this topic. Literally 100% of your posts here are to attack another poster. I wondered if this is how you interact everywhere, so I clicked on your profile, and oh look at that, you hide your own posts.
 
Oct 25, 2017
22,405
It would be interesting to hear what Epic's projections are/were.
It's obvious that they are bleeding money from all the exclusives, sales and free games. That's neither surprising nor unexpected. Doesn't it even say that Epic expects it to be profitable by 2027? (Tho I wonder if that was the initial target).

The 2020 growth didn't look good and I'm curious what their expectations were.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,669
Read back in the thread; buried in the filling, Epic very carefully says the 12% only covers variable operating costs.

Basic business accounting terminology: Variable costs are costs you incur on a sale. Bandwidth, the publishers cut, etc. Fixed costs are costs that don't incur on a given sale: salary, physical rent, keeping the lights on, etc.

EGS isn't just not covering user growth with their 12% cut – Epic appears to be quietly admitting they're not even covering staff salary out of that.
But how? where's that fortnite cash going? it's not going in the store and it can't be going all back into fortnite so wth
 

GrrImAFridge

ONE THOUSAND DOLLARYDOOS
Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,687
Western Australia
But how? where's that fortnite cash going? it's not going in the store and it can't be going all back into fortnite so wth

Fortnite on PC doesn't bring in as much as you might think. Last year, total first-party revenue was $435m ($700m total revenue - $265m third-party revenue), a less than 2% increase over 2019, and even if you add Epic's cut of the $265m in third-party revenue, the grand total is still just shy of half a billion ($465m + $31.8m). Obviously, that's still quite a pretty penny, but as Epic had spent the entire year giving away approximately 750m copies of games, securing exclusivity for dozens of new and upcoming releases, and being overly generous with sale coupons, it's no surprise that EGS is bleeding cash.

This is why Epic's comment that it expects to reach operational profitability by 2023 all but confirms there's just over a year-and-a-half left of its aggressive "user acquisition" phase, as it's simply mathematically impossible for EGS to bring in more money than is being spent while Epic is throwing out freebies like lollies, dumping bags of cash at the doorsteps of devs/pubs, and subsidising the cost of most games during major sales.
 
Last edited: