Ummm, their initial goal was.... 1$? what?
Epic exclusive is a good thing for the industry to help break steams defacto monopoly.
Heh. It's Gearbox (as in BL3). Randy Pitchford and Tim Sweeney are practically married. The dodge&deflect in the FAQ is the confirmation - EGS sellouts are just getting smarter and will wait until last possible minute before announcing and pissing fans off:I mean they haven't confirmed Epic exclusive I don't think...
It says the game is already in pre-production. They're just trying to raise more money.
I loved Homeworld and Cataclysm. Didn't care so much for the plot/gameplay in Homeworld 2 but I'll still definitely be picking this one up whenever it comes out.
"Why are you only asking for a dollar?"
"Because we want it to be clear that the game is on a solid foundation, funding-wise. We're partnering with Fig to give back to longtime fans who have sustained Homeworld for 20 years by giving them a chance to invest in Homeworld 3's success and help us understand the game they've been dreaming about.
"Your pledge will only be collected if this campaign reaches its goal on Sep 29, 2019 11pm. Investments will be reconfirmed once the securities are qualified by the SEC."
Played all but Cataclysm, including the remastered, shame they couldn't remastered Cataclysm.
Then let Epic pay production costs. They been parking trucks of money everywhere else. WTF should we give the developer free money.
I mean they haven't confirmed Epic exclusive I don't think... I loved the first 2 games I'm hoping they aren't being stupid enough to launch EGS exclusive on top of crowd funding. That is just annoying enough for me to skip this homeworld. Of course if the EGS exclusive story ends up being rumor only... then ya I'll by this game when its ready.
What is this, star citizen?
Good chance it will be on EGS. I don't think it specifically mentions Steam anywhere on that page so likely they'll be able to shop around until development is finishing up which is the smart thing to do. You never know, Steam may change policies in the next year or two to win back developers. Why lock yourself into guaranteeing a platform 2-3 years prior to release?
And Epic isn't going to fund a niche game. I'm sure if a studio was making a game that looked like it would be a massive success but was struggling on its own Epic would buy the studio out similar to what EA did with Respawn. But I doubt an RTS game styled after Homeworld will do that. The only RTS type of games that seem to be popular are those hyper zoomed in things like Starcraft/Dawn of War.
If anything Gearbox would buy Black Bird out since Gearbox actually owns the IP and is publishing it. So Epic would have to buy out Gearbox, which they probably could but I doubt will happen.
Well EGS has been parking a lot of money with a lot of developers of pretty niche games. Steam hasn't "lost" developers... they have lost developers who of course could not say no to a deal that goes... "tell us what your sales plan says your 6 month sell through will be. ------ emm hmmm ok what if we GUARANTEE you receipts of exactly that much at the end of a 6 month exclusive deal. Sell that much and where square don't and we'll top you up to exactly that number... Sign here" With that pitch only a complete moron doesn't say yes.... if your a game developer that has already soaked millions into your game a offer of COMPLETE 100% risk removal isn't something you say no to. (every sales plan says break even in month 3 turn a profit by month 6... sales past that are just nice to have) Telling a company you will pay their cost of development + the profit they intended to make, then be free to launch again on other platforms. Can't blame any company for not saying yes to that.
But you only "come out on top" if your sales are below those expectations. And I doubt you can dupe Epic into believing your game that will sell 500,000 copies should sell 4 million copies and when it doesn't get them to pay up for 3.5 million "lost sales". Remember Epic has developing what is likely the most successful 3rd party game engines in history since the late 90s. They've been dealing with developers, negotiating engine license/royalty fees for games across every spectrum for about two decades now. And since UE3 and UE4, they've been offering it for free and only collecting a royalty based on amount of copies sold. So they've clearly been tracking how well games have been selling for a number of years to collect their royalty fees, and those titles range from AAA games to small indie games. So I think they have an excellent idea of sales expectations.
Likewise I am sure there are lots of fine print details. If you release a game that is extremely broken and unplayable like Batman Arkham Knight or Just Cause 4 it will probably void any minimum sales guarantee they have. Otherwise we'd be seeing millions of asset flip games on EGS with claims of 15 million sales within 6 months and people collecting the money.
As for Homeworld, it certainly is niche. The amount of RTS games especially in the style and scale of Homeworld in recent years is very small. It is either 4x4 or hyper zoomed in stuff. I'm sure a good Homeworld game can sell a million copies, maybe more longer term. But it simply isn't as big of a genre anymore and the IP isn't exactly new. Homeworld 2 came out in 2003. It is going to be a 16 year old game in a few days. Never played DoK, but it didn't seem to live very long in terms of online and didn't seem like much of a success.
It’s the same developer.Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak came out in 2016... and has over 200 people playing it on steam right now. (ok that isn't a lot but its still not bad for a 3 year old game) It might not be the same developer but the franchise is proven.
And ya some of the Epic exclusive developers have said that is basically the exact offer. Epic is offering to top sales up... and a contract is a contract. Of course they negotiate... and Epic isn't betting they are going to have to pay for millions of copies of a game like Boarderlands 3. But if they agree to pay for 2 million your damn right they will be honouring their contract. I agree Epic has a good idea how many copies will sell... however nothing is 100% big AAA games flop every year. Right now Epic is no doubt offering to mitigate all losses to secure 6 month exclusive deals. Its a great deal for them if games in fact sell well and hit or smash sales targets at that point the cost to Epic for exclusives is damn near nothing. Of course developers are agreeing cause... they are being offered basically flop insurance. Game sells poorly... or like say no man sky gets shit reviews out of the gate and has a hard time moving copies for the first few months. Epic would be covering losses.
I guess we'll see how well they have bet in a few years. If they bow out of the distribution game we will know they lost a shit ton of money. On the other hand if their big bets pay off and they end up getting 6 months of total PC sales royalties without having to pay for lost sales... then ya they will be around for a long time. For them to tap out real early (the next year or two) some big ones like BL3 would have to sell like shit during their exclusive. If games like that flop Epic can't not pay... one they would be contracted to do so... and two good luck signing any other exclusives with anyone if their first major deals end up in court.
I have hundreds of hours played on the original Homeworld. Cataclysm? Not so much... H3 looks intriguing but not enough to support crowdfunding.
I won't be backing another video game until Star Citizen is done. I backed that POS back in 2013.
I don't think you understand what a monopoly is.
the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
Sure seems to me like it fits the definition. Sure, it's a small commodity (a handful of games), but they still have exclusive access to them that no other platform is able to have.
That is far too narrow a view of monopoly. That's like saying Kraft has a monopoly on Velveeta.
Edit: I mean, it's * technically * true in a sense, but Kraft is not the dominant provider of cheese or cheese-like product. For something to be considered a monopoly, it has to have insurmountable market leverage vs competitors/providers of similar products, and only STEAM fits that definition.
Well you are trading one "exclusive" platform for another. If Epic continues to only contract out exclusives, it will be no different from Steam, except in Steam's case Valve is not paying off companies to be exclusive.
The only way to get competition is to have the product be available via multiple avenues. Many Steam games can be purchased via GOG or other platforms, not the case with many of these Epic exclusives.