I bought Pro because I want to play KH3 at the best possible quality.
It betrayed my expectations.
News Epic Games Store
- Thread starter Blizniak
- Start date
It betrayed my expectations.
:/ that was one of the reasons I wanted to buy it.
Just checked the DF video, did you enabled the 1080p mode? it seems to run at 60fps most of the time
Last edited:
Fun Fact: Claims without numbers are worthless.
Fun Assumption; It's still probably 30% less than what it would have been as a multi store release.
2012 was a much different time. Steam numbers would have been disgusting today.
Randy is fully aware that Steam was nowhere near as big back then as it is now, he's so full of shit. Someone should ask him why he didn't make Blands full time exclusive if EGS is so great.
so ... what Randy is trying to tell us is that it sold like shit (relatively) then?
because:
(and that peak was right at release ... it never reached that level again ... not even when it was free, or 90% off ... not even when they released that free DLC)
Basically the same thing as Metro Exodus sold 2.5 times Steam. No exact numbers.
Even if he wasnt full of shit, people are buying this crap on that shitty store because there’s literally no other option, not because they wanted to.
I was waiting for such a Tweet. Randy should be ashamed for releasing BL3 in it's current state.
lol, under 245k then.so ... what Randy is trying to tell us is that it sold like shit (relatively) then?
because:
(and that peak was right at release ... it never reached that level again ... not even when it was free, or 90% off ... not even when they released that free DLC)
That's a bit embarrassing considering how heavily promoted and discounted the game was in many countries. I mean 2 for 1 sales before release?
250k peak when Monster Hunter got 329k is pretty bad lmao.so ... what Randy is trying to tell us is that it sold like shit (relatively) then?
because:
(and that peak was right at release ... it never reached that level again ... not even when it was free, or 90% off ... not even when they released that free DLC)
Under 245k concurrent. Total sales on EGS must be far over a million, which is sad but expected.
Spin spin spin. Sounds like it’s having a bad launch all around.
I was hoping the first mega release for EGS would be an unmitigated disaster. I’m sure a portion of the people having trouble will do the mental gymnastics to continue to justify EGS, but everyone else will be talking about how much a clusterfuck this has all been.
I had no doubt Borderlands 3 would sell a lot, but that’s just a lot of people who now have a bad impression of Epic’s trashfire store.
I was hoping the first mega release for EGS would be an unmitigated disaster. I’m sure a portion of the people having trouble will do the mental gymnastics to continue to justify EGS, but everyone else will be talking about how much a clusterfuck this has all been.
I had no doubt Borderlands 3 would sell a lot, but that’s just a lot of people who now have a bad impression of Epic’s trashfire store.
I guess too. But Randy's phrasing makes it funny. If he wanted to brag he could have told us the sales numbers. Instead he talked about the concurrent players peak... This means the day one players, not buyers of course.
Can't say if it's a lot, but it truly doesn't mean anything, it's just making noise. Unless ALL the people who bought it are playing right now
What in the the ever-loving fuck do they need to upload 900mb per hour for?
Edit: Looks like BS.
Last edited:
I understand that concurrent people playing =|= units sold.
Still under 245k isn't that good, considering how heavily pushed the game was (50% discount in the week before launch!).
We at least have a number now and will be able to look up peak, day one concurrent numbers for steam in 6 months. This will allow us to make an estimate how many people are ignoring the EGS, if course the game not getting great reviews will influence Steam buyers...
And I'm repeating myself again, but if data shows that enough people are ignoring the EGS, going egsclusive isn't an option without epic founding. Which is good for us all.
I mean, maybe I'm missing something but if I wanted to gauge hypothetical BL3 sales on Steam without having the numbers I'd compare its peak concurrent players to BL2 peak concurrent players. Possibly launch day peak concurrent players if I had access to those records even. If it was the same or higher (this is at launch day at that rather than after a week or two where more and more people get to play it, it's not like it stopped selling to fans after a day, it will take a while for every interested gamer to get to it) I'd consider the game to have sold pretty damn well, since BL2 is also considered to have sold pretty damn well, and had that kind of activity stats itself. As far as I can tell these are sadly positive stats for BL3. But it really doesn't change much of anything we've all discussed about EGS so far. It's only giving them some more positive PR. It changes none of the fundamental issues or the general situation we've all criticized or its potential for the future and what happens when they no longer moneyhat the small devs that don't have the prowess of such IP that we've all speculated on. BL3 could have launched with its own launcher or on Battle.net or wherever and sell about as good all other things being equal (marketing budget, game quality, whatever).
Last edited:
The Chinese government needs all the data possible.
I'm obviously kidding. But that answer is kind of obligatory. Let's not disappoint.
I feel a strong urge to buy Control, but I have some other games to finish up first. I love Remedy games. I love MP1, 2, Alan Wake and enjoyed QB. Alan Wake is also one of my favorite games of all time and hearing about all the mentions of AW in Control, reading that Control is kindof a "spiritual sequel" to AW and that one of the expansion might go into the AW world doesn't make the urge of buying Control any less.
I finished AW 3 times on X360 and once on PC and I freaking love it.
I finished AW 3 times on X360 and once on PC and I freaking love it.
Borderlands selling much better than Borderlands 2 was a given. Not only is the franchise itself bigger, the PC market has grown immensely since Borderlands 2. Some games are big enough that they'll sell to the mainstream and that audience has no idea about EGS or what a scumbag Randy Pitchford is. That's the bad news.
The good news is that these games are not enough to make EGS successful. EGS having a couple of big games each year that sell well makes it no different than Origin, uPlay and the Bethesda launcher. The only way that EGS can become an actual contender is if it succeeds in bringing in the core, the people who buy lots of games. Thankfully that audience is energized against Epic and well informed on Sweeney's business practices.
The good news is that these games are not enough to make EGS successful. EGS having a couple of big games each year that sell well makes it no different than Origin, uPlay and the Bethesda launcher. The only way that EGS can become an actual contender is if it succeeds in bringing in the core, the people who buy lots of games. Thankfully that audience is energized against Epic and well informed on Sweeney's business practices.
Agreed.
We also have to remember that every botched AAA launch they have is also one less casual EGS customer, not including all the people they will tell about how bad their experience was.
It goes without saying that performance issues related to the client, slow download speeds and purchasing issues have left a bitter taste in people's mouth. Even people who were willing to put up with not having the game on Steam have now seen how shit EGS is and aren't happy.
I wonder if in half a year when BL3 release on Steam it will beat EGS number.
Probably won't because it already 6 months old at that point but lol.
Probably won't because it already 6 months old at that point but lol.
Its releasing on Steam in April. Unless they release really early in the month nobody will care because Cyberpunk will be everywhere.
Well RIP BL3 Steam sales. Good thing for EGS achivement then,
This news, for me at least, is pretty good. Epic failed at having a massive hit, they wasted so much money on Borderlands 3, with the exclusivity, marketing, giving 20% for "influencers", and the game sold only "OK", this game wasn´t the Splash they were expecting, and all the problems the game is having is the cherry on top.
But... I don´t belive Randy Pitchford, and his statment probably is just something he decided to invent on the fly wiithout thinking much about it.
But... I don´t belive Randy Pitchford, and his statment probably is just something he decided to invent on the fly wiithout thinking much about it.
Last edited:
Did anyone post this article earlier in the week? It's actually a good take.
www.pcgamer.com
Steam lets bizarre, obscure games rub shoulders with big-budget hits, and I love it that way
Small, amateurish games should live forever, even if they don't prosper.
www.pcgamer.com
yeah ... but it might've been in the steam thread
either way - that's a really good article!
Randy used "about" in that sentence so its probably nowhere near 247k. Probably closer to 200k and yea its really not that impressive. At least not for a title that is a sequel to a game that sold 11 million on Steam. The marketing that went into this EGS version was quite absurd too. Dating back to when they first announced it they been running twitch commercials etc.
MHW on Steam pretty much destroys that # in recent years. And that was a 7 month late port. No Man's Sky also did over 200k almost 3 years ago. BL3 would have done double on Steam but the port being not great would have hurt it on Steam too.
Still tho for EGS its a huge # and big get for their store. Its probably the biggest # they will do with their store with a 60$ game for the foreseeable future. If they moneyhat RDR2 I can see it beating BL3.
MHW on Steam pretty much destroys that # in recent years. And that was a 7 month late port. No Man's Sky also did over 200k almost 3 years ago. BL3 would have done double on Steam but the port being not great would have hurt it on Steam too.
Still tho for EGS its a huge # and big get for their store. Its probably the biggest # they will do with their store with a 60$ game for the foreseeable future. If they moneyhat RDR2 I can see it beating BL3.
Yeah. Not to get too tinfoil hat, but reading the phraseology "is about twice-as-high as" really makes it seem like he's trying to massage the numbers.
People are interpreting it as 2.0 x 123.5k = 247k. Then lop off a few thousand to get "about twice-as high" and we're at 240-245k.
But what if "about twice-as-high" means something weird like 1.75 x 123.5k? That's still not a bad launch, but depending on how we're doing the math, we could be talking about a difference of tens of thousands of copies.
Either way, it sounds like it still did a pretty solid launch for EGS, and it's their best game yet. Just hope that none of the people who bought it there turn into regular EGS customers.
Even 1.55x could be interpreted as "twice-as-high-as".
That's the problem with not having numbers. But in my opinion it is better for us to overestimate than to underestimate. In the end it doesn't matter if it's 225k or 240k concurrent players. The game was pushed hard and sold well. The big question that nobody is willing to ask loudly (or able to answer): How many sells were missed?
This is the narrative I'm pushing with every single one of my interactions on the internet in regards to the EGS. If you lost 25-30% of your clientele by going exclusive you lost a lot of money, despite the better split. This has to be burned into every dev/publisher mind, in my opinion. Exclusivity without Epic paying upfront is not worth it. They don't care about our experience, arguments or wishes. They only care about their winnings and that's where we have the power to scare them: By not buying from EGS and by buying from Steam, GoG and co.
I think Randy made a tactical error by giving us a rough number to play with.
If 240k played BL3 on day one on EGS, 80k people playing BL3 on day one on steam would be enough to underline the "30% lost sales" narrative.
80k concurrent players for BL3 on steam. That sounds possible.
That's the problem with not having numbers. But in my opinion it is better for us to overestimate than to underestimate. In the end it doesn't matter if it's 225k or 240k concurrent players. The game was pushed hard and sold well. The big question that nobody is willing to ask loudly (or able to answer): How many sells were missed?
This is the narrative I'm pushing with every single one of my interactions on the internet in regards to the EGS. If you lost 25-30% of your clientele by going exclusive you lost a lot of money, despite the better split. This has to be burned into every dev/publisher mind, in my opinion. Exclusivity without Epic paying upfront is not worth it. They don't care about our experience, arguments or wishes. They only care about their winnings and that's where we have the power to scare them: By not buying from EGS and by buying from Steam, GoG and co.
I think Randy made a tactical error by giving us a rough number to play with.
If 240k played BL3 on day one on EGS, 80k people playing BL3 on day one on steam would be enough to underline the "30% lost sales" narrative.
80k concurrent players for BL3 on steam. That sounds possible.
2 Mbit of network traffic to manage leds?
That's still very odd. Yet far more beliavable than they using Chinese keylogger spyware as DRM. lol.
also, keep in mind that while 240k+ is admittedly an impressive number, it's still pretty low for a game that's sold exclusively on one launcher especially since Borderlands was favored on PC as a brand and that's with all the ads and the discounts.
I think it is not network traffic, just disk usage. I imagine that some people look at the task manager and get easily confused.
Edit: Or is it me? lmao if the "network" column is for "local traffic".
The question is: will this lead to loyal EGS users? Millions of people used Origin, uPlay and the Windows Store for exclusives, but barely anyone used these stores for non-exclusive games.
I guess that's why Epic tries to moneyhat as many games as possible; they want new pc gamers to build their library on EGS instead of Steam. The free games are helping with this as well.
Oh and it's very unlikely that Rockstar won't sell RDR2 on their own launcher. It just won't be on Steam.
I think the difference between Borderlands 3 and Rockstar is that Rockstar has its own client and infrastructure from which they take 100% from, and from which most if not all of their customers will be willing to use to play RDR2. No moneyhat is necessary as they will maximise their profits on their own launcher. While they could do a Ubisoft and take the moneyhat and "simship" on their own platform, the atmosphere is a lot more toxic now than it was back then and they are just asking for negativity from day one. It just seems silly for them to do it when Epic are probably offering chump change (especially in a situation where it will also be on Social Club) in comparison to the money they're set to make on it just being on their own platform.
Borderlands 3 is different. Sure, the game could probably do well on its own 2K launcher, but 2K hasn't (yet) made one and are still very keen on siloing Rockstar Social Club (and its brand cachet) from the rest of the company, so the moneyhat is more compelling.
I think the problem with EGS's strategy is twofold. Firstly, in the long term, the big games like Borderlands 3 will either have to go back to Steam for future iterations or the publisher has a big enough library of good sellers that their own client can stand on its own two feet. Secondly, the mid-tier and indie games they are landgrabbing via exclusivity are, while high profile amongst their peers, in the end a dime a dozen. Games like DARQ and SkateBird will basically eat the lunch of someone else who took Epic's exclusivity because there's no shortage of good games on Steam.
In short, if people don't want to use EGS, they will not use it. Eventually the bigger publishers will just have their own launchers, and the smaller publishers are in an extremely competitive market, so Steam users aren't exactly starved of games.
Plus, as I have said time and time again, we have to remember that Epic's exclusivity deals can't last forever and at some point the store will have to start paying its rent or there will be cuts. The whole point of EGS is to create a lucrative future for Epic after Fortnite inevitably peters out (and judging by recent trends, that is happening at an accellerated rate due to Epic's miscalcuations), so if it transpires that year after year their aggressive exclusivity chasing is just them setting their cash on fire, they will start spending that money elsewhere.
We should also be mindful that Epic's strategy is pretty fragile. It only works so long as a bigger fish doesn't come along with a fat lump of cash and starts throwing it around in a way that would disrupt their flimsy business model. If EA sees timed exclusives work, there's no reason why they wouldn't start chasing them on Origin, which is a more established client and where exclusivity probably wouldn't go down like a cup of cold sick. Or another big publisher could try their luck with a significant wad of cash and a competent storefront. There are plenty of companies out there with the resources and greediness to do it far more ruthlessly than Epic has been, and if Epic's strategy works we all know the industry loves a good goldrush.
Borderlands 3 is different. Sure, the game could probably do well on its own 2K launcher, but 2K hasn't (yet) made one and are still very keen on siloing Rockstar Social Club (and its brand cachet) from the rest of the company, so the moneyhat is more compelling.
I think the problem with EGS's strategy is twofold. Firstly, in the long term, the big games like Borderlands 3 will either have to go back to Steam for future iterations or the publisher has a big enough library of good sellers that their own client can stand on its own two feet. Secondly, the mid-tier and indie games they are landgrabbing via exclusivity are, while high profile amongst their peers, in the end a dime a dozen. Games like DARQ and SkateBird will basically eat the lunch of someone else who took Epic's exclusivity because there's no shortage of good games on Steam.
In short, if people don't want to use EGS, they will not use it. Eventually the bigger publishers will just have their own launchers, and the smaller publishers are in an extremely competitive market, so Steam users aren't exactly starved of games.
Plus, as I have said time and time again, we have to remember that Epic's exclusivity deals can't last forever and at some point the store will have to start paying its rent or there will be cuts. The whole point of EGS is to create a lucrative future for Epic after Fortnite inevitably peters out (and judging by recent trends, that is happening at an accellerated rate due to Epic's miscalcuations), so if it transpires that year after year their aggressive exclusivity chasing is just them setting their cash on fire, they will start spending that money elsewhere.
We should also be mindful that Epic's strategy is pretty fragile. It only works so long as a bigger fish doesn't come along with a fat lump of cash and starts throwing it around in a way that would disrupt their flimsy business model. If EA sees timed exclusives work, there's no reason why they wouldn't start chasing them on Origin, which is a more established client and where exclusivity probably wouldn't go down like a cup of cold sick. Or another big publisher could try their luck with a significant wad of cash and a competent storefront. There are plenty of companies out there with the resources and greediness to do it far more ruthlessly than Epic has been, and if Epic's strategy works we all know the industry loves a good goldrush.
Still unclear but Randy Pitchford lies about everything, probably even vague estimates, but if those numbers are true and BL3 didn't even beat Monster Hunter Ultimate... hoo boy. That's a much better outcome than I could have ever anticipated. I know it's uncouth to cheer on a game's failure, but if it's hurting Randy Pitchford, honestly I'm gonna excuse myself just once.
The recession is gonna be a big test for the EGS. People just aren't going to be buying games period, not just a matter of not enough people buying indie games. Even when times are (relatively, anyways) good right now, the indie market is spread too thin for the risk to be worth it - imagine how bad it's gonna get when the recession hits without a big push like XBLA, Steam, or the eShop behind it. And considering Fortnite is finally showing its first signs of faltering, I don't think just Unreal licenses will be enough to justify big EGS payouts while the economy's crap (though they alone will be enough to keep Epic alive.)
A recession shouldn't (in my opinion) overly harm the EGS that much, precisely for the reason all of us have criticized it: it's almost entirely populated by the "haves" of the indie world while the "have nots" are still on Steam anyways.
Yes, a recession will hit every dev's wallets, but a dev like Gearbox isn't going to get killed as much as a dev like Supergiant, and a dev like Supergiant isn't going to get killed as much as a guy like Will O'Neill making weird niche little narrative games about depression. And EGS is made almost entirely of devs similar to the first two examples, and none from the last example.
On Xbox Borderlands 3 had a big enough launch to overthrow Fortnite from the top of Most Played chart yet on PC it would be 3rd or 4th on Steam's current concurrent users chart.
Yeah, the comparison with the console numbers puts things in perspective. BL3 had a aggressive marketing campaign including a Fortnite bundle and reserved space at the top of the EGS page, has decent regional price in several regions and it's a sequel of a 22M+ game that had very long tail specially on PC. It would have a lot more than just "about twice-as-high" concurrent users on PC when compared to the numbers from 7 years ago.
It was never going be a flop, it's probably on the low-end but still within 2k projections and maybe it will have momentum since the game appears to be what the fan-base wanted (technical issues aside), but calling this launch anything more than "ok" or "good" sounds very disingenuous to me.
I'm still surprised Sweeney hasn't tweeted anything more concrete in terms of numbers, since they're certainly the biggest ones for EGS yet.
Die hard Borderlands fans clearly want the game when it releases. There will also be people who aren’t die hard, but are happy to get it day 1 when it comes to EGS.
Everyone else is either against EGS, or taking a wait and see approach. Performance issues may be enough to convince week 2 buyers to become month 6 buyers.
All speculation on my part, however.
Everyone else is either against EGS, or taking a wait and see approach. Performance issues may be enough to convince week 2 buyers to become month 6 buyers.
All speculation on my part, however.
Hey it's not EGS sales data if you don't have to solve an equation to get to it.
Pitchford is a known liar. He lies and twists everything to put himself in a positive light.
Last edited:
That is the shittiest hot take I’ve read in quite a while.