Does Tencent control the broadcast/streaming?
Tencent controls 40% of Epic.
Tencent controls 100% of Riot/League of Legends.
Epic has no control over Riot/League of Legends.
As Matt Levine observes, an American company can simply ignore its foreign owner if necessary https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-01/citgo-...
I think people are starting to cotton on that there is no such thing. The best you can hope is for a few years of getting a local partner familiar with your IP before they boot you out.
Number one, the US has basically declared economic war on Venezuela. The government is preventing anyone from coming to the US to do anything to control Citgo. Notice that the Citgo situation still depended on them declaring bankruptcy and then some mix of legal and political maneuvering to get a new board installed. But Citgo is a huge important energy company, not a video game company, and our relationship with Venezuela is much worse than our relationship with China. Despite the trade war and tough talk I can't imagine that LoL is the hill that the Trump admin would use to escalate things. Matt Levine's point is that the people who control the company are the ones with the keys to the office and if you have the political will you can use law enforcement to give control to the people that you want. But from the perspective of Venezuela/China, it's tantamount to the US seizing control of a foreign corporation and would be a huge escalation.
Number two, Citgo does not care about ongoing access to Venezuela (plus due to sanctions it's not like they have an economic relationship with Venezuela at the moment anyway). Their customers are not in Venezuela, their customers are in America. And they don't need to source oil from Venezuela, oil is a global commodity. Finally, there is a chance of leadership change in Venezuela. So you have scenario one, Maduro keeps control of Venezuela and nothing changes for Citgo (Venezuela now hates them but it doesn't matter because that relationship was already severed) but now Citgo is officially independent. Or scenario two, Guaido gets control and Citgo is embraced by the new leadership that they supported from the beginning.
For Riot, things are totally different. They currently have access to the Chinese market and don't want to lose that access. Sure, maybe they could convince a judge to let them appoint an American board and remove Chinese control, but if that were to happen China would just sever access to the Chinese market.
It may put Epic in a spot, but these CEOs will be fine.
Yet a statements is what started all this in the video game world. Blitzchung was banned from making a statement. Tim Sweeney did a statement right now, in support to what Blitzchung did. This statement will have repercussion. You may not believe that the content of the statement is truthful, but it doesn't change that Tim Sweeney accepted the repercussion caused by that statement, which is already quite important.
We need competition but not how epic is going about it.
For the Kickstarter, did people pay to buy the game and not get it while not being refunded? We're they promised a copy of the game while not receiving it?
He promised transparency on the epic store then made the trello board private after a month, and decided to not be transparent at all.
3 years later ends up buying out indie games and puts them behind exclusivity on the Epic Store
On Linux gaming "The real enemy of Linux are these trolls who try to overrun social media channels to make claims in bad faith and attempt to harass developers into compliance. They’re scaring lots of good game developers away." https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/115052159963387494...
About dev cuts:
In January "This is the only practicable way to operate a 12% fee store in developing countries." https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/109102593910919987...
5 months later: “If Valve commits to a permanent 88% revenue share, we’ll stop making new exclusive deals” https://www.dsogaming.com/news/tim-sweeney-if-valve-commits-...
Tim Sweeney is an interesting person, like a weathervane
When I saw Epic was jumping into the fray I figured there'd be vicious backlash and handwringing from the community for minor things and wasn't surprised at all.
The service goes down for 15-30 minutes every single Tuesday during peak hours. Can you imagine if your internet, TV, or cellphone did this?
There is also an absurd amount of unplanned downtime as well https://twitter.com/steamstatus there's a major outage every 2 months on average where you cannot even open Steam. The trading system is down A LOT. I don't know of any website like steamstatus that logs it, but it seems like it is down every other week. I also can't seem to trade more than 15 items at a time or the page will just hang, and this system is at least 6 years old already.
Before EA released Origin, there were no refunds on Steam.
I've emailed Valve exploits and they don't respond, not a single reply after years when 10 years ago they would have at least replied maybe 2-3 months later. They took HALF A YEAR to even acknowledge my exploit on hackerone.com and did not even fix it yet.
They also killed 3rd party servers in TF2 by putting them in a button at the bottom of the screen. It is similar to Apple putting all 3rd party apps in a link at the bottom of the app store. They also killed 3rd party servers in CS:GO by banning servers that were giving people default items and then being too lazy to ban servers that gave people items from their online store.
30% is standard? Why is it a standard and why can't it be lowered to 12% if Epic Games can do it? Why does Valve get to use the same standard as brick and mortar retailers when digital stores are way cheaper to maintain and more profitable because of forced online DRM and no reselling?
This is about all I care to ramble off right now, but there's more.
It is time for Valve to get a rude awakening from their comfortable monopoly. The Epic store is a good thing that will result in better service for consumers. And the only price you pay is to install another launcher that costs you nothing.
Yeah, no. I'm not going to install another launcher that wastes RAM, bandwidth etc. and begs for my attention. Having games spread across multiple launchers is horrible UX too.
The Steam monopoly is a good thing for customers. What's bad is that it's private property and run for profit rather than to be useful.
Funny you mention this. Right now on my computer, Steam is using up over 450 mb ram while the Epic game store uses up 10 mb. Both of them being minimized.
> Having games spread across multiple launchers is horrible UX too. The Steam monopoly is a good thing for customers. What's bad is that it's private property and run for profit rather than to be useful.
Yeah and so is having software being spread across multiple OSes "horrible UX" too, so you are basically suggesting that the Windows monopoly is a good thing for customers in that same vein.
We don't live in lala-land where things like this get made as non-profit. The only solution is competition.
I'd take the annoyance if I know that the middleman isn't taking 30% of what I am paying the dev and the dev is getting 88%.
Epic is doing what? Handing out sacks of cash to buy a catalog? Which is going to end the first mover advantage and make your game buried at the bottom of a big App Store list.
After making Fortnite, a clone of different game, popular with LOL’s business model?
30% to a company doing things for you? Or Epic who is charging you less but building a catalog of competitors for you as well, and backtracking constantly on promises.
Oh and Epic is partially owned by a Chinese company. Since everyone is suddenly patriotic about that shit.
Valve was not the first to invent digital distribution either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_distribution_of_video_...
> Epic is doing what?
Reducing the cut from 30% to 12% is huge, offering a world class engine that used to cost millions to license free to anyone to use with 5% royalty is also huge accomplishment.
If Fortnite is a clone of Dayz, then Half-Life is a clone of Quake. Since HL, all the successful games Valve "made" were made by developers they bought out with the exception of Artifact which was a complete flop and Dota Underlords which is also failing.
Are you really going to complain about Fornite's "LOL" business model when Dota 2, CS:GO, and TF2 also uses the "LOL" business model AND has gambling loot boxes on top of that? Yes I would say Fortnite is much more inventive than making clones like Artifact and Underlords that flopped hard.
> 30% to a company doing things for you? Or Epic who is charging you less but building a catalog of competitors for you as well
I am not a publisher, so a bigger catalog will only benefit me.
And if you think Valve doesn't want a large "catalog of competitors" as much as Epic, then I have a bridge to sell you.
China owns less than half of Epic.
Like the guy in the sibling comment defending 30% cut for a digital service like Steam, it is Stockholm syndrome, or just human nature :)
To put that in perspective: Epic still does not have a shopping cart.
Even more I dislike them for entering into exclusivity agreements involving kickstarted projects that promised delivery on other platforms. Sure the developers are worse than Epic in this case, because they are the ones breaking the promises but still. It is kind of like sleeping with a married person - sure the person cheating is doing something worse than you, but you are still knowingly enabling it and contributing to something hurtful.
I don't like Valve having a de facto monopoly and buy on GoG where possible or the Humble store, but I prefer a de facto monopoly on selling a product than a de jure one.
Epic couldn't have realistically broken in without forcing people to use their client.
Steam is not a paid service.
I do think they should lower their 30% cut, though that is the industry standard.
People are up in arms about Windows 10 showing ads in the Start menu, but somehow Valve showing them in a popup which you have to actually close is okay.
That's not such a big deal though, the real problem is that they did this with games that were in development for years with Kickstarter-style backing that had up until that point explicitly targeted other storefronts. To many this seems like a betrayal by the developer and Epic's behavior is making the market worse.
Now as a pure GOG game buyer, used to having to wait decades to get games that were released on Steam on release day, I can't say I'm not finding some satisfaction out of all the Epic exclusivity outrage but, feelings aside, I'd prefer that there was no exclusivity whatsoever.
If the developer gets more money from Epic, that means that they now have more resources to make a decent game, which actually benefits me as a consumer.
Also, if the game is good, I'd prefer more money to make its way to the developer rather than storefront and Epic has a better deal.
From all above it seems to me that Epic Store is overall doing a good thing and I'd prefer it to Steam if I had a choice.
As many gamers are saying however, him stating this, because Tencent will profit from their ownership of Epic - they will boycott Epic's games as well.
As for Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney, he isn't without controversy but the guy is a billionaire and I'm willing to bet that in his mind, he sees Epic Games as an extension of himself. He must feel strongly enough to take such a public stance at the risk of angering his Chinese shareholders and future business in China.
If anything, I'm kind of shocked he's jumping out ahead of an event happening to Epic Games of a player protesting on behalf of Hong Kong and stating what they will do, with Tencent being part of their funding. Either this is to push the "they don't control us" narrative re:Tencent. I don't know how big Fortnite is in China (seems PUBG is the big one there?) and they relatively recently bought the developer behind Rocket League I believe which similarly, don't know how big of a presence they have in China.
Kudos to him whatever the reasoning though. Being willing to draw the ire of a country that, population wise, eclipses your other larger markets because you disagree with their handling of a protest is gutsy on his part. Granted, they're basically printing money with Fortnite so I guess he doesn't have to care too much to keep the lights on, but still, he is not solely driven by capitalism as it would be easy to just stay quiet.
Now Valve needs to take the same stance to get back to the status quo.
Sweeney on the other hand has allowed Fortnite to become their top item and it generates money other developers only dream of so I highly doubt other shareholders are particularly angry with him (they probably love him quite frankly). He's sufficiently defensive/offensive when things are setup to work against Epic Games (when Microsoft was ambiguous as to how important Windows Store would be to the Windows 10 ecosystem. To the chagrin of vocal gamers, he's aggressively going after Steam which could've frankly crushed Epic Games Store at the onset if not for how aggressive Epic has been).
Honestly, their best course of action would be to cut bait.
There are technically ways you can make certain seats on the board have a larger weight in voting, but I don't know Epic's specifics and am going to assume it's pretty standard.
He was asked. He answered.
It might be an answer, but it's definitely motivated.
Replying to @CherrishChoerry @calibrono and 3 others
> Epic is a US company and I’m the controlling shareholder. Tencent is an approximately 40% shareholder, and there are many other shareholders including employees and investors.
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @calibrono and 3 others
> 40% is a big cut though. They’re already apparently pulling out of the NBA League. Can you honestly say if a similar event happened you wouldn’t have to, sever ties with said influential figure, i.e the NBA coach/Hearthstone Champ
> Yes, absolutely. That will never happen on my watch as the founder, CEO, and controlling shareholder.
7:55 AM - 9 Oct 2019