Acleacius wrote on Feb 16, 2020, 11:57:
No idea where your getting that info because epic pays each pub/dev differently.
While they are obviously two different styles of games, Remedy's Control seems to disprove your info. Additionally Control is reported to be much more creative and have amazing gameplay.
Despite critical success from the media, sales were hampered. Also means a massive loss of PR dollars. All wasted because it couldn't reach a diverse audience.
Control didn't sell well on consoles either, not just PC. That likely wouldn't have changed even if the game launched on Steam. It would have sold better on Steam than it did on EGS but probably not enough to offset Epic's bribe money.
Developers and publishers know that their games will sell less on EGS than on Steam. That's why these exclusivity deals are timed and why Epic is paying out millions to get them.
Bhruic wrote on Feb 16, 2020, 09:52:
Wait, you start off by saying you can't say without actual sales data, and then make all sorts of conclusions about the financials of the situation without sales data. How do you know the "bribe money" more than covers potential losses? How do you know if developers/publishers care about how their games sell on EGS? If you're going to make lots of claims that rely on having good data, maybe don't start off by saying you don't actually have that data, because then all your claims look really stupid.
Developers and publishers aren't stupid. They base their budgets on estimated sales and as such, have expectations for many copies they can sell within the first year. They also know that their games aren't going to sell much on EGS compared to Steam, hence the timed exclusivity as opposed to permanent exclusivity. Permanent exclusivity would cost Epic a whole lot more than timed exclusivity because the potential losses would be far greater.
You don't need exact numbers to make logical deductions.This comment was edited on Feb 16, 2020, 16:05.