It’s funny, since what they are actually selling (cosmetic items) is basically free and any scarcity of those is entirely artificial, even if the cost of actually running the servers is not. The only factor that makes sense for determining the price is what prices will translate into the most revenue. I guess before they were setting prices lower than the maximum they think people will be willing to pay? Or that somehow people are willing to pay more now?
Yeah but how long can you add stuff to it until the margins dont make sense? How many salaries have gone up due to the success that werent being paid in the beginning? What competition do they have now that they didn’t have when they basically popularized the genre? How much does it cost to frankenstein it into a roblox platform? All things to consider when thinking of the future of Fortnite. I dont think its failing by any means, but I am seeing bloat creep.
I’m sure inflation has eaten into their margins, including salaries (though they’ve done layoffs in the intervening years, so who knows), and I’m sure the game is not at the height of its popularity and spending anymore. That said, they’re raising prices because they’re confident they can get away with them, not because they’re in dire straits.
I’m sure they’ll be around for a decade or more. I think all the collabs they do are a cool thing, I just hate the game so I’d never play it. Also, phantasy star online did concerts first in 2013.
Uh oh, Epic’s not making more profit than last year! We need to squeeze money out of parents’ pockets for their gullible kids and milk our cash cow harder!
With Epic, and most companies, it’s not even that they don’t make more profit each year - but that investors (shareholders) now expect not a net growth in revenue/profit, but a net growth on the net growth in profit!
I know it sounds confusing so let me break it down:
Company makes X1 profit one year.
Next year, company makes X1 + 3% profit (X2 is thus X1 * 1.03)
The following year, the company makes X2 + 9% profit (X3 is thus X2 * 1.09, or X1 * 1.03 * 1.09)
Then the year after that, the company makes X3 + 12% (aka X4 = X3 * 1.12 = X2 * 1.09 * 1.12 = X1 * 1.03 * 1.09 * 1.12).
The net growth on net growth is thus explained as 3% to 9% to 12%.
And investors/shareholders are now demanding not just that revenue grows but that the growth of revenue also grows linearly.
Meaning if in the fifth year, the revenue grows, but only by, say, 2%, they consider that as a bad year because the last year the growth was 12%, so this is a 10% setback, aka time to bring in a “shaker”, who fires half the departments to save money, introduces bullshit “oh poor company doesn’t have money” customer-facing crap like Epic just did; then pick up a hefty bonus and fuck off to the next company to ruin.
What you’re describing is called a Growth Stock as opposed to a Mature Stock. I heard these terms recently when reading about the AI bubble and will just quote the relevant parts, because the author describes it better than I ever could:
You see, when a company is growing, it is a “growth stock,” and investors really like growth stocks. When you buy a share in a growth stock, you’re making a bet that it will continue to grow. So growth stocks trade at a huge multiple of their earnings. This is called the “price to earnings ratio” or “P/E ratio.”
But once a company stops growing, it is a “mature” stock, and it trades at a much lower P/E ratio. So for every dollar that Target – a mature company – brings in, it is worth ten dollars. It has a P/E ratio of 10, while Amazon has a P/E ratio of 36, which means that for every dollar Amazon brings in, the market values it at $36.
It’s wonderful to run a company that’s got a growth stock. Your shares are as good as money. If you want to buy another company, or hire a key worker, you can offer stock instead of cash. And stock is very easy for companies to get, because shares are manufactured right there on the premises, all you have to do is type some zeroes into a spreadsheet, while dollars are much harder to come by. A company can only get dollars from customers or creditors.
So when Amazon bids against Target for a key acquisition, or a key hire, Amazon can bid with shares they make by typing zeroes into a spreadsheet, and Target can only bid with dollars they get from selling stuff to us, or taking out loans, which is why Amazon generally wins those bidding wars.
That’s the upside of having a growth stock. But here’s the downside: eventually a company has to stop growing. Like, say you get a 90% market share in your sector, how are you gonna grow?
Once the market decides that you aren’t a growth stock, once you become mature, your stock is revalued, to a P/E ratio befitting a mature stock.
If you are an exec at a dominant company with a growth stock, you have to live in constant fear that the market will decide that you’re not likely to grow any further. Think of what happened to Facebook in the first quarter of 2022. They told investors that they experienced slightly slower growth in the USA than they had anticipated, and investors panicked. They staged a one-day, $240B sell off. A quarter-trillion dollars in 24 hours! At the time, it was the largest, most precipitous drop in corporate valuation in human history.
That’s a monopolist’s worst nightmare, because once you’re presiding over a “mature” firm, the key employees you’ve been compensating with stock, experience a precipitous pay-drop and bolt for the exits, so you lose the people who might help you grow again, and you can only hire their replacements with dollars. With dollars, not shares.
And the same goes for acquiring companies that might help you grow, because they, too, are going to expect money, not stock. This is the paradox of the growth stock. While you are growing to domination, the market loves you, but once you achieve dominance, the market lops 75% or more off your value in a single stroke if they don’t trust your pricing power.
Which is why growth stock companies are always desperately pumping up one bubble or another, spending billions to hype the pivot to video, or cryptocurrency, or NFTs, or Metaverse, or AI.
A growth stock is just that, a company that is expected to grow. These expectations are usually set by market analysts, based on historical data of the past 5 years, and tons of other metrics.
The problem is that what I described is not just growth, but the growth of growth. To put it in other words, most companies will only ever achieve more or less linear growth due to limiting factors (reach of product, available resources, etc. - e.g. you can’t manufacture 2 billion phones a year because there’s simply no 2 billion screens being produced, or you couldn’t sell 2 billion phones because there’s no 2 billion customers who’d all buy the same device). Some does experience short periods of exponential growth (that is when year on year the company’s growth increases, as I described above), 3-5 years at most, and that’s it.
The issue is that now shareholders demand that every company be growing exponentially, during a time of increasing poverty (inflation is high, pay hasn’t been catching up to it, leading to reduced spending by the average people, having less disposable income, and because of all that, less products are being bought, making less profit to companies).
And there’s another aspect as well - a loss of general humanity in investments over the past ~30 years, with investment corporation stacks buying up everything and anything valuable. This led to investors being corporations owned by corporations owned by corporations, and shares/companies at the bottom of the ladder are nothing more than numbers.
The issue with this is simple - the companies that depend on a wealthy enough population to buy their crap, are closing down companies and killing off jobs to bolster short term profits, leading to the “reason” why they wanted the short term profits: because sales are dropping because people have less disposable income. It’s basically a self reinforcing death spiral on a global scale, all caused by some wankers’ greed and lack of understanding of economics.
The children getting V-Bucks for birthdays and Christmas didn’t earn any money in the first place, but they ask for V-Bucks and Roblox money rather than full entire video games.
Let’s all hand our money over for skins so our kids can sit inside and play video games instead of doing real shit. Good idea. That will make sure they are corporate boot lickers for life.
Also, you can play the game without wasting money on skins.
Fortnite Save the World (paid game mode) made a lot of vbucks originally, but the high-payout challenges (300 vbucks/day) are only available to players who owned that mode prior to some time in 2020. Buying STW now gives a one time pack of 1500 vbucks. So the alternative, given that the vast majority of players didn’t buy the game, play for free in Bottle Royale. It takes 4 seasons to gain enough free vbucks in battle Royale to have enough to buy a season pass. It’s 1000 for the pass and typically has 300 free vbucks (100 near the bottom, 200 around level 80). So then you’re talking like 40 hours of play per season, with strong encouragement to play daily for an easy +1 level. The actual skins are typically paywalled behind the battle pass.
Then there’s the shop. Buying separate skins are anywhere from like 500 to 2000 vbucks. If it’s a full season, there’s probably an extra 500 vbucks available if you hit level 150 or so. So now like 60 hours every 2-3 months to get the free 500 to accumulate after the battle pass renewal.
That’s not sustainable. It’s not supposed to be. Skins are nowhere near “affordable” with free bucks. They don’t care if it’s your money or your game time that makes the vbucks because it’s time and/or money taken from other games. So what if it’s their limited money? What exactly did you invest in as a kid? All I put it towards was, effectively, entertainment that didn’t last longer as a skin, be it a game, a toy, or candy. Maybe even less, given that fortnite has been running for what, 9 years?
And no, I really don’t give a shit about any complaints about them just being cosmetic skins. They’re kids. I’m sure you had your brand name demands when you were 12. It’s the same shit. Vans are just shoes. Mongoose is just a bicycle. Air jordans are just shoes. JNCO is just pants. Air Forces are just shoes. Louisville slugger is just a bat. Whatever must-have item it was, it didn’t make either of us professionals at the game or sport. Yet, somehow, it still was the most important thing that week.
You don’t need V-Bucks to play Fortnite, but kids aren’t also known for having fully-developed skills like budgeting and delayed gratification. Perhaps it holds today’s kids’ attention longer because it’s changing in a way that games didn’t when we were kids.
The kids are stupid for wanting something that would make them happy? I would call that standard child behaviour. And parents are stupid for making their children happy? I’d rather be stupid than a bad parent.
Wtf didn’t they make a shitzillion dollars? Why are they needing help to ‘pay the bills’? Did they squander all of that money on EGS and avocado toast? Smh
I think by ‘bills’ they mean ‘we need to pay licensing fees for the random shit we decided to incorporate into our shitty battle royale game’.
I’ve seen the likes of Eminem, random nobody streamers, Jason Voorhees, washed up things become just things in Fortnite. You know, why not go all the way, get the entire cast of Seinfield, Friends and other no-nonsense shit in there while you’re at it.
Epic only looks like the dumbasses here because they truly believe that these things are all what people would want. When they’re catering to a generation that would not have any clue who any of these things are in the past 20 - 40 years ago.
This is pretty interesting to me. I know I’ll get downvoted for this, because the Epic hate is just so strong everywhere. But honestly, I think they need to improve the launcher, not sunset it.
I get it, that sounds obvious. But for 99% of their PC users who aren’t us: people who care about Linux, care about open-source, care about digital ownership and platform freedom, they’re just using the Epic Launcher to play the free games each week. Epic’s reasons are pretty obvious: give away games to lock in users. But I’ve talked to so many users throughout my time covering Steam Deck news for whom PC gaming would just be too expensive without those weekly giveaways.
Anyway, my caffeine-fueled point is this: I just wish they’d put some of their incredible wealth into building a better launcher.
…and maybe into making some better decisions along the way.
It is kinda nuts that Epic isn’t as good as Steam still. More competition is more gooder, but Epic isn’t really competing. Of course, I’d also rather the competition not be such a terrible company. I’d love to see more from GOG, I do remember reading that GOG might be coming to Linux natively, which would be awesome.
Why not make it better ? I believed in them at some point and bought a few games there, I don’t want to lose them and I want a good competitor to steam. They can make great games, they should be able to make a great launcher.
most pathetic excuse ive ever seen. as if fortnite isnt already the most profitable game ever they really need to extract more profit? what dumbass came up with this idea and what dumbass okayed it
Let’s not forget they literally build and license unreal engine, which most AAA games use. If they’re low on money that sounds like horrible business. They should be able to take even a meager amount and be wildly profitable
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
1. Submissions have to be related to games
Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.
This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.
2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.
We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.
3. No excessive self-promotion
Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.
This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.
4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you’re submitting before posting to see if it’s already been posted.
We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.
5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW
Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.
No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.
6. No linking to piracy
Don’t share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.
We don’t want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.
It’s funny, since what they are actually selling (cosmetic items) is basically free and any scarcity of those is entirely artificial, even if the cost of actually running the servers is not. The only factor that makes sense for determining the price is what prices will translate into the most revenue. I guess before they were setting prices lower than the maximum they think people will be willing to pay? Or that somehow people are willing to pay more now?
Did someone assume the money on tap from skins would last forever?
It’s still going strong. It remains one of the most profitable games on the planet.
The profit line being stable isn’t good enough, the line must go up, forever.
Yeah but how long can you add stuff to it until the margins dont make sense? How many salaries have gone up due to the success that werent being paid in the beginning? What competition do they have now that they didn’t have when they basically popularized the genre? How much does it cost to frankenstein it into a roblox platform? All things to consider when thinking of the future of Fortnite. I dont think its failing by any means, but I am seeing bloat creep.
I’m sure inflation has eaten into their margins, including salaries (though they’ve done layoffs in the intervening years, so who knows), and I’m sure the game is not at the height of its popularity and spending anymore. That said, they’re raising prices because they’re confident they can get away with them, not because they’re in dire straits.
I’m sure they’ll be around for a decade or more. I think all the collabs they do are a cool thing, I just hate the game so I’d never play it. Also, phantasy star online did concerts first in 2013.
Uh oh, Epic’s not making more profit than last year! We need to squeeze money out of parents’ pockets for their gullible kids and milk our cash cow harder!
With Epic, and most companies, it’s not even that they don’t make more profit each year - but that investors (shareholders) now expect not a net growth in revenue/profit, but a net growth on the net growth in profit!
I know it sounds confusing so let me break it down:
Company makes X1 profit one year.
Next year, company makes X1 + 3% profit (X2 is thus X1 * 1.03)
The following year, the company makes X2 + 9% profit (X3 is thus X2 * 1.09, or X1 * 1.03 * 1.09)
Then the year after that, the company makes X3 + 12% (aka X4 = X3 * 1.12 = X2 * 1.09 * 1.12 = X1 * 1.03 * 1.09 * 1.12).
The net growth on net growth is thus explained as 3% to 9% to 12%.
And investors/shareholders are now demanding not just that revenue grows but that the growth of revenue also grows linearly.
Meaning if in the fifth year, the revenue grows, but only by, say, 2%, they consider that as a bad year because the last year the growth was 12%, so this is a 10% setback, aka time to bring in a “shaker”, who fires half the departments to save money, introduces bullshit “oh poor company doesn’t have money” customer-facing crap like Epic just did; then pick up a hefty bonus and fuck off to the next company to ruin.
deleted by creator
What you’re describing is called a Growth Stock as opposed to a Mature Stock. I heard these terms recently when reading about the AI bubble and will just quote the relevant parts, because the author describes it better than I ever could:
Pluralistic: The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Criticizing AI from Cory Doctorow
Well, not exactly.
A growth stock is just that, a company that is expected to grow. These expectations are usually set by market analysts, based on historical data of the past 5 years, and tons of other metrics.
The problem is that what I described is not just growth, but the growth of growth. To put it in other words, most companies will only ever achieve more or less linear growth due to limiting factors (reach of product, available resources, etc. - e.g. you can’t manufacture 2 billion phones a year because there’s simply no 2 billion screens being produced, or you couldn’t sell 2 billion phones because there’s no 2 billion customers who’d all buy the same device). Some does experience short periods of exponential growth (that is when year on year the company’s growth increases, as I described above), 3-5 years at most, and that’s it.
The issue is that now shareholders demand that every company be growing exponentially, during a time of increasing poverty (inflation is high, pay hasn’t been catching up to it, leading to reduced spending by the average people, having less disposable income, and because of all that, less products are being bought, making less profit to companies).
And there’s another aspect as well - a loss of general humanity in investments over the past ~30 years, with investment corporation stacks buying up everything and anything valuable. This led to investors being corporations owned by corporations owned by corporations, and shares/companies at the bottom of the ladder are nothing more than numbers.
The issue with this is simple - the companies that depend on a wealthy enough population to buy their crap, are closing down companies and killing off jobs to bolster short term profits, leading to the “reason” why they wanted the short term profits: because sales are dropping because people have less disposable income. It’s basically a self reinforcing death spiral on a global scale, all caused by some wankers’ greed and lack of understanding of economics.
Except every company is a growth stock now. Automotive, insurance, healthcare, energy companies are all working hard to accelerate growth
I always remember the story about how a bank failed to make a record profit however made $6 billion in profit.
Number go up = good
Number not go up as much as it did last year = bad
And you’ll keep buying it.
If you’re stupid enough to buy V-Bucks, you don’t deserve the money you’ve earned to begin with.
The children getting V-Bucks for birthdays and Christmas didn’t earn any money in the first place, but they ask for V-Bucks and Roblox money rather than full entire video games.
Their parents did. They are fucking stupid.
Those kids are fucking stupid.
They’re kids. They don’t know anything yet, and they want to play what their friends are playing.
Let’s all hand our money over for skins so our kids can sit inside and play video games instead of doing real shit. Good idea. That will make sure they are corporate boot lickers for life.
Also, you can play the game without wasting money on skins.
You’re on a gaming forum. You didn’t play video games as a kid?
I still play video games. I’m an adult though. I pay for a game and play it. Paying for skins is stupid. FTP or paid doesn’t matter.
And we’re all proud of you, but try explaining that to a child.
deleted by creator
Fortnite Save the World (paid game mode) made a lot of vbucks originally, but the high-payout challenges (300 vbucks/day) are only available to players who owned that mode prior to some time in 2020. Buying STW now gives a one time pack of 1500 vbucks. So the alternative, given that the vast majority of players didn’t buy the game, play for free in Bottle Royale. It takes 4 seasons to gain enough free vbucks in battle Royale to have enough to buy a season pass. It’s 1000 for the pass and typically has 300 free vbucks (100 near the bottom, 200 around level 80). So then you’re talking like 40 hours of play per season, with strong encouragement to play daily for an easy +1 level. The actual skins are typically paywalled behind the battle pass.
Then there’s the shop. Buying separate skins are anywhere from like 500 to 2000 vbucks. If it’s a full season, there’s probably an extra 500 vbucks available if you hit level 150 or so. So now like 60 hours every 2-3 months to get the free 500 to accumulate after the battle pass renewal.
That’s not sustainable. It’s not supposed to be. Skins are nowhere near “affordable” with free bucks. They don’t care if it’s your money or your game time that makes the vbucks because it’s time and/or money taken from other games. So what if it’s their limited money? What exactly did you invest in as a kid? All I put it towards was, effectively, entertainment that didn’t last longer as a skin, be it a game, a toy, or candy. Maybe even less, given that fortnite has been running for what, 9 years?
And no, I really don’t give a shit about any complaints about them just being cosmetic skins. They’re kids. I’m sure you had your brand name demands when you were 12. It’s the same shit. Vans are just shoes. Mongoose is just a bicycle. Air jordans are just shoes. JNCO is just pants. Air Forces are just shoes. Louisville slugger is just a bat. Whatever must-have item it was, it didn’t make either of us professionals at the game or sport. Yet, somehow, it still was the most important thing that week.
You don’t need V-Bucks to play Fortnite, but kids aren’t also known for having fully-developed skills like budgeting and delayed gratification. Perhaps it holds today’s kids’ attention longer because it’s changing in a way that games didn’t when we were kids.
He’s living on the edge. I bet he’s also a juggalo who peaked in middle-school. Let it go.
“Hey, guys! Come look at this funny comment I made online!”
The kids are stupid for wanting something that would make them happy? I would call that standard child behaviour. And parents are stupid for making their children happy? I’d rather be stupid than a bad parent.
Kids ARE stupid, yes.
Lol. Lmao, even! Micro transactions and battle passes get enshitified like everything else.
Enshittierfied.
The poor indie company needs some fundraising. :-(
Wtf didn’t they make a shitzillion dollars? Why are they needing help to ‘pay the bills’? Did they squander all of that money on EGS and avocado toast? Smh
Tim Sweeny needs a new gold plated swimming pool.
Bills and shareholders pockets are basically the same thing.
Not so much that cost of operation has gone up. More likely profit growth has plateaued and they are now facing shareholder pressure.
I feel like the Lemmy description should retain the double quotation marks, since they often indicate “…so said a deceitful snake oil salesman.”
Remember when Epic made Unreal and Gears of War? Now their CEO, same guy, btw, is some AI slop jock asshole. This doesn’t surprise me.
I remember when their CEO, same guy, was selling floppies by mail.
Translation: Fortnite is carrying our whole ass company now and Daddy needs a new Benz.
I think by ‘bills’ they mean ‘we need to pay licensing fees for the random shit we decided to incorporate into our shitty battle royale game’.
I’ve seen the likes of Eminem, random nobody streamers, Jason Voorhees, washed up things become just things in Fortnite. You know, why not go all the way, get the entire cast of Seinfield, Friends and other no-nonsense shit in there while you’re at it.
Epic only looks like the dumbasses here because they truly believe that these things are all what people would want. When they’re catering to a generation that would not have any clue who any of these things are in the past 20 - 40 years ago.
How about you finally sunset the worst launcher ever created?
This is pretty interesting to me. I know I’ll get downvoted for this, because the Epic hate is just so strong everywhere. But honestly, I think they need to improve the launcher, not sunset it.
I get it, that sounds obvious. But for 99% of their PC users who aren’t us: people who care about Linux, care about open-source, care about digital ownership and platform freedom, they’re just using the Epic Launcher to play the free games each week. Epic’s reasons are pretty obvious: give away games to lock in users. But I’ve talked to so many users throughout my time covering Steam Deck news for whom PC gaming would just be too expensive without those weekly giveaways.
Anyway, my caffeine-fueled point is this: I just wish they’d put some of their incredible wealth into building a better launcher.
…and maybe into making some better decisions along the way.
I hate epic, and I think you’re correct. The only part I like is that they keep giving me free games just for existing.
I love steam, and competition is what will help them make choices that will keep me happy with steam.
Epic is such a poor comparison to steam right now it’s not even funny.
It is kinda nuts that Epic isn’t as good as Steam still. More competition is more gooder, but Epic isn’t really competing. Of course, I’d also rather the competition not be such a terrible company. I’d love to see more from GOG, I do remember reading that GOG might be coming to Linux natively, which would be awesome.
Their launcher is so bad that I use my web browser instead to get their free games.
No downvote from me, just because your opinion is unpopular.
Epic had more than enough time AND money to develop a good launcher. Somehow they failed, mostly because of greed and because of the dickhead CEO.
Why not make it better ? I believed in them at some point and bought a few games there, I don’t want to lose them and I want a good competitor to steam. They can make great games, they should be able to make a great launcher.
most pathetic excuse ive ever seen. as if fortnite isnt already the most profitable game ever they really need to extract more profit? what dumbass came up with this idea and what dumbass okayed it
Let’s not forget they literally build and license unreal engine, which most AAA games use. If they’re low on money that sounds like horrible business. They should be able to take even a meager amount and be wildly profitable