This "loss" should be put into context: as Bloomberg reported just three weeks ago [bloomberg.com]: "Epic Games could be worth about $28 billion based on its latest round of fundraising, Sky News reported, propelling the company into the ranks of the world’s 10 most valuable startups."
So, did Epic "lose $330 million" - or did it invest 12% of what the market says it's worth to cultivate its customer base and secure IPs for the future?
I know people are salty about Epic's exclusives and may not be on their side in the
Tim Sweeney unleashed a cancer to PC gaming in the form of aggressive 3rd party exclusives and attempting to buy users by acquiring developers of popular games all to force users to a completely crap games launcher that doesn't even offer a fraction of the features of the competition. In the process he also managed to cut off not one but 2 linux gaming communities telling them "sorry Epic launcher now required and it only runs on Windows" giving the formerly happy Steam users the middle finger.
I don't know about this specific scenario, but in any scenario where you have an incumbent player that is as deeply entrenched as Steam is, momentum enough is a huge hurdle that may keep an unambiguously 'better' platform in the rear view mirror.
Depends on the strategy. If your goal is to buy consumers for a long term win then that could be considered an investment, e.g. MS's strategy into the Xbox.
If on you one the other hand only buy consumers by offering them free stuff with precisely zero compelling features of your own as soon as they've consumed the free stuff they will disappear again. All of their perceived benefits have amounted to nothing. - Those lower store fees that would pass on savings to consumers were never passed on. Games cost jus
This "loss" should be put into context: as Bloomberg reported just three weeks ago [bloomberg.com]: "Epic Games could be worth about $28 billion based on its latest round of fundraising, Sky News reported, propelling the company into the ranks of the world’s 10 most valuable startups."
So, did Epic "lose $330 million" - or did it invest 12% of what the market says it's worth to cultivate its customer base and secure IPs for the future?
I know people are salty about Epic's exclusives and may not be on their side in the
Tim Sweeney unleashed a cancer to PC gaming in the form of aggressive 3rd party exclusives and attempting to buy users by acquiring developers of popular games all to force users to a completely crap games launcher that doesn't even offer a fraction of the features of the competition. In the process he also managed to cut off not one but 2 linux gaming communities telling them "sorry Epic launcher now required and it only runs on Windows" giving the formerly happy Steam users the middle finger.
He fractured
I don't know about this specific scenario, but in any scenario where you have an incumbent player that is as deeply entrenched as Steam is, momentum enough is a huge hurdle that may keep an unambiguously 'better' platform in the rear view mirror.
Depends on the strategy. If your goal is to buy consumers for a long term win then that could be considered an investment, e.g. MS's strategy into the Xbox.
If on you one the other hand only buy consumers by offering them free stuff with precisely zero compelling features of your own as soon as they've consumed the free stuff they will disappear again. All of their perceived benefits have amounted to nothing.
- Those lower store fees that would pass on savings to consumers were never passed on. Games cost jus