As far as I can see, that article doesn’t have any quotes from Epic about their revenue. It’s just informed guesses by a third-party analyst.
That’s fine, money isn’t real.
Sorry, I don’t speak Darmok. Is that you admitting you were wrong about Epic doesn’t report their revenues publicly?
No, I was just trying to keep with the general timbre of this thread, and feigning interest one post longer than I could.
I mean, perhaps you made a point about the inscrutible Schrödinger-esque qualities of Epic’s financial affairs? Well done, I suppose.
Hah! Nice. You must work in software engineering as well; I only hear that term/book mentioned from those circles.
Yes, people that don’t work in the field think money can do anything, just double the number of people working on a project and it will finish in half the time.
I’m well aware of the mythical man month. If you have limited resources and only a couple developers, maybe you can only work on a shopping cart or cloud saves. It’s true that throwing at 10x developers at it isn’t going to get it done 10x faster. But if you have the resources, you can have a small team working on cloud saves while another team is working on, I don’t know, a shopping cart. Or designers coming up with standards to make store pages more useful.
I’m assuming Epic’s glacial slowness in rolling out improvements is due to lack of resource commitment to it, but I fully accept it may just be ineptitude and inability of their developers working on the store that more resources simply can’t fix.
More teams working on features in parallel leads to all kinds of fun synchronising the changes, getting the code bases merged and integration tested. More managers leading the teams and producing Gantt charts. More time spent in meetings, more everything around a limited amount of additional effective code changes.
The developers also get held up, being told they can’t release A until the work on B has reached a certain milestone.
You will certainly gain speed adding teams and developers. They are writing code, after all. But the cost will in no way be commensurate to the perception of increased pace from the outside.
For all we know, that’s exactly what Epic had been doing internally.
I know, I’ve worked for Fortune 500-sized companies and small shops with five developers. I get the benefits and drawbacks of size and resources.
Not really. They have a certain bandwidth available for adding games to the store and they are focusing those resources on efforts that will increase their userbase: exclusives and free games.
This is you fabricating malice out of thin air.
The actual emails are perfectly fine, what isn’t fine is Sweeney talking about how great it is that games can be on multiple stores out of the other side of his mouth.
I don’t see it as malice, but as shrewd business.
You literally described it as punitive.
Punitive and a shrewd business move aren’t mutually exclusive, in my opinion.
No not public monitors, monitors within epic HQ. It’s not exactly abnormal to show those things to internal visible areas to employees, I’ve been a part of several companies that had monitors with internal revenue numbers in different formats.
Epic has never disclosed any sort of finances or transaction values to internal employees? And to be clear I don’t even mean just exact financial figures but sales figures and userbase figures that can easily be translated to financial values.
No, but punitive has a pretty clear moral implication.
Fair enough, probably just a different interpretation of text and tone. I didn’t read it that way, just that Epic is going to play hardball in situations like that. If you’re an indie and want onto the store, sign here. Otherwise it’s probably not worth the investment for them.
I can’t speak for Bluddy though so I’ll let him clarify (or not) what his intentions were. :)
I think Epic is indeed playing hardball. It seems evident from the way they go through steam wishlist numbers, looking for games to sign up. They are able to offer developers a hefty paycheck, and they want to leverage everything they can to make that happen. This level of aggression (business aggression – they’re not killing anyone) shows me that they’re very capable of politely making examples of developers who refuse their offers. They do NOT want this to become a trend.
The funny part of this is that it is the insecurity of developers that leads them to sign up, while the fact that Epic chose to contact a specific developer almost certainly means the devs will do just fine on their own. Epic is picking winners here – it’s not a charity, and they’re not making offers to devs who are trying to get their name out. The very act of receiving an email from Epic is already a sign that you’ve hit a sufficiently high bar for them to notice you. Epic bets on small developers being risk averse enough to take the money early on (and potentially lose early sales), and that bet has seemed to pay off, at least for Epic itself.
Maybe so, but I don’t harbor any animosity for those who take the offer, such as Travis. Now I do have somewhat of a different stance with those who promised certain platforms, particularly for crowd funded games. Doesn’t mean I want them to fail though, just that I do not approve of that.
Travis didn’t do it for the money. He knows he would have done just fine on steam. He’s got some idealistic thing playing out in his mind, where steam finally listens to small developers and this is his way to send a message. He’s also one of the few who actually cares about the 30% cut AFAIK.