Epic Games banked a $3B profit in 2018

Post by vips7L » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 8:54 PM UTC

saluki wrote: post #113

ehsankia wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with Dayz, H1Z1 and PUBG was that they were made by developers that 1. knew very little about engine optimizations and 2. rushed to add features as quickly as possible with no foresight. This lead to all 3 games being laggy, which is quite bad for a shooter. It also lead to the pace of development slowing down to a crawl after a few months, which I assume was due to their spaghetti code being hard to work w…

PUBG has gotten a lot better the past month, it still has the best feel and fun factor of any FPS out right now. See you on Vikendi. Bring your snow jacket.

Post by MartinCron » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 8:58 PM UTC

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #18

usaphp wrote: post #6

What does HN people think on the whole idea of stealing concept from PUBG? I am kind of divided on this topic.

I don't really see it any different than stealing the concept of FPS from companies that came before, or from stealing the concept of video games from the original creators. I see no issue with it, much like I see no issue with all sorts of games borrowing from LOTR (or from other sources that eventually trace their way back to LOTR). Even PUBG stole the concept from others. It reminds me a lot of Hunger Games actual…

Post by bpicolo » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 9:01 PM UTC

alexeldeib wrote: post #25

Reedx wrote: post #7

> ...has popularized the battle royale category — think Lord of the Flies meets Hunger Games — almost single-handedly... Almost single-handedly? This is a bizarre claim and it's like rewriting history.

Besides PUBG, who else has done this in a successful way? Fortnite wasn’t the original but it blows the success of PUBG out of the water at this point. I’m okay with “PUBG + Fortnite” ~= “almost single handedly”. I think the key word in that quote is popularized — even if earlier games did it, these are the two to demonstrate widespread appeal.

Post by rchaud » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 9:06 PM UTC

disishhsha wrote: post #30

$3B profit doesn’t really seem consistent with $15B valuation. Tech companies these days seem valued at 20x revenue or more. Why would they bother raising $1.25B at that price? I suppose Fortnite is a fad, so there is a pessimistic case to be made to cash in as much as possible.

Post by chii » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 9:12 PM UTC

andyfleming wrote: post #79

diminoten wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to Fortnite, 50 million isn't that much.

They're different pricing models. Fortnite is free to play and PUBG has an up-front cost. Copies sold/downloaded or peak active player-base is probably a more relevant comparison.