How Fortnite's success lead to intense stress at Epic Games

[EldritchMoose]

17 hours ago, Sauron said:

You can't really have a game like Fortnite under those conditions - it's not that Fortnite was ever broken to the point that it needed fixing through large patches but rather that the game model requires constant content updates.

I wonder whether or not that is the case, though. Because it seems to me (admittedly an outsider in this because I don't play Fortnite) that Epic is favouring quantity of content over quality for a game that is currently the biggest and among the most profitable already.

 

It appears that they're trying desperately to squeeze as much money out of Fortnite while it's still relevant, regardless of how many "human resources" they leave in their wake. Both of which are contrary to their messaging around their storefront, where they get all high and mighty about how small a cut they take on sales (so it's really not all about the money, guys!) and how much better this is for developers (while working their own developers to burn-out).

 

It's an inherent problem of live service games, where it needs to win the fight to stay relevant no matter the cost. Overworking employees and hiring replacements in the same way that you'd replace batteries in a piece of electronics.

[Sauron]

43 minutes ago, EldritchMoose said:

I wonder whether or not that is the case, though. Because it seems to me (admittedly an outsider in this because I don't play Fortnite) that Epic is favouring quantity of content over quality for a game that is currently the biggest and among the most profitable already.

I don't play fortnite either, but on every account it seems to be a more polished product than pubg ever was. Other than that, the "quality" of cosmetic skins isn't really that relevant to the discussion imo - it's more about what they can sell to keep people interested. Of course this doesn't justify crunch time.

[Soppro]

On 4/25/2019 at 8:39 AM, floofer said:

What can anyone else expect from a purely money-driven company?

I'm sorry, what? A 'purely money-driven company'? Isn't ... isn't that every company? 

On 4/25/2019 at 8:39 AM, floofer said:

This game is made purely to be addictive and make money.

Isn't this every game? Isn't Minecraft, CS:GO or any other popular game also 'addictive' and made purely to 'make money'? I would've thought every game strives to be as 'addictive', or at least, immersive, as possible.

 

With your logic, maybe it'd be best if we didn't play any games at all. I'm not even defending Fortnite (which I have a total of 0 hours played), I just think your blanket statement is flawed.

[Bouzoo]

13 minutes ago, Soppro said:

I'm sorry, what? A 'purely money-driven company'? Isn't ... isn't that every company? 

Isn't this every game? Isn't Minecraft, CS:GO or any other popular game also 'addictive' and made purely to 'make money'? I would've thought every game strives to be as 'addictive', or at least, immersive, as possible.

 

With your logic, maybe it'd be best if we didn't play any games at all. I'm not even defending Fortnite (which I have a total of 0 hours played), I just think your blanket statement is flawed.

What they (probably mean) is that, while yes, games companies are companies and not red cross, some will put their earnings before community or quality of their products and just want to milk money, like Epic, EA or Activision, while some will of course want to make money, but they don't go full retard, they have quality products which they don't overcharge like Naughty Dog, Capcom or CD PR or even Nintendo to an extent. 

[Teddy07]

Crybabies!

 

[EldritchMoose]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

I don't play fortnite either, but on every account it seems to be a more polished product than pubg ever was. Other than that, the "quality" of cosmetic skins isn't really that relevant to the discussion imo - it's more about what they can sell to keep people interested. Of course this doesn't justify crunch time.

Polish or not, if the argument is that it somehow needs to have a constant influx of content to stay relevant, surely there is a break even point when the cost of employee health starts to outweigh the gain from pushing out more and more things to buy with Vbucks. I may not be an economist (or businessman, for that matter), but I would personally not be in the habit of buying content that is hastily cobbled together. It's the reason why Activision may have made more money last year than ever before, but the company as a whole lost value.

 

Besides, if Steam Greenlight has taught us all anything, it's that just putting out content for content's sake is rarely a successful business model in the long run.

 

WoW spent a good couple of years at the top of the gaming hill, and I don't recall reading about massive crunch periods at Blizzard at the time. Don't get me wrong, it lost a LOT of its clout throughout the years, but even after a good number of disappointing expansions it still makes money and still has several million people subscribing 15 years after it released.

1 hour ago, Soppro said:

I'm sorry, what? A 'purely money-driven company'? Isn't ... isn't that every company? 

Isn't this every game? Isn't Minecraft, CS:GO or any other popular game also 'addictive' and made purely to 'make money'? I would've thought every game strives to be as 'addictive', or at least, immersive, as possible.

 

With your logic, maybe it'd be best if we didn't play any games at all. I'm not even defending Fortnite (which I have a total of 0 hours played), I just think your blanket statement is flawed.

I think the argument is more about whether or not a company wants to be solvent, profitable, or in possession of all the money in the known universe. There was a time when Bioware and Blizzard were known for delivering products that primarily had the goal to entertain the customer. Money was exchanged upfront for a game that told a story or provided an experience. Both companies managed to sell enough copies of their games to grow their business and invest in new games, additional content for the existing games, etc.

 

Then mobile games came along and provided an interesting alternative: Get the game for free, but pay for it through advertising or smaller individual transactions. The customer chooses how much they want to spend in these games. The games themselves were often simply mobile ports of older games or simple mobile games themselves.

 

Nowadays we get full-priced games that are full of psychologically manipulative tricks designed (and in some cases patented) to manipulate players into spending as much time and money as possible in their game. Content is carved up into tiny bits solely so that stuff that used to be unlockable by playing the game, is now obtainable by buying it in the store. The problem lies with games like Train Simulator that have $5000+ worth of DLC on top of the price to play the game to begin with, not just with the concept of "Company would like to sell product."

 

 

[Sauron]

4 hours ago, EldritchMoose said:

WoW spent a good couple of years at the top of the gaming hill, and I don't recall reading about massive crunch periods at Blizzard at the time.

That's true, but WoW was the opposite of free to play - it had (and has) both a box price and a pretty high subscription fee. It's also an MMORPG, it inherently has more things going for it that help keep the game fresh than something like Fortnite. Fortnite doesn't have character leveling (at least as far as I know), a story or dungeons to raid. It relies entirely on skins, events and client updates to remain fresh. The influx of players was also faster and a lot more sudden than what happened with WoW. I think Epic didn't expect such a huge success and struggled to allocate development resources properly.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Soppro said:

I'm sorry, what? A 'purely money-driven company'? Isn't ... isn't that every company? 

Many companies are in debt, can be to buy other companies or expand (Or no taxes, as no profit). Epic Games clearly isn't hiring anyone or expanding with its success. 

8 hours ago, Soppro said:

Isn't this every game? Isn't Minecraft, CS:GO or any other popular game also 'addictive' and made purely to 'make money'? I would've thought every game strives to be as 'addictive', or at least, immersive, as possible.

No. Fortnite has a freemium model, where the only cost is extra skins etc. The game is designed mechanically to be addictive to drive up these sales. Not every game strives to be addictive, just enjoyable. 

 

[Fasauceome]

8 hours ago, Soppro said:

Isn't this every game? Isn't Minecraft, CS:GO or any other popular game also 'addictive' and made purely to 'make money'? I would've thought every game strives to be as 'addictive', or at least, immersive, as possible.

Immersive and addictive are two very separate things, and if every game was made to maximize profit at the expense of the devs, then we wouldn't see single player titles like God of war. Yes they're product to make profit, but video games are an art form, some are made because they're just good games.

[Techstorm970]

On 4/25/2019 at 12:41 AM, JediFragger said:

Poor snowflakes.

Um...what???

 

70+ hours a week is freaking ridiculous!!!  That's equivalent to working 9am-11pm every weekday!!!  And guess what???  Some or most of these people have families.  Wives.  Kids.  Bills to pay, which takes time to calculate and send out and what not.  There's driving time; eat 30+ minutes on that alone.  Breakfast and dinner are necessities; eat 30+ minutes on that, too.

 

In that kind of situation, families become strained and exhaustion would absolutely set in at some point, making things worse.  That's an awful life to live...working your ass off and then some and yet still being pushed to do more because you aren't making deadlines.

 

Please, think, empathize before you respond.

[sof006]

70 hour weeks? Feeling guilty for taking time off? Thats not a life, it should be illegal for companies to allow employees to do this to themselves. CEO's should be fined personally for allowing this, not the company but the CEO directly.

[Ergroilnin]

IDK, but are they forced to do their job somehow? If the job requires them to do something they are not able to keep up with, can't they just get another job? (HINT: they can)

[PCGuy_5960]

On 4/25/2019 at 5:26 PM, Sauron said:

You can't really have a game like Fortnite under those conditions - it's not that Fortnite was ever broken to the point that it needed fixing through large patches but rather that the game model requires constant content updates.

It really doesn't. Fortnite is more broken than you think it is and epic refuses to address the bugs. At this point, most updates add useless things that no one asked for and break more stuff than they fix.

[thedemoncowboy]

Not a fan.

[Eaglerino]

Ya know, it really depends how much money they're making doing this on whether or not I feel sorry for them. If the number was high enough I'd happily live like this to mine the golden rock that is fortnite for as long as I could stand it

[xtroria]

On 4/26/2019 at 8:32 PM, Bouzoo said:

What they (probably mean) is that, while yes, games companies are companies and not red cross, some will put their earnings before community or quality of their products and just want to milk money, like Epic, EA or Activision, while some will of course want to make money, but they don't go full retard, they have quality products which they don't overcharge like Naughty Dog, Capcom or CD PR or even Nintendo to an extent. 

All for-profit companies will put their earning first and foremost. If they don't then to be honest they're not doing business in the first place.

 

You milk your customer for however much you can get away with while consider the amount that will give you the best yield between volume and profit margin.

 

In the end as a public company, your obligation first and foremost is to your shareholders and make sure at the end of the financial year they can go back home with the highest amount of dividend possible

[Bouzoo]

30 minutes ago, xtroria said:

All for-profit companies will put their earning first and foremost. If they don't then to be honest they're not doing business in the first place.

 

You milk your customer for however much you can get away with while consider the amount that will give you the best yield between volume and profit margin.

 

In the end as a public company, your obligation first and foremost is to your shareholders and make sure at the end of the financial year they can go back home with the highest amount of dividend possible

What I mean is yes, all of them put earnings first because you have to pay your bills, but there is a limit how far you'll go, hence putting community before earning as in not going full retard on mtx for instance. 

[Soppro]

On 4/27/2019 at 5:04 AM, fasauceome said:

Immersive and addictive are two very separate things, and if every game was made to maximize profit at the expense of the devs, then we wouldn't see single player titles like God of war. Yes they're product to make profit, but video games are an art form, some are made because they're just good games.

Then one could say Fortnite is a good game that is immersive, not addictive. 

[DeScruff]

2 hours ago, Eaglerino said:

Ya know, it really depends how much money they're making doing this on whether or not I feel sorry for them. If the number was high enough I'd happily live like this to mine the golden rock that is fortnite for as long as I could stand it

I think I heard 50K a year?
... And you do realize (assuming you sleep 8 hours a day) a week is 112 awake hours. Which seems like a lot, but it really isn't.
And that studies do show that over 55 hour work weeks, for extended periods of time is not healthy.

[xtroria]

45 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

What I mean is yes, all of them put earnings first because you have to pay your bills, but there is a limit how far you'll go, hence putting community before earning as in not going full retard on mtx for instance. 

I mean it's one thing doing it to customer, but it's another thing doing it to your employee. As it stands, gaming industry is just a very savage field. Turn-out rate is very high in general and people come and go from the industry

 

33 minutes ago, Sypran said:

I think I heard 50K a year?
... And you do realize (assuming you sleep 8 hours a day) a week is 112 awake hours. Which seems like a lot, but it really isn't.
And that studies do show that over 55 hour work weeks, for extended periods of time is not healthy.

I don't know about the average salary in NC but it sounds really low if you're a software engineer. Perhaps if you're more of a junior game graphics designer it sounds more about right.

[EldritchMoose]

On 4/26/2019 at 9:59 PM, Ergroilnin said:

IDK, but are they forced to do their job somehow? If the job requires them to do something they are not able to keep up with, can't they just get another job? (HINT: they can)

Ah yes, the "well, no one's holding a gun to their heads to put in insane hours for months on end" defense. Look, they may not be forced to do their jobs, but it's not like their bills magically pay themselves and their families magically feed themselves. Behind every "I'm going to need to you come in for 30 more hours this week" is a veiled unspoken threat at the end of the sentence that reads "and if you don't, you might be looking for a new job sooner rather than later." You're right, it's not actual slavery, but if the best defense a PR rep can come up with can be boiled down to "well, it could be worse, at least they're employees, not slaves", that's still indicative of a massive problem the industry refuses to address.

 

It's not a question about whether or not they can "just find another job" when in the past few months we've not only seen controversies around crunch periods at major studios like Bioware, Epic and now also NetherRealm, but also regarding massive layoffs at Activision-Blizzard and EA. I'll freely admit that I'm an outsider in this, but the fact that all of these reports have come out in the past two months suggest that this is a problem that permeates the AAA gaming industry. Not only is it a bad financial decision to try and find another job in a market that's overcrowded due to the aforementioned layoffs, but I wonder if it's even worth just hopping to another company that is looking increasingly likely to employ the exact same shitty work practices you're trying to get away from.

20 hours ago, xtroria said:

All for-profit companies will put their earning first and foremost. If they don't then to be honest they're not doing business in the first place.

 

You milk your customer for however much you can get away with while consider the amount that will give you the best yield between volume and profit margin.

 

In the end as a public company, your obligation first and foremost is to your shareholders and make sure at the end of the financial year they can go back home with the highest amount of dividend possible

I'm not saying you're wrong about a publicly traded company's first priority is to its shareholders, but the way large game publishers are going about accomplishing their goal is almost completely focused on making the bulk of their money in the short term. They want as much money as they can grab right McFucking now, and then manage to seem surprised when the follow-up game's sales fail to "meet expectations" because the customer wasn't interested in another money sponge, but rather a video game this time.

 

They seem to forget that the customer isn't going to let them get away with more and more year after year, which is why we are now seeing more pushback against industry bullshit. You can see this in EA's marketing for their upcoming Star Wars game, which was very clear on explicitly which monetization strategies would not be used. A game not having a subscription fee, loot boxes, microtransactions, etc. is becoming a USP for a product now that they've all had their moment in the sun as being "consumer unfriendly".

 

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until the cows come home: if a company fails to convince me to buy their game, that's not my fault. And if a company wants to claim that they somehow need to employ predatory business practices to sustain their business, they need to have a good look at their financial mismanagement.

On 4/26/2019 at 12:32 PM, Bouzoo said:

What they (probably mean) is that, while yes, games companies are companies and not red cross, some will put their earnings before community or quality of their products and just want to milk money, like Epic, EA or Activision, while some will of course want to make money, but they don't go full retard, they have quality products which they don't overcharge like Naughty Dog, Capcom or CD PR or even Nintendo to an extent.

Again, I don't believe that there isn't going to be a break-even point where you manage to be profitable without breaking international gambling laws. Game companies were profitable for decades before every game "needed" to be designed to suck up as much money as possible before the next big thing comes along. EA managed to sell full games at a profit long before they became the black hole where once-great game studios go to die. It really shouldn't be the customers' responsibility to fix the problems that the industry keeps creating for itself.

[Bouzoo]

1 hour ago, EldritchMoose said:

.aain, I don't believe that there isn't going to be a break-even point where you manage to be profitable without breaking international gambling laws. Game companies were profitable for decades before every game "needed" to be designed to suck up as much money as possible before the next big thing comes along. EA managed to sell full games at a profit long before they became the black hole where once-great game studios go to die. It really shouldn't be the customers' responsibility to fix the problems that the industry keeps creating for itself.

Oh no, I agree. Many games become profitable day 1. I was never arguing that.