Epic Games Spent Over $10 Million for Exclusive PC Rights to Remedy's Control - News

That's just $10 million revenue. I imagine they would have to sell more to break even.

But it kinda also shows how little confidence publishers have on Steam. If they were confident they could make $10 million on Steam then they probably wouldn't have bothered with Epic. That includes all publishers going with Epic.

Reflecting on, yes I believe I have understated it. There are others variables to factor in as well. But it does give a simplistic benchmark.
Also, I don't it is to do with a lack of confidence with Steam, just a reflection of the higher margins that are attainable with EGS and the reduction of risk that comes with it.

Dunno why they would do that tbh.

I agree, if they're willing to pay that much to keep a relatively minor game away from Steam, you would think they would just fund more games they would own.

It seems like they're throwing a lot of money around just to keep some games off Steam. To really get people on their service, I think they need to really produce some exclusives.

If that is indeed all it cost then it's understandable. It just struck me as more expensive than that.

I think others underestimate long-tail sales and long-term image damage. People look at 9m now and think it's insanely massive, but here I am also looking at FN's money, as well as other big earning games out there, that make 9m look like a penny in the bucket.

It may seem lucrative right now, but years down the line, that 9m won't go toward much, especially when you take into account that Control cost more than 9m to make.

If the game doesn't sell all that well on Steam or GoG in the future, then that 9m isn't going to be so great. Also, 55% of that 9m goes to the Remedy, with the remaining lot given to the publisher, so Remedy earn even less. I don't see that as being a net worthwhile profit deal, especially long-term wise.

@chazore you would say that though.

Are you abusing mod status to take a pot shot at m,e?.

Are we really doing this, right here, right now, because I'd hope not.

It is factual that the game cost more than the 9m, to which only 55% of it goes to Remedy, with the rest to the publisher, which makes it even less funds going to the actual dev, rather than 100% of that 9m. This means the devs only got a fraction of the money, while they are still to deliver on the sales threshold on EGS, in order to even get that money. That's how it works with these EGS deals.

I think it's not a good outlook, to only focus on the short term, especially in this industry, where things can change rather rapidly, both good and bad. Imagine this game next year, along with Bl3, when they release on Steam (both are also doing DLC very close to the Steam release, which means full price charges), with them having to compete with 2020's brand new games lineup. They won't be making that much money back from Steam, thus making the 55% of a 9m deal, not all that great for their long-term plans.

55% of 9m in this industry, will not get you very far, especially within the AAA spectrum, and you know this as much as I do.

@chazore what does my post have anything to do about mod status. It's no secret you hate Epic, thus I'm saying "you would say that though". They obviously went with it because it was a good deal, i trust they know what they're doing and have a better understanding of their finances than you do.

Yeah, I hate them, because they LEFT THE PLATFORM in the dusty, while someone else picked up the pieces (Steam). They only came back because they sold gears and had little going for them via UT. They seek to buy fame and support, rather than actually trying to earn it via pro-consumer moves, instead relying on courting a few devs, claiming to be doing good for all, but only doing so for a few extra lucky winners. That's absolutely shit in my books, because that's like Bill gates claiming he'd do good for all doctors in the world, but only having him support 50 of them, which sends a rather narrow minded message. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this astounds me.

No, you saying "you'd say that though", isn't uncommon when used in a passive-aggressive and sarcy tone, and trust me, I've seen that here and there in life to know the difference.

You can trust them all you want, but at the end of the day 55% of 9m isn't a good deal. I'd rather 100% of the 9m than far less, especially when you look at Control's total budget, which makes 55% of 9m a rather small fraction of the cost, meaning that 55% of 9m isn't exactly going to fully fund, let alone fund a fraction of the next game. You know they'll eventually need more funding again.

Mate, they are not some mystical sages, that are the only ones on this rock to know their finances. it doesn't take a moron to know what 55% of 9m is, then following up the comparison to their overall game budget, then the fact that they have to fund another game, likely at the same budget if not higher.

You are acting like Control is only for sale on PC, they've obviously done the maths and figured this would be a good deal for them. Do you really think they would sign it otherwise? Once you factor in PS4 and X1 the money generated from this game would be fine.

No, I'm specifically talking about the PC side of control, not the console side. This very article is about a company with a PC based store, having made a deal with Rem's publisher.

People can make short sighted decisions./ Do not think these dev's decision as objectively better in any situation.

I think they looked at their current financial situation and made a decision that suited them best. Guaranteed money vs possible money. People could say it would have made me money on steam blah blah blah, but they're get offered guaranteed green, not some what if situation. If my friend came to me and said, "hey do you want 100 bucks right now? Or you could gamble and get maybe 80 to 120 bucks if you take a risk" id take the 100 every time. It's money in the hand, if these deals didn't benefit the them and many others no one would be signing them.

Yes, that goes without saying, but at the same time it has shown to be made as a short sighted choice, not a long-term one. The future after that 55% has run out, will also become "possible money", because that's how those deals work, "given" money vs "possible", so for them to be "given" money, they would need that from Epic for the rest of their days, but we know that won't be a thing.

Well yeah, it would have made money on Steam. This new mantra spiel of "nothing ever makes money on Steam, or it'll make such a minuscule profit" is the warped sense of someone who wants the status quo to fail or is being woefully ignorant at best. It's not even a "what if" situation. You sell the game on Steam and people will buy it. Acting like it'll sell 100 or 0 copies is stupidly insane.

I'd take the long-tail over the short tail, every single time, because I want to be here for 20 years, not 5.