Epic Games announces multiplatform publishing partnerships with studios behind Control, Limbo, and The Last Guardian

CatAssTrophy

Member
Dec 4, 2017
2,010
Texas
Not sure how to word this without it sounding bad, but I'm kind of glad Sony Japan Studio won't be spending so much time and effort assisting with another Ueda game this coming gen and can focus more on making new things or strengthening their own properties. Ueda games are cool and it was neat that SJS worked with him, but they need to find their own identity and spread their wings a bit.
 

Metroidvania

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,810
Fwiw, that's probably pretty normal for publisher deals. This still seems like a better deal than developers usually get.
It's not (necessarily) a bad deal, and provides a good incentive to the dev making a good game, sure....

But at the same time, if we take Remedy, their last few titles (Alan Wake, Quantum Break, and now Control) haven't exactly lit the sales charts on fire - IIRC Alan Wake took a while to become profitable, and sold a LOT on cheap steam sales.

I understand that Remedy wants the deal - guaranteed money for 'up to' 100% of dev costs, full IP retaining and creative control...but I'm curious to see what Epic thinks they'll actually be getting out of this.

Could just be Epic loss-leading with Fortnite money to further establish their being a 'real player' in the PC space beyond just moneyhatting exclusives, but....who knows?

Actually the three developers that took it don't surprise me at all with what the deal itself presents.
Yeah, after thinking on it a bit more I can 100% see why the three devs here would make this kind of 'guaranteed funding' deals.
 

litebrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,857
It's debatable. These three devs obviously wouldn't have taken the deal unless they saw the potential in it.

The deal seems to be that EPIC fully funds development, and I'm assuming it has to come to the EPIC Store, but they get to keep full intellectual property rights of their work and full creative control, but when it releases the developer doesn't get anymore money until costs is recouped and then past that all profits are 50/50 (which is a better split than most studios).

Honestly, I get the appeal of it. It's not a deal all would like and there's definitely some huge clauses to it, but honestly depending on the developer I can see this being an appealing deal to them. Actually the three developers that took it don't surprise me at all with what the deal itself presents.
The deal is great and rarely offered especially in past history. All of the studios have little to no risk, but keep the IP and potentially half the profits after Epic recoups their costs.
 

eonden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,434
I'm not sure we should be calling this a bad deal when we don't know what other publisher deals are like. This is likely true of other publisher deals as well.
No money until the publisher makes profit is a bad deal in all cases, as it basically gives you 0 money on launch and forces you to wait a long time to get money while you are cash strapped. Basically forcing you to have a new publishing deal as soon as another one ends.

It's debatable. These three devs obviously wouldn't have taken the deal unless they saw the potential in it.

The deal seems to be that EPIC fully funds development, and I'm assuming it has to come to the EPIC Store, but they get to keep full intellectual property rights of their work and full creative control, but when it releases the developer doesn't get anymore money until costs is recouped and then past that all profits are 50/50 (which is a better split than most studios).

Honestly, I get the appeal of it. It's not a deal all would like and there's definitely some huge clauses to it, but honestly depending on the developer I can see this being an appealing deal to them. Actually the three developers that took it don't surprise me at all with what the deal itself presents.
Yeah, getting to keep your IP and the "post profit" cut is quite good, my fear is that two of those studios are known to not /barely recoup the cost (Remedy and Ueda), which would make this kind of deal much worse to them and force them to look for new deals asap after finishing the game.

Edit: I am not saying that the deal itself is bad, just that the "no money until Epic gets all the money back" is not good. Getting to keep the IP and the post Epic cash return back is good.
 

ghostcrew

Grabbed by the Ghosties
Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
11,474
Bunch of hot takes in here from people who've never signed a publishing deal.
 

Dusk Golem

Local Horror Enthusiast
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
3,930
The deal is great and rarely offered especially in past history. All of the studios have little to no risk, but keep the IP and potentially half the profits after Epic recoups their costs.
Bunch of hot takes in here from people who've never signed a publishing deal.
For the record I think it's an amazing deal, but like any deal there's some clauses to it. But I also understand why for example, everyone who might be offered the deal might not take it as well.
 

dex3108

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,900
Just to put things into perspective Control earned back development costs in like 6 months. So if their next game performs similarly thy will basically be 6 months without revenue from their game.
 

litebrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,857
For the record I think it's an amazing deal, but like any deal there's some clauses to it. But I also understand why for example, everyone who might be offered the deal might not take it as well.
Why wouldn't a studio who needs tens of millions of dollars for their new IP not be interested in this great deal?
 

mazi

Member
Oct 27, 2017
32,987
i honestly don't get it. first the issue was epic moneyhatting already done games and people said they should fund make actual exclusive content to make their store more appealing. now they're doing just that but people are still angry?
 

ghibli99

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,030
USA
Awesome news IMO. Glad to see the multiplatform thing there. As for the Steam/Epic topic, I use the Epic launcher for playing PC games almost as much as Steam these days, which is not something I would have anticipated myself saying a year ago.
 

Dimajjio

Member
Oct 13, 2019
633
I hope we get an ICO / Shadow of the Colossus port. Ueda's first outing which is not exclusive to PlayStation?
 
May 25, 2019
1,046
London
Just to put things into perspective Control earned back development costs in like 6 months. So if their next game performs similarly thy will basically be 6 months without revenue from their game.
But they will have drawn paychecks for the 3-4 years of developing it. How are people missing this point? Epic is giving them a risk-free, zero-interest loan and letting them keep their IP. And if they make a hit, they get a 50% cut after the loan is paid back
 

ghostcrew

Grabbed by the Ghosties
Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
11,474
For the record I think it's an amazing deal, but like any deal there's some clauses to it. But I also understand why for example, everyone who might be offered the deal might not take it as well.
I would say that every publishing deal I've ever been involved in from tiny ones to absolutely ginormous ones have involved big thick contracts that require lawyers picking over every aspect and legalese line for months to hammer out. I don't think anyone in here reading one throwaway line on a blog about 50/50 splits and profit shares has enough info on the ins and outs of these particular publishing deals to claim that they're a good deal or a bad deal.

There are thousands of variables that wouldn't be public knowledge that could make these really comfortable for the devs (probably, or they wouldn't have signed them) or terrible for the devs and we'll never know. It's just kinda pointless speculation imo.
 

Watership

Member
Oct 27, 2017
986
Corporate fanboyism is not exclusive to console warriors sadly
I certainly don't think everyone is who objects thinks that away. Just find it odd when some act like games on other stores not an option, and they'd rather NOT play a game they want to. I understand the 'stealing' of exclusives by EPIC previously may have pissed people off.
 

LabRat

Member
Mar 16, 2018
2,231
so the next remedy game won't come out on steam at all? that's honestly sad, i definitely won't download the egs no matter what
 

trashtabby

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,606
Just to put things into perspective Control earned back development costs in like 6 months. So if their next game performs similarly thy will basically be 6 months without revenue from their game.
And to put things even more in perspective: Control was only partially funded by its publisher. Comparatively, this is still a really good deal for Remedy. Especially if publishers usually recoup their costs firsts.
 

Dusk Golem

Local Horror Enthusiast
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
3,930
Why wouldn't a studio who needs tens of millions of dollars for their new IP not be interested in this great deal?
You actually hit what I was getting at on the head. It's a great deal for a new IP, but also an incredibly risky one long-term which basically ask the developer to self-manage themselves as there's the very real possibility the game that gets produced may see zero profit to the developer past production if it doesn't do well enough, and I'm assuming from how EPIC has functioned in the past locks off some potential storefronts the game could've found success on (but of course, it's not a platform exclusive deal).

It's amazing and unprecedented type of deal that's quite appealing to creative types with some huge pros that basically allow them to make what they want. But it also could end up going really bad and employees could be unpaid for months afterwards if this is handled badly. Even if game's are a bust, one hopes to be able to pay employees in the window afterward, which this potentially could prevent. It's a fantastic deal, but there is something of a gamble especially post-launch. And indeed the deal seems more geared towards new IPs than existing one's, which for some is exactly what they want but like any deal isn't a one size fits all kind of thing.
 

dex3108

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,900
But they will have drawn paychecks for the 3-4 years of developing it. How are people missing this point? Epic is giving them a risk-free, zero-interest loan and letting them keep their IP. And if they make a hit, they get a 50% cut after the loan is paid back
I have nothing against deals like this but from business perspective for me personally i couldn't run company from deal to deal. What if they don't land new deal after those 3 years for example what then? Running company is not easy, especially one that can't sustain itself without outside help.
 

Pariah

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,346
How well it sold on PS4?
The better question is, how badly. It's the game with a fastest inclusion on PS Now since the service exists (estimates before that put it around 400k units); it's been discounted frequently and with the first expansion arriving this week, you can buy the base game for barely 20€.

It shouldn't be a problem to them, in any case. 505 published Control in very advantageous conditions thanks to deals with EGS and PS; Remedy has made back its money, and then some.
lol at people that insisted Sony would fund Ueda again.
Whoever said that must have been quite the ignorant; Gen Design had Kowloon Nights funding them since early 2019. Publishing was a different matter, but it's hard to see a good reason for any part to repeat the experience when you're not financially tied or, in the case of SIE, have little to earn from the operation.
 

Tubie

2Bee or not Tubie
Member
Feb 14, 2020
361
Incredible deal for the developers.

Can't wait for what Remedy does next!
 

litebrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,857
You actually hit what I was getting at on the head. It's a great deal for a new IP, but also an incredibly risky one long-term which basically ask the developer to self-manage themselves as there's the very real possibility the game that gets produced may see zero profit to the developer past production if it doesn't do well enough, and I'm assuming from how EPIC has functioned in the past locks off some potential storefronts the game could've found success on (but of course, it's not a platform exclusive deal).

It's amazing and unprecedented type of deal that's quite appealing to creative types with some huge pros that basically allow them to make what they want. But it also could end up going really bad and employees could be unpaid for months afterwards if this is handled badly.
Isn't that risk with any publishing deal long term if the game doesn't sell well? However you often don't keep the IP nor get as good of a profit split if the publisher paid for all the costs, right?