Epic Games Store tops $680 million in player spending and over 100 million users (free games promotion will continue through 2020)

Tovarisc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,665
FIN
Someone did bit napkin math and Tim replied.


 

Madjoki

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,154

MegaXZero

Member
Jun 21, 2018
3,261
Someone did bit napkin math and Tim replied.


His analogy just makes me want to point out the lack of shopping carts.
 

Dinjoralo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,510
The concrete numbers are nice, though of course they're obscured with data from Fortnite's revenue.
Someone did bit napkin math and Tim replied.


It clearly takes more time and money than they were expecting.
 

Morten88

Member
Dec 22, 2019
38
I hope GOG can survive against another giant, i buy games there when i can
I really Hope they do, people keep talking about steam, but i bet that steam havnt really been effected by this, they have probably only lost like 1-2% of their revenue, im more scared for the smaller stores like gog, Humble bundle and other key sellers
 

dex3108

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,044
Since everything is napkin math here is something interesting. According to SteamSpy estimates Hades (1 year Epic Store exclusive) sold more on Steam in a month than in a whole year on Epic Store (according to that PlayTracker estimates)

 

Morten88

Member
Dec 22, 2019
38
Since everything is napkin math here is something interesting. According to SteamSpy estimates Hades (1 year Epic Store exclusive) sold more on Steam in a month than in a whole year on Epic Store (according to that PlayTracker estimates)

Thats a big surprise, maybe thats why supergiant games have this tweet pinned on their twitter

I am really doubting those numbers from playtracker, they seems to be way to low
 

Madjoki

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,154
His analogy just makes me want to point out the lack of shopping carts.
Technically there is shopping cart, there is just no UI for adding items.

And it actually works too:




Yeah but theres actually reasons to buy games on Steam rather than playing through Gamepass. EGS not so much.

Also Halo is like $10 so im not surprised people bought it instead of using gamepass
MCC is $40, which was better selling SKU (by revenue).
 

Acidote

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,909
Yeah but theres actually reasons to buy games on Steam rather than playing through Gamepass. EGS not so much.

Also Halo is like $10 so im not surprised people bought it instead of using gamepass
Apparently (and if someone has newer data please correct me) the $39.99 pack sold even better than the $9.99 Reach single item. Maybe it was revenue?
 

Delusibeta

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,575
Does this count people who got it fromthe AMD promo?
To explain: PlayTracker uses the Xbox Game Bar's game detection feature for non-Steam PC games. This means it won't be able to differentiate between copies sold and copies distributed via AMD and Nvidia's various promotions. It's also why The Division 2 and Red Dead Redemption 2 is omitted (since they can't differentiate between the EGS version and the Uplay/Rockstar version).

I personally don't put a huge amount of stock in these figures, and I'd consider them roughly equivalent to modern SteamSpy figures: good enough to napkin-math on forums, nowhere good enough to base business decisions on.
 

Arsenekinz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,081
Canada
To explain: PlayTracker uses the Xbox Game Bar's game detection feature for non-Steam PC games. This means it won't be able to differentiate between copies sold and copies distributed via AMD and Nvidia's various promotions. It's also why The Division 2 and Red Dead Redemption 2 is omitted (since they can't differentiate between the EGS version and the Uplay/Rockstar version).

I personally don't put a huge amount of stock in these figures, and I'd consider them roughly equivalent to modern SteamSpy figures: good enough to napkin-math on forums, nowhere good enough to base business decisions on.
Thank you!
 
Dec 4, 2017
5,132
Brazil
They are valid PC Gamers.

But if they are only posting in EGS threads to tell us how awesome the EGS is and that they like for (finally) competition in the PC market, then they are either astroturfing or trolling.
I hope that some of those poor souls are just people who never used any of those stores but really believe that + players = more competition
also: Fallout NV
 

Kurt Russell

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
609
Mar del Plata
Can somebody smart tell me if they are getting anywhere close to matching Steam numbers on new releases?

"If we were to place these games alongside their PC peers in Steam's Top Sellers of 2019 list, Borderlands 3 would have placed in the Platinum Tier, World War Z, Metro: Exodus, Control, The Outer Worlds and Satisfactory would have all landed in the Silver tier, and the rest of the games on the list would fit into Bronze."
 

aeolist

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,191
To explain: PlayTracker uses the Xbox Game Bar's game detection feature for non-Steam PC games. This means it won't be able to differentiate between copies sold and copies distributed via AMD and Nvidia's various promotions. It's also why The Division 2 and Red Dead Redemption 2 is omitted (since they can't differentiate between the EGS version and the Uplay/Rockstar version).

I personally don't put a huge amount of stock in these figures, and I'd consider them roughly equivalent to modern SteamSpy figures: good enough to napkin-math on forums, nowhere good enough to base business decisions on.
do they just post raw numbers or do they try to account for the number of people who have turned off game bar?
 

Nzyme32

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,443
Good for them, and the folks happy with the shortcuts / compromises Epic have made.

My experience with Control was enough to confirm I will not be buying anything from them for many years to come, till the service is in a feature complete state with all the necessary support avenues - and they'd have to earn my trust on top of that.

Not gonna say no to free games, assuming I ever get round to playing more than 2 of them.
 

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,926
Seattle
Someone did bit napkin math and Tim replied.


This is all ignoring the fact it's rumored much of Epic's spend was advances on sales.

So Epic would be keeping the 12% up until the advance was paid off. The "deal" partly being if the game doesn't sell the dev/pub doesn't have to pay off the advance.

Unless that's been debunked?
 

Nzyme32

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,443
Since everything is napkin math here is something interesting. According to SteamSpy estimates Hades (1 year Epic Store exclusive) sold more on Steam in a month than in a whole year on Epic Store (according to that PlayTracker estimates)

This is also a point I would make about Satisfactory. It would have been a immense success launching on Steam out of the gate, whereas it currently sold approximately has 500k after nearly a year - - - a very clear low for what it potentially could have reached on Steam compared with other games.

When it does launch on Steam, as with Hades, I'm sure it will be a success too, orders of magnitude over EGS......

But there isn't a clear way to demonstrate what would have happened with the impact of a straight launch on all services.
As a 1 person case study, I won't get it because I bought two other "factory" games that I'm well absorbed in - I don't need another.

So I must wonder what the actual hit is to the level of success they could have had. Its unknowable. And I imagine it is of no consequence for anyone other than the devs where the margin between success and failure is where they land.
 

dex3108

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,044
I would like to do another napkin math thing. According to that infographic they gave away 73 games with total retail value of 1455$. More than 200M people claimed those games. So if we multiply those numbers we get 291,000,000,000$. We know that Epic didn't pay that much for those games but even if they pay 1% of that number that is a lot of money.
 

Delusibeta

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,575
do they have a margin of error?

this is all interesting to me, had no idea this was a thing
They do, but annoyingly they don't publicly display it for their Game Bar statistics (without joining their Patreon). Checking the Steam version of Hades (since they do make Steam estimates publicly available, and dex3108 posted a screen grab of its SteamSpy page) shows that the margin for error for that is currently plus-minus 25%, which strikes me as pretty wide. As I said, napkin maths.
 

Heel

Member
Oct 25, 2017
716
The whole point of exclusives and free games was to entrench active storefront users towards profitability in the long term. People doing math and seeing they're losing money...well, yeah. I'm surprised it's not more, personally. They seem to be well on track.
 

eonden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,795
I would like to do another napkin math thing. According to that infographic they gave away 73 games with total retail value of 1455$. More than 200M people claimed those games. So if we multiply those numbers we get 291,000,000,000$. We know that Epic didn't pay that much for those games but even if they pay 1% of that number that is a lot of money.
Pretty sure the infograph says 200 million + games redeemed, not people redeeming each game. So more or less the equivalent of 3 million people redeeming all games.
 

Mentalist

Member
Mar 14, 2019
2,466
Those are som terrible numbers, im really surprised that metro exodus didnt sell atleast a million and the outer worlds only selling 150k? I know it was also on game pass for pc, but it was heavily advertised on the epic store...
Metro Exodus pre-orders amounted to a peak concurrent steam users just until under 12k.
 

Delusibeta

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,575
I would like to do another napkin math thing. According to that infographic they gave away 73 games with total retail value of 1455$. More than 200M people claimed those games. So if we multiply those numbers we get 291,000,000,000$. We know that Epic didn't pay that much for those games but even if they pay 1% of that number that is a lot of money.
I'd argue that it'll make more sense to take the average RRP of the free games (since the 200m figure is the total number of units claimed for free). $1455 divided by 73 is $19.93. Since we're napkin mathing, let's call that $20.

$20 times 200 million is $4 billion. Again, there's absolutely no way Epic paid face value for all the free games, since it'll have sunk them. However, 1% of 4 billion is 40 million, which would be roughly $550,000 per free game. I could see most game devs jump at the chance to pocket a guaranteed half mill for not a lot of work.
 

dex3108

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,044
Pretty sure the infograph says 200 million + games redeemed, not people redeeming each game. So more or less the equivalent of 3 million people redeeming all games.
I'd argue that it'll make more sense to take the average RRP of the free games (since the 200m figure is the total number of units claimed for free). $1455 divided by 73 is $19.93. Since we're napkin mathing, let's call that $20.

$20 times 200 million is $4 billion. Again, there's absolutely no way Epic paid face value for all the free games, since it'll have sunk them. However, 1% of 4 billion is 40 million, which would be roughly $550,000 per free game. I could see most game devs jump at the chance to pocket a guaranteed half mill for not a lot of work.

Yeah i did things wrong, but even with that in mind that is a lot of money. and i doubt that they paid just 1%.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,513
Good for them, I'm not going to use their service until they stop buying exclusives and actually create a modern storefront with features I use on a daily basis like their competition.
 

tmarg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
573
Kalamazoo
This is all ignoring the fact it's rumored much of Epic's spend was advances on sales.

So Epic would be keeping the 12% up until the advance was paid off. The "deal" partly being if the game doesn't sell the dev/pub doesn't have to pay off the advance.

Unless that's been debunked?
It's not being ignored, it's just irrelevant. Whether Epic paid the devs their 88% before launch or after a sale doesn't change the fact that they are only keeping 12%. The only instance in which it would make a difference is if a game has failed to meet their advanced sales number, which means Epic is taking an even bigger loss. As such, the numbers you see people using represent an upper bound on Epic's profits for 2019. It's likely that there are several games that will never reach their advance numbers (at least without being deeply discounted), and Epic has a substantial amount of money invested in those copies which they will never recover.
 

Saty

Member
Oct 27, 2017
355
I have doubts if 2020 is going to provide bigger names as exclusives. They had 3 Ubisoft games, BL3, Metro, RDR2, Control, Outer Worlds and more. What gets can they have that would make 2020 results better? There must be talks in devs' circles about how they are selling and their experience on the store that would make them think twice about agreeing for exclusivity.
 

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,926
Seattle
It's not being ignored, it's just irrelevant. Whether Epic paid the devs their 88% before launch or after a sale doesn't change the fact that they are only keeping 12%. The only instance in which it would make a difference is if a game has failed to meet their advanced sales number, which means Epic is taking an even bigger loss. As such, the numbers you see people using represent an upper bound on Epic's profits for 2019. It's likely that there are several games that will never reach their advance numbers (at least without being deeply discounted), and Epic has a substantial amount of money invested in those copies which they will never recover.
It'e relevant because that tweet says "You paid $10 million for control?" after doing the math for their "cut."

No it doesn't matter that they paid up front or not; but that tweet is implying they paid $10 million and then ALSO only kept %12 of the revenue. That's not how that would have worked if the $10 million was an advance, was my point.