<span style="color:#323232;">Crysis 3 for Playstation 3, Xbox 360, Xbox One (backwards compatibility), Steam and EA App
</span>
October 10, 2023
<span style="color:#323232;">Tiger Woods PGA Tour 14 for Xbox 360 and on PlayStation 3
</span>
October 30, 2023
<span style="color:#323232;">Restaurant DASH: Gordon Ramsay for Apple, Google, and Amazon
</span>
November 6, 2023
<span style="color:#323232;">FIFA 18 for PC, Xbox One and PlayStation 4
</span><span style="color:#323232;">FIFA 19 for PC, Xbox One and PlayStation 4
</span><span style="color:#323232;">FIFA 20 for Nintendo Switch, PC, Xbox One and PlayStation 4
</span><span style="color:#323232;">FIFA 21 for Nintendo Switch, PC, Xbox One, Xbox Series X|S, PlayStation 4 and PlayStation 5
</span>
December 8, 2023
<span style="color:#323232;">Battlefield 1943 for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Battlefield Bad Company for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Battlefield Bad Company 2 for PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Dead Space 2 on PC, PlayStation 3, and Xbox 360
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Dante’s Inferno on PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable and Xbox 360
</span>
Huh 1943 was still up, was a nice remake from what I recall. I understand the whole shutting down games sucks but this list isn’t highly played I assume. No offense meant to those who play it, and it does suck when agame you want to play goes down. I had the opposite issue where servers were up but no one played with Shadowrun (Xbox 360)
With current battlefield you can at least mostly play Bad Company, and I assume golf has something current. But yeah sucks in it’s way but free servers and blah blah blah.
You’re getting downvoted but this will be correct. DLSSFG looks dubious enough on dedicated hardware, doing this on shader cores means it will be competing with the 3D rendering so will need to be extremely lightweight to actually offer any advantage.
I wouldnt say compete as the whole concept of frame generation is that it generates more frames when gpu resouces are idle/low due to another part of the chain is holding back the gpu from generating more frames. Its sorta like how I view hyperthreads on a cpu. They arent a full core, but its a thread that gets utilized when there are poonts in a cpu calculation that leaves a resouce unused (e.g if a core is using the AVX2 accerator to do some math, a hyperthread can for example, use the ALU that might not be in use to do something else because its free.)
It would only compete if the time it takes to generate one additional frame is longer than the time a gpu is free due to some bottleneck in the chain.
You guys are talking about this as if it’s some new super expensive tech. It’s not. The chips they throw inside tvs that are massively cost reduced do a pretty damn good job these days (albit, laggy still) and there is software you can run on your computer that does compute based motion interpolation and it works just fine even on super old gpus with terrible compute.
Yeah, it does, which is something tv tech has to try and derive themselves. Tv tech has to figure that stuff out. It’s actually less complicated in a fun kind of way. But please do continue to explain how it’s more compute heavy
Also just to be very clear, tv tech also encompasses motion vectors into the interpolation, that’s the whole point. It just has to compute them with frame comparisons. Games have that information encoded into various gbuffers so it’s already available.
You surely realize that a video decode doesn’t carry information like what’s a foreground object or background, or an UI element versus an object, or a shadow vs an obstacle.
TVs quite literally blend two frames, with some attempt at interpreting when large blocks change value. That’s it.
DLSS 3.0 uses actual geometry being handled by the GPU cores to come up with a prediction for the next frame, then merges this prediction with the previous frame.
No. Tvs do not quite literally blend two frames. They use the same techniques as video codecs to extract rudimentary motion vectors by comparing frames, then do motion interpolation with them.
Please, if you want to talk about this, we can talk about this, but you have to understand that you are wrong here. The Samsung TV I had a decade ago did this, it’s been a standard for a very long time.
Again, tvs do not "literally blend two frames ** and if they did, they wouldn’t have the input lag problems they do with this feature as they need a few frames of derived motion vectors to make anything look good
My man, there’s quite literally no depth information in video - and there’s no actual motion.
You can calculate how much a given block changes from frame to frame, and that’s it. You can then try to be clever and detect if this is a person, a ball, a network logo. But that’s it.
This is absolutely an universe away from DLSS (and now presumably FSR) frame generation, and to even suggest they’re the same is such a ridiculous statement I’m not even going to bother anymore.
Just the mere attempt at comparing a feature modern GPUs are finally being able to achieve with a simple algorithm running in the media decoder of a 4 core little ARM chip on a TV is laughable.
People made the same claim about DLSS 3. But those generated frames are barely perceptible and certainly less noticeable than frame stutter. As long as FSR 3 works half-decently, it should be fine.
And the fact that it works on older GPUs include those from nVidia really shows that nVidia was just blocking the feature in order to sell more 4000 series GPUs.
You aren't going to use these features on extremely old GPUs anyways. Most newer GPUs will have spare shader compute capacity that can be used for this purpose.
Also, all performance is based on compromise. It is often better to render at a lower resolution with all of the rendering features turned on, then use upscaling & frame generation to get back to the same resolution and FPS, than it is to render natively at the intended resolution and FPS. This is often a better use of existing resources even if you don't have extra power to spare.
because I think the post assumes that the GPU is always using all of its resources during computation when it isn’t. There’s a reason why benchmarks can make a GPU hotter than a game can, as well as the fact that not all games pin the gpu performance at 100%. If a GPU is not pinned at 100%, there is a bottleneck in the presentation chain somewhere. (which means unused resources on the GPU)
You’re correct, and if AMD is announcing the feature this does mean there’s is enough shader compute available for this to work.
However, this does mean the algorithm must be light enough to generate the frame in that very limited resource usage. This is already what we see with FSR, that works well, but can’t fix some of the issues DLSS can because DLSS can use way more complex algorithms as it isn’t fighting for resources.
I still think it’s a matter of waiting for the results to show up later. AMD for RDNA3 does have an AI engine on it, and the gains it might have in FSR3 might be different in the same way XeSS does with branching logic. Too early to tell given that all the test suite tests are RDNA3, and that it doesn’t officially launch til 2 weeks from now.
Frame generation is limited to 40 series GPUs because Nvidias solution is dependant on their latest hardware. The improvements to DLSS itself and the new raytracing stuff work on 20/30 series GPUs. That said FSR 3 is fantastic news, competition benefits us all and I’d love to see it compete with DLSS itself on Nvidia GPUs.
Didn’t the Wii-U mostly fail because most people didn’t know what it was? The marketing and name were terrible and plenty of people thought it was just a Wii add-on or something.
The console itself was actually pretty cool, playing Wind Waker on it was great.
The Wii U was built around a fundamentally flawed premise that more screens = better experience. People can only pay attention to one screen at a time, and giving just one player at the console a personal additive screen in their hands doesn’t provide much meaningful benefit. The most widely appreciated feature of the system was simply the ability to play elsewhere in your home instead of in front of the TV, which is why they leaned hard into that portability with the Switch.
Yeah, I never bought into the line that people were confused that a Wii U was a Wii add-on. That’s never been a major problem for similarly named consoles before and anyone I knew all knew it was a separate thing. I think that focus on having to pay attention to two screens, as you said, as well as the severe under-powering for a home console of its generation and an abysmal launch lineup of games, all leading to an abysmal launch for the console itself and third parties deciding pretty quickly to mostly bail on it, led to its relative failure.
That said, I still have my Wii U and also have fond memories of playing it. Say what you will about the severe lack of 3rd party support, Nintendo themselves put some great quality games on it: all the Zelda games (including Hyrule Warriors and the BotW port), Smash Bros 4, the original Mario Kart 8, Mario Maker, 3D World, DKC Tropical Freeze, the list goes on. Sega was pretty kind to them too for a 3rd party: Bayonetta 2, TMS #FE (underrated, IMO, good TMS/Persona style gameplay even if its story is goofy… Expected more actual FE-related content though), the quantity of Sonic games (if not quality).
I guarantee that SOME people were confused about whether it was its own console or not - I just couldn’t say if it was enough people to make a significant difference. Frankly, it was a dumb name and a poorly marketed device that didn’t have the means to command a news cycle through power, exclusives, or an instantly compelling use case. I think it’s basically a huge swing and a miss on Nintendo’s part.
But Nintendo also has the uncanny ability to release incredible games on anything. They could release a 3-button, motion-controlled, tethered monocle game system with a smartwatch chipset and I’d give you 70% odds they launch with a game that has an unforgettable amount of charm and joy infused in it.
Anecdotally, it was a very confusing name and system for consumers. I worked at a game retailer during the launch of the WiiU and easily over half the people I’d try sell to would respond with something likd “Oh no, Ive already got a Wii and I don’t really need the tablet for it”
I’m glad the WiiU existed - I’m certain it paved the way for the Switch. But it was a disappointing console, released a year before a major overhaul of the gaming ecosystem (PS4/Xbone).
Great points. The timing was really awful too. It was rightly a poor seller, but certainly not without its merits. I think the relative excitement over its best feature, the remote play, almost certainly drove the creation of the Switch, which is damn near a cultural phenomenon.
I literally saw a TV news channel demoing it as part of a “Christmas gadgets” segment call it a peripheral for the Wii. They also called Skylanders a board-game.
When you got a fountain of money by getting boomers into gaming, flubbing the branding of the sequel is a massive own-goal.
Exactly. And arguably, a big part of what they provided was actually the touchscreen support and a 3D-capable handheld with “Nintendo” on it. Not that many games used the second screen in a way that was truly fundamental and necessary.
For me personally, Wii U was the worst console purchase I've ever made lol. If it wasn't for Smash, Mario Maker and Nintendoland with friends every once in a while I never would have turned it on. I honestly had way more fun with the Vita.
I didn’t like mine and subsequently didn’t buy many games for it because of its over reliance on the game pad, and the game pad draining its battery over night if not plugged in. Can’t access settings without the game pad, the game pad checked for updates and content way too often so the battery drained am quite often over night. Along with again, over reliance on the game pad where a lot of games I wanted to play, it was primarily built around the pad so controllers didn’t feel natural for the games
It’s not really fair to compare it to the wii u because the wii u was a handheld console while this is basically a hand held gaming streaming device. The wii u is more compared to other handheld consoles/computers like the steam deck or Asus rog ally.
Frontiers was honestly the biggest disappointment I had with a 3D Sonic game since '06 (I thankfully didn’t play Rise of Lyric despite owning a Wii U.)
Making an open world zone Sonic game is all well and good, but the world just feels so lifeless. Not to mention that the mini-stages are literally regurgitated from other 3D Boost era Sonic games.
My only complaint is such maneuvers tend to come with golden parachutes - his mismanagement of Unity leading to the whole fee debacle and erosion of trust deserves no such soft landing.
Yeah I can almost guarantee that the original plan was always for him to leave. He was going to be the scapegoat with a golden parachute, allowing the company to keep the unpopular changes while disbursing the bad publicity. It’s exactly what he did with EA too.
Basically reddit’s Ellen Pao plan. Bring in someone unpopular to make the unpopular changes, then let them go with a massive payout while keeping the unpopular changes.
But then Unity realized that the companies weren’t going to forget about the unpopular changes and it wasn’t going to blow over. Companies started bailing left and right and switching to other engines. At that point Unity realized that the smoke was actually a full blown fire, and started doing whatever they could to try and regain some trust. But by that point it was too late, because companies had already seen the potential for abuse. And as the saying goes, when someone tells you who you are, believe them. So now companies are unwilling to go back to Unity, and Unity is grasping at straws.
Yeah I can almost guarantee that the original plan was always for him to leave.
I don’t think so, mostly because of how long it took for him to be “retired” after the whole fiasco, almost a full month. Had it taken only a week, I’d find that more plausible, as that’d actually make it look like it was his fault and that Unity as a company “saw the error in their way”
Or it could be that they suck even harder at saving face than we thought.
Portal (1 and 2) and The Talos Principle are the only puzzle games I've played that not only had a story, but also managed to make the puzzle gameplay actually make sense within the story. Like, there is an in-universe explanation for why you are solving puzzles. I'm sure there are other games that do it, but those are the only ones I've played and they were fantastic. That's a hard thing to pull off -- how do you make a compelling narrative, complete with characters, around "moving some boxes?"
Looking forward to playing the sequel. Also, the original is $3 on Steam right now!
I don’t see how anyone can consider the sound puzzles in the jungle, the Tetris piece puzzles in the swamp and the color theory puzzles in the greenhouse the same kind of puzzle and be arguing in good faith.
The game has multiple “endings”. My only advice: Don’t start a second playthrough or browse any online communities until you’ve reached the credit scroll. I wish someone had told me that before I started…
Like, there is an in-universe explanation for why you are solving puzzles.
That observation actually made me go through my library looking for more examples and, yeah, it’s surprisingly few. There’s ‘The Entropy Centre’, which also falls into the “You’re a test subject” category. Other than that there’s the Zachtronics games, where the reason for puzzle-solving is because it’s your work.
In Zachtronics Infinifactory, the setting is that aliens have kidnapped you and force you to build things for them, in return for kibble and other things humans like, such as a little league third place trophy. Always enjoyed that.
OW2 was announced as free-to-play and would shut down the original Overwatch servers with it. However, Blizz had said that OW2 would come with a PvE mode (which was highly requested with Overwatch). When OW2 released, the game released with no PvE mode but the promise that they’d add it in later. In May, Blizz announced that the PvE mode had been cancelled altogether. A week or so later, Blizz reversed the decision to cancel the PvE mode. Now the PvE mode is coming and it’ll cost $15.
So, just more Blizzard being incredibly shitty. As always.
RockPaperShotgun did a performance analysis on this - long story short, a 30xx card will be good for about medium settings, a 40xx for high, and really a 4090 for ultra. According to the Steam hardware survey, that’s about one-in-five PC gamers that could start this up if they wanted to; a few percent can run it with all the flashy graphics. Combine the hardware exclusivity and the distinctly ‘meh’ reviews, get some seriously low player numbers.
It is funny to see the consumer pov change I guess. Back when crysis 1 released everyones PCs could barely play it too and the shooting gameplay wasn’t anything really ground breaking either. Yet it’s remembered very fondly today. This game kinda does the same thing 15 years later and everyone’s like ‘hard pass’.
A bit after release, it was either the developers or the publisher who called it a mistake to limit their sales to those who could run Crysis. It might have been when they were talking about WARHEAD being more accessible.
Except this engine is going to be used by every other developer, so it won’t be special. I’m guess other UE5 games will run better and look better while also being more fun.
While I wish CDPR had pulled the band-aid and canceled (with refund or free upgrade to next gen) the PS4 and Xbox Series platforms, my controversial opinion is that this game has been GoTY on PC since day one. Plenty of my favorite games had rough launches (Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines, No Man’s Sky, Witcher 3, Skyrim - hell, I even lost an hour to the cross-save bug in Baldurs Gate 3), but it became a meme to hate on CP2077, and I understand why the devs claim to this day that the game deserves more credit.
I understand that players are tired of broken launches, and I agree that devs should be more cautious about what features they show in alpha/beta stages to manage hype, but I think the oversized backlash this game received stopped or delayed a large swathe of gamers from experiencing a truly great game and gave the devs way more stress than they had earned.
Honestly you’re not wrong, the launch of the game was actually horrible. The game was good in theory but was halfway executed and shoved into our faces as something great when it obviously wasn’t when they shipped it.
Did you somehow get a different game? Or maybe you somehow avoided all the bugs everyone else experienced. Still even if worked perfectly, game of the year seems a bit much.
Even now, years later, there are still unfixed bugs. I have a game where there’s one mission showing up in a building that is impossible to enter. I even started the game clean from the beginning a year ago and hit the same damn bug again.
Others have reported it too, so I’m not the only one.
I didn’t have any gamebreaking bugs, but had soooo so many “how the fuck did this pass quality control?” bugs. Most of them were pretty funny, like the time I didn’t understand how the cyberpsycho quests worked, and tried to take the unconscious body with me.
The game system did not like having that body in the trunk of my car, with hilarious Dali-esque consequences.
Aside from that, the deep systems that were promised were extremely shallow; the onscreen map was fucked, too small to see turns coming (pathing too CPU-intensive when zoomed out?); the onscreen HUD still last time I played was too small to read on a 4k screen; the car handling / driving is still atrocious (at least, last time I played). It is a fun game, especially for those picking it up now. Mods make it much more fun.
They literally lied about what features the game would have. Not even the Phantom Liberty updates make it the game they were promising all the way up to launch.
Yes, it was far far more than just a buggy release. Even if the game was originally released in the state it’s in now people would still have been pissed. The bugs were just a distraction.
Yeah, the only other game that was so brazenly lied about before launch was No Man’s Sky and to their credit Hello Games actually implemented everything that was promised back then now and then some, for free.
I think a lot of the negativity also comes from misunderstanding what the game is.
Just like you, I played the game on release (on PC) and it is for me one of the best games of all time for one specific reason: immersion and story. That’s exactly what I expected from CDPR after Witcher 3 (another story and immersion focused game) and that’s exactly what I got. I didn’t expect a company known for their story focus and relatively weaker gameplay to deliver a game focused on gameplay or sandbox elements.
I think a lot of people wanted something that CDPR was never going to deliver, but it seems like Phantom Liberty is leaning more into the sandbox that people wanted and (unsurprisingly) didn’t get at release.
You can’t say that when for literally YEARS CDPR advertised the game as being exactly that. A futuristic, play-who-you-want RPG sandbox. Instead we practically got a Far Cry clone with light RPG elements. They just quietly stopped advertising it as such.
But people remember. Just because you didn’t expect it yourself doesn’t mean it wasn’t advertised as such.
I see this argument a lot when people criticize this game and it seems like you are all suffering from some Mandela fever dream. Or maybe you just didn’t watch any of the trailers and dev commentary?
CDPR literally marketed the game as and constantly raved about how the city was the most immersive sandbox possible. With fully scripted AI living full lives and reacting realistically to you. A full police system that would enforce harsh punishments. They wanted players to believe it was going to be the same level of interactivity with the world as games like GTA or Watch Dogs.
Idk what made you think they were “never going to deliver” that when it was constantly being talked about by the PEOPLE WHO MADE THE GAME.
“Well, CDPR has never made a game like that and the Witcher series wasn’t like that so it doesn’t matter that they spent years telling everyone that it was going to be that way! It’s you’re fault for not knowing!”
If by rough launch you mean pretty much omitted majority of things they said will be in the game, then yes. Rough launch. And here I am worrying when indie devs don’t have enough time to fix minor bug in their games.
Broken launches aren’t something to be tired of, imagine if everytime you bought a car it has to be recalled. Every Sandwich you ate gave you food poisoning. All of the tools you buy snap the first time they undergo a few foot pounds of torque.
This market runs on money, and the only way to combine them to put out functional games is to refuse to pay for sub par products. Anything less and they’ll go “oh shit, we’re still making money. I guess we don’t need to provide anything beyond a tech demo to rake in 70 bucks + cosmetics, etc.”
They absolutely lied about their systems. Fully functional crowds and AI? Bullshit. A cop system that actually works? Bullshit. They pop out of a hole in the ground and insta-gank you. If they can’t even replicate decade old police technology that games like GTA IV managed to get right, then they should have just given you the “DONT KILL CIVILIANS” with a game over screen instead of some half-baked system of having police that spawn behind and instantly kill you. A total waste of a mechanic that they couldn’t even fully implement or commit to.
While the game was mostly broken on last gen consoles, I have a fairly powerful desktop and still got game breaking bugs on occasion with only mildly infuriating ones fairly frequently. To say the game was GOTY on day one is absolutely mind-boggling. Your standards for games are clearly through the floor on this one if you really consider it GOTY on release lol I wouldn’t even consider it that good NOW and I’ve just recently 100%'ed the damn game.
I’ll agree that it got more hate than it deserves, but let’s not swing the pendulum the other way and pretend this is some nugget of gold that people just didn’t see. It was broken and got treated as such.
I’ve been a huge fan of CDPR since the witcher 2. I love the world of cyberpunk. The combination seemed like a dream come true. So, I deliberately held out on absolutely any and all spoilers. It was not easy.
I bought a new computer for the game. I booked a two week vacation to play the game.
And, I mostly enjoyed it. It was a little bit underwhelming, and some systems seemed a bit contrived. But, it was still fun, with some amazing city design. Definitely not something that I would call GoTY.
Then, I looked at all the outrage, and I looked at the promotional material. And, oh boy, did that seem fraudulent. Like, “how come no one went to jail”-fraud. Pretty straight up lying about every part of the game. And why? I don’t know, but it seriously stained my view of CDPR.
Not only did it have all the bugs and missing features, the game was disappointingly mediocre even if it had been working perfectly. The only thing I thought was excellently done was the layout of the city itself.
I played through it at launch on my lower end gaming laptop (1050 GPU) that I had at the time. With some fiddling, and basically turning everything to lowest I got it to just about playable framerates.
Massively enjoyed the game and its universe. I hit a few bugs but nothing that was hugely game breaking, at least nowhere as bad as people were saying. I also managed my expectations knowing my hardware at the time was low-end/dated.
Then I saw footage of the game being played on base tier PS4 and Xbox One hardware and holy shit, if I’d bought it on either of those (especially Xbox), I’d have been furious. The game was not ready and should never have been released for those consoles. It clearly needed at least PS4 Pro or One X to even be remotely playable at launch.
Never ever ever buy a game until after reviews come out. It’s not worth it. It doesn’t matter if it’s from a legendary game studio, they can find all of the developers, they could fire all of the managers, and still be called the same thing. The name is no guarantee of anything.
Pre-ordering games had a point back when they were mostly physical, because if you didn’t, you ran the risk of them running out. Although I didn’t pre-order GTA V, and just walked into a game store on the day of release and bought two copies, so since then I’ve rather been of the opinion that even with physical products, it’s probably not very likely they’re going to run out.
But now everything’s digital there’s 100% no reason to pre-order. Make them make the actual product they claimed to have made.
Nothing looks better on a corporate resume than taking over a successful business and immediately alienating all the talent that made it successful. I don’t know who the jerkwad is that fucked up so badly, but I hope this follows them for years.
Kudos to Nick, Yahtzee and all the rest for sticking with each other in solidarity rather than caving to corporate pressure. I’ll be looking forward to seeing them produce new videos in the future, hopefully under their own LLC.
This was a win for whomever bought it. They cut costs and killed an underperforming unit. Assuming it’s part of a larger entity, they’re able to strip this parts or shutter it completely to post a loss they’ll get tax credit for or can use to offset gains elsewhere. Modern US capitalism only cares about short term shareholder value increases and this story, when viewed through that lens, is just another day in the world of investment banks, venture capital, and corporate sharks.
Note I’m not saying it’s a win for people. In the 70s and 80s when the US markets moved shareholder value above customers and employees, life got fucked. It’s just naive to think any of this actually matters beyond dollars on a balance sheet. Gamurs Group can spin the shutdown of The Escapist as a net win or can rebuild the publication at a loss, also as a net win. They don’t fucking care.
Ah. Well, doesn’t really matter how it’s spun. The Escapist was that company’s golden goose, and they just chased it off. Anyone with any brains in the industry or in private equity will be able to see that, regardless of spin. This isn’t in the interest of short- or long-term gains, it’s just a company-ending error by a fucking stupid exec.
That’s a very naive take on business practices that have made a lot of people a lot of money (which is why they continue). I really don’t see anything happening to any Gamurs Group execs beyond, say, their golden parachute deploying on their way to their next raider role. Companies don’t care about their holdings, they care about their balance sheet. Losing a company can make a ton on a balance sheet.
Again, I’m not saying any of this is right. It’s just how huge businesses work and all of it happens at the expense of employees first and customers second.
I understand the benefit of prioritizing short-term gains over long-term when you intend to flip the property. That’s not what this is though. Explain to me how driving away the most valuable asset of a company turns a profit before you start calling people naïve. You sound like you’re talking out of your ass.
I think this might have more to do with the beating that Epic took from Apple in court. The 2021 decision in favor of Apple, of their lawsuit for anti-competitive behavior was upheld this year. That was not cheap to litigate that and was a major loss for Epic.
I think the Bandcamp sell off is a good indicator of all of this. Epic obtained Bandcamp in March 2022, to explicitly have their IAP system integrated into it. Google shut them down and told them they would start collecting the 30% usual due. Epic filed suit and Google gave them an exception for the time being with the agreement that 10% would be held in escrow until the conclusion of the trail. With many of the arguments in the Apple case similar to Google's case, I'm pretty sure Epic sees the loss coming from a mile away.
All in all, what I think can be drawn from this. Epic made a big bet on "their store" and that's fading away with mobile devices locking people into a marketplace that is "distinctly not Epic". While putting such a bet wouldn't normally kill a company, Epic sextupled down on it and I think how hard they went for "their marketplace" is what's done them in.
That and the EGS seem to be where Epic funneled all their profits from the height of Fornite. That neither has worked out puts them on shakier ground. How many billions of dollars has been spent on EGS with it being way behind their revenue targets?
As things stand, Epic has very little in the way of a next big revenue source when Fortnite starts to fade as something new takes its place. That (probably) isn’t right around the corner but it will happen eventually. Their bet was on running major digital storefronts; that hasn’t worked out. UE will continue to make good money but not anywhere near enough to sustain the company as it is. UE is simply far smaller than something like FN.
This is likely them realizing this in conjunction with what you said. They need a new big revenue source in the pipeline, since digital storefronts won’t be it. Whatever that next thing is will need lots of money.
games
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.