• Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Ultimately the EGS has shown 12% is not profitable…

    Citation needed. They’re still operating, while paying games for exclusivity, and giving away games for free (at their own cost). Sure, a lot of this is likely funded by Fortnite, but to say it isn’t profitable when they’re giving away this much money is a big claim. Also, Valve would be significantly more profitable at the same rate, because they have almost total market capture. Even if Epic isn’t profitable (I’ve seen no evidence of this) we can’t extrapolate to say Vlave wouldn’t be.

    • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Sure, a lot of this is likely funded by Fortnite

      If it needs to be subsidized by Fortnite then it’s by definition not profitable

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Them giving away a ton of money does not mean the distribution alone isn’t profitable.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 hours ago

            I very clearly do. Them giving away a bunch of money that isn’t required has nothing to do with their distribution service not making a profit. Valve doesn’t do this, so it obviously is not required to run a games distribution service. That’s the part that’s subsidized by Fortnite, not the distribution. The distribution is pretty cheap. All it requires is having servers that can store the files and an internet connection.