Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games

Fortnite is Generating More Revenue Than Any Other Free Game Ever (recode.net) 162

Posted by msmash from the setting-precedence dept.
Fortnite: Battle Royale has brought in more revenue in a single month than any other game of its kind, industry estimates suggest. Recode: The free-to-play game hit a new revenue record of $318 million in May, according to SuperData Research. That puts Fornite well ahead of other breakout games like Pokemon Go and Clash of Clans, and it's all the more spectacular when you realize the multi-platform game launched on consoles just eight months ago and on iOS just three months ago. Since then, Fortnite has brought in more than $1.2 billion in revenue, all of which comes from nonessential in-app purchases, for stuff like clothing and dance moves.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fortnite is Generating More Revenue Than Any Other Free Game Ever More

Fortnite is Generating More Revenue Than Any Other Free Game Ever

Comments Filter:

  • Plenty of children using parents money.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 26, 2018 @12:39PM (#56848722)

    ..for $20 cosmetic items. Yeah, as in two-zero.... ten plus ten.

    People that work at gamestop cant believe how many kids are dragging their parents in just to purchase these gift cards that let you buy skins.

    Not to mention the fact that the game is on nearly every platform now. It's a digital clothing store in the form of a video game.

    It's also pretty fun. I grew tired of it fairly quickly, but I'd never say it's a bad game. When you consider epic is pouring all their resources into it, it better be doing okay

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by aix tom ( 902140 )

      It kind of makes sense. Real live is also "pretty fun" no matter what clothes you war, and the real life fashion industry makes a lot of money, too.

    • Re:Plenty of children using parents money.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Tuesday June 26, 2018 @12:47PM (#56848784)

      It's a digital clothing store in the form of a video game.

      So in many ways it's a virtual dress-up doll. All these teenage and pre-teen boys are paying money for a virtual Barbie (with a gun).

    • They sell gift cards for skins? Wow, just... wow.

      But yeah, it's fun even though I don't like the cartoonish look and feel. I also tried PUBG (which was not free, but sadly the devs really dropped the ball on that one. What a seriously frustrating buggy mess of rampant cheating that was...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by EvilSS ( 557649 )
        Well yea, it's better than giving your kid your CC number to make the purchase.
      • PUBG is suing FortNite for copyright infringement because FortNite has a battle royale mode.
        • PUBG is suing Epic, makers of the engine PUBG uses and supposedly collaborators in some way to the development of PUBG. They are suing because they believe EPIC released a startling similar version of their game in a surprisingly short time span AFTER being exposed to PUBG from an insider perspective.

          At the very least EPIC have a large conflict of interest in releasing a "copy cat" product in direct competition of a highly successful customer. Whether that is actionable in court, I don't know but I certai

      • They sell gift cards for skins?

        Not specifically, but the game is on console so you can use the standard PSN/XBOX cards to purchase the in-game premium currency.

    • Re:Plenty of children using parents money.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Tuesday June 26, 2018 @01:53PM (#56849272) Journal
      I have no problem with money for DLC as long as it's not pay to win or cut grinds etc.... it keeps the developers focus on keeping the game fun and interesting. With pay to win it creates all kinds of perverse side effects on game play.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Mandrel ( 765308 )
      Products (and ads for products) targeted at children have always been the most lucrative, because they and their developing brains are more able to be manipulated, are more susceptible to addiction and peer pressure, are less jaded and so more open and promiscuous, and have a large amount of leisure time. And their parents (and grandparents) like to dote and defuse pestering. Games, movies, books, toys, clothes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mccalli ( 323026 )
      Hey, I like it. My kids know that they can get those skins, if they do extra work around the house. My lawns are mowed, a lesson in responsibility and reward is taught, and fun is had by the kids at the other end of it. Works for me/us.

  • All Hail Shareware! (Score:3)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Tuesday June 26, 2018 @12:40PM (#56848734)

    Back in the 1980's and 1990's we had Shareware. These were programs that you can download, copy with other and use. Some of them had a Trial Time Period, where you can use the full version for a period of time, then you have access to a reduced features, or not work at all. But most others Offered additional Levels, and other goodies if you were to actually purchase the software.

    I see many of these free to play games with extra purchases as just an extension of the Shareware concept. However the problem that I feel is most concerning is the lack of a cap in how much you are going to pay for it. Say an $80 fee (The cost of a good console game) where everything is unlocked, and you can use the game and stay current. But that isn't the case, because it is easy to nickle and dime your way into people paying much more. Often for just something fun at the moment.

    Granted this is still probably better then what people will pay for beer where they drink it, get a buzz, and then feel sick in the morning.

    • Re:All Hail Shareware! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Tuesday June 26, 2018 @12:49PM (#56848800)

      Back in the 1980's and 1990's we had Shareware. These were programs that you can download, copy with other and use. Some of them had a Trial Time Period, where you can use the full version for a period of time, then you have access to a reduced features, or not work at all. But most others Offered additional Levels, and other goodies if you were to actually purchase the software.

      I see many of these free to play games with extra purchases as just an extension of the Shareware concept. However the problem that I feel is most concerning is the lack of a cap in how much you are going to pay for it. Say an $80 fee (The cost of a good console game) where everything is unlocked, and you can use the game and stay current. But that isn't the case, because it is easy to nickle and dime your way into people paying much more. Often for just something fun at the moment.

      Granted this is still probably better then what people will pay for beer where they drink it, get a buzz, and then feel sick in the morning.

      The old shareware games used to give you a pretty decent amount of playtime on the free version too. They didn't cut you off the moment it got slightly interesting; and it was usually a pay once and you get the whole thing when you did pay... it wasn't the constant microtransaction trickle that most places try to get nowadays.

    • Fortnite purchases are purely cosmetic and the store interface makes this clear.

      One cannot purchase a better experience/advantage, it's a level playing field. It's a good system in my opinion.

      That said, my son still bothers me to purchase the cosmetic stuff (and if I do then I deny actual physical purchases to drive home what "cosmetic" means - good ways to get him to do chores...).

      • One cannot purchase a better experience/advantage, it's a level playing field.

        This idea that cosmetics necessarily dont offer an advantage, it doesnt seem justified to me. Military's around the world have invested big in real life cosmetics for soldiers, an array of different camouflages for different conditions.

        I know in Mech Warrior Online, they even charge a premium for the paints that match predominant map textures such as white (a lot of snow maps.)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lgw ( 121541 )

      However the problem that I feel is most concerning is the lack of a cap in how much you are going to pay for it. Say an $80 fee (The cost of a good console game) where everything is unlocked, and you can use the game and stay current. But that isn't the case, because it is easy to nickle and dime your way into people paying much more. Often for just something fun at the moment.

      The norm for free to pay games is that most of their revenue come from a few "whales". Beyond the normal 80/20, some games get 95% of revenue from 5% of players, or even 99% from 1% of players. Kudos to Fortnight for not being pay-to-win, as it leads to that sort of imbalance. There are seriously people who pay $30,000 for this sort of shit, and many games that exist only to harvest those whales.

      It's awesome to have such vivid proof that you can make more money with a level playing field than the normal

    • Supply and demand. Well really, just demand and the ability to make new add-ons that people want to buy. If people want to dab or wear a fish in a bowl as a head, that's what they will do and they will pay a pretty penny for it as well. I haven't paid any money on the battle royale side. I did buy the campaign single player/co-op game.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sd4f ( 1891894 )

      Not having a cap in order to nickel and dime is done by design. With all the mobile games, I think the industry has learnt that there's a very small proportion of people who spend the most on this sort of stuff. If they capped it, they would end up getting a lot less money. The industry refers to these high spenders as whales, just like the gambling industry. They concentrate and put their effort in them, after all they're a business.

      From what I can see, they treat their game more like an addiction to these

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sd4f ( 1891894 )
        Forgot to add; the free-to-play with in-app purchases model also has a lower barrier to entry, since people don't need to buy the game, nor a subscription. So we're now faced with the situation that almost no games can break through all the noise of free crapware, just like mobile apps and the app stores. You don't hear of developers striking it big anymore because there's just too many free apps, and if someone does something interesting, it gets reverse engineered, and a free ad-supported app may come alo
  • FortNite Battle Royale is such an epic success that Epic Games pulled everyone off from finishing the next version of Unreal Tournament.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tailhook ( 98486 )

      It's interesting to me that the hardware requirements (PC anyhow) are that of about a 6-ish year old machine. According to gamespot all you need to run it well is a 3570K (2012) and a 970 (2014).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mikael ( 484 )

        Most people only upgrade their PC gaming rigs every six years now. If a smartphone costs $600, and a high end gaming rig costs $4000, then they expect a similar lifetime.

        • I had the same motherboard inside one system for nine years. I did go through three processors (dual-, quad- and eight-core) and three video cards during that time. I usually get a $50 motherboard but I might get a $150 motherboard next time since I keep them for so long.
        • People that spend $4000 on a gaming machine are too impatient to wait six years for anything. You've got it very wrong somehow.

          • Spot on - if you can go 6 years, you're not challenging much and probably don't top $1k. You're not buying the highest end stuff and you're not worried about playing at the highest settings and resolutions.

  • How pointless does your life have to be to see value in buying, with actual money, no less, some fancy virtual clothing for your virtual character? Some 3D model that's probably re-used again and again with different textures, took half an hour for some game artist to produce a shitload of them that the company can now charge you premium for, and extra-platinum if you get the one with the golden pixelated stars on the right side, just under the virtual pocket. No, you can't really wear it or put anything in

    • How pointless does your life have to be to see value in buying, with actual money, no less, some fancy virtual clothing for your virtual character?

      So pointless that you have loads of disposable income. Must be a really shitty life.

      • That income definately is "disposable" if you'd waste it on some character skin or other trinket you benefit from only in some specific game world.

        • OK, I'm glad that we agree on what disposable income means. People spend their money on all kinds of things that bring them no real benefit. This is no different.

    • Re:Why have we let ourselves come to this? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mikael ( 484 ) on Tuesday June 26, 2018 @01:41PM (#56849196)

      Some people may not have the ground space, energy, or money to afford a real landscaped garden, mansion home, or even toy railway set, but they are happy with a virtual version that they can upgrade in their spare time.

      • There's a good bit of truth to this. When I finally get myself into the financial position to buy a house that isn't an utter shithole I intend to build myself a backyard paradise. Until then I have Minecraft.

    • Re:Why have we let ourselves come to this? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by war4peace ( 1628283 ) on Tuesday June 26, 2018 @01:42PM (#56849202)

      Good for you to have strong opinions. Me, i'm not sure anyone is more right then the next person as far as entertainment is concerned.
      Person A might spend 100 grand on a really nice sports car. Person B might spend 10 grand on Fortnite cosmetics. "A friend" spent somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 grand on World of Tanks since 2011 - and still does buy premium tanks "for collecting purposes". Meanwhile person C loaned money over and over and spent them on trips all over the world, now he's proper fucked by banks. All while person D poured tons of alcohol down their guts and person E smoked their lungs to Hell and back. And the list can go on forever.

      None is better than the other, they simply spend their money on whatever floats their boat. Small condo and pixel-rich versus big mansion and never played any PC games, there's no objective difference.

      • The money almost unimportant (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        All are equally stupid wastes of time.

        • So, tell me then... what do YOU do with your disposable income (if any)?

        • Whoosh.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )

        None is better than the other, they simply spend their money on whatever floats their boat.

        Yeah, though I feel like a lot of people let their wallet dictate how fancy it gets rather than whether it actually gives them more pleasure, as if spending the money was the ends and not the means. I could afford to go to a Michelin star restaurant, but honestly I'd be just as happy at a good steakhouse or eating spicy Thai food. Just because I'm currently running a surplus doesn't mean I have to find a way to spend more money. It's nice to have the freedom if I want it and I realize there's like a base co

      • Me, i'm not sure anyone is more right then the next person as far as entertainment is concerned.

        Except these massively profitable games have undermind game ownership completely and are encouraging outright destruction of videogame history. AKA all games will now be pushed towards online only for mtx money all because of kids. I can't say I like the direction gaming has gone in as a PC gamer from the 90's. These kids don't know anybetter, but the internet has enabled companies to steal games using ignorant kids.

        These f2p games are essentailly fraudulent games - you get to pay for an item in a game y

        • Kids' clothing is more expensive.
          Kids' stuff (shampoos, toys, etc) are more expensive compared to similar adult-specific products.
          It was always like that, only you didn't notice it. I'm a parent of two, I'm very well aware of it.

          And it's not mostly kids paying for microtransactions, as a matter of fact a big F2P with MTX game is supported mostly by players over 18 (a bit over 60% of the total amount of money spent is spent by people between 18 and 45 and a bit over 20% is spent by people older than 45). Can

      • Person A might spend 100 grand on a really nice sports car.

        And then he'll drive it through a school zone at 30km/h. Quite an apt comparison to what the GP quoted: "No, you can't really wear it or put anything in that pocket, but look at the face of the other players when they see how fabulous your character is looking now!* Note: Other players' faces may or may not be visible."

        Many of the activities we do in our live are pointeless by the GP's standards.

    • It's not how long it took someone to make, it's what its worth to you. It's pretty reasonable to spend 10 or 20 dollars for something that enhances something you play 20 hours a month.

    • No, you can't really wear it or put anything in that pocket, but look at the face of the other players when they see how fabulous your character is looking now!*

      Girls have been buying clothes for their dolls and boys have been buying guns and accessories for their action figures since the dawn of time.

      Some 3D model that's probably re-used again and again with different textures, took half an hour for some game artist to produce a shitload of them that the company can now charge you premium for

      So you think the mass-produced physical toys are sold to you at cost?

      Anyway, you aren't paying for the 30 minutes of the designer's time. You are paying for the infrastructure of developers, designers, servers, admins, and bandwidth that allows you to run around in a world with those goodies.

      • 1. They're not selling me any toys at or above cost, not for a couple decades now. 2. Exactly. If you accept to pay for the infrastucture of developers, designers, servers, etc. through some in-game accessory that they're selling to you for real money, I sincerely despise you and that was my only point.

        • 1. They're not selling me any toys at or above cost, not for a couple decades now.

          Our ability to think about concepts abstractly it what separates us from the lower life forms. It's why most of us come here to post. This is opposed to just telling the internet facts about our boring lives.

    • if it is something that makes them happy for even a moment, doesn't cause you or anyone else physical harm why is that bad?
      • Oh they have every right to, just as I have the right to see them as worthless scumfucks just the same as if I saw a line of worthless scumfucks sleeping outside some Apple store before the big release of the next same-fucking-phone-as-released-as-last-year-with-one-port-less-and-some-unnecessary-addition.

      • if it is something that makes them happy for even a moment, doesn't cause you or anyone else physical harm why is that bad?

        While it's not "harm", it is annoying that the best game companies are chasing new and interesting ways to attract whales to buy oodles of virtual trinkets instead of trying to make the best gameplay they know how to. The market is speaking loud and clear and I disagree with them. I am basically resigned to the inevitability that the gaming future will be streaming, games-as-a-service, gachapon-loot-crate, microtransaction, online-only, time limited mobile games tied to social features. And I don't like it.

    • No, you can't really wear it or put anything in that pocket, but look at the face of the other players when they see how fabulous your character is looking now!*

      Are we still talking about a game, or are you reflecting on life itself?

  • Cosmetic vs. pay to win (Score:5, Interesting)

    by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Tuesday June 26, 2018 @12:52PM (#56848836)
    I really like freemium games that push cosmetics only such as skins, dance moves, and other non-essentials. It opens up the game to the most people, levels the playing field between players who pay and those who don't, and still allows a fun incentive to invest in the development of the game. I can't stand and refuse to become invested in games that use loot boxes using actual currency as the method to obtain end game content, must have equipment, or are the only way to get it in a reasonable amount of time.

  • Fortnight claims to gameplay advantage but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday June 26, 2018 @12:56PM (#56848854)

    So to start with, I think Fortnight is doing this free to play right. You can truly play as much as you like, any items you can buy are pretty much just fun graphical enhancements for your avatar.

    However I would quibble slightly that the graphics only re-skins give a small advantage - simply from a camo standpoint, if you buy a darker outfit you are going to be harder to see from a distance against the landscape or in a shadow. Almost all of the really good players I've seen have darker outfits... with the occasional exception of someone showing off wearing a hot pink teddy bear or something else really vibrant.

    • True, but this falls under the "unintended consequences" part of the game. It's unavoidable.

      • Agreed - and the default skins are relatively stealthy from a distance. If the only free options were hot pink or neon green, it would rub me the wrong way.

      • I don't think it's entirely unavoidable - for instance you could have different skins for purchase, but let the player chose a basic color tint so any outfit could be tinted black (or rainbow or neon pink).

        However it is a pretty minor point, I don't think it's a big deal, and I hate to take away design freedom from a game that does a good job with variety in art and color. So nice to play a game that is not all browns.

        Really my only issue is simply in saying "items offer no competitive advantage" which is

  • Its not all that fun to play
    Its fun for the first few match, but its boring to play and community sucks.

  • Hey... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It's better than the Loot Box system for extra in-game revenue that EA came up with.

    Hell... EA does that shit with both their paid games and their "freemium" ones now.

  • After the last slashdot adstory for this game, i decided to download it and fire it up to try it. My advice? don't bother. The game does not have text chat. You have to use voice. And are banned (allegedly) for turning off voice because you don't want to hear a bunch of prepubescent american teenagers talking to eachother. This was a conscious decision by the developers apparently.

    This is a new thing to me in games, that they would not have text chat. Is that the way of the future? totally sad.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tukz ( 664339 )

      It's a genre thing, I think. PUBG doesn't have public chat either.

      And you don't get banned for turning off voice, don't know where you get that from.

    • That reminds me of a really old Penny-Arcade comic... :) https://www.penny-arcade.com/c... [penny-arcade.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      Text chat wouldn't work very well in a game like this. When you need it, you are moving too fast to stop and type out your call-outs to your team mates. You would be dead before you finished. TTK can be pretty low and things move pretty fast.

      As for getting banned, no you won't get banned for not using voice chat. Otherwise most of the EU players would be banned by now (they really don't like using it over there).

      • We like voide chat ... during combat.
        But it sucks if kids start chating private stuff and miss that we are in combat again.
        Out of combat I prefere radio silence or talk about tactics.

    • They don't have public text chat because it universally ends up being toxic. That's a smart move.

      • Okay... I don't know what games *you* play, but I play CS:Go and it's usually Russian teenagers screaming "Suck my balls" at high volume at each other. But do tell what in-game paradise of intellectually stimulating discourse you discovered in voice chat. I'm very curious.

        • I didn't say voice chat wasn't toxic. I said chat is toxic. This thing about voice chat is you can turn it off. I guess you could also put tape over your screen on the chat window though. Fair enough.

          • I didn't say voice chat wasn't toxic. I said chat is toxic. This thing about voice chat is you can turn it off. I guess you could also put tape over your screen on the chat window though. Fair enough.

            Okay, I deserved that :)

  • I've been following one person, but there are many out there making a living off of Fortnite.

    Since graduating this year, decided to spend all their time streaming, putting college off till next year.
    Renting a 2 bedroom very nice apt with the donations they make. People are throwing money at these streamers.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close