Messofanego
Banned
The hypocrisy is amazing. From a game built off the backs of others, to being concerned about a game being inspired by them.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PUBG dev Bluehole concerned over Fortnite's Battle Royale [Up: Background Both Sides]
- Thread starter ashecitism
- Start date
You don't get high off your own supply
Messofanego
Banned
jackissocool
Member
I prefer it. The building mechanics add a lot.
The Hamburglar
Banned
I'm more concern for the fornite devs. Why buy foremite when you're offering a free to play version even if it's different.
Toe-Knee
Member
Toe-Knee
Member
How odd. It looked terrible to me before and I was thinking about buying pubg on steam but I don't like giving money for unfinished products.
Fortnite battle royale however looks less janky than pubg and has a far more appealing artstyle so I'm there day one. I still have no interest in the core pve game though.
Probably counting on whales buying up MTs (cosmetics mostly) to off-set that. Besides, I don't think it's that absurd a strategy that if someone liked the Battle Royale mod, they would check out the main game when it's on sale or something.
On the one hand, imagine if other game modes like capture the flag had been copyright protected. Imagine if team deathmatch was a game mode limited to a single franchise.
But on the other hand, and perhaps more seriously, it's really fucking dumb of Epic if they've been explicitly referencing PUBG in marketing material. That's just asking for trouble (although I haven't seen examples).
But on the other hand, and perhaps more seriously, it's really fucking dumb of Epic if they've been explicitly referencing PUBG in marketing material. That's just asking for trouble (although I haven't seen examples).
TVexperto
Member
I dont understand how thats trouble
I'm surprised how many people here think AAA developers are just going to poop out better BR games than PUBG no problem soon. There's a reason why barely any even touched the survival genre when it became (relatively) big after DayZ. It basically goes against everything a lot of AAA games do these days with regards to accessibility. Also, I think people underestimate how much of a challenge it is to make a BR game with its large amount of players, vehicles and loot on a giant map. It's not as easy as taking The Division and "just adding a BR mode".
Maximus P
Member
The main game is going to be free too when it comes out of Beta.
I was playing Fortnite last night. Its very barebones at the moment but i understand that there are updates coming that will add more weapons, loot drops and cosmetics. Cosmetics is probably where they plan to make their money.
Then why hasn't anyone copied Mario sunshine?
Dynamite Shikoku
Congratulations, you really deserve it!
The PUBG guys better enjoy that money while it lasts. AAA companies are gonna eat their lunch soon enough
The irony is Bluehole is larger than most devs
Lightning_Roller
Banned
Exactly. They are a game Dev getting a boost from a larger company interested in their game. But when a AAA company with the time, money and manpower comes along to take a shot at the BR genre, it's on.
paperspace
Member
⁣
My only problem is the half-assed nature of Fortnite but that's only due to it still being in-development, like PUBG. Honestly, it is business as usual like others have said. When you have a frenzy whipped up on a somewhat new genre you bet your ass other devs are coming for that money.
As it always is, the winner will be the one who makes it the best. People will fondly remember PUBG but they won't stick around if it doesn't keep offering a good gameplay experience. Just because you are the "first" doesn't mean you suddenly retain users.
Hell I'm keen for Fortnite if they can fix the shitty ballistics and loot system, can't say no to a free game. And I'm someone whose put nearly 300 hours into PUBG.
As it always is, the winner will be the one who makes it the best. People will fondly remember PUBG but they won't stick around if it doesn't keep offering a good gameplay experience. Just because you are the "first" doesn't mean you suddenly retain users.
Hell I'm keen for Fortnite if they can fix the shitty ballistics and loot system, can't say no to a free game. And I'm someone whose put nearly 300 hours into PUBG.
Mr. Luchador
Member
In the UK you can mention competitors in your advertising as long as what you say is factually correct. Many don't do this, as why spend money to even mention your competitors (even if you are saying you perform better than them). Of course, this doesn't account for quoting articles others have written comparing your product to another, as that's just fair game.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
Wait til Blizzard wades in...
I dont get why everyone says that bluehole is fucked as soon as an AAA dev enters the game
Riot wasnt exactly a big company when lol started, but since they were able to have a big start advantage, they secured the genre even after big companies like valve, blizzard and even warner bros and EA created a moba later.
PUBG sold 3 million units in China, and by the time than an AAA releases a BR game, Bluehole would already have a more polished game with a big userbase who will not want to lose their progress just because a bigger company entered the game
Riot wasnt exactly a big company when lol started, but since they were able to have a big start advantage, they secured the genre even after big companies like valve, blizzard and even warner bros and EA created a moba later.
PUBG sold 3 million units in China, and by the time than an AAA releases a BR game, Bluehole would already have a more polished game with a big userbase who will not want to lose their progress just because a bigger company entered the game
I guess this update is just being ignored?
The problem here is an engine provider acting as a competitor, leveraging technical improvements and support to undermine a partner and customer.
Imagine this completely hypothetical situation, which bears absolutely no resemblance to anything Epic is doing right now, nor anything they have done many times in the past:
The problem here is an engine provider acting as a competitor, leveraging technical improvements and support to undermine a partner and customer.
Imagine this completely hypothetical situation, which bears absolutely no resemblance to anything Epic is doing right now, nor anything they have done many times in the past:
- Bluehole and Epic work together to improve the way Unreal Engine 4 handles 100 player servers.
- Before these improvements are deployed into UE4 proper, Epic begins using them in their own UE4 products like Fortnite.
- Epic gains a competitive advantage over Bluehole on the back of Bluehole's own work, with Fortnite: Battle Royale performing better than PUBG thanks to these improvements.
- The implementation of these improvements in UE4 is repeatedly and mysteriously delayed.
The Hamburglar
Banned
Is he fornite beta already out on console?
KonradLaw
Member
Huh? This is game designed by the guy who spearheaded the entire genre. And most of all, this doesn't seem to be about similiarities of ideas. Afterall they didn't have problem with other BR games. It's about Epic using PUBG's name to promote it's own game as well (and likely primarly) about suspicion they might be using some of the code taken from PUBG, since Bluehole worked directly with Epic to improve the engine to make it more suited to this type of game.
KonradLaw
Member
Yeah. Those big companies almost never manage to upstage the ones that started small and then had their games crazy big. If even Valve couldn't come anywhere near close to LoL, despite having Steam and Dota brand, then there's no way in hell Epic will beat Bluehole.
The only real concern is console space. This is where Epic might succeed, but on PC PUBG is already too entrenched
SlickShoes
Member
Thats a made up scenario though and isnt what this is even about.
Should epic not be allowed to make any game that is in the same genre as one made by someone using their engine? That seems to be what you are suggesting.
Epic make games as well as an engine, you are suggesting they are stealing work from other developers and rolling it into their own games without any approval or anything. Thats a big stretch from whats actually been said.
I'm interested in Fortnite only for the battle royale mode. By the time PUBG gets around to releasing on PS4 I (and many others, of course) might not even need it thanks to the clones that released before the original.
That's tough shit for Bluehole as you can't really prove it, but then I'd think marketing something as "like PUBG" would be grounds for some kind of legal challenge.
I could also just be wrong on this (and again I haven't seen the examples of Fortnite's marketing). Those examples you give feel different to what I'm imagining though. "Our game makes Halo look shit" is different to "Our game is just like Halo but Halo isn't on this system yet! Buy our game if you want to play Halo but can't!"
Shifty
Member
Just had a read through, and honestly this sounds like some serious grasping at straws. The guy talks his way around every single question and the one solid point he makes is "they referenced PUBG in their promo material".
For instance, he mentions how their success means they have to pay Epic a lot in royalties. Yes? And?
You knew the licensing terms as soon as you picked UE4, and they're perfectly fair: 5% of gross revenue after the first $3000 per product per calendar quarter.
You can even contact them directly to negotiate custom terms and reduce the cost if your project becomes successful enough to warrant it.
He also talks like those big royalty payments should entitle them to some kind of preferential treatment. Unless you negotiate custom terms that say as much, no, you don't get preferential treatment.
And then he says "we're not claiming any kind of ownership over the game mode or genre" in one paragraph before moving on to implying (in a very roundabout way mind you) that they should be paid a license fee for the battle royale idea, ignoring the fact that H1Z1: KotK and The Culling came about before PUBG was even a thing.
Oh and this part
is bullshit. If you make modifications to the engine source, they're yours. Internal. Not forced to be shared with Epic unless you make the conscious decision to send them in as a pull request on github or commit them to a private branch they've given you access to.C.H. Kim said:
Take modifying the engine to support 100 network players as an example. From my experience 'working with epic on a feature' generally means getting advice from the appropriate team and doing the implementation yourself.
So if Bluehole wrote the code and gave it willingly to Epic under their open-source program, Epic are the ones who decide when it's ready for public consumption. If Epic wrote the code, then surprise surprise the same applies.
To me, it says a lot that Bluehole chose to put out press releases and start shit instead of keeping quiet and opening a direct dialogue with Epic first. The whole thing stinks of PR warfare.
Sorry, my sarcasm detector is broken. Is this sarcasm?
All they said, on a blog, was basically 'we love BR games like PUBG and thought fortnite would make a great foundation for our own version of BR'...something like that.
Exactly. It's ridiculous for Bluehole to even imply that somehow meant customers could be thinking the PUBG team had anything to do with Fortnite development wise.
Ah, something like that sounds probably fair enough?
I don't see any customers thinking that, is that what Bluehole implied? If so it (along with any nonsense about Epic owning UE4) sounds like extreme grasping at straws.
Fortnite is going to make sales off the back of PUBG's success, I don't think that's really up for debate. The question is whether or not Epic have done enough in their marketing to allow Bluehole to sue (which seems unlikely).
Being a competitot is not undermining, unless you have a superior product.
That doesn't make sence, it happens all the time. Doesn't Samsung provide apple with all kinda of chips? How many car makers sell their engines to reveal car makers?
jackissocool
Member
Oh bullshit. No one interpreted it that way.
Yearsoflurking
Member
Yeah this is digusting behavior from epic as a engine owner
Ok ok but to be fair I have to watch my daughter all week so it's hard for me to really enjoy games during the week..
If you have any interest in the pve it may be worth buying it for both.
I don't see how it would be easy to implement for most big FPS games right now unless they aggressively scale it down.
If they work together, why can Bluehole reap the benefits, and not Epic? Unless they have a contract addressing that
Azure Dream
Member
Yeah, it was the engine angle that stuck out most at me, personally.
It's not exactly the same thing, but remember how on the Wii (or even the DS), Nintendo wouldn't allow developers to use features of the consoles, until suddenly they would bring out a game that did it themselves, then all of a sudden it was ok, maybe even limited then? Blast Works using the SD Card slot, or Metal Slug Anthology using the Classic Controller? Even on the Wii U the SD Card slot was heavily restricted... except when Smash 4 wanted to use it.
Epic serving as both the platform licenser and as a games developer, using the names of one of their licensees to promote their own competing product really does put them in an unfair position.
It's not exactly the same thing, but remember how on the Wii (or even the DS), Nintendo wouldn't allow developers to use features of the consoles, until suddenly they would bring out a game that did it themselves, then all of a sudden it was ok, maybe even limited then? Blast Works using the SD Card slot, or Metal Slug Anthology using the Classic Controller? Even on the Wii U the SD Card slot was heavily restricted... except when Smash 4 wanted to use it.
Epic serving as both the platform licenser and as a games developer, using the names of one of their licensees to promote their own competing product really does put them in an unfair position.
Thanks, that's pure BS from Bluehole.
Jacksinthe
Banned
Bluehole sure is being petulant. Their roundabout way of approaching direct questions with answers that are nothing more than misdirection and glancing blows doesn't go unnoticed. Their argument for this nonsense is about as air-tight as a sieve. They got nothing.
Similar threads
- Poll