5 ms·

Fortnite doesn't do anything particularly new; but it does a lot of existing things well, and combines some that haven't been combined well in the past. I'd li

Fortnite doesn't do anything particularly new; but it does a lot of existing things well, and combines some that haven't been combined well in the past. I'd like to stake out two wins that define Fortnite's success, to me: 1. It's on every platform that matters, with crossplay. That's hitherto largely unheard of for games; which is mostly a result of budget restrictions, middleware licensing, and partner contract limitations. 2. Its store combines time-limited access, games of chance, and vanity. You have to keep playing and keep spending in order to look how you want, and how you want to look is coerced to be ever changing by the continual churn of the store.

dx87 7y ago
Dota 2 has a similar store for cosmetics, but also includes the ability to sell them on the steam community market, giving Valve a 15% cut in addition to the money they made on the initial sale. People are willing to spend a lot of money gambling on $2.50 lootboxes for cosmetics that can be bought on the community marketplace for 3 cents the following year.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  > can be bought on the community marketplace for 3 cents the following year. Cosmetics don't depreciate that much over a year. Chances are if you get something rubbish out of a loot crate then it'll always be around that price.
ksec 7y ago
>Fortnite doesn't do anything particularly new; but it does a lot of existing things well, and combines some that haven't been combined well in the past. The best part is all the fruit of those learning and experience are now part of the Unreal Engine.
Mirioron 7y ago
While Fortnite might not do anything new as a business, as a game, on the technical side, it does offer new stuff. Fortnite supports large worlds with lots of players in fast-paced multiplayer. To make matters even more complicated, the players can build large structures in real time. The game also features a large amount of interactable objects with no loading screens. You could say that games like Minecraft do that, but those are graphically much simpler.
- k__ 7y ago
  Sounds mostly like Tribes to me, the very first game I played online.
  - latch 7y ago
    Tribes didn't support more players than other games of that time, didn't have a build system beyond placing turrets, had no special world interaction, and maps weren't _huge_ (and for competitive play, mostly short maps were in the rotation)
    - k__ 7y ago
      Maybe the modded versions where different? I remember games with 50-100 players and maps that were multiple square kilometers in size.
    - int_19h 7y ago
      How about ETQW (2007)? Huge maps, 64 players per match, vehicles, lots of interactivity on the map in general. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6leg-2Let0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6leg-2Let0
    - oliwarner 7y ago
      Getting a dozen people in and on a dropship in Tribes2 was a highlight of my LAN gaming days. Utter chaos. Superb fun. Too intricate a game for online play but great otherwise. Codename: Eagle hit similar notes.
- cdubzzz 7y ago
  I haven’t played Fortnite, but this sounds (at least partially) like Battlefield 2 about 15 years ago — huge 64 player maps with fast paced action. I remember at the time being amazed that I could fly jets and helicopters, drive tanks, or just scurry around on foot all in one game. I played many, many hours of that. The base game did not have building or many interactive objects but there were a couple of custom mods that did.
Mdk25 7y ago
Both these things came later on (once Fortnite took off). What Epic actually did do well, was take the most popular game in the world at the time - PUBG, copy it to the T on their own engine, and release it for free (instead of the $20 PUBG cost). That alone made it the most popular game in the world, and allowed them to make money off it, and create ports on all available platforms.
- nobrains 7y ago
  And that's the same story of Unreal Tournament and Quake III Arena.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Fortnite was a total failure for the a long time. The battle royale gamemode was just further experimentation.
lancesells 7y ago
Don't forget it's also free on every platform. That isn't something new either but it's also a big reason for their success.

dx87 7y ago

Dota 2 has a similar store for cosmetics, but also includes the ability to sell them on the steam community market, giving Valve a 15% cut in addition to the money they made on the initial sale. People are willing to spend a lot of money gambling on $2.50 lootboxes for cosmetics that can be bought on the community marketplace for 3 cents the following year.

cameronbrown 7y ago
> can be bought on the community marketplace for 3 cents the following year. Cosmetics don't depreciate that much over a year. Chances are if you get something rubbish out of a loot crate then it'll always be around that price.

ksec 7y ago

>Fortnite doesn't do anything particularly new; but it does a lot of existing things well, and combines some that haven't been combined well in the past. The best part is all the fruit of those learning and experience are now part of the Unreal Engine.

Mirioron 7y ago

While Fortnite might not do anything new as a business, as a game, on the technical side, it does offer new stuff. Fortnite supports large worlds with lots of players in fast-paced multiplayer. To make matters even more complicated, the players can build large structures in real time. The game also features a large amount of interactable objects with no loading screens. You could say that games like Minecraft do that, but those are graphically much simpler.

k__ 7y ago
Sounds mostly like Tribes to me, the very first game I played online.
- latch 7y ago
  Tribes didn't support more players than other games of that time, didn't have a build system beyond placing turrets, had no special world interaction, and maps weren't _huge_ (and for competitive play, mostly short maps were in the rotation)
  - k__ 7y ago
    Maybe the modded versions where different? I remember games with 50-100 players and maps that were multiple square kilometers in size.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    How about ETQW (2007)? Huge maps, 64 players per match, vehicles, lots of interactivity on the map in general. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6leg-2Let0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6leg-2Let0
  - oliwarner 7y ago
    Getting a dozen people in and on a dropship in Tribes2 was a highlight of my LAN gaming days. Utter chaos. Superb fun. Too intricate a game for online play but great otherwise. Codename: Eagle hit similar notes.
cdubzzz 7y ago
I haven’t played Fortnite, but this sounds (at least partially) like Battlefield 2 about 15 years ago — huge 64 player maps with fast paced action. I remember at the time being amazed that I could fly jets and helicopters, drive tanks, or just scurry around on foot all in one game. I played many, many hours of that. The base game did not have building or many interactive objects but there were a couple of custom mods that did.

Mdk25 7y ago

Both these things came later on (once Fortnite took off). What Epic actually did do well, was take the most popular game in the world at the time - PUBG, copy it to the T on their own engine, and release it for free (instead of the $20 PUBG cost). That alone made it the most popular game in the world, and allowed them to make money off it, and create ports on all available platforms.

nobrains 7y ago
And that's the same story of Unreal Tournament and Quake III Arena.
cameronbrown 7y ago
Fortnite was a total failure for the a long time. The battle royale gamemode was just further experimentation.

lancesells 7y ago

Don't forget it's also free on every platform. That isn't something new either but it's also a big reason for their success.