11 ms·

"Nothing will change in the short term" is the story of every acquisition, almost all of which end up with major changes for the worse at some point. (So yes, I

"Nothing will change in the short term" is the story of every acquisition, almost all of which end up with major changes for the worse at some point. (So yes, I agree with you.)

superkuh 5y ago
When Epic bought the game "Rocket League" they promised not to change anything. At that time it had Windows, Linux, Mac, xbox, and playstation clients. 6 months after they aquisition they killed off the linux client (even for people who bought in-game purchases). Epic lies. It is what they do. They are the epitome of a dangerous megacorp.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  For the record, Rocket League is still perfectly playable on Linux (even online) through WINE or Proton. But yes, they did axe the native version.
  - riskable 5y ago
    The input latency is noticeably higher when you play like this though. It drove me nuts last time I tried it (using Steam Controller and Dualshock 4 controller). It's a big reason why Rocket League sucks so bad on the Nintendo Switch (input lag).
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      You sure it's not a V-Sync issue? Most Linux games will introduce input lag with in-game vertical sync, but if you disable it and let your compositor do it's job it tends to shape up just fine. Not saying that it was user error here, but I haven't noticed any significant input lag when I play it.
- ffpip 5y ago
  They also made the game free to play. https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/15/21438194/rocket-league-free-to-play-release-date-psyonix-epic-games https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/15/21438194/rocket-league-fr...
  - dymk 5y ago
    Which is a big middle finger to those who had purchased the game. And I can't think of a game that didn't have the quality of its player base (and so, gameplay) decline after going F2P (looking at you, TF2).
    - ketzo 5y ago
      The costs and benefits around a game going F2P are too numerous to list in a HN comment, but I think it is extremely reductive to call it a “middle finger” just because you spent $20 four years and 500 hours of game time ago. More people playing the game you like is very good for that game receiving more investment/developer time. Shorter queue times, more revenue for the game in the form of mtx, and gameplay in a competitive multiplayer game should never (this is a big should, but in the ideal) get worse for an existing player because of skill-based matchmaking (something TF2 lacks).
      - riskable 5y ago
        Making Rocket League F2P meant that skilled players could register as many new accounts for themselves as they wanted and "rank up" their buddies in competitive matchmaking. This completely ruins the competitive aspect of the game since it's far too common to join a game and get completely crushed by some grand champion playing on a brand new account, teamed up with his friends. Another problem it enables is trolls: People make new accounts then join games to ruin the fun for everyone else. Account got banned? No problem: Make a new one. Repeat. The ranked play aspect of the game was completely ruined after Epic bought Rocket League.
        ketzo 5y ago
        Those are problems, true, but literally every modern competitive ladder deals with the three problems you're describing: smurfs, boosting, and trolls. Overwatch dealt with all three even when the game cost $40! In return for those problems, the game gets an instant, massive increase in players. Monetization usually increases, since modern mtx are usually much more effective than either subscription or one-time-purchase models. I'm not saying there are zero problems with going F2P. Obviously there are. But just as obviously, since so many studios have chosen to go that route, the benefits are worth it for the company. If the revenue benefits are worth it, they keep developing the game, keep running the servers, keep fixing bugs, rather than just letting the game die. That seems pretty good.
- enraged_camel 5y ago
  Yeah, they are one of my least favorite companies in the industry.
kingcharles 5y ago
There's a Twitter account I can't find right now (help!) which shows the statements companies put out at the moment of acquisition ("nothing will change, ever, we'll always be independent") and the statements they put out a couple of months later ("all your files have been deleted, we've closed the offices, everyone is absorbed into Parent Company, so long and thanks for all the fish").
- skyfaller 5y ago
  Do you mean the "Our Incredible Journey" Tumblr? https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/ https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/
  - kingcharles 5y ago
    No wonder I couldn't find it anywhere in my Twitter history... thank you, you saved me going mad (for now).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Apocryphon 5y ago
And yet so many modern day startups have no viable exit strategy beyond acquisition- what does that say about the state of the industry, and of founders' commitments towards building a sustainable product?
- andai 5y ago
  Doesn't exiting necessarily imply a change in leadership?
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    IPOs are the alternative form of exit and they certainly don't.
    - dundarious 5y ago
      Where does the drive for an "exit" come from? It's a jargon term not used in the entrepreneurial side of most other industries.
      - projectazorian 5y ago
        Many people are attracted to this industry by the stories of Google/FB/etc early employees walking away with 8 figure sums and retiring after a few years of work. Thus the exit obsession.
      - ska 5y ago
        > It's a jargon term not used in the entrepreneurial side of most other industries. That's because in most of the industries you are thinking of, you can get traditional financing. The need for an exit of some sort follows from the financial structure.
        dundarious 5y ago
        I don't think elsewhere it's called an "exit strategy" to seek financing, be that IPO, Shark Tank, or the much more common and mundane options. I'm not even naively proposing that it's somehow bad to sell a profitable business in this way. I know selling a piece of your business involves diluting your control, but it is nearly always contractually required to not involve an "exit" (in terms of involvement) outside of tech. (Selling it wholesale does in any industry) I'm just confused by two interlinked things. The terminology of "exit" and the implicit need for an "exit". To me, the focus on "exit" does imply moving away from involvement with the business (in how the phrase sounds, and most importantly, in how it seems to be most often used). Which to me signifies a culture built around starting businesses and ultimately around becoming a VC yourself. Doing this is not notable, but presuming it is. So either "exit" is any kind of large financing, and it doesn't involve "exit" in terms of involvement, in which case the term "exit" is strange to me. Or "exit" is selling control and does imply "exit" in terms of involvement, in which case it's interesting that this is presumed to be the goal of starting a profitable business. It seems in practice to be just jargon that covers both, but more the latter.
johnnyanmac 5y ago
Historically, Epic's aquisitions are given freedom to do whatever they were doing beforehand, so I wouldn't be worried. Quixel now just gives out tons of free materials and assets, Sketchfab is untouched, Artstation forums don't behave any differently, Hypersense's tech was likely leveraged and used in Metahuman. People concerned over the "Exclusivity deals" on the game store end aren't looking at the "Developer" acquisitions which have rarely lead to the kinds of ends that, say, Google's Aquisitions have.
- superkuh 5y ago
  Tell it to "Rocket League" or look at what happened to PUBG when they used Epic's engine. Epic only makes those things "free", it only buys popular software, because it's goal is getting more people locked into it's walled garden Epic store. It is not because they are nice. As soon as they believe they have a critical mass of Epic store users you can damn well bet they'll treat Quixel, Sketchfab, and Artstation forums just like the Rocket League linux client the minute there's any more profit to be squeezed out.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Can I get a refund for it? I had it on Steam but don't really play it anymore. Is such a service degradation a reason for a refund even if I had a lot of fun and countless hours in it? I don't need the money, but I heavily dislike such practices and want them to at least feel that.
  - stonith 5y ago
    > look at what happened to PUBG when they used Epic's engine They made a lot of money. > it only buys popular software, because it's goal is getting more people locked into it's walled garden Epic store. The rev stream is royalties from engine use since the free tiers are locked to UE, not EGS.
    - smileybarry 5y ago
      >> look at what happened to PUBG when they used Epic's engine > They made a lot of money. They reportedly worked with Epic Games on technical support for PUBG features, and Epic Games may've ended up using some of them in their own Battle Royale mode: > Notably, Epic Games updated their in-development title Fortnite, a sandbox-based survival game that included the ability to construct fortifications, to include a battle royale mode that retained the fortification aspects. Known as Fortnite Battle Royale, Epic later released it as a standalone free-to-play game in September 2017. Shortly after its release, Bluehole expressed concerns about the game, acknowledging that while they cannot claim ownership of the battle royale genre, they feared that since they had been working with Epic for technical support of the Unreal engine, that they may have had a heads-up on planned features they wanted to bring to Battlegrounds and could release it first. Quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUBG:_Battlegrounds#Epic_Games_Lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUBG:_Battlegrounds#Epic_Games... Article: https://www.pcgamer.com/pubg-exec-clarifies-objection-to-fortnite-battle-royale-its-not-about-the-idea-itself-its-about-epic-games/ https://www.pcgamer.com/pubg-exec-clarifies-objection-to-for...
mooreds 5y ago
Hmmm. I tend to agree. Would be interesting to think of acquisitions where this wasn't the case. The only one that jumps to mind is Zappos.
andrepd 5y ago
Prepare for a blog post titled Our Amazing Journey.

"Nothing will change in the short term" is the story of every acquisition, almost all of which end up with major changes for the worse at some point. (So yes, I agree with you.)

superkuh 5y ago

When Epic bought the game "Rocket League" they promised not to change anything. At that time it had Windows, Linux, Mac, xbox, and playstation clients. 6 months after they aquisition they killed off the linux client (even for people who bought in-game purchases). Epic lies. It is what they do. They are the epitome of a dangerous megacorp.

smoldesu 5y ago
For the record, Rocket League is still perfectly playable on Linux (even online) through WINE or Proton. But yes, they did axe the native version.
- riskable 5y ago
  The input latency is noticeably higher when you play like this though. It drove me nuts last time I tried it (using Steam Controller and Dualshock 4 controller). It's a big reason why Rocket League sucks so bad on the Nintendo Switch (input lag).
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    You sure it's not a V-Sync issue? Most Linux games will introduce input lag with in-game vertical sync, but if you disable it and let your compositor do it's job it tends to shape up just fine. Not saying that it was user error here, but I haven't noticed any significant input lag when I play it.
ffpip 5y ago
They also made the game free to play. https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/15/21438194/rocket-league-free-to-play-release-date-psyonix-epic-games https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/15/21438194/rocket-league-fr...
- dymk 5y ago
  Which is a big middle finger to those who had purchased the game. And I can't think of a game that didn't have the quality of its player base (and so, gameplay) decline after going F2P (looking at you, TF2).
  - ketzo 5y ago
    The costs and benefits around a game going F2P are too numerous to list in a HN comment, but I think it is extremely reductive to call it a “middle finger” just because you spent $20 four years and 500 hours of game time ago. More people playing the game you like is very good for that game receiving more investment/developer time. Shorter queue times, more revenue for the game in the form of mtx, and gameplay in a competitive multiplayer game should never (this is a big should, but in the ideal) get worse for an existing player because of skill-based matchmaking (something TF2 lacks).
    - riskable 5y ago
      Making Rocket League F2P meant that skilled players could register as many new accounts for themselves as they wanted and "rank up" their buddies in competitive matchmaking. This completely ruins the competitive aspect of the game since it's far too common to join a game and get completely crushed by some grand champion playing on a brand new account, teamed up with his friends. Another problem it enables is trolls: People make new accounts then join games to ruin the fun for everyone else. Account got banned? No problem: Make a new one. Repeat. The ranked play aspect of the game was completely ruined after Epic bought Rocket League.
      - ketzo 5y ago
        Those are problems, true, but literally every modern competitive ladder deals with the three problems you're describing: smurfs, boosting, and trolls. Overwatch dealt with all three even when the game cost $40! In return for those problems, the game gets an instant, massive increase in players. Monetization usually increases, since modern mtx are usually much more effective than either subscription or one-time-purchase models. I'm not saying there are zero problems with going F2P. Obviously there are. But just as obviously, since so many studios have chosen to go that route, the benefits are worth it for the company. If the revenue benefits are worth it, they keep developing the game, keep running the servers, keep fixing bugs, rather than just letting the game die. That seems pretty good.
enraged_camel 5y ago
Yeah, they are one of my least favorite companies in the industry.

kingcharles 5y ago

There's a Twitter account I can't find right now (help!) which shows the statements companies put out at the moment of acquisition ("nothing will change, ever, we'll always be independent") and the statements they put out a couple of months later ("all your files have been deleted, we've closed the offices, everyone is absorbed into Parent Company, so long and thanks for all the fish").

skyfaller 5y ago
Do you mean the "Our Incredible Journey" Tumblr? https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/ https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/
- kingcharles 5y ago
  No wonder I couldn't find it anywhere in my Twitter history... thank you, you saved me going mad (for now).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Apocryphon 5y ago

And yet so many modern day startups have no viable exit strategy beyond acquisition- what does that say about the state of the industry, and of founders' commitments towards building a sustainable product?

andai 5y ago
Doesn't exiting necessarily imply a change in leadership?
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  IPOs are the alternative form of exit and they certainly don't.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    Where does the drive for an "exit" come from? It's a jargon term not used in the entrepreneurial side of most other industries.
    - projectazorian 5y ago
      Many people are attracted to this industry by the stories of Google/FB/etc early employees walking away with 8 figure sums and retiring after a few years of work. Thus the exit obsession.
    - ska 5y ago
      > It's a jargon term not used in the entrepreneurial side of most other industries. That's because in most of the industries you are thinking of, you can get traditional financing. The need for an exit of some sort follows from the financial structure.
      - dundarious 5y ago
        I don't think elsewhere it's called an "exit strategy" to seek financing, be that IPO, Shark Tank, or the much more common and mundane options. I'm not even naively proposing that it's somehow bad to sell a profitable business in this way. I know selling a piece of your business involves diluting your control, but it is nearly always contractually required to not involve an "exit" (in terms of involvement) outside of tech. (Selling it wholesale does in any industry) I'm just confused by two interlinked things. The terminology of "exit" and the implicit need for an "exit". To me, the focus on "exit" does imply moving away from involvement with the business (in how the phrase sounds, and most importantly, in how it seems to be most often used). Which to me signifies a culture built around starting businesses and ultimately around becoming a VC yourself. Doing this is not notable, but presuming it is. So either "exit" is any kind of large financing, and it doesn't involve "exit" in terms of involvement, in which case the term "exit" is strange to me. Or "exit" is selling control and does imply "exit" in terms of involvement, in which case it's interesting that this is presumed to be the goal of starting a profitable business. It seems in practice to be just jargon that covers both, but more the latter.

johnnyanmac 5y ago

Historically, Epic's aquisitions are given freedom to do whatever they were doing beforehand, so I wouldn't be worried. Quixel now just gives out tons of free materials and assets, Sketchfab is untouched, Artstation forums don't behave any differently, Hypersense's tech was likely leveraged and used in Metahuman. People concerned over the "Exclusivity deals" on the game store end aren't looking at the "Developer" acquisitions which have rarely lead to the kinds of ends that, say, Google's Aquisitions have.

superkuh 5y ago
Tell it to "Rocket League" or look at what happened to PUBG when they used Epic's engine. Epic only makes those things "free", it only buys popular software, because it's goal is getting more people locked into it's walled garden Epic store. It is not because they are nice. As soon as they believe they have a critical mass of Epic store users you can damn well bet they'll treat Quixel, Sketchfab, and Artstation forums just like the Rocket League linux client the minute there's any more profit to be squeezed out.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Can I get a refund for it? I had it on Steam but don't really play it anymore. Is such a service degradation a reason for a refund even if I had a lot of fun and countless hours in it? I don't need the money, but I heavily dislike such practices and want them to at least feel that.
- stonith 5y ago
  > look at what happened to PUBG when they used Epic's engine They made a lot of money. > it only buys popular software, because it's goal is getting more people locked into it's walled garden Epic store. The rev stream is royalties from engine use since the free tiers are locked to UE, not EGS.
  - smileybarry 5y ago
    >> look at what happened to PUBG when they used Epic's engine > They made a lot of money. They reportedly worked with Epic Games on technical support for PUBG features, and Epic Games may've ended up using some of them in their own Battle Royale mode: > Notably, Epic Games updated their in-development title Fortnite, a sandbox-based survival game that included the ability to construct fortifications, to include a battle royale mode that retained the fortification aspects. Known as Fortnite Battle Royale, Epic later released it as a standalone free-to-play game in September 2017. Shortly after its release, Bluehole expressed concerns about the game, acknowledging that while they cannot claim ownership of the battle royale genre, they feared that since they had been working with Epic for technical support of the Unreal engine, that they may have had a heads-up on planned features they wanted to bring to Battlegrounds and could release it first. Quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUBG:_Battlegrounds#Epic_Games_Lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUBG:_Battlegrounds#Epic_Games... Article: https://www.pcgamer.com/pubg-exec-clarifies-objection-to-fortnite-battle-royale-its-not-about-the-idea-itself-its-about-epic-games/ https://www.pcgamer.com/pubg-exec-clarifies-objection-to-for...

mooreds 5y ago

Hmmm. I tend to agree. Would be interesting to think of acquisitions where this wasn't the case. The only one that jumps to mind is Zappos.

andrepd 5y ago

Prepare for a blog post titled Our Amazing Journey.