My kid is a big Fortnite player and has spent a fair amount of money (pocket money, gifts or earned through chores etc.) on the battle pass and other in game items. At first I was pretty reluctant to let him do this because it seems like a waste of money to spend it on an ephemeral item that is only 'owned' as long as he keeps playing the game. But I recognise he could easily say the same to me about paying to stream music or even buying a pint of beer at the pub. Still, I don't want him to spend even more money on it.
I also play Fortnite and I was surprised how much I enjoy it - I hadn't done any online multiplayer gaming for years. I don't spend any money at all on it and it is possible to acquire some items just by playing. I never play the creative maps. My kid does though, they seem a lot more trashy and geared towards young kids than the main experience. The only good thing about them is that usually you can quit any time - therefore causing less problems like 'I'm in the middle of a match' when we're trying to leave the house or eat a meal.
I do find it interesting that as hard as Epic has been pushing Fortnite as a platform, it doesn’t seem to have really paid off for them yet. Obviously player counts aren’t everything, but the number of people playing the user-created experiences (or Epic’s other gamemodes like the Lego and Rock Band stuff) pale in comparison to the playercounts on the main battle royale modes. With a few exceptions the user created levels that *do* have consistently large playerbases tend to be extensions of the core shooter gameplay (i.e equivalents to FFA deathmatch servers in old-school shooters). This move is certainly them trying to get more people developing games for Fortnite, but I’m very curious how they’re planning to get the Roblox audience to follow after losing the phone/tablet demographic to them for so long. (though surely kpop demon hunters will help in the short-term lol)
The distinction Sweeney draws between Epic as game maker and Epic as platform provider is a convienient way to sidestep the philosophical contradiction here. What's particularly telling is that he's explicitly naming Roblox in his statemnts, which suggests the competitive pressure is intense enough to override their stated principles about player-first monetization. The December launch timing will be critical because it sets the tone for whether Epic maintains any meaningful guardrails or if they fully embrace the wild west approach. If they do implement age-based restrictions or quality filters on in-game item sales, that would at least show some commitment to their espoused values. The creator economy argument makes business sense, but it also feels like the exact rationalizaton that every platform uses before things get predatory. This really does feel like Epic choosing short term competitive parity with Roblox over long term brand differentiation.
The irony of Epic criticizing Roblox's 'slop' problem while now implementing similar monetization is pretty striking. The fundamental tension here is that once you enable direct creator monetization, you inevitably create incentives for low-effort, high-volume content designed to maximize revenue rather than quality. Roblox didn't set out to become a platform dominated by obby courses and experience farms—that's just the natural consequence of their economic model. Epic's hope seems to be that their curation and brand standards will prevent the same race to the bottom, but I'm skeptical. The moment you give creators the ability to directly monetize through in-game items, you're competing for attention in the same way Roblox experiences do. The question isn't whether Epic can avoid Roblox's problems; it's whether Epic can maintain both a thriving creator ecosystem AND a high-quality player experince, which are often fundamentally at odds. Sweeney's response that they'll learn from Roblox's mistakes is the right answer, but execution is everything.
This is why I'm hoping there are some pretty specific rules around what creators can do. The real tension, though, is that the race to the bottom is how you make the most money and Epic will have to make a conscious choice to *make less money* but *be more responsible*
Hmm, can't say I'm very pleased to hear this.
My kid is a big Fortnite player and has spent a fair amount of money (pocket money, gifts or earned through chores etc.) on the battle pass and other in game items. At first I was pretty reluctant to let him do this because it seems like a waste of money to spend it on an ephemeral item that is only 'owned' as long as he keeps playing the game. But I recognise he could easily say the same to me about paying to stream music or even buying a pint of beer at the pub. Still, I don't want him to spend even more money on it.
I also play Fortnite and I was surprised how much I enjoy it - I hadn't done any online multiplayer gaming for years. I don't spend any money at all on it and it is possible to acquire some items just by playing. I never play the creative maps. My kid does though, they seem a lot more trashy and geared towards young kids than the main experience. The only good thing about them is that usually you can quit any time - therefore causing less problems like 'I'm in the middle of a match' when we're trying to leave the house or eat a meal.
Its interesting you got a response actually from Sweeney and not just Epic PR.
I don't think we need more things like roblox in the world though.
I do find it interesting that as hard as Epic has been pushing Fortnite as a platform, it doesn’t seem to have really paid off for them yet. Obviously player counts aren’t everything, but the number of people playing the user-created experiences (or Epic’s other gamemodes like the Lego and Rock Band stuff) pale in comparison to the playercounts on the main battle royale modes. With a few exceptions the user created levels that *do* have consistently large playerbases tend to be extensions of the core shooter gameplay (i.e equivalents to FFA deathmatch servers in old-school shooters). This move is certainly them trying to get more people developing games for Fortnite, but I’m very curious how they’re planning to get the Roblox audience to follow after losing the phone/tablet demographic to them for so long. (though surely kpop demon hunters will help in the short-term lol)
The distinction Sweeney draws between Epic as game maker and Epic as platform provider is a convienient way to sidestep the philosophical contradiction here. What's particularly telling is that he's explicitly naming Roblox in his statemnts, which suggests the competitive pressure is intense enough to override their stated principles about player-first monetization. The December launch timing will be critical because it sets the tone for whether Epic maintains any meaningful guardrails or if they fully embrace the wild west approach. If they do implement age-based restrictions or quality filters on in-game item sales, that would at least show some commitment to their espoused values. The creator economy argument makes business sense, but it also feels like the exact rationalizaton that every platform uses before things get predatory. This really does feel like Epic choosing short term competitive parity with Roblox over long term brand differentiation.
The irony of Epic criticizing Roblox's 'slop' problem while now implementing similar monetization is pretty striking. The fundamental tension here is that once you enable direct creator monetization, you inevitably create incentives for low-effort, high-volume content designed to maximize revenue rather than quality. Roblox didn't set out to become a platform dominated by obby courses and experience farms—that's just the natural consequence of their economic model. Epic's hope seems to be that their curation and brand standards will prevent the same race to the bottom, but I'm skeptical. The moment you give creators the ability to directly monetize through in-game items, you're competing for attention in the same way Roblox experiences do. The question isn't whether Epic can avoid Roblox's problems; it's whether Epic can maintain both a thriving creator ecosystem AND a high-quality player experince, which are often fundamentally at odds. Sweeney's response that they'll learn from Roblox's mistakes is the right answer, but execution is everything.
This is why I'm hoping there are some pretty specific rules around what creators can do. The real tension, though, is that the race to the bottom is how you make the most money and Epic will have to make a conscious choice to *make less money* but *be more responsible*