Epic Games stops development of Unreal Tournament

Fucking Fortnite...

not that epic was ever really working on the latest Unreal Tournament...

rip anyways.

Yeah, it hurts just that bit more that the UT team created the battle royale mode for Fortnite at the time when its paid PvE mode wasn't doing very well.

Zero surprises here. I was already pretty sure there wouldn't be any further updates maybe a year ago. It was a decent game, but I much prefer UT99.

I wish Epic would consider remastering the first Unreal.

That's a shame. I prefer Quake Champions just like I preferred Q3A over UT back in the day, but still...

"Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!"

They took it down? It sure is a big slap over the face, I've played a bit a while ago and it seemed pretty promising, and now, it's dead? Fuck man...

Seems like Quake and Unreal are 2 dead franchises at the moment.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/amid-fortnites-success-new-unreal-tournament-stops/1100-6463665/

Edit: looks like the link to the tweet got invalidated. Fixed.

8 hours ago, Agent6 said:

"Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!"

 

They took it down? It sure is a big slap over the face, I've played a bit a while ago and it seemed pretty promising, and now, it's dead? Fuck man...

 

Seems like Quake and Unreal are 2 dead franchises at the moment.

Quake Champions is still being updated.

3 minutes ago, Ajora said:

Quake Champions is still being updated.

 
Is it really, though?

1 minute ago, Space Boss said:

 
Is it really, though?

It appears that way, though I've never played it. 

Epic realised that there is nothing new to add to game. UT 99 and 2004 are best IMO. Quake Champions looks to me like repaint of Quake I and III, but with few small new features.

1 hour ago, Ajora said:

Quake Champions is still being updated.

I know, but is the quality as high as some of us wanted it to be? Doubt it.

That's what I meant by "both are dead".

That really sucks, but I'm not super surprised. I downloaded it like two years ago, and even then, there were only like 20 people playing. 

46 minutes ago, Agent6 said:

 

I know, but is the quality as high as some of us wanted it to be? Doubt it.

 

That's what I meant by "both are dead".

"Quake Champions doesn't met my personal expectations therefore it's dead."

I guess my statement of "Epic haven't released a good non-VR game since 2004" remains to be true.

Arena shooters are dead. Time and time again both indie and AAA developers have tried to revive the arena shooter genre, but each attempt fails because for all of the fan demand for a new game in that style, nobody actually wants these games when they come out. People who aren't fans of Quake 3 and UT are never interested and people who are would rather play Quake 3 and oldschool UT. This is why Quake Champions has so few players (and probably only got as far as it did piggybacking off of Doom 16's success), and probably why Epic doesn't think it's worth it to put out a new UT game.

3 hours ago, Rimantas said:

Quake Champions looks to me like repaint of Quake I and III, but with few small new features.

Not exactly Quake 1 aside of borrowing some bits of themes here and there, and while it does play like Quake 3 in many areas, it isn't a complete copy and paste of it. I wasn't too fond of Quake 3's movement so QC to me just feels great to play in that respect. Granted, some of the recent patches had some ups and downs with balance on the characters and abilities, some I liked and some not so much. Still, I'm enjoying QC and I like where it's heading, though I'm still not too much of a fan with its monetization.

2 hours ago, Agent6 said:

I know, but is the quality as high as some of us wanted it to be? Doubt it.

 

That's what I meant by "both are dead".

Maybe that applied to UT4 but not on QC, I have been finding games usually around 30 seconds or less where I'm at. The game might not be "the highest quality" AFPS, but it's far from bad and the fact it has a bit of a playerbase is something I'm grateful of.

2 minutes ago, Erick said:

though I'm still not too much of a fan with its monetization.

I had played some freemium "games" (if they can be called games) in past, but now i don't even look at them. Can you tell about monetization in QC?

2 hours ago, Novaseer said:

I guess my statement of "Epic haven't released a good non-VR game since 2004" remains to be true.

Its a pretty false and dumb statement to make

2 minutes ago, wheresthebeef said:

 

Its a pretty false and dumb statement to make

List me a good non-VR game from them that's come out after UT2004, then.

36 minutes ago, Novaseer said:

List me a good non-VR game from them that's come out after UT2004, then.

Well Fortnite, obviously. Or have you forgotten how successful that game has been?

Oh and no, you can't deny this as an option just because you don't like it, that's not how that works.

1 minute ago, Edward850 said:

Well Fortnite, obviously. Or have you forgotten how successful that game has been?

Oh and no, you can't deny this as an option just because you don't like it, that's not how that works.

Fortnite was a down-on-its-luck Orcs Must Die knockoff that they slapped PUBG onto which only got big because it ported to consoles before PUBG did.

Also, I said good, not successful. I'm allowed to incorporate opinion if I'm not making an objective statement to begin with. Something being 'good' is subjective.

4 minutes ago, Novaseer said:

Also, I said good, not successful. I'm allowed to incorporate opinion if I'm not making an objective statement to begin with. Something being 'good' is subjective.

You do realise that for the type of game Fortnite is, it has to be good for it to be successful. It requires a substantial number of people to be playing it for its matchmaking to be at all functional, and thus must objectively be good in some form.

Just now, Edward850 said:

You do realise that for the type of game Fortnite is, it has to be good for it to be successful. It requires a substantial number of people to be playing it for its matchmaking to be at all functional, and thus must objectively be good in some form.

The phrase 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' applies to games too.

Right, but I'm not talking about the beholder, I'm talking about objectively. You asked if they made a good game, Fortnite must objectively be a good game.

Again:

13 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

Oh and no, you can't deny this as an option just because you don't like it, that's not how that works.

And yes, asking if they made a good game is an objective question, because if asking the question requires the only answer to be your own subjective opinion, then the question is a colossal waste of time from the start, as you are the only judge of your own viewpoint.

10 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

You asked if they made a good game, Fortnite must objectively be a good game.

Why? I don't see why something has to be good to be successful. There is a German famous saying „fresst Scheisse, Millionen Fliegen können sich nicht irren!” (loosely translated “eat shit – millions of flies can't be wrong”.

Note: I don't know anything about Fortnite.

25 minutes ago, Manuel-K said:

Why? I don't see why something has to be good to be successful. There is a German famous saying „fresst Scheisse, Millionen Fliegen können sich nicht irren!” (loosely translated “eat shit – millions of flies can't be wrong”.

 

Note: I don't know anything about Fortnite.

well, it's shit millions of flies sit on.

I was sure this would be the case when they shut down Paragon.

59 minutes ago, Manuel-K said:

Why? I don't see why something has to be good to be successful. There is a German famous saying „fresst Scheisse, Millionen Fliegen können sich nicht irren!” (loosely translated “eat shit – millions of flies can't be wrong”.

Fortnite requires a substantial number of people to be playing it for its matchmaking to be at all functional, thus allowing the game to be at all playable. Considering the type of medium its in, if the game was bad the game would be a ghost town. The analogy doesn't really work here because a substantial number of people are already playing it, thus Fortnite is already decreed to be popular (125 million players is too much to argue against without being insane). You can't change that no matter how much you want to otherwise.

59 minutes ago, Manuel-K said:

Note: I don't know anything about Fortnite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortnite