If Fortnite Were a Website, It Would Rival Reddit and Amazon(tomsguide.com)
tomsguide.com
If Fortnite Were a Website, It Would Rival Reddit and Amazon
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/how-big-is-fortnite,news-27144.html
67 comments
> Perhaps a site that's been around for over a decade and already has mass brand recognition might not get as many people googling it bare, since most people can just... go there directly.
It seems to me that googling for a popular site like reddit is actually pretty common. A couple of reasons:
1. Because google is often much better at returning relevant results for site:<site>.com <query> than searching for <query> in the site's search engine. I would think this to be the case even more so for types of sites like reddit simply because of such high total post / word count. In fact, brand recognition would seem to be more of a reason for people to google it. E.g. If you want to read a wikipedia article on some topic, you normally wouldn't visit wikipedia.org first to use its search, you'd google "wikipedia <topic>" or "site:wikipedia.org <topic>".
2. To avoid hitting enter after a typo and ending up on some malware site <domain with typo>.com.
It seems to me that googling for a popular site like reddit is actually pretty common. A couple of reasons:
1. Because google is often much better at returning relevant results for site:<site>.com <query> than searching for <query> in the site's search engine. I would think this to be the case even more so for types of sites like reddit simply because of such high total post / word count. In fact, brand recognition would seem to be more of a reason for people to google it. E.g. If you want to read a wikipedia article on some topic, you normally wouldn't visit wikipedia.org first to use its search, you'd google "wikipedia <topic>" or "site:wikipedia.org <topic>".
2. To avoid hitting enter after a typo and ending up on some malware site <domain with typo>.com.
Do people even use the site:reddit.com google query? If I want to search for something on reddit, I just search “something reddit” and the results are nearly always sufficient.
Yes. I use it for comment searching, you'd be surprised how useful it is for miscellaneous subject research. Then again I always try to use operators when applicable.
Would people really search for "reddit"? You'd think they'd just go straight to the site.
Anecdotally, the process to get to Facebook for many members of my family is to Google "f" or "facebook". They know how to go directly there but for whatever reason prefer Googling it. I have heard the same from friends about their (typically older) family too.
At this point I would assume most people who use Facebook routinely type 'f' in the address/search bar and it autocompletes immediately to the full Facebook URL and they just hit enter. Trying to get Chrome to search for facebook instead of going to facebook.com takes extra effort.
I add reddit to search terms when I want to search reddit for a topic.
Yeah, the only way to search reddit and actually get what you are looking for is through Google. I don't understand why the website's search is so bad.
Probably because everyone just uses Google anyway.
And good search is hard to do.
And good search is hard to do.
[deleted]
This article is idiotic. The assertion seems to be based entirely off Google Trends and "supported" by a quote from someone with a professional relationship to the author that just says they "believe" it might be true.
Google Trends is almost completely meaningless for both judging the popularity of a game, and the popularity of sites like reddit or Amazon.
Google Trends is almost completely meaningless for both judging the popularity of a game, and the popularity of sites like reddit or Amazon.
Games follow a trendline like te^-rt where t is time and r dependent on the game. The reason is simple. When a person learns of some piece of content (game, meme, whatever) there is some probability they share it with one or more people. If on average each person exposed shares with more than one person then you get an exponential explosion (aka virality). But sharing content with people who have already seen it is redundant. Eventually the average new people shared with per person exposed becomes less than one and the exponential growth becomes exponential decay. Content where r is large explode quickly and die quickly (blue/black dress). Content where r is just barely greater than 0 have a slow rise and slow decline.
The only game to ever become a lasting cultural phenomena via internet virality is Minecraft. The reason is that the r value is small enough that population growth during the games lifetime is non-negligible.
The only game to ever become a lasting cultural phenomena via internet virality is Minecraft. The reason is that the r value is small enough that population growth during the games lifetime is non-negligible.
Minecraft is Lego-style self-directed play, completely unlike most video games.
If you watch, say the Direwolf20 series on Age Of Engineering, he ends up building this huge space station to win. But, that space station was his idea, not a requirement, my play of AoE has a tiny airless platform with a warp drive in it for space exploration and my main base was in the open air in a parallel universe where it never rains. He spends lots of time building structures in low gravity wearing a jetpack, I spent more fencing off wildlife. This wasn't a choice explicitly offered in the game, just a consequence of different people with the same infinite box of Lego bricks building a different layout. The very different experiences mean essentially infinite replay value.
"Random" sandbox elements became very popular in video games, but QA teams militate against building anything like Minecraft where you just can't test because there's a combinatorial explosion of interactions. Instead most games have a handful of set pieces with inconsequential random elements.
But that means even if nobody else's game of Shadow of Mordor is exactly the same, they're so similar as to preclude most interest in replaying. Which makes good economic sense, sell the player a new one every year. But you don't become a phenomenon like Minecraft that way.
If you watch, say the Direwolf20 series on Age Of Engineering, he ends up building this huge space station to win. But, that space station was his idea, not a requirement, my play of AoE has a tiny airless platform with a warp drive in it for space exploration and my main base was in the open air in a parallel universe where it never rains. He spends lots of time building structures in low gravity wearing a jetpack, I spent more fencing off wildlife. This wasn't a choice explicitly offered in the game, just a consequence of different people with the same infinite box of Lego bricks building a different layout. The very different experiences mean essentially infinite replay value.
"Random" sandbox elements became very popular in video games, but QA teams militate against building anything like Minecraft where you just can't test because there's a combinatorial explosion of interactions. Instead most games have a handful of set pieces with inconsequential random elements.
But that means even if nobody else's game of Shadow of Mordor is exactly the same, they're so similar as to preclude most interest in replaying. Which makes good economic sense, sell the player a new one every year. But you don't become a phenomenon like Minecraft that way.
I like curves but I don't know that one.
Can you clarify?
Is the following an example of an instance of that curve?
Can you clarify?
Is the following an example of an instance of that curve?
y = x2^(-1x)Almost. Instead of being a variable that can be replaced by 2, e refers to the mathematical constant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)
This curve is a variant of the natural exponential function, where the dependent variable is time. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)
This curve is a variant of the natural exponential function, where the dependent variable is time. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
What do you mean "almost"? f(t) = t·2^(-t) is precisely an instance of the family of curves f(t) = t·e^(-rt) with r = ln 2.
Power law applies everywhere and can be applied arbitrarily .
"So you think you have a power law... well isn't that special?"
http://bactra.org/weblog/491.html
http://bactra.org/weblog/491.html
This ignores franchises. Fortnite 2 is surely on the horizon.
EDIT: To phrase it more bluntly:
"The only game to ever become a lasting cultural phenomena via internet virality is Minecraft."
... is mistaken. Mario is the most obvious counterexample, but there are dozens of others.
EDIT: To phrase it more bluntly:
"The only game to ever become a lasting cultural phenomena via internet virality is Minecraft."
... is mistaken. Mario is the most obvious counterexample, but there are dozens of others.
Hmm, I don't think Mario grew to fame through the internet.
Super Mario Maker did. It would be a shadow of its current self without Twitch + Reddit.
Dota became a cultural phenomenon, and has stayed a cultural phenomenon, solely through the internet. No internet, no dota.
It's simply mistaken.
Or do I need to prove Dota is a cultural phenomenon? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OzWIFX8M-Y
Dota became a cultural phenomenon, and has stayed a cultural phenomenon, solely through the internet. No internet, no dota.
It's simply mistaken.
Or do I need to prove Dota is a cultural phenomenon? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OzWIFX8M-Y
These are fair points. Mario maker IMO wouldn't be a phenomena without the original Mario so I don't consider it a counter example. But DOTA is fair enough. I forgot that one.
I would say that franchising/sequels reflect the fact that if you have content which is just barely sub-viral you can pump money into marketing to get virality to get more money. Basically a controlled fission reaction instead of an explosion.
I would say that franchising/sequels reflect the fact that if you have content which is just barely sub-viral you can pump money into marketing to get virality to get more money. Basically a controlled fission reaction instead of an explosion.
Counter-strike might be a better example since it requires the internet
You haven't heard of the game called religion?
I think it's fairly safe to say that we've entered a new era: as MOBAs superseded MMOs, so BR games have superseded MOBAs.
League of Legends is beating Fortnite in:
* monthly active users -- 130 million as of late 2017[1] to Fortnite's 45 million total players as of March.
* maxed concurrent users[2] -- 7.5 million to 3.4 million.
* monthly revenue[3].
While I think LoL is losing ground to Fortnite and PUBG, they have a way left to go to supersede it.
[1] Notably, Riot hasn't released new numbers since, so its possible that monthly actives for LoL has shrunk in Q1 2018.
[2] https://www.pcgamesn.com/fortnite/fortnite-battle-royale-pla...
[3] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-04-03-superdata-...
* monthly active users -- 130 million as of late 2017[1] to Fortnite's 45 million total players as of March.
* maxed concurrent users[2] -- 7.5 million to 3.4 million.
* monthly revenue[3].
While I think LoL is losing ground to Fortnite and PUBG, they have a way left to go to supersede it.
[1] Notably, Riot hasn't released new numbers since, so its possible that monthly actives for LoL has shrunk in Q1 2018.
[2] https://www.pcgamesn.com/fortnite/fortnite-battle-royale-pla...
[3] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-04-03-superdata-...
There's a ways to go, sure - but there's no prizes for coming second in the doomsayers category.
[deleted]
I'm sort of confused by what these games bring to the table that is novel and such a revolutionary improvement over what came before. My FPS playing days are long over, but battle royale games seem like super beefy Counter Strike or Quake Arena servers, to my ignorant eyes. I'm pretty sure 100+ player Quake World games would have been awesome, if the hardware and network connections of the time could have kept up.
It's a trick of perspective.
A good player (say, Ninja) routinely plays an entire 20 minute game, eliminating maybe a dozen or so other players themselves out of the roughly 100 starting. So for them this 20 minutes is spent doing what they enjoy, stalking and killing their opponents. On a run, Ninja might do this three times in an hour. A whole hour of being awesome.
A bad player like me usually is eliminated much earlier in the game, maybe they spend that time frantically hiding from superior players, or they lay traps, or the stay on the fringes of the island away from contact, sooner or later though they get killed... and then they immediately jump into a _different game_ and start over. In an hour they might play 10 games, or even thirty if they're very, very bad or just love starting in the most conflicted zones and often die in the opening seconds.
The rest of the game design exists to reinforce this basic idea, for example there's a "zone" or "storm" mechanism forcing players into a gradually smaller (but random) part of the map as the game progresses to keep them in conflict so that they get eliminated. Players deliberately aren't named while they're alive, you are sniping some chick in a rabbit suit, not LiverpoolFCFan, and she won't be back in the same game, so you don't learn anything re-usable.
The result of this trick of perspective is that more people are having fun, not just the most skilled players.
A good player (say, Ninja) routinely plays an entire 20 minute game, eliminating maybe a dozen or so other players themselves out of the roughly 100 starting. So for them this 20 minutes is spent doing what they enjoy, stalking and killing their opponents. On a run, Ninja might do this three times in an hour. A whole hour of being awesome.
A bad player like me usually is eliminated much earlier in the game, maybe they spend that time frantically hiding from superior players, or they lay traps, or the stay on the fringes of the island away from contact, sooner or later though they get killed... and then they immediately jump into a _different game_ and start over. In an hour they might play 10 games, or even thirty if they're very, very bad or just love starting in the most conflicted zones and often die in the opening seconds.
The rest of the game design exists to reinforce this basic idea, for example there's a "zone" or "storm" mechanism forcing players into a gradually smaller (but random) part of the map as the game progresses to keep them in conflict so that they get eliminated. Players deliberately aren't named while they're alive, you are sniping some chick in a rabbit suit, not LiverpoolFCFan, and she won't be back in the same game, so you don't learn anything re-usable.
The result of this trick of perspective is that more people are having fun, not just the most skilled players.
Now we just need somebody to make an MMO where all PvP is in the form of BR fights.
Not even close. Pretty sure both LoL and AoV are around 2-3x larger than Fortnite.
This is the (analyst) data everyone is citing: https://www.superdataresearch.com/us-digital-games-market/
This is the (analyst) data everyone is citing: https://www.superdataresearch.com/us-digital-games-market/
Were they larger their first year or two on the scene?
Not sure, the only number I can find on the AoV wiki cites it as making in April 2017 ($435M). It was first released in Nov 2015.
I would highly doubt they were larger within the time frame they started. Even though Twitch (Justin.tv) started back then, esports and watching video games were nowhere near as popular as they are today.
I would argue that Twitch has had a really strong role in making battle royale games popular -- they're extremely fun to watch in comparison to MOBAs which I'm starting to realize are fairly dull in the beginning but the anticipation of what happens mid-game to late game makes it exciting.
I would argue that Twitch has had a really strong role in making battle royale games popular -- they're extremely fun to watch in comparison to MOBAs which I'm starting to realize are fairly dull in the beginning but the anticipation of what happens mid-game to late game makes it exciting.
League is still extremely popular.
and China owns both.
You know what else was a fad...I mean cultural phenomenon? The Wii.
This is great for gaming. Fortnite has driven twitch viewers to crazy new heights and while most of them will never come back (check wii sales against the most popular game franchises on the Wii’s sales) some percentage will have found their new thing and the ecosystem will be stronger for having weathered the crashing wave.
This is great for gaming. Fortnite has driven twitch viewers to crazy new heights and while most of them will never come back (check wii sales against the most popular game franchises on the Wii’s sales) some percentage will have found their new thing and the ecosystem will be stronger for having weathered the crashing wave.
> You know what else was a fad...I mean cultural phenomenon? The Wii.
You do know that the Wii actually "won" it's generation in terms of unit sales?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_million-selling_game_c...
And the Switch is now closing in on the Xbone...
Not exactly what I would call a "fad".
You do know that the Wii actually "won" it's generation in terms of unit sales?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_million-selling_game_c...
And the Switch is now closing in on the Xbone...
Not exactly what I would call a "fad".
[deleted]
GameCube 22 million units sold.
Wii 101 million units sold.
WiiU 13 million units sold.
So...what exactly would you call a fad?
So...what exactly would you call a fad?
I'd also say it's not a fad if it was superseded like this. It's not that the wii lost favor, it's generation became out of date, and nintendo was betting on people buying it's new product.
Fads usually have an illogical, social reason for their popularity, not a direct spec to spec comparison (Playstation pro beats the wii in popularity at this time (2018)- well duh!)
The wii was popular for many reasons, and I'm sure it became "popular" to buy one, but it didn't lose to a social hype dying down, it lost to a new generation of consoles (and it's successor didn't do well in comparison to those)
The wii was popular for many reasons, and I'm sure it became "popular" to buy one, but it didn't lose to a social hype dying down, it lost to a new generation of consoles (and it's successor didn't do well in comparison to those)
This seems like such a bizarre, fluff article to find itself topping on HN.
I'm immediately skeptical of claims of any software let alone a game rivaling Amazon. It'd be cool if it's true but very unlikely.
Not really that impressive considering they are
1) Barely ahead of PUBG in unique players despite being free to play and PUBG costing $30
2) Shameless clone of PUBG
The cultural phenomenon is PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, and Fornite is riding on the hype by being free to play.
1) Barely ahead of PUBG in unique players despite being free to play and PUBG costing $30
2) Shameless clone of PUBG
The cultural phenomenon is PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, and Fornite is riding on the hype by being free to play.
PUBG is a terrible implementation with textures and assets purchased off the unreal store. PUBG piggybacked off the popularity of H1Z1 and took off because it was slightly better. Fortnite, although cartoony, is by large and far the most stable and most competitive battle Royale out there. Epic's update pipeline and developer blogs are phenomenal, especially compared to Bluehole. PUBG performs worse in it's current state than when it did pre-release.
And H1Z1 was a "rip-off" of DayZ. And DayZ is what made battle royal popular (I won't go as far as to say invented it, as I'm sure BR must have existed in other games before it).
It's hard to understand why DayZ did not cease this market opportunity, but I guess they are too buzzy actually making a good simulator. Yes, simulator, DayZ is not a game, it's a zombie Apocalypse simulator. And that's what makes DayZ so unique. I can't wait until DayZ gets their first release (it has been in alpha for several years, and will soon hit beta) and it will have game-play like the walking dead tv series, with zombie hordes, state of the art gun fighting, weather, hiking, zombie - simulation, with decent graphics and gameplay. The early days of DayZ (Arma 2 mod) was the best game experience I've ever had in my life, and I've been a pretty hard core gamer.
H1Z1 Battle Royale mode was licensed from PUBG creator.
I agree PUBG implementation is terrible, but nonetheless the credit is due where it's due. Brendan Greene started it, and PUBG trails Fornite only slightly despite costing $30.
I agree PUBG implementation is terrible, but nonetheless the credit is due where it's due. Brendan Greene started it, and PUBG trails Fornite only slightly despite costing $30.
Fortnite gets 2-4x more concurrent viewers than PUBG on Twitch.
PUBG is almost exactly like its predecessors, so I don't know how you can level "shameless clone" at Fortnite that has the whole building mechanic.
That was a big risk compared to PUBG's conservative and incremental iteration on the existing genre.
Though these Fortnite vs PUBG arguments sure sound like the Xbox vs PS3 forum debates back in the day... I was always thankful that I didn't encounter them on HN.
That was a big risk compared to PUBG's conservative and incremental iteration on the existing genre.
Though these Fortnite vs PUBG arguments sure sound like the Xbox vs PS3 forum debates back in the day... I was always thankful that I didn't encounter them on HN.
Which predecessor is PUBG exactly like? PUBG is the originator of the Battle Royale type, unless you count the Japanese movie Battle Royale as a predecessor.
Player Unknown grew to fame originally as a modder who created Battle Royale modes for other games, and then used that experience/name recognition to launch his own game. If PUBG was the first Battle Royale mode, Player Unknown wouldn't have been famous and it would have just been Battlegrounds.
I guess I'm using PUBG/Brendan Greene/PlayerUnknown interchangeably. In spirit PUBG is the successor of the mods he created, the game engines that happened to host it were vessels. So PUBG the game is simply a continuation of the original modes he created. It's also currently the most popular, outside of Fortnite, so I consider it the originator.
It was explicitly made to be a better H1Z1
there were dozens of battleroyale type games that predate PUBG with near identical looting + random circle collapsing inward mechanics, most floundered.
I'm not sure what the other ones were, but for the popularly referenced Battle Royale modes in H1Z1 and DayZ, they originated from mods by the PUBG creator.
That being said, both the games you reference, their Battle Royale mode was actually made by the creator of PUBG:
> Brendan Greene, also known as PLAYERUNKNOWN, is the creator of the Battle Royale mod that started in the DayZ mod for Arma 2. Recently, Battle Royale has been licensed by SOE and made an official game mode in H1Z1
That being said, both the games you reference, their Battle Royale mode was actually made by the creator of PUBG:
> Brendan Greene, also known as PLAYERUNKNOWN, is the creator of the Battle Royale mod that started in the DayZ mod for Arma 2. Recently, Battle Royale has been licensed by SOE and made an official game mode in H1Z1
[deleted]
Shameless clone of PUBG
Which itself is often called a clone of H1Z1. Which in turn was inspired by DayZ..
Which itself is often called a clone of H1Z1. Which in turn was inspired by DayZ..
H1Z1 and DayZ were clearly not in any way inspired by the Japanese movie "Battle Royal", which PUBG was, and which Fornite literally named itself after.
That being said, both the games you reference, their Battle Royale mode was actually made by the creator of PUBG:
> Brendan Greene, also known as PLAYERUNKNOWN, is the creator of the Battle Royale mod that started in the DayZ mod for Arma 2. Recently, Battle Royale has been licensed by SOE and made an official game mode in H1Z1
Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/battle-royale-modder-brendan-greene-...
So your reference to those actually support my point.
That being said, both the games you reference, their Battle Royale mode was actually made by the creator of PUBG:
> Brendan Greene, also known as PLAYERUNKNOWN, is the creator of the Battle Royale mod that started in the DayZ mod for Arma 2. Recently, Battle Royale has been licensed by SOE and made an official game mode in H1Z1
Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/battle-royale-modder-brendan-greene-...
So your reference to those actually support my point.
You're being overly pedantic. They are referring to the BR modes in those games, and they are effectively clones and inspired by the movie Battle Royal.
Yes I'm referring to the BR modes in those games, and they were all from the same creator / licensed from the PUBG creator.
They all were inspired by the movie Battle Royale, but that was a movie, not a game. If movie <-> games were indicators of mutual success that would be a first.
Grandparent was suggesting that PUBG copied off of H1N1/DayZ, justifying Fortnite copying PUBG. While sony cloned PUBG, they licensed it, whereas Fornite didn't. But they were not originally Battle Royale games and the Battle Royale modes came from the creator of PUBG.
> They are referring to the BR modes in those games, and they are effectively clones and inspired by the movie Battle Royal.
I don't get what you're saying here. I mentioned the movie Battle Royale, not them. And predecessor games' battle royale modes grandparent suggested PUBG cloned from were made by the PUBG creator. I'm not sure what I said really counts as "pedantic" so much as the grandparent completely misrepresenting facts.
They all were inspired by the movie Battle Royale, but that was a movie, not a game. If movie <-> games were indicators of mutual success that would be a first.
Grandparent was suggesting that PUBG copied off of H1N1/DayZ, justifying Fortnite copying PUBG. While sony cloned PUBG, they licensed it, whereas Fornite didn't. But they were not originally Battle Royale games and the Battle Royale modes came from the creator of PUBG.
> They are referring to the BR modes in those games, and they are effectively clones and inspired by the movie Battle Royal.
I don't get what you're saying here. I mentioned the movie Battle Royale, not them. And predecessor games' battle royale modes grandparent suggested PUBG cloned from were made by the PUBG creator. I'm not sure what I said really counts as "pedantic" so much as the grandparent completely misrepresenting facts.
> What this means is that, unlike so many other gaming trends, Fortnite truly seems like it's here to stay. According to Google searches, Fortnite has a ways to go to reach the staggering highs of Pokémon Go, the popular mobile game that became a huge phenomenon throughout the summer of 2016.
The argument is that Fortnite is not a fad, and then it's immediately compared to one of the biggest gaming fads in recent memory? And it isn't quite as popular as that fad? Okay.
> “More people in the U.S. are searching for ‘Fortnite’ on Google than they are for ‘Reddit’ and these searches have risen sharply over the last two months," said John DeFeo, VP of Internet Marketing at Purch, Tom's Guide's parent company.
What a genius comparison! Perhaps a site that's been around for over a decade and already has mass brand recognition might not get as many people googling it bare, since most people can just... go there directly.