The Epic v. Apple trial continues to provide interesting information about deals and spending, especially as it relates to the Epic Games Store. For example, we now know that in 2019 and 2020, Epic committed approximately $1 billion upfront for exclusives, including $115 million for "Borderlands 3." New court documents, apparently released in error, also show that Epic offered Sony a $200 million advance for first-party PlayStation games exclusively on the Epic Games Store.

It is unclear what deal Epic and Sony reached, as the documents in question were prepared before the handshake. According to the document, Epic offered Sony "$200M MG+ for 4-6 titles and was waiting for Sony's response."

"MG" stands for "minimum guarantee," which is what Epic calls its exclusivity agreements: the minimum revenue Epic guarantees to game publishers for Epic Games Store exclusive titles.

The wording is somewhat ambiguous: is it $200 million per game or $200 million across 4-6 games ...... It certainly depends on the specific game, but so far only two games from Sony have been released exclusively on the Epic store: ReadySet Heroes and Predator: Predator: Hunting Grounds. I just hope Epic didn't spend $200 million on "Predator: Hunting Grounds": I just hope Epic didn't spend $200 million on "Predator: Hunting Grounds". Either an entirely different deal was finally struck, or these two games are part of the Sony-published exclusives coming to the Epic Games Store. (Incidentally, ReadySet Heroes remains exclusive, while Predator: (Incidentally, ReadySet Heroes remains exclusive, while Predator: Hunting Grounds was released on Steam after a year of exclusivity.)

Other Sony-published games have also been released on the Epic Games Store, although not exclusively; Horizon Zero Dawn was released simultaneously on the Epic Games Store and Steam, and the PC version of Days Gone . One can only speculate that the initial $200 million sales pitch was targeted at these games, not ReadySet Heroes, but that is just a guess.

There is still no indication that Sony's flagship games such as "Uncharted" and "God of War" will make it to the PC; if "Bloodborne" is released exclusively on the Epic Games Store, it would be a win for Epic and make the $200 million figure make more sense. Unfortunately, nothing has been heard on that front.

Epic and Sony don't always see eye to eye (they had a bit of a spat over cross-play), but they have a pretty close relationship: the PlayStation company even owns Epic a bit: Sony recently invested $200 million in the business and last year invested $250 million. Sony clearly has the ear of Tim Sweeney, Epic's CEO and controlling shareholder, and vice versa.

As for Microsoft, Epic's initial negotiations were apparently met with resistance. The document states that the head of Xbox Game Pass for PC did not like Epic's store and that Microsoft viewed Epic as a competitor in gaming contracts. It also mentions that Xbox head Phil Spencer and Valve boss Gabe Newell were meeting at the time.

Not surprisingly: Microsoft quite openly supported Valve when Valve began offering games on Steam again, including the Halo Master Chief Collection.

As for putting Nintendo games on the Epic Games store, there may not have even been an attempt. The document describes the idea as a "moonshot" and "non-starter." I believe that is correct.

This document fragment was obtained from the Box folder where Epic and Apple's attorneys uploaded their evidentiary materials. It was deleted after it was uploaded, but Raigor, a Resetera contributor, obtained it (they have obtained other documents from this folder that have now been deleted). I myself did not get to the folder in time to see this document, but as surprising as it may seem, such mistakes are to be expected in the first week of the Epic v. Apple trial. On the first day, Apple uploaded a large number of documents it did not intend to, which led us to learn of some of Epic's other dealings.

I contacted Epic and they said they would update this article if more background becomes available or if they deny making such an offer to Sony, which is relatively mundane compared to Sweeney's apology to Ubisoft and other emails, and also to Epic's knowledge I have of the deal, I am confident that this fragment is genuine.

One thing I want to clarify: As I mentioned, when Epic "buys" an exclusivity deal, it actually guarantees a minimum amount of revenue to the game's publishers. If the minimum guarantee is $200 million, Epic can break even on the deal if it recoups that $200 million in game sales. During the recoupment, Epic may take 100% of the revenue. This is not specified anywhere, but it would not be an uncommon contract. (After Epic recoups the advance, the usual Epic Games Store 12/88 split would apply.

However, a breakdown of the "Borderlands" contract reveals that only a portion of such exclusivity agreements are recoverable: in addition to the $80 million minimum guarantee for "Borderlands 3" (which Epic has easily collected), Epic is paying $15 million in marketing costs and $20 million in non-recoverable fees. Importantly, unless we obtain a detailed statement of receipts, as we did for "Borderlands 3," the Epic Games Store exclusivity agreement may contain provisions that we are unaware of. [We wrote a breakdown of what the Epic v. Apple case is all about. It's not just a bunch of interesting documents accidentally uploaded to a Box folder by a lawyer, because the trial is taking place.