Fortnite is now giving pros up to 5000 V-Bucks to show their face on livestream during tournaments

Offering V-Bucks instead of real-life money may not have been the best idea (Image via Epic Games/Fortnite)
Offering V-Bucks instead of real-life money may not have been the best idea (Image via Epic Games/Fortnite)
Matthew Wilkins

The Fortnite pro-scene is no stranger to controversy. Every day there's something new to talk about. While most of the time, it has something to do with players being toxic, that's not quite the case this time around.

According to a competitive player known as GoodGuyNani, Epic Games offered players up to 5,000 V-Bucks to show their face during the FNCS finals. As peculiar as this may seem, there is a valid reason behind this.

Btw it is EMBARRASSING that fortnite offerd grands competitors 5k vbucks to use their face cam. What a joke

Why was Fortnite asked to use their cams for the finals?

Most esports tournaments and competitions require camera feed from all participants. However, since this was not mentioned in Epic Games' official rules, they decided to pay players V-Bucks to get access to capture footage.

While many users stated that this was a good deal, the issue at hand is much deeper. Even though 5,000 V-Bucks sounds like a lot, it's not even close to being a proper form of compensation. A user by the name of PeanutBrainTS wrote:

"Nothing stops Epic from giving players actual compensation for using their web cams to improve their broadcast. If the talent (players) use their platform together and don’t take crumbs, they can get good revenue from them. The talent in this situation has incredible leverage here."

This whole situation has led to a debate about whether Fortnite's approach to the situation was justified. Given that the 5,000 V-Bucks is approximately $40, fans poured in with their thoughts on Twitter:

@GoodGuyNani They are giving free currency just for putting on a face cam I don’t see what there is to complain about
@PeanutBrainTS @Reisshub @itsJerian @GoodGuyNani Why would they when players will do it for in game currency?💀 instead of saying it’s sad that epic did it in the first place blame ur fellow players
@PeanutBrainTS @Reisshub @itsJerian @GoodGuyNani You’re talking about Epic Games here - the company that had a groundbreaking win against Apple and still won’t put Fort back in the app store. Even if every player who qualed had tried to demand compensation, they’d just ban them and take the next 100 players. They don’t care.
@Kynsol @GoodGuyNani how you a multi billion company asking people to turn on a facecam for life changing money for 5k vbucks
@GoodGuyNani Theres literally nothing wrong with that. You’re getting paid to turn on your camera. In call of duty they don’t even ask you, it’s obligated to do it.
@GoodGuyNani What's embarrassing about that? It's optional and If you do it you get 40 dollars worth of vbucks
@GoodGuyNani Bad take. It’s optional and they’re getting stream time for recognition and free Vbucks. Some companies make it mandatory to have face cam in tournies and some even ask for a monitor cam.

Despite many competitive players having a valid point about being compensated poorly, giving cam access was optional. No player was required to do so under any circumstances.

However, if they were to comply and do it for V-Bucks, it may hamper the scope of earning real-life money down the line. Nevertheless, on the flipside of things, there can be other long-term benefits as well. A user by the name of BlakeConway24 wrote:

"Given how many viewers Fortnite got on Twitch for FNCS, players should have jumped at the opportunity to show their face cam and help develop their own brand. Compensation is irrelevant when they’re putting thousands of eyeballs on you. It’s a Win/Win for both parties involved."

With each side of the debate having logical and valid points, it's hard to say if Epic Games were in the wrong. However, given that V-Bucks can be generated for free on their backend, can it even be considered compensation?

Paying players in real-life money, on the other hand, would have made sense. If nothing else, they would have been given the option of spending it as they see fit.

Edited by Srijan Sen


Quick Links:

More from Sportskeeda
Fetching more content...