Concord isn't dead yet. [PS5, PC]

[Cyan]

It wasn't dead, it was out partying.

Sony's failed shooter Concord has been updated dozens of times on Steam in October, and I'm starting to feel a comeback

Sony's failed shooter Concord has been updated dozens of times on Steam in October, and I'm starting to feel a comeback

There's a whole lot of activity going on for a game that's supposedly dead.

www.pcgamer.com

The world took it for dead about a month ago.

Concord Died Before It Lived, But It Didn’t Have To

Concord shut down two weeks after it launched to "explore options," but could it have been better with a different design direction?

www.cgmagonline.com

 

[techuse]

It will be DOA if/when they relaunch it.

 

[Remij]

Yea it is.

 

[see colon]

They would be better served to asset flip this game into something more marketable. Maybe make a game in the same universe but without the name, exposing it's ties to Concord via clever easter eggs and data logs.

 

[homerdog]

They would be better served to asset flip this game into something more marketable. Maybe make a game in the same universe but without the name, exposing it's ties to Concord via clever easter eggs and data logs.

TBH I think the assets were a huge part of the problem. Better to permadelete them, scrub the backups and move on.

 

[see colon]

TBH I think the assets were a huge part of the problem. Better to permadelete them, scrub the backups and move on.

I get what people are saying about character designs, but there has to be some stuff from the sum of the assets other than those that can be worked into a marketable product. Concord, if anything, felt like a game with more inspiration in it's world building than gameplay or character designs.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

Well, its inspiration certainly wasn't in its logo, which looked like something you'd find on the side of the big cardboard box the entire office's paper cups come in.

 

[homerdog]

I get what people are saying about character designs, but there has to be some stuff from the sum of the assets other than those that can be worked into a marketable product. Concord, if anything, felt like a game with more inspiration in it's world building than gameplay or character designs.

Thinking they can change some things and make it okay is bonkers. This was the biggest failure in gaming history, maybe in all of entertainment history. Even legendary flops like Waterworld don't come close.

 

[see colon]

Thinking they can change some things and make it okay is bonkers. This was the biggest failure in gaming history, maybe in all of entertainment history. Even legendary flops like Waterworld don't come close.

I don't think they can just slap a new coat of paint on it and call it good, I'm saying take the work they put into world building and make a scifi game set in the same universe, recycling any assets that are applicable. There was work put into this game that can be salvaged, what would be bonkers would be to scrap all of that work.

And yes, of course it's a bigger flop than Waterworld. After refunds, Concord essentially sold 0 units for $0. Waterworld had a $175M budget (which was inflated because a natural disaster destroyed the sets and caused massive delays) and grossed $285M worldwide. It would have been a hit if the budget hadn't almost doubled during production, but still turned a profit. It's remembered as an absolute flop, but statistically, it isn't a bomb at all. It just wasn't the wild success Dances, The Bodyguard, or Robin Hood were. Also, it's assets - namely the world building, were recycled into video games. The Genesis version was completed but never sold, so it's essentially on par with Concord.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Thinking they can change some things and make it okay is bonkers.

I think the difference between great gameplay and meh is really fine, and you could potentially tweak Concord into a good game. The characters did suck, but that could have been excused if the gameplay was bonkers good. Take the engine and tweak and tune and refine it into a really great experience. Then release it F2P. Ignore all the world-building and just get a good popular game. Then go from there.

Which was their initial problem. The game was driven by the world building without a solid gameplay base. They were chasing a Destiny like universe but without the game structure that supports something that big.

 

[Seanspeed]

Thinking they can change some things and make it okay is bonkers. This was the biggest failure in gaming history, maybe in all of entertainment history. Even legendary flops like Waterworld don't come close.

It wasn't a failure because the game was a wreck, though. The devs were obviously very competent. The technical side of the game is quite accomplished and the mechanical underpinnings of the gameplay and design are also solid.

It being a live service multiplayer game exacerbated its potential for failure drastically, cuz everybody has to ask themselves after looking around at all the negativity, "Why should I buy and play this when nobody else is going to?". And so everybody arrived at the exact same, understandable conclusion, even if they might have been interested themselves. This doesn't happen to single player games, because it doesn't matter if other people are excited to buy and play it, it only matters if you're interested. Single player games can still sell poorly, but something with the same time, effort and polish that Concord got would at least sell somewhat and wouldn't be taken off the market.

 

[MfA]

F2P? The dream of OW1 profits are gone, but then OW2 couldn't do that either. It doesn't take that many players to keep the lights on.

Leaning into the character designs might even work, if it becomes to be seen as more parodying the horniness of Overwatch rather than pushing DEI.

 

[Nesh]

GaaS is a stupid proposal in general. They are asking for people to spend as many hours and money as possible on a single game with microtransactions, and there is no space for too many games coexisting asking for that dedication, while this sought goal is reducing space for other games to be played.

I wish this "money grabbing" concept that men in suits are seeking is abandoned (hopefully someday is also considered illegal for consumer protection) and allow devs to focus on games they want to make that people can simply enjoy and move to the next experience.

Guerilla and Naughty Dog this gen have focused way too many resources trying to make GaaS out of their awesome franchises and this is the first time we barely got anything new out of them outside of remakes and remasters.

 

[Seanspeed]

pushing DEI.

Anyways, Concord's criticized character designs weren't really cuz they were 'woke', they were just....goofy, in a sort of unconvincing tryhard way. They were trying to mimic the unserious and colorful style of something like Guardians of the Galaxy and they just weren't pulling it off.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

They combined uninspired artwork and derivative characters with bold politics, so of course the politics got muddled into the general blowback.

Concord went front-and-centre with 'pronouns' on the characters; you don't need to contrive character presentation with pronouns to support diversity or inclusivity. Had the game been amazing, players might have turned a blind eye to it, but as the game wasn't, and the marketing was all about this universe, the impression was definitely given that production had alternative priorities other than 'best game possible' and people found all available reasons to rage.

 

[hughJ]

Did Concord do anything mechanically or game modally that set it apart from other arena/class/hero competitive shooters? What was the game's hook? I don't mean marketing hook that would get people to try it, but gameplay hook that would get people to keep playing it (as opposed to play something else)?

I'm incredibly skeptical when studios try to roll out a more or less fully-formed competitive game like this because it doesn't leave very much room to add new things, throw things out, reinvent others, etc. The long-tailed success of these games isn't a science; it's not something you can engineer in one go. The successes are a mixture of happenstance, reactive development, and months to years of evolution. No studio should be expecting to hit the ground running on launch, nor should they expect that hiding away for X months to later relaunch will fix it.

 

[Cappuccino]

GaaS is a stupid proposal in general. They are asking for people to spend as many hours and money as possible on a single game with microtransactions, and there is no space for too many games coexisting asking for that dedication, while this sought goal is reducing space for other games to be played.

I wish this "money grabbing" concept that men in suits are seeking is abandoned (hopefully someday is also considered illegal for consumer protection) and allow devs to focus on games they want to make that people can simply enjoy and move to the next experience.

Guerilla and Naughty Dog this gen have focused way too many resources trying to make GaaS out of their awesome franchises and this is the first time we barely got anything new out of them outside of remakes and remasters.

Making things consumers like illegal because you don’t like it (under the guise of ‘protection’) is kinda crazy. Who exactly is hurt here? Not everyone likes one-off games, and frankly online multiplayer is popular so people spending a few bucks on skins isn’t nearly as bad as paying $70 for AAA single player slop that you forget after a few months.

 

[Seanspeed]

They combined uninspired artwork and derivative characters with bold politics, so of course the politics got muddled into the general blowback.

Concord went front-and-centre with 'pronouns' on the characters; you don't need to contrive character presentation with pronouns to support diversity or inclusivity. Had the game been amazing, players might have turned a blind eye to it, but as the game wasn't, and the marketing was all about this universe, the impression was definitely given that production had alternative priorities other than 'best game possible' and people found all available reasons to rage.

The existence of their pronouns(which was actually tucked away in the corner in small font, it was not front and center like you're lying about) is not 'bold politics'. lol It's only bold politics if you're an outrage merchant trying to manufacture it into a big deal. It's such a minor thing.

 

[Seanspeed]

Did Concord do anything mechanically or game modally that set it apart from other arena/class/hero competitive shooters? What was the game's hook? I don't mean marketing hook that would get people to try it, but gameplay hook that would get people to keep playing it (as opposed to play something else)?

There are some detail differences between it and something like Overwatch, such as no health regeneration or anything, but there's no clear gimmick or standout feature that separates it from others, no. I think the main 'hook' they were trying to go for to keep people coming back was not really gameplay-related at all, but their promise of weekly story vignettes.

Like, if you had a completely blind test and Overwatch and Concord were both coming out at the same time and nobody had any idea who made which or how much each would cost or what anybody else thought of the games, then I think Concord could perhaps have stood a chance and seemed like a competitive entry in the genre that people might choose and enjoy. It was absolutely not a bad game. But as you're kind of alluding to, it ultimately offered nothing other than some 'slightly different flavor' of a genre with a lot of players already kind of dedicated to their favorite games, and with very little reason to look at Concord and think there was any reason to spend $50 to switch to it.

 

[techuse]

For the market they are entering, a game doesn't have to be "bad" to fail. It's become such an overcrowded market. Success almost requires your game to do something extraordinarily well that sets you apart from the rest. The art in this game, while of technically higher quality than any other its competing against, was extremely bland and uninteresting. Particularly the levels themselves. The gameplay itself was serviceable, but again, quite uninteresting.