Do you guys think Concord really deserved to end so soon and did we miss out on an opportunity for some change in todays free-mium model? Lets talk about it.
I'll be honest, I do think Concord deserved what happened to it, but only so it could serve as an example of what gamers don't want. The game simply didn't do anything new or innovative compared to other hero shooters, yet they expected people to spend $40 upfront for it. There's definitely hate coming from people, but that's never stopped games from being popular. Like look at the last of us 2. That game got an absurd amount of hate for similar reasons but was still wildly successful. The reason concord failed wasn't the haters, it was the fact that everyone else was indifferent. I'd love for games to stop following the free to play, microtransaction-heavy standard, but you have to release a game that people need to play that breaks away from the model. The first overwatch was $40 and it sold insanely well, but Concord wants to pretend its OW 1 but 8 years later. Playstation needs to learn somehow, just like how they needed to learn with Helldivers 2. It was never that concord was bad, its that it was unforgiveably mid
I don't agree that a game trying to break into hero shooter genre offering a business model under 1 price and everything else is in game earnable or freely included like seasonal updates, story, etc vs other games that cry for every cent in your pocket should be set up as an example for what we don't want as gamers. It's a very anti-consumer and counter intuitive to suggest that. On top of saying it "deserved what happened to it be an example". You're saying they deserves to be harassed online for quite frankly no reason besides a game that was just unpopular meanwhile others studios are quickly and swiftly forgiven and are given a 2nd chance. Studios with games that straight up lied to the gaming community btw. Very strange and scary to say that this new studio should deserve that even if you're trying to get PlayStation to understand something. All this does, in this case, is show other studios and devs NOT try this model out because gamers actually want free to play and micro transactions or you'll be dragged through the mud. Just don't buy the game and/or leave a constructive review. Last of us 2 didn't deserve that hate it got either, 100% blown out of portion, but it succeeded because it already has a very large fan base that wanted to give the game a chance and experience it despite the leaks which caused the controversy. I do agree that PlayStation needs to learn that if they want to break into the live service space they need to have a better title offering, I completely get that. I don't mind that Concord failed due it being underwhelming but once again that doesn't warrant the ridiculous over the top backlash, lies, harassment, it received. The game and the studio at the end of the day didn't do anything to deserve it in a justifiable sense, which is the main question I'm asking. Haters may not be the main reason it failed but it's decent part of it. You don't like the game don't buy it. Money talks way louder than words to big companies. Oh with Hell Divers, I don't understand how that game succeeded it's honestly unplayable even after all the updates. I still crash, lag, and frames drops below 30. Also the devs are fighting their fans to the point that the players have protested in game to allow the game to die because of the devs behavior and patches that players hated. It honestly baffles me 😂
@Bios101 I never said that the devs or anyone on the team deserved hate. When I say Concord, I mean the product provided, not the team behind it. If someone offered you art and you simply didn't care for it, you wouldn't pay for it and put it on your wall, but that doesn't mean you should hate the artist. My point is that a lot of games have gotten a ridiculous amount of hate. I think it's important to voice feedback, especially on live-service games, but nobody should be harassing anyone about this. The thing is, games that have received similar amounts of hate have succeeded, so the hate alone isn't why Concord failed. I understand your point about wanting a full game when you buy a game, I just don't think Concord was the game to push that. It really had to bring something new and interesting to the table. That's why Helldivers succeeded too, even with upfront cost, microtransactions, glitches, and poor performance. It was fresh, and the theme of the game being propaganda allowed people to really buy into it. Honestly, I'm not a big fan of that game, and I'd have less of a problem with it if it didn't have microtransactions. It's just hard to charge people $40 upfront without giving them a big reason to not play free alternatives.
Ok I understand your point. Overall it is sad though, I know Concord wasn't everyone's cup of tea but I would have liked to see it get better because of the offering it had. I hope something comes along in the future that can push the model Concord couldn't. But it was also nice to play a game that played like Concord compared to what's out there now, even if it was generic. Longer TTK, no hard lock classes, or winning team fight with a single ultimate. It was a fun run and gun with friends. Maybe some something truly fresh that the majority will enjoy will come. I just hope the backlash hasn't shifted other devs away from trying.
@Bios101 I'll agree that it's disappointing that we didn't even get to see what the game could become. Lots of games turned their reputations around after a bad launch, and maybe the Concord devs would have made something cool down the line. At the end of the day, I'm sorry that a game you enjoyed was shut down. My opinions about the game aside, it still sucks when a game you enjoy fails. I know it better than anyone because I play sonic games lmao.
I feel like the freemium model is doo doo butter. How ever this was not the game to champion the cause. It should have been an anime based hero shooter!
