• CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 months ago

    It wasn’t a genre I enjoy, so I don’t really know much about it beyond the stuff about how badly it sold. I have to wonder though, just how bad does a game have to be to sell this badly? Whenever I see people complain about something in gaming, I inevitably see people talking about how people should vote with their wallets, but then whatever the thing in question is seems to be quite profitable despite the complaints and calls for people to stop buying it. What was so wrong with this one that actually caused practically nobody to buy it?

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s not really that Concord was bad, and more that it was unremarkable.

      The game was trying so hard to be a clone of Overwatch that what they ended up with was the gaming equivalent of those knock-off GI Joe clones your mother would buy you from the dollar store. Except that Overwatch is free, and Concord was $40. Why am I going to spend more money on getting the knock-off version?

      Copying what works only gets you so far. At some point, you have to actually step ahead of the thing you’re copying.

        • dan1101@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Holy shit, the game developers did not know their market, at all. Yes there are a lot of gamers that could stand to diversify their thinking but you don’t spend $400 million dollars and just hope the players will suddenly become tolerant.

          • Zahille7@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            2 months ago

            I was really only paying attention to the aesthetics of whatever the hell they’re wearing.

            Grandma with a prosthesis is the only one that looks alright.

          • taladar@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 months ago

            Tolerance is not quite the right word for this. These kinds of games are power fantasies and you need the player to want to be the character, for that they can’t just be different in every way at the same time because every difference increases the chances that some players say “I wouldn’t want to be that character” and also the chances that other players will say “I know how to bully the players choosing that character”.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            This aint a diversity thing, this is a someone in character design needs to be shot type of thing. They all look simultaneous bland, garish, over designed, and under designed. This is a fuckup that ruins folks career’s.

    • warm@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      A lot of shit games still sell millions on the back of marketing, so for a game to sell as little as concord, it had to be a whole new level of shit along with shitty marketing.

      • kurcatovium@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s the thing. They sell it due to marketing. Concord had virtually no marketing whatsoever.

        So Sony came up with $40 game that failed to be as good and enjoying as mediocre f2p ones, supported it with zero marketing and expected profits somehow. Genius.

        • warm@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          A good game will sell itself though. How they spent 8 years on it, I don’t know.

          • kurcatovium@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Good game, yes. Concord was not one of those. It was mediocre, nothing special, definitely not a game people would pay 40 for.

  • Vince@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m surprised by the lack of buzz for it when it came out. Unless it’s unplayable due to bugs, it usually takes a few days to a week for everyone to figure out that a game sucks and for the number of players to drop. This thing seems to have been dead on arrival which is a bigger mystery.

    • I don’t think they marketed it well, if at all. Usually a big 1st party like this has PR all over months or even years before release. I like to think I’m pretty plugged in for games, as I go out of my way for news on new shit and I didn’t hear a damn thing about Concord until the day of release and have seen many others who noticed that, also.

  • astrsk@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    Late to the party. Generic designs. Boring uninspired gameplay that did nothing to advance the genre, and basically no marketing. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was just a tax-loss project by the 8th year of development.

  • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    400 million dollar investment fraud scheme you say?

    Nah just good old incompetence. Damn shame.