CONCORD TO SHUT DOWN SEPT 6TH: EVERYONE REFUNDED!

This took 8 years to make!!!

I swear any game that has an excessively long development time always seems to have some sort of issue. I think excessive development time might be a sign of a troubled development, potentially plagued with the project being rescoped multiple times.

We had cyberpunk 2077, skull and bones, suicide squad kill the justice league Anthem, and starfield.

In fact, is there any game that took an excessively long to develop that is a banger?

GTA 6 is round the corner now and I’m cautious about jumping on the band wagon for that.
 
Last edited:
Tombstone said:
Not being down with the slang that young people are using today, I had to google what a fupa is :D
Click to expand...
know the feeling...

Kelt said:
Glad I'm not the only one!
:p
Click to expand...

You're not :cry:...

Ajsi8AQ.gif
 
Last edited:
Did anyone here actually play it? I put a decent amount of time into the open beta with some friends.

It wasn't a terrible game, it just wasn't particularly good. It was nothing new, it basically felt like playing 2016 Overwatch again with none of the changes or improvements that have come to arena hero/class shooters in the last 8 years and ultimately that was why it was a bit dull and boring.

Controls felt nice on PS5 playing with a gamepad and it felt like the aim assist was relatively well balanced, if a little inconsistent at times. I much prefer that style of aim assist as it creates a console skill gap - vs. COD currently where the game is essentially aiming for you and you've got people on such a level playing field as a result of that.

I'm not surprised at all that it's been pulled, it just had very limited appeal and I'm not really sure what they were expecting.

A 35 quid, live service, fps hero/class shooter with big cinematics every time you selected a new character - but then with the most dull characters in existence. I think I spent my entire time playing as IT-Z and even then I tried to mute voice lines...
 
Armageus said:
Is that the same reason that lawbreakers, battleborn and rocket arena all failed?

Or just a case that no one wanted another generic hero shooter?
Click to expand...

Hero shooters can still do OK if they are done right, this wasn't.

Marvel Rivals will release in December and that will do well based on the Beta.
 
t2na said:
This wasn’t a bad game because of “purple haired activists” and you’ve got be a little mental if you think that.

It was a bad game because it was a bit of a nothing burger.
Click to expand...

Why are you quoting me? I didn't say anything about purple haired activists, I said it wasn't done right which is what I think you're saying lol.

There is no denying however that it was very woke with characters that nobody wanted to play or connect to. They also decided to charge for it when others are doing free to play.

They got what the deserved imo and it's actually good that it failed, that and Star Wars doing so badly is hopefully a sign that people are finally not buying the trash that these companies turn out.
 
Jase said:
Why are you quoting me? I didn't say anything about purple haired activists, I said it wasn't done right which is what I think you're saying lol.
Click to expand...
Sorry - because you were replying to @Armageus who in turn was responding to the comment about purple hair.

My point was that the game was boring & not great regardless of the character design - but there's an overwhelming number of people that were writing something off/calling it awful without even having played it for 30 minutes.
 
I can't see this game coming back in any shape or form, it's got too much stink on it. I've never seen a game so resoundingly rejected by the gaming market before.

I have to laugh at people claiming wokeness or DEI is the reason this game failed, not at all.

1. It had a $40 price point in a genre where the bigger and better competition (OW2, Valorant, Apex, The Finals, etc.) were all ftp. This was an incredibly stupid business decision, I get trying to release a game without mtx but for live service or GaaS game you need a really low barrier of entry to have a chance. People on the fence are not going to spend $40 on a live service game, from an relatively unknown studio and especially with mixed reception.

2. The character designs are some of the worst I have ever seen in an AAA game. I appreciate the diversity but it did not mix with the realism art style. They could have gone for a more cartoony style or literally anything else,. The washed colour palette did not help either. You put any of these characters beside any other hero from OW2 and Valorant and you would think Concords characters were created from someone still studying art design. None of the cast looked like heroes, they all looked like side characters or extras from a Guardians of the Galaxy movie.

3. Generic gameplay, everything I have seen from this game just seemed like "okay". Not once was I ever compelled to try the game or even the beta (like a lot of people) and I play hero shooters almost weekly.

4. Still releasing the game even with lacklustre beta interest and negative word of mouth. The game should have been delayed, I'm not sure if the execs forced them to release this but it's clear it needed more time to garner interest and maybe change the business model. Whoever signed off on the $40 price should no longer work in the industry imo.

5. Weak marketing in general. I saw a few ads but the volumes of people who never heard of the game until the player count articles came out are telling, not enough was done. Maybe Sony readjusted their marketing budget once they realised the game was going to be a stinker.


Wokeness/DEI has nothing to do with it (I really hate those words). Overwatch has FAR more diversity than Concord could ever attempt and no one cares, why? Because the game is really good and character designs are all 10/10. They even change their maps for pride events and people aren't fussed.
 
Last edited:
If the terrible characters and DEI oompa loompas no-one wanted to play weren't part of the problem then the wokists and gaming griftervists wouldn't be in total meltdown on Twitter. :D

Also, with regard to the $40 price, no-one wanted to play it when it was in Beta and EA for free...

There was also nothing horrendously wrong with Concord it wasn't unplayable trash, it was just mid (IGN gave it a good (7) review :D ), so with that in mind where was the "modern audience" to play it and support it? I mean they whine and cry all day about all the bad racists and phobes who are all alt-right refusing to play the game, but clearly none of them are playing it, and neither are their friends etc

Why is that? Is it because none of them actually play games? - Hmmm...

;)
 
Last edited:
It's hard to know just who was ultimately responsible for the design choices, she mentioned commitees, that sounds a lot like there was a lot of corpo interference and there's definitely DEI influence, which leads me to believe the people sat behind monitors can't have had much creative freedom.
 
Apex said:
If the terrible characters and DEI oompa loompas no-one wanted to play weren't part of the problem then the wokists and gaming griftervists wouldn't be in total meltdown on Twitter. :D

Also, with regard to the $40 price, no-one wanted to play it when it was in Beta and EA for free...

There was also nothing horrendously wrong with Concord it wasn't unplayable trash, it was just mid (IGN gave it a good (7) review :D ), so with that in mind where was the "modern audience" to play it and support it? I mean they whine and cry all day about all the bad racists and phobes who are all alt-right refusing to play the game, but clearly none of them are playing it, and neither are their friends etc

Why is that? Is it because none of them actually play games? - Hmmm...

;)
Click to expand...
No one is crying online, apart from the devs. No one cared for the game from either side, if you were trying to imply otherwise. It's funny seeing the DEI and let's call them for what they are, transphobes and racists claiming this is a victory when it clearly isn't one. There was not enough interest garnered for the game from day one, as the trailers and betas showed. It was clearly a game no one wanted to play.
 
Apex said:
It's hard to know just who was ultimately responsible for the design choices, she mentioned commitees, that sounds a lot like there was a lot of corpo interference and there's definitely DEI influence, which leads me to believe the people sat behind monitors can't have had much creative freedom.
Click to expand...
Was watching a stream with a game dev and he had a few horror stories, one of them was about this:

thatparkplace.com

Report: 'Concord' Developer Demanded Co-Workers Refer To Her As "Professor," Pushed "Extreme Politics," And Demanded Her Unvaccinated Colleagues Be Fired

A new report claims that one of the developers for Firewalk Studios' upcoming game Concord demanded her co-workers refer to her as "professor," that she pushed "extreme politics," and demanded that her unvaccinated colleagues be fired.
thatparkplace.com thatparkplace.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom