Still weird to declare a game trash without ever having played it. That’s the kind of thing that gets games shut down when enough people repeat it, even when it’s not true.
The gunplay was very strong and worked on by a bunch of ex-Bungie devs, and it felt like it. Gunplay is why Destiny has worked for so long.
I also declared The Day Before trash without ever having played it.
I do that, yes.
So should game developers keep doing what Concord has done?
If word of mouth is as much a deterrent as you say it is, what should be done to make sure this doesn’t happen?
I’ve watched a few reviews of it, the feedback was unanimously negative, like I said in my previous post, the shooting mechanics were solid but everything else was undercooked, lackluster design, soulless maps, weird ban system with overly complicated loadouts, balance was off, etc.
It needed a good year in development on top and be F2P to have any chance at grabbing an audience.
I love how chills just give us random names claiming it was the new Overwatch killer.
When everyone knows Overwatch killed itself anyway.
Absolutely hilarious.
Holy copium
If the game was good, it would still be around after september 6th.
If the game was good, none of that would matter. Or at least, not to the point where it’s taken offline 2 weeks after launch. There are plenty of games with those traits that do a hell of a lot better than Concord.
I’m pretty sure most people here never heard of Concord before the topics saying “lol lmao another competitor failed” started to appear.
Overwatch 2 defenders have more knowledge than us about what’s out there.
Maybe they even know a better game. We should ask them sometimes.
This is such a weird stance. As a fan of gaming, you should be wanting more options of things to play, not less. Also when there is no healthy competition, the leading game doesn’t have to try in the slightest and becomes worse for you through laziness.
You don’t get to tell someone if they enjoyed something or not. They said “I thought it was good and played it a lot”. That’s not a sentence you can ‘correct’. JFC.
Yeah, failing of Concord sucks for us. Bli$$ard got confirmation, that f2p OW with 20+$ skins is the way to go, not the old path, where you could just farm the game and get all skins for “free”. There’s no changing, no turning back from here.
Was their own fault to make it paid for that amount of money while other shooters are free…
Even a less good game, will do OK if it’s free to play
There is a ton of people out there who don’t buy games for whatever reason they have for it… Such players would def have checked out Concord, and might have sticked around…
Maybe they had a little chance of “succes”
I hate these answers I’m about to give, but this is honestly what devs should do if they really want to be successful:
Focus almost entirely on traditionally-appealing aesthetics (female characters must be traditionally attractive, DEFINITELY no pronouns)
Not require a PSN account to play (Steam players consider this an immediate deal breaker for some reason)
Make the game free (which requires “predatory” monetization of cosmetics)
Not make any more team-based FPS games that aren’t based on an established IP
Cater hard to casual players by not placing too much emphasis on teamwork or strategy.
Focus on looking good for streamers, not real players.
Again, this is a recipe for a successful game, not a good one.
It helps if you read the entire thing next time
JFC indeed.
That extra sentence doesn’t change it from being a subjective opinion, into something objective that you can try and get a gotcha moment out of. Just let someone say they enjoyed something and how they felt that public perception was unfair based on how they found the game.
Do you know of a game that got widely torn apart online before release (or any chance to try gameplay in this case) but then went on to be successful?
As evidenced by the game’s low sales and player count (free beta included), it’s an absolute fact that the vast majority of those criticizing the game never played it. Quality was never a factor. We’re in the age of knee-jerk social media and clickbait, and that’s who you have to appeal to to be successful in this industry now.
As a “run of the mill” basic consumer, should the entertainment I enjoy, and pay for, not be catered to what I like?
In other words, do I have an obligation to purchase entertainment I do not wish to purchase?
Let me narrow the question down a bit.
I own all three Witcher titles, the third on multiple platforms, Cyberpunk 2077 and the DLC Phantom Liberty.
Does this mean that because I know CD Projekt Red is leaning heavily into initiatives I disagree with, I am obligated to purchase the next Witcher game, or the Cyberpunk sequel? Or am I a free consumer that can decline spending money on properties which do not conform to my sensibilities?
That’s not at all what’s being said.
They are saying that a game is already condemned or praised before people even play it nowadays. Even just a dumb meme about game looking a bit goofy can totally sabotage what was actually a really good game.
They either hear what the playerbase wants or things like that will happen nonstop.
From what I know, people were more interested in the last of us multiplayer rather than these generic shooters, and they cancelled instead of giving to another dev to do it at least.
My question has little to do with this.
I have no doubt the next Witcher game will be phenomenal. The game play and environment will be to standard for CDPR.
What I am saying is, I know CDPR leans into development concepts I disagree with. I already know this, and because of this information I refuse to spend my money to assist CDPR in their endeavors.
My voice is not being used to tell CDPR what to do. But my money is.
So do I have an obligation to spend my money on properties, in existence or future, that I disagree with on principle?
Additionally, as an average consumer, if the product fails, am I not allowed to point out why?
Personally I find the playercount obsession weirder. Sometimes I almost wish Steam would stop providing that information so people could actually talk about the games themselves. Instead every other conversation becomes “This game only has 40k players” like its some mark of shame to just be a very successful game instead of a monolith like CS2.