healthcare, education, basic necessities sure.
subsidizing a failing business? no thanks.
i dont understand any of this
Just “word of mouth” will not kill a game. Only a fraction of people are on forums or on social media that actually play that game. Concords problem was mainly:
- ugly as hell
- big price tag
- not interesting gameplay
Its all on the survace, but thats all most people need. I would have played it if the characters were hot AF and F2P. But, no! They needed to appease the “modern audience” on Twitter.
Same. I dont need to play something to say its bad. Logical thinking, combined with bias is enough for me to give a game a chance or not. Its not fair, because I dont care. If something does not appeal to me, its done. End of the story.
1 Like
That is better business model - for government, at least. As such company often has it’s control package owned by government, so they can’t act against interests of their own country.
I suppose they meant government covering some of the costs, so price on certain things doesn’t become unaffordable.
For example, you have gasoline prices at level, that most people can’t pay. In order to keep people mobile, you pay 50% of the price to company, that sells gasoline, so end customer pays only remaining 50%.
it isnt though. if my business is failing whether thats due to ineptitude on my part, or because i am unable to compete against other businesses due to a bunch of factors, then why should i get subsidized? the product im offering (in this scenario) is inefficient, and subpar compared to my competitors
if i build planes, and they keep breaking midflight, and all the planes i have built get grounded, or if they are not performing to a standard, why should i get to stay in business?
Because place on the market your business had can be taken by foreign company, and government doesn’t like being reliant on foreign companies, especially in areas like military.
You mean Boeing? Simple - because you produce aircraft for military as well, so you going out of business is very bad news. When your aircraft are already used by many airlines, your failure can collapse entire industry.
Big business often gets subsidies, because them failing can have catastrophic consequences on the scale of entire country, sometimes even multiple countries.
If you rely on foreign companies, said companies can basically demand any price - it’s not like you have a choice, you would have to pay whatever they ask for.
I think the main problem with this game is that it costs $40 to play.
This is a big disadvantage for a multiplayer shooter in 2024.
The second biggest problem might be the tokenism of the characters.
Putting pronouns on the hero selection menu is simply asking for trouble, especially when half of the cast is robots and aliens. It feels blatantly forced.
1 Like
Ok where has this been accurate? Name me examples.
3 Likes
But… It was a cute martian from space. Who could resist?
Baldurs Gate 3?
2 Likes
Pffftttt. You think bg3 failed?
It literally saved their studio.
Or you being sarcastic? Lol.
3 Likes
Yea just a lil silliness. Probably doesn’t count though, I’ve seen the anti woke crowd say it isn’t forced
3 Likes
[REDACTED] playing OW2 is like going to the Antarctica and complaining its cold. Either a troll or you know.
At least they are giving out refunds.
Most failures and big mistakes don’t even do that. Sad to see a new ip get shot down (even if a lot of us didn’t find it appealing) and become a punching bag for hack frauds and grifters for a few weeks 
Definitely sarcasm. BG3 is so woke it became anti woke according to some 
Instead of just saying it was a well done game with a large ip backing behind it.
2 Likes
No example will meet the stringent requirements you will make up on the spot to devalue the factual evidence of this phenomenon.
For the person who can’t understand that, no example will be good enough for you. You will find an excuse to dismiss the actual reason to give your own unreasonable claim to why the product failed.
It’s actually easier to compare and contrast the winners and losers in whatever genre you are discussing. The company that panders will always have a few things in common.
- They will have already made a large amount of wealth before hand.
- They will have a diversified business model where they can make money on properties that are not pandering.
- Even if a product fails there are safeguards to obfuscate the real reason the product failed.
⢀⡴⠑⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠸⡇⠀⠿⡀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡴⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠑⢄⣠⠾⠁⣀⣄⡈⠙⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡀⠁⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠂⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⡿⢿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢀⡾⣁⣀⠀⠴⠂⠙⣗⡀⠀⢻⣿⣿⠭⢤⣴⣦⣤⣹⠀⠀⠀⢀⢴⣶⣆
⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⣮⣽⣾⣿⣥⣴⣿⣿⡿⢂⠔⢚⡿⢿⣿⣦⣴⣾⠁⠸⣼⡿
⠀⢀⡞⠁⠙⠻⠿⠟⠉⠀⠛⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣌⢤⣼⣿⣾⣿⡟⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣾⣷⣶⠇⠀⠀⣤⣄⣀⡀⠈⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠉⠈⠉⠀⠀⢦⡈⢻⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣶⣶⣤⣽⡹⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠲⣽⡻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣜⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣷⣶⣮⣭⣽⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠻⠿⠿⠿⠿⠛⠉
2 Likes
Ah no, this is the exact opposite. This is the model concord was going to introduce to. It was going to sell skins on top of the box price.
On top of that Foam stars and other P2P/F2B games have been dying off in mass for the last several years.
any business man worth their teeth, will be avoiding pushing into that market for future ventures.
No one right in their mind see’s a massive hundred of million dollar flop are willing to repeat that.
Concord is kind of the last of the “hero shooter” games that started developement around the time OW did.
1 Like
so nationalize it. then it will generate revenue for the state
my quality is sub-par, why not just buy from an allied nation the creates a better product - this will lead to whole different conversation and i dont wanna go there
and they shouldnt, because they can afford the investment, and then enjoy the tax benefit associated with that
I can also tell whether I’m uninterested in a game without playing it myself. The difference is that I’m not then going to proclaim publicly that the game is trash, because that’s disingenuous, ignorant, or just hating because it’s cool to hate certain things. It benefits nobody. Instead, I just won’t buy it.
Not everyone has to give a public opinion on everything, especially when they don’t know about that thing. That’s my problem with the modern gaming community.
Well, you shouldn’t.
- SSKTJL
- Concord
- Dustborn
- The Acolyte
- She Hulk
- Batwoman
- School of magical negroes
- Wonder woman 1984
- Tales of Zau (this might not actually be woke but it flopped because racist woke sweet baby inc was involved)
- Flintlock
- Starwars outlaws
- Doctor who
- Forspoken
- Saints row
- Redfall
BG3 isn’t woke. Liberals have been conditioned to believe “woke” means diverse, because then they think half of America is racist and it brings us closer to civil war, which some people in power pulling the strings seem to want.
Woke can be defined by 3 major points:
- Prejudice against a certain type of person (usually white people, men, or attractive women)
- Race swapping existing characters (it implies a certain type of person should not be represented)
- Prioritizing diversity over sensical writing and world building (rings of power is the perfect example of this)
Game of Thrones and Arcane are proof that woke does not mean diverse. Both those shows are highly diverse with every kind of representation you can think of and some of the highest rated shows of all time. They’re examples of diversity done right. They show no prejudice against anyone, every type of person is allowed to exist, and the writing and world building actually make sense.
3 Likes
I swear I never expected to find someone defending this game on the forums, I mean their player base is so small that coming across one on the forum is like playing Pokémon and finding a shiny.