• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Concord flopping = The end of the live service trend chasing

Is Concord the beginning of the end of trend chasing life service games?

  • KEKW! its done boss LOL!

  • LMAO! concord has no rizz loloolol not over yet kek

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

SHA

Member
Pride can't build an empire, there are no shortcuts for gaas success, that doesn't come overnight, you want to build an online community for gaas then do it the right way, Lan parties, esports, key people in the industry that made gaas happen, acknowledge pc as a standalone platform, not a weird beast that has nothing to do with gaming, not acknowledging pc is the first step to failure.
 

Spyxos

Gold Member
Of course a few failed. But Fornite is still making tons of money and ZZZ has just been added and is incredibly successful. So no. There will still be a lot of gaas games. Everyone wants a piece of the pie.

And unlike the MMO boom back then, where it was very difficult to launch one successfully after wow. There seem to be many Gaas successes.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget HellDivers 2 was a pretty big hit so its not the live service trend in trouble

Its the Hero Shooter with agendas shoved down our throats by Professor wannabes that should die in a fire
correct. & helldivers 2 also established that you needn't pour 100s of millions of dollars into a live service game to make it successful, you just have to be 1) imaginative, 2) fun, & 3) lucky (right place at the right time)...
 

ProtoByte

Weeb Underling
Here's what'll happen: Studios like Naughty Dog, Insomniac and SSM won't be tasked with attempting MP in the near future, and probably not a live-service ever again. Factions 2 and The Great Web were years long wastes of time, and Sony seems to know their greenlighting was an operational failure.

As it stands now, the premium single-player titles are the greatest asset PlayStation has. Half of this generation being rocky will be a good lesson teaching not to mess around with that. Otherwise, they will continue making attempts.
 
correct. & helldivers 2 also established that you needn't pour 100s of millions of dollars into a live service game to make it successful, you just have to be 1) imaginative, 2) fun, & 3) lucky (right place at the right time)...
Well, it is hard to tell how much did it cost to develop HD2 considering the game was in development just as long as Concord...


But I do think at least there will be decline in explicit DEI in the game with toxic colors, weird, ugly characters shoved into the games. We will get proper characters and not caricatures. With GaaS stuff - probably in some genres but we will get more GaaS anyway - games are too costly to be made from scratch. It is easier to support the existing ones.
 
Last edited:

[Sigma]

Member
Unfortunately no because behind a lot of this drive when it comes to larger publishers are shareholders/investors.
 

AmuroChan

Member
There are so many threads about it because future historians will point to this game being the pivotal point of the end of the live service trend chasing.

Concord is significant to gaming history precisely because it was such a hard flop.

I think you're giving Concord too much credit. It's a new IP created by a new studio nobody cares about. As long as some GaaS games continue to rake in the dough, publishers and developers will continue to aim for a slice of that pie. Concord failing isn't going to stop that.
 
With Black Myth being such a blow out success with about 80% of players being in China. I suspect the new trend will be single player games chasing the Chinese market.
To fully embrace the booming mythical legend genre, Sony will pivot from live service to more Genji sequels with even bigger giant enemy crabs.
 

tmlDan

Member
It's a perfectly rational human response to shit on something nefarious. Keep the threads coming I say.

Richie Aprile: Like the pimp says to his hoes, keep em cumming.
What's nefarious about it? its a game with NO BP, NO MTX, just a flat cost, that's not nefarious AT ALL. There are games that do significantly worse than that and gouge customer. Why now? cause its sony?
 

StueyDuck

Member
Every studio knows that if you do manage to break the market you are in the money.

If you want gaas to die then you needa stop buying all the skins and dedicating your life to one game 🤷‍♂️

Only when the mass majority of gamers do that will gaas be forgotten by pubs and devs
 
What I find funny about Concord is people said Apex Legends' characters were ugly, but they seem downright great compared to how anal warts ugly Concord's characters are.

Every year it just gets worse, things just keep getting uglier and lamer.

Of course a few failed. But Fornite is still making tons of money and ZZZ has just been added and is incredibly successful. So no. There will still be a lot of gaas games. Everyone wants a piece of the pie.

And unlike the MMO boom back then, where it was very difficult to launch one successfully after wow. There seem to be many Gaas successes.
Not a single one of those post WoW MMOs came even close to doing WoW numbers even though they cranked them out by the boatload, the same will be true here.

People are stupid and don't realize ultra big success like this can only happen once, you can't just repeat that formula, you have to come up with the next new innovation.
 
Last edited:
These games fail not because they are live service, but because they suck. Awful gameplay with an unattractive aesthetic in a saturated market is a recipe for disaster.

The fact they spent 8 years and over 100m on Concord basically says there was zero oversight from Sony. It's what happens when you put unqualified people in decision making positions.
 

miklonus

Member
I'm the first idiot in this thread to mention Avengers, and even Gotham Knight's after that?

These games fail not because they are live service, but because they suck. Awful gameplay with an unattractive aesthetic in a saturated market is a recipe for disaster.

The fact they spent 8 years and over 100m on Concord basically says there was zero oversight from Sony. It's what happens when you put unqualified people in decision making positions.
That "saturated market" is the live service market, so yes it "IS" because it is live service. These games are failing for every reason under the sun. How the fuck do you say live service isn't it at all, whatsoever, then proceed, ten or so words later, to say that releasing a game in an over-crowded LIVE SERVICE market is one of the main reasons.

Who the fuck asked to play as Barbara Gordon or Kamala Khan in a live service game?
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
I don't know, but I hope it's the end of this crap.
Wont end because there's lots of successful GAAS game making bank. So most game companies will still have the itch to do GAAS hoping to strike gold.

Only way I see GAAS dying a bit is if magically the bubble bursts and even Fortnite, COD, FIFA etc..... all bomb together so even the most itchy GAAS pumper in a board room will notice if all the big franchises bomb then there's no point in the smaller games trying either.

But I dont see that happening.
 
Last edited:

Generic

Member
Here's what'll happen: Studios like Naughty Dog, Insomniac and SSM won't be tasked with attempting MP in the near future, and probably not a live-service ever again. Factions 2 and The Great Web were years long wastes of time, and Sony seems to know their greenlighting was an operational failure.

As it stands now, the premium single-player titles are the greatest asset PlayStation has. Half of this generation being rocky will be a good lesson teaching not to mess around with that. Otherwise, they will continue making attempts.
Singleplayer-only games is a waste of time both for developers and players.
 

ProtoByte

Weeb Underling
Singleplayer-only games is a waste of time both for developers and players.
Players, no. There will always be a large subsection of the market that effectively want to play single player games alone.

Developers, well there's nothing in my post that insinuates the attraction to live service is irrational - but tell Crystal Dynamics, Bioware and Rocksteady that SP-only is a waste of time.

I know some people think that tacked on MP should return, but they don't understand that the games are too complex and the working culture is too different to facilitate that. You really have to choose between SP and MP unless you're CoD, and even that has been breached on at least 1 occasion. If you consider the SP of any CoD to have been truly fleshed out in recent years.
 
Last edited:

Inviusx

Member
I think hero shooters are the thing that's falling off, not live service games themselves.

I think hero shooters seem like a great idea on paper as they are so easily monetised if they blow up, skins and poses and charms and emotes and all that stuff just makes sense existing in that genre. Plus if they blow up, people form attachments to their favourite characters so there's that extra layer of buy in from customers as well.

I get why hero shooters have been a trend it makes so much sense as a business because the monetisation strategy wraps around it so well, it's win win for the company and the customer if it's successful.

I dont think Concord itself is the problem, it seems like a competent enough game from what I've heard. I just simply think it didn't hit and that is because of a range of different, much more nuanced reasons, not just "woke game bad".

Marathon is going to blow up, it will be a massive hit. Quote me if I end up being wrong.
 
The first game on your list is Redfall. It was hot garbage but not a service game. MS had them delay it to remove the GaaS focus. Imagine if it had stayed in, could have been even worse.

But no way, trend chasing will continue, because you still continue to have the juggernauts in the genre. As long as we have Fartnite and WarZone and Apex etc etc making tons of money, people will still try to make the next one. Think of all the service games that have come and gone.

In a few days we’ll have Smite 2. The cycle will continue.
 

sendit

Member
EraLwew.gif
 

Inviusx

Member
Interesting

Why do you think marathon is in a different boat? Bungie is obviously talented, but do extraction pvp shooters have a high ceiling?

I think just from a sociological perspective it will be "cool" to be positive about Marathon. The trailer has 21m views as of right now, it's slick and alternative and has a modern dystopia vibe and has enough mystery around its gameplay and development that its left people wantint more. It's already starting on the right foot and has an insane pedigree behind it. I see it snowballing from here and creating a fomo/zeitgeist at release that will be incredibly desirable to be a part of.

Bungie games traditionally have big impactful releases and long tails and streamers will want to make a name for themselves in the Marathon community which will draw in their viewers and the internet will be talking about it, it will be a big, exciting and well marketed release.

If the product looks "cool" and had a "cool" vibe, people will think it's cool to be positive and a part of that world and that community and the rest will be history.

I just feel it.
 
Maybe. But don’t forget games now take 6+ years to make, so even if they stop producing these games right now the next couple of years will still be full of chase trending clones.
 
Last edited:

pasterpl

Member
If the live service game is good it will do well. If it is shit it will not sell. Simple. Concord is that 2nd category. Live service games are not ending, too much money to be made.
 

Spyxos

Gold Member
What I find funny about Concord is people said Apex Legends' characters were ugly, but they seem downright great compared to how anal warts ugly Concord's characters are.

Every year it just gets worse, things just keep getting uglier and lamer.


Not a single one of those post WoW MMOs came even close to doing WoW numbers even though they cranked them out by the boatload, the same will be true here.

People are stupid and don't realize ultra big success like this can only happen once, you can't just repeat that formula, you have to come up with the next new innovation.
FF 14 is pretty big, but it also took some time to get there.
 

N1tr0sOx1d3

Given another chance
I want another live service hero shooter!!!!!1! Said no one ever.

Live service is fine if it’s a game people want and the roadmap is legit and ongoing costs are fair.

There's a reason why Helldivers 2 saw mass uptake and Concord fell flat. Thing is Sony knew this was going to be a flop since I’ve been spammed like no other game has over Concord and it’s impending release.
 

peek

Member
Imagine a western studio attempting to get into the gacha market with a big mainstream hit...

And all the characters look like theyre from concord. Now thats a winning strategy!
 
Last edited:

Hudo

Member
I will praise Concord as the best game ever if its failure means Bungie returning to proper singleplayer campaigns.
 
Last edited:

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
What do you think the next trend will be?
S&B started chasing the 'GaaS trend' more than 12 years ago. Yes we've had one full bust cycle while it was in development and are in the second one now - but this is never going away - no matter how much you wish it.
 

Majukun

Member
doubt so.
live services are still potential money makers and executives are willing to build 1/2 projects to look for the big one that rakes profits for 10 years straight

also, remember that projects now take a very long time to make, so we are stuill gonna get a bunch of project late to the party in the following years even if there's a course correction in the industry in the long term.

the funniest thing is that gaas started as small projects with big returns but for very few of them...and all executives could do was throw money at the idea so that now they are big projects with an high risk high reward connotation
 

kruis

Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
Better yet, was Concord so bad that it's going to get Fairgame$ canceled before it launches? I think it should. We all know it's another Bomba in the making. Hell even just letting those devs go to work tomorrow is a 5 digit expense. I say send a late Sunday evening email relieving them of their duties.



Sony is dumping thousands of dollars into this each and every day. 6 figures per week just in salary and overhead if I had to guess.


Yep, Fairgame$ will get exactly the same reaction as Concord. It is made for the same audience by a studio with the same sensibilities as Firewalk - and it will fail horribly.
 

Braag

Member
Live service games will live on until the industry finds something new to chase. Someone comes up with a new formula and make a ton of money, everyone in the industry start creating their own version of that new thing. 95% of them will fail, a ton of people lose their jobs and lots of studios close down because of it. It has always been so with the gaming industry.
 

simpatico

Gold Member
Live service games will live on until the industry finds something new to chase. Someone comes up with a new formula and make a ton of money, everyone in the industry start creating their own version of that new thing. 95% of them will fail, a ton of people lose their jobs and lots of studios close down because of it. It has always been so with the gaming industry.
It’s not even GaaS that’s inherently a problem. Give me a Rainbow 6 Vegas GaaS, and if it plays just like the OG, I’m gonna play the fuck out of it.
 

Allandor

Member
The first game on your list is Redfall. It was hot garbage but not a service game. MS had them delay it to remove the GaaS focus. Imagine if it had stayed in, could have been even worse.

But no way, trend chasing will continue, because you still continue to have the juggernauts in the genre. As long as we have Fartnite and WarZone and Apex etc etc making tons of money, people will still try to make the next one. Think of all the service games that have come and gone.

In a few days we’ll have Smite 2. The cycle will continue.
Also you need less players for a successful service game than for a single player game these days. But the playersustbbe active.

The risk of failure is high there. That's also why most of these games start in more or less early access (e.g. sea of thieves was so incomplete at the beginning). "Fail fast" is important with those games, so that not to many resources are allocated to a failure.

A big difference with single player games is, a single player games can life longer than the studio and still be a financial success with late sales. Multiplayer games not really. They often die faster than the content patches can arrive.
 
Sadly no. You will need at least several of Concord like failures in a row. They see Fortnight and the easy money if you do succeed. Games are designed in a board room now by people who don't even play games. Only bankruptcy will end this for many of these companies.
 
Top Bottom