-
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 is getting significant updates on Steam backend, F2P relaunch likely - Luke Sephens (Insider Gaming)
Dthomp
Member
Burning 400 million wasn't enough for Sony? I get that Jim Ryans legacy is really looking like dumb dude who blew 3. something billion on a dead animal named Bungie along with this, are they just gonna shoot for the even half a bill loss on Concord with the further development cost and work to go into something that even in a FTP state isn't likely even a top 5 game in the genre they want to be in (Thus meaning no player base or cash).
Cyber_hunter026
Member
GymWolf
Gold Member
Nordickratos
Neo Member
I agree that some of the designs were lame an unattractive, but the core gameplay was very fun imo. If they redesign the worst ones and have a good F2P model, the could find success.
The Cockatrice
Gold Member
Lmao at some of you expecting them to change the characters or make good ones. Nah, theyll double down as its the norm in the industry, itll go f2p but theyll monetize it to hell with garbage season passes. Its gameplay core was massively flawed and i doubt theyre going to start from scratch.
David Ricardo
Member
If they add some feminine heterosexual females, masculine heterosexual males and some interesting white people to the cast of charaters, it might still have a chance.
Like, it´s ok to have DEI characters, masculine women, feminine men, etc... as an option. Just don´t try to force people to use them. That´s when it backfires
Like, it´s ok to have DEI characters, masculine women, feminine men, etc... as an option. Just don´t try to force people to use them. That´s when it backfires
leonokarin
Member
：messenger_tears_of_joy：
ThisIsMyDog
Gold Member
I hope so! Game was great, i had this "punch the nazis" feeling when playing it, can't wait for new characters gender reveals!
Herbspiceguy
Member
When 1 humiliating failure of epic proportions just isn't enough.
Also anyone saying how the gameplay was so good, makes me wonder what's their history with online team-based (hero) shooters. Good compared to what? I can't help but feel these are players who don't go out of their favorite console bubble.
Also anyone saying how the gameplay was so good, makes me wonder what's their history with online team-based (hero) shooters. Good compared to what? I can't help but feel these are players who don't go out of their favorite console bubble.
Last edited:
hemo memo
You can't die before your death
Compared to Sony's last online team-based hero shooter.
Nobody was interested in the free open beta, they ain’t gonna be interested in a f2p version either. Plus the name/game is now pretty much kryptonite. This isn’t a “there was something special there that people kinda loved, but it was a broken mess and/or became boring too quickly and needed a rework” such as ffOnline, cyberpunk or NMS. I would doubt very much they’ll do a cyberpunk level of effort (which cost them $125mil), and was still fundamentally the same game. Just seems a massive waste of resources to attempt to breathe life into this thing 
Dr.Morris79
Gold Member
midnightAI
Member
That's the thing, the gameplay was actually pretty good, its just everything around that that needs changing. But the question is, why play this over Overwatch? They need to massively improve the characters, designs and all, but will they do that since they spent so much money on these story cutscenes involving the characters.
midnightAI
Member
That would be hilarious and I'm here for it
Setsuna Mudou
Member
just kill it already, fuck...
Schmendrick
Member
classic sunken cost fallacy.
Begleiter
Member
Pet Sematary Concord would actually be worth trying for an afternoon.
STARSBarry
Gold Member
This was pointed out like 2 days after shutdown, I read a discussion about it literally like 2 weeks ago talking about the same thing and the frequent updates.
Why is this suddenly news today? They could have just read the subreddit once to know this.
Why is this suddenly news today? They could have just read the subreddit once to know this.
Last edited:
PurePlatinum
Neo Member
If they were smart they’d let it go. No need for the negative publicity twice.
Interfectum
Member
She’s cooking bros.
N1tr0sOx1d3
Given another chance
PeteBull
Member
Another price increase for ps5 slim and the pr0, that will 4sure teach those mysogonists pigs =D
justiceiro
Marlboro: Other M
Make the girls have huge tits/ass and I will give it a chance
Dr.Morris79
Gold Member
SkylineRKR
Member
Sony is better off writing this off, an F2P project needs ongoing support. The MTX selling potential of this game is low to none.
They could redesign it and make it look cool, this would be their only shot. But I doubt it, these guys are woke as fuck.
They could redesign it and make it look cool, this would be their only shot. But I doubt it, these guys are woke as fuck.
PeteBull
Member
Thats the danger western devs/pubs face nowadays, before top priority was to make highest quality product which simply made them big profit, as consequence.
Nowadays tho top priority is to push woke agenda, which means they will rather push faulty and low quality prouct that not only doesnt make them money but is full fat failure, as long as it pushes agenda they want, instea they will simply make profit on consoles which were sold at a loss(sometimes over 200$ loss like ps3 at launch) all previous gens.
ManaByte
Gold Member
It's hard to believe, but there are people who hate Overwatch MORE than Concord. OW2 is thriving, but the entire reason Marvel Rivals is getting any sort of attention is because there are people who hate OW2 so much that they'll gladly let the CCP farm their info with a Marvel re-skin of OW2 than play the actual game.
midnightAI
Member
yeh, its weird, OW2 is fine, my main problem with OW2 was that it is essentially OW1 but all your gained skins were gone (mostly, OW1 gave you more stuff for 'free' in comparison also so OW2 is more monetised through season passes and even then you have to grind that season pass to get the best loot, kinda expected as it went from paid to F2P). OW2 at launch also had major balance issues but those are mostly improved.
ManaByte
Gold Member
That's 100% not true. I played OW1 extensively and all of my skins transferred over the OW2. The only way you'd lose them is if you refused to link your Battle.net account to each platform, which some idiots did refuse to do for idiot reasons.
OW1 also used loot boxes, which 99% of the people here hated. But as soon as OW2 became F2P with a battle pass people were lamenting the loss of loot boxes for some bizarro reason.
midnightAI
Member
To be fair, we lost our skins, it was linked, didn't transfer, so guess it was just an issue with our account (well, my daughter's, she plays it way more than the rest of us). And we never complained about loot boxes, they were part of the fun, a bit like gatcha games. She still plays it a lot though, me not so much since it changed to OW2
MethodRed
Member
Osaka_Boss
Member
They wont be able to change the characters, due to the cgs and all the money already spent. It is Dead, Jim
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
If they go F2P, I have a hard time believing Sony thinks it's a financially wise move.
But for sake of saving face, shutting down the game and studio looks bad. So might as well toss in a bit more money to keep it alive and try again. It will fail again, but at least it lasted longer. The good 'ol longer the better strategy.
It's like sports. Team gets burned signing a player to a big expensive contract. Player tanks bad. Right thing to do is bench the guy until he can prove he's worth it again in the minor leagues or in practice. And if he still sucks, bite the bullet and get rid of him in a trade or buy out.
But what do most teams do? Keep him lingering around tanking the team. Sometimes it seems the coach and owners play him more so he gets face time to shop around.
If nothing happens, the lousy player sticks around for years before finally being ridden of as the owners try to at least save face that "ya he stunk but at least we got 3 years out of him so it's not that bad".
If FW and Concord go F2P, that's the impression I get.
Loui Eriksson comes to mind. He's a Canucks player player who got a big contract after being a good player on Dallas and Boston (consistent 30G/60pt player). Comes to Canucks and he can barely even score 10 goals. Best season was 11G/29pts. Canucks signed him to a 6 year/$36M contract. They kept him around for 4 years! LOL
But for sake of saving face, shutting down the game and studio looks bad. So might as well toss in a bit more money to keep it alive and try again. It will fail again, but at least it lasted longer. The good 'ol longer the better strategy.
It's like sports. Team gets burned signing a player to a big expensive contract. Player tanks bad. Right thing to do is bench the guy until he can prove he's worth it again in the minor leagues or in practice. And if he still sucks, bite the bullet and get rid of him in a trade or buy out.
But what do most teams do? Keep him lingering around tanking the team. Sometimes it seems the coach and owners play him more so he gets face time to shop around.
If nothing happens, the lousy player sticks around for years before finally being ridden of as the owners try to at least save face that "ya he stunk but at least we got 3 years out of him so it's not that bad".
If FW and Concord go F2P, that's the impression I get.
Loui Eriksson comes to mind. He's a Canucks player player who got a big contract after being a good player on Dallas and Boston (consistent 30G/60pt player). Comes to Canucks and he can barely even score 10 goals. Best season was 11G/29pts. Canucks signed him to a 6 year/$36M contract. They kept him around for 4 years! LOL
Last edited:
Tiago Rodrigues
Member
We have no good source on this number...plus supposedly that's how much it costed for the entire project, Sony only acquired this studio last year.
That said...Sony come on. Just let it die. No one wants this. And i'm sure they aren't even changing the most important things: the entire aesthetic of the game, characters, etc. They will probably just try to go for a F2P approach, flop again, getting laughed at even more and then they will finally close the studio.
DonF
Member
They are shit out of luck. Any change to the characters will bring the hordes. They can't change characters or remove pronouns. So they have to heavily change the gameplay.
Gameplay was cool but way too slow, but they also said that this slowness was to bring casual, so lots of people that played the game and liked the flow, are going to complain.
I just don't feel like this game can make a good comeback. Any change is going to be against it's foundation.
Gameplay was cool but way too slow, but they also said that this slowness was to bring casual, so lots of people that played the game and liked the flow, are going to complain.
I just don't feel like this game can make a good comeback. Any change is going to be against it's foundation.
Impotaku
Member
Nah they should remove all guns, you can only attack by deadnaming each other.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Totally.
When you bring politics in, good luck trying to scrape by with nobody noticing.
The game already got bombed for bad graphics, colour palette, characters and pronouns. If they change it, the other side (the small number of people who liked it) will then complain. And the people who laughed at it to begin with will laugh again they did a 180.
They are in a no win situation. If the game sold and was received well, and they did was do a patch to adjust gunplay or tweak some maps or levelling progression like any other shooter does with an early patch, that'd be welcomed and not the type of thing to laugh or complain about. But political changes will be. And changing from $40 to F2P this fast will be too.
If they do re-release the game, it'll be a hilarious onslaught of YT videos and memes again.
Last edited:
MayauMiao
Member
Or never acknowledge their pronouns.
