• 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.

Nobody is wishlisting Concord on Steam

DonkeyPunchJr

World’s Biggest Weeb
Is it? All I know is that it can’t be worse than Redfall…

I’m a PlayStation fan, and I want concord to fail.
The free beta on Steam peaked at less than half of Redfall’s all time peak (Redfall peaked at 6000-something, Concord at 2300-something).

And keep in mind that Redfall was $70, and probably most people were playing on Gamepass instead of Steam. Whereas Concord beta was free, and they intend to charge $40 for the final release.
 

solidus12

Member
The free beta on Steam peaked at less than half of Redfall’s all time peak (Redfall peaked at 6000-something, Concord at 2300-something).

And keep in mind that Redfall was $70, and probably most people were playing on Gamepass instead of Steam. Whereas Concord beta was free, and they intend to charge $40 for the final release.
Redfall turned out to be a disaster though. Concord can’t be THAT bad.
 
Last edited:

ArtHands

Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
The free beta on Steam peaked at less than half of Redfall’s all time peak (Redfall peaked at 6000-something, Concord at 2300-something).

And keep in mind that Redfall was $70, and probably most people were playing on Gamepass instead of Steam. Whereas Concord beta was free, and they intend to charge $40 for the final release.

Just because Redfall is more successful than Concord right now doesn't mean Concord will be a failure.
 
I got an email from Sony thanking me for playing and asking for feedback via a survey.

4 weeks away from launch, they want feedback 🤦‍♂️

They genuinely must have thought this was a top notch game.
 

gothmog

Gold Member
I got an email from Sony thanking me for playing and asking for feedback via a survey.

4 weeks away from launch, they want feedback 🤦‍♂️

They genuinely must have thought this was a top notch game.
Yeah. I filled it out. Thinking about it if they launched as F2P with a limited set of characters while they reworked some of them it might help. Part of what kept me playing OW at first was the roster expanding bit by bit and not feeling overwhelmed at launch.
 
thats the thing, and they use this data to leadership as "look, its working, it keeps selling". It's difficult to grasp the consequences of this action in a short term period. For instance, myself I went like this:
  1. The Last of Us - Left Behind: this is fine!
  2. The Last of Us 2 (+ Neil interviews): mmm okay? I guess he wants to send a message.
  3. Spiderman Miles Morales: Ok........ whats up with this stuff about people putting their hands up and all this political flags. I will be more cautious with what I buy from Sony.
  4. Horizon 2: Okkkkk thats it, buying a PC (first time in like 10 years haha).
So in the process of like being turned off from this stuff, I still made 4 purchases to Sony. So from their side they were like "everything is fine, look at the numbers". But holy s%2t they lost a loyal customer from PS1 Era, like wth. I mean after they rebuild themselves again when they start seeing the trend then will be back so no hard feelings. (we just lost like an entire console generation because of this :/)
This. This is why unquestionably taking "orders" from the AAA marketing and business intelligence departments can be an actual risk or dangerous to the creative process. Those people have limited perception of long term creative consequences and reputational/brand damage they may involuntarily bring upon themselves. Their function hinges on crunching numbers and detecting fleeting trends/fads "in the moment" that could ultimately lead to compromising the final creation and its longevity.

People like that are in dire need of getting severely muzzled or influence nerfed within their own AAA orgs. There should be a call for shift in the power dynamic between actual developers/creators and the marketing suits pushing for ridiculous/nonsensical creative changes.*

*(mind you, this is taking into account a scenario where these activists masquerading as developers who have squatted AAA studios have been ousted.)
 
Last edited:

Boglin

Member
I might just have to wishlist it as my way of sending my thoughts and prayers to the devs during their tough times.
I won't actually buy it though. Ever.
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not


Firewalk isn't likely to be around by this time next year. And if what this guy's sources say is true, they deserve it more than I thought.

bg,f8f8f8-flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg







Firewalk and Haven are likely going to be Bungie support studios if their games fail.
Sony aint gonna close a studio they just acquired because of one bad game.
 

Varteras

Member
bg,f8f8f8-flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg







Firewalk and Haven are likely going to be Bungie support studios if their games fail.
Sony aint gonna close a studio they just acquired because of one bad game.

Depends on how much money they lost and how dysfunctional they appear. Pixelopus was a small team that only made two low budget games before they got closed.

Microsoft closed Alpha Dog and Arkane Austin after both studios dropped only one game under their ownership. Roundhouse never got to release a game before they were folded into another studio. Tango released two games within two years of being bought, one of which won awards. They still got closed in short order too.

I wouldn't be so confident about Firewalk sticking around if Concord absolutely craters after 5 years of development with no great games in its legacy to point to.
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Depends on how much money they lost and how dysfunctional they appear. Pixelopus was a small team that only made two low budget games before they got closed.

Microsoft closed Alpha Dog and Arkane Austin after both studios dropped only one game under their ownership. Roundhouse never got to release a game before they were folded into another studio. Tango released two games within two years of being bought, one of which won awards. They still got closed in short order too.

I wouldn't be so confident about Firewalk sticking around if Concord absolutely craters after 5 years of development with no great games in its legacy to point to.

FireWalk and Haven are still "good" at multiplayer and netcode.
Move some people around, keep the studios open to support Bungie and Sonys other multiplayer titles.

They aint wasting that talent, sure they might not be great game designers, but the engineering side of things seems solid and they would be a boon to Bungie and other studios.
 

Varteras

Member
FireWalk and Haven are still "good" at multiplayer and netcode.
Move some people around, keep the studios open to support Bungie and Sonys other multiplayer titles.

They aint wasting that talent, sure they might not be great game designers, but the engineering side of things seems solid and they would be a boon to Bungie and other studios.

You can't say anything about Haven's ability until we actually see their game. You're giving them a whole lot of credit for nothing.

Even if there is talent in these teams, it is more likely that they'd try to find jobs for them within functioning, successful teams instead of trying to keep the lights on at whole companies and hope they replace the right people. Bad studios are like cancer. Sometimes you can cut out the bad parts, but sometimes you just have to remove the whole organ.

That's what they did when they closed Pixelopus. One of its senior team members got a job elsewhere at PlayStation. Every studio has talent. That has no bearing on if they close a studio that ended up costing them a bunch of money.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
This. This is why unquestionably taking "orders" from the AAA marketing and business intelligence departments can be an actual risk or dangerous to the creative process. Those people have limited perception of long term creative consequences and reputational/brand damage they may involuntarily bring upon themselves. Their function hinges on crunching numbers and detecting fleeting trends/fads "in the moment" that could ultimately lead to compromising the final creation and its longevity.

People like that are in dire need of getting severely muzzled or influence nerfed within their own AAA orgs. There should be a call for shift in the power dynamic between actual developers/creators and the marketing suits pushing for ridiculous/nonsensical creative changes.*

*(mind you, this is taking into account a scenario where these activists masquerading as developers who have squatted AAA studios have been ousted.)
Well, it kind of depends on the game or franchise.

I don’t think any marketing dept or finance bean counters gunned for a game like concord. It was probably pushed through by weird creatives.

Business doesn’t have to be groundbreaking every time. Nor does bags of chips or coffee tables. Just make a solid product that people know they’ll get something pretty good and predictable and that’s good for long term success. Many of the most popular money making games are annual rehashes or one giant game that does updates or dlc like Minecraft or Fortnite for years.

That new delta force shooter game is wishlisted by tons of people. It looks like just one big BF dude bro military shooter. But if that’s what people like, it doesn’t have to be visionary. Just a solid big battle solider shooter with some tanks and helicopters thrown in.

I think the problem with creatives and anyone who goes against the grain is that they think their idea is best ever, and anything from another military shooter with an ak47 or chocolate chip cookie is dumb and boring. But hey, if they sell great because the general public likes it, then there’s no reason you can’t make a similar product and improve on it.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom