-
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 Registers 1100 players on First Day of Open Beta (Steam)
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Wow, I think you're onto something here. I didn't even think about that.
The game is just bad, and there's no real interest even from the twitch crowd. This is potentially worse than bleeding edge? That's wild.
havoc00
Member
Its better than bleeding edge
Kagoshima_Luke
Gold Member
I’m not sure you could get away with a $70 multiplayer only game these days. Most multiplayer only games are f2p. Not saying that it’s right or wrong, just the facts.
vaibhavpisal
Member
Out of curiosity I just went to check Bleeding Edge.
That game looks way cooler that Concord. Unique and could be fun.
Why does it have bad reputation exactly? Never followed it. Might give it a shot with a few friends.
havoc00
Member
It’s dead
YukiOnna
Member
She definitely did after 200 rolls
Fabieter
Member
I dont like Concord either but let's get real here way cooler than Concord is the stretch of the month.
vaibhavpisal
Member
Its not like something I have played before. That alone makes it way more interesting.
Fabieter
Member
What's so different about other mp games?
vaibhavpisal
Member
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Probably because every time the game was promoted it had this ugly image in everyone's face trying to be the coolest hero battler on Earth.
Fabieter
Member
I meant what's the different about bleeding edge than other mp games?
vaibhavpisal
Member
Probably because every time the game was promoted it had this ugly image in everyone's face trying to be the coolest hero battler on Earth.
Ah, I see.
Probably would’ve launched with little content as well.
Melee combat, arena style battles. Haven’t played any game like this before.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
They do.
They looked at the popularity of CSGO (PC only), TF2 (PC only), Valorant (PC only), and Overwatch and came to the conclusion a ton of people like these types of games.
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
I'm so fucking sick stupid ass gas mask every one these games and most of them dont use some kind of poison attack which would makes sense having gas mask on.Probably because every time the game was promoted it had this ugly image in everyone's face trying to be the coolest hero battler on Earth.
Last edited:
Unexpected hit on both console AND PC.
this is their stance for single player first party games. PlayStation first.
For GaaS titles, it’s clear they’re treating the PC side just as seriously.
Killjoy-NL
Gold Member
Doesn't change anything.
It's their overall stance, but more support for Gaas on PC compared to singleplayer is only logical.
That's also why Sony took on Concord, because the saturated market people are talking about is of far less concern on consoles, that's primarily an issue on PC, which is not Playstation's main focus.
Last edited:
Spyxos
Member
I am one of the few who liked the character designs. But I also didn't play it enough and it died very quickly. From the little I played, however, I found it better than Concord.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Not by much, really.
STARSBarry
Gold Member
Pretty much, however now you have potentially 85% of your customer base triggered instead of 15%.
When your entire game relies on people consistantly playing but also spending money, having characters that appeal to 85% of your playerbase is kind of important, especially when your entire revenue model will specalise on getting people to spend money on how those characters look. You can't just have one either since everyone would pick them and lock the other 4 players out, you need a cast of them.
They have heavily limited their audience here, but worse they have made characters so unappealing that I can't see people spending money on costumes unless those costumes completely replace them.
You can't argue that this doesn't matter to players when the reason they implement it is because it matters a lot to a much smaller minority of players. Worse they are then looking at the people they ignored with this design philosophy to carry the game for them. Essentially it's women's football all over where they complain that men aren't picking up the slack for the low viewing numbers and ticket sales.
Where done, we have actual games that cater to us to spend money on. Go market this at the splatoon players, they like this weird kind of shit, it even has an ugly furry to get them interested.
Last edited:
Killjoy-NL
Gold Member
Oh, I fully agree with you.
Contrary to popular belief, I'm against the Woke movement and forced inclusivity as well.
Firewalk created this shitstorm themselves and they need to avoid any misstep going forward.
And this game was already likely to perform decently at best.
If it flops, it's because of Firewalk's own doing and they should've seen the shitstorm coming.
STARSBarry
Gold Member
I guess my issue with the game is intent. Like there are some games that I have played and enjoyed that would be considered super woke.
The thing is though they are primarily indie titles, with limited budget and bunch of people wanting to tell the story they want to tell because no one else will.
The difference with Concord is it's trying to be the "next big thing" it's not here to try and push gaming forward as an art form, or to get you to ask questions about the human conditions that linger with you for hours. It's here as a GaaS to make money, as much of it as possible. The problem is they are pushing things that a majority find unappealing and carrying on pretending like this is normal. It comes across as disingenuous and patronising, which for a game that needs the 85% to be on board... is very bad.
I'm not sure this will even do middling, people said Suicide Squad did alright right up until WB was forced to admit it didn't, the argument was the same "steam numbers don't matter, its doing fine on console" and that does happen. However it's more often that things line up in similair ways.
Essentially I don't like how entirely fake and manufactured the game feels, and am staying away because I feel like any time spent would be wasted on a game that will just go into maintenance mode in 6 months anyway.
Last edited:
Killjoy-NL
Gold Member
I don't even think this will be Concords biggest issue.
The bigger issue to me seems like it'll be progression and incentive to play.
The progression system doesn't seem to do much and if they don't add something like BattlePasses or Warbonds (like HD2), or at least ranked matches, this game will most certainly die regardless of whatever agenda is being pushed.
dreamstation
Gold Member
Honestly the only unique multiplayer game in a long while is THE FINALS. Valorant is CS with heroes, XDefiant is CoD with heroes, Overwatch is shit. What else have I missed?
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
100% this.
The gameplay is fine. It's not appreciably worse than Overwatch, Valorant etc...but the progression in the beta is abysmal.
I assume they're hiding that aspect of the game because I unlocked about 3 cosmetics for characters I don't play the entire weekend.
LordofAllThatIsEvil
Member
Cancelled preorder. Took an hour
HeisenbergFX4
Member
I know it pisses people off when I say this but from what I have seen its literal only chance at survival is going F2P that is unless they are really holding back on what they have to show but if thats the case they better empty the chamber for this open beta
fart town usa
Member
The power of one, the power of two, the power of many.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Not totally.
When an SP game ports over they dont tell anyone till the last minute. The PS game can be announced years in advance. The PC game could be in port development for years and the release date to Steam might be only 3 or 4 months lead time. And nobody know which games come to PC.
Same goes for VR2 strategy. They announced in Feb a vague message about PC play bit didn't go into details until recently for an October dongle or whatever. It's not like they just started thinking about PC play in Feb for the first time. Been going on for a lot longer than that.
even their day one GAAS games on PC isnt clear. Only time any PS gamer would know that is if they keep up with gaming and read up on Sony exec Q&A articles. I don think Sony has ever boldly promoted to the public their 10 GAAS games in dev are all PC day one.
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
Evil Calvin
Afraid of Boobs
First Descendant rules. I'm no longer afraid of boobs.
yurinka
Member
The beta obviously only features a limited portion of the content and features to be included in the game. It's a GaaS, so make sure it will feature season passes/battle passes/warbonds or similar plus other monetization options, pretty likely related to cosmetics.
Same goes with the game modes, pretty likely there will be different ranked and casual game modes in addition to the ones available in the beta. Some of them at launch, and other ones planned to be added later to keep the game fresh with new stuff from time to time.
Sony has been clear saying that some of their games are ported to PC and others don't, and those who do, in case of GaaS depending on the case might release day one on PC.
In case of the Bungie games, all will be day one. GaaS games like MLB, GT7 or Firewall Ultra aren't in PC.
Sony never said that all their GaaS were going to be in PC day one. And never said that all their GaaS were going to be released on PC.
Helldivers 2.
Last edited:
GymWolf
Member
Was the preorder written in ancient sumerian language or what?
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
I think you need to talk to PlayStation support over the phone to cancel. It's BS.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
sadly I know that reference.
Games of Today
Member
LMFAO
yurinka
Member
The thing is that white males are the ones who consume these games, without them the game tanks.
The audience of shooters is mostly males according to different gaming genres studies. Their sales/userbase are mostly from EU and specially NA, so (looking at the population there) mostly white. And the majority of people are heterosexual too. So the typical/average shooter player is a white heterosexual man.
Trying to expand the game audience trying to make it appealing not only to this audience but to the other ones always is positive, maybe trying to add a portion of characters appealing to these audiences proportional to the proportion of these "minorities" in the game type, or the regions where these games are popular. That would be real inclusivity.
But this is not the case at all of the woke agenda we see reflected in the character selection and design we see in this game. Here they aren't inclusive, they hate some groups they want to replace: white, male and heterosexual. Characters are designed on purpose to don't be appealing to white heterosexual males: they are made ugly, fat, old, androginous, avoid having protagonists too masculine (they may left it for the bad guys or dumb characters, to portray males or masculinity as evil and toxic) and avoid having female character too femenine (among other reasons to trying break the traditional gender roles and to don't make them appealing to heterosexual males).
They use as excuse that they make some of these characters to represent people who are a tiny portion of the population interested on these games, making the game more appealing to them. But often these characters aren't even appealing for them: many fat people often want to play as fit, jacked characters. Many ugly people often want to play as handsome/pretty people. Many older people wants to play as young people. Many trans people wants to play as good looking cis people from the gender they identify with. Etc. Many women want to play with femenine characters who are good looking (both face and body), maybe insecure, or cute, etc.
More importantly, the woke stuff may attract some people, but pushes away way more people, which in cases like shooters represent the big majority of their potential userbase. This is the reason of why sometimes happens the go woke, go broke.
Games of Today
Member
I just want to say great job to Sony and Playstation.
Not only do they have several IP's that already have well established and enjoyable multiplayer experiences that they blatantly ignore but now on top of that they have stagnated in designing great single player games and instead give us this copy and paste hero shooter bullshit that no one even wanted 5 years ago when it was still fairly popular.
Not only do they have several IP's that already have well established and enjoyable multiplayer experiences that they blatantly ignore but now on top of that they have stagnated in designing great single player games and instead give us this copy and paste hero shooter bullshit that no one even wanted 5 years ago when it was still fairly popular.
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Sadly most people saw the fire before ever boarding and noped the fuck out
Last edited:
They have repeatedly confirmed that all their live service games will launch on PC Day 1
Killjoy-NL
Gold Member
So you feel underrepresented?
Fabieter
Member
This is actually something that overwatch did alot better too. The heroes based in real world countries and they were really varied and distinctive at the time OW1 released. It also had "woke" elements but it didnt matter because it was just an awesome roster with no apparent agenda.
Killjoy-NL
Gold Member
You're not wrong.
Don't get me wrong. The roster for Concord is Woke af. Too Woke imo.
My point was just that some people take it way too far. At least as far as the Wokeness goes.
Fabieter
Member
That was the part of my point if the cast is interesting enough people won't care if it's woke.
I played the beta to level 10 so I really gave it some time at least and I never picked one hero because I thought he looked cool or interesting. I tried most of the heroes to check what gameplay I like.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
they have two options in my book once they see how the open beta went:
1. Make it free to play
2. canceled it.
1. Make it free to play
2. canceled it.