I have no sympathy for Concord. It’s astounding that nobody realised in over 8 years that this game wouldn’t be popular with neither its initial target audience or the current one. In the end both laughed at the embarrassing display of corporate stupidity. All that money could have gone towards a bloodborne remaster, or hell, just a 60FPS PS5 paid upgrade and more people would have been happier.
What really frustrates me is that it was a competent, functioning shooter. In a market where releasing critically broken is accepted and common, this actually worked. And yet it failed worse than any of them
Buggy games can sometimes provide entertainment value in their own "so-bad-it's-good" right...Concord was an essentially functional game but had next to nothing of value worth your time.
@@noBody-ue6cs that's the thing the bar has been that low for so long. We have given so many games second and third chances. AC Unity, Arkham Knight, No Man's Sky, Cyberpunk. These games have vision and art. Yet at launch were broken messes. I just want a game that works on day one that has vision and compelling reason to stay.
simple; wrong time and place, they tried to compete against a multitude of free-to-play games, doing nothing innovative or special game mechanics wise.. IMO they tried to do Overwatch + Guardians of the galaxy (popular when this game was in early development) and failed to take into account how the gaming market changed...
The gaming market hasn’t changed that drastically. If your game is the kind of fun some/many people are looking for and it’s marketed effectively, people will inevitably play it. That hasn’t changed since I picked up video games all the way till now, unless I missed something major. Although it’s easier said than done, a massive company with a budget like Sony doesn’t really have an excuse.
wrong, it was a tone deaf game pushing ESG/DEI agenda thinking "we if it plays like those other things and has a big budget it'll do fine" it was made by an echo chamber company that refused to realize they were the problem
Concord was dated, unbalanced, unfinished, unfocused & ugly. It wouldn't have a sustainable audience even if it was free and no matter how desperate entities are to call it functional and "good". That's why it's gone. The Robot Pronoun game will not be missed and is factually more revelant in death then it would ever be alive.
@@darkmistico It would've stayed active for only maybe a few months more *_at best._* The character design is still hideous, offering zero aesthetic charm or function, and the game is still just an inferior Hero Shooter that does nothing to appealingly differentiate itself in an oversaturated market. What is known of the dev team's attitudes tells us that the entire creation process was likely doomed from the start due to egotistic employees and team leaders and out-of-touch higher-ups likely leading to highly toxic work culture and social bubble where nothing could get done because no one would accept criticism or consider fault.
The concept of a big budget single player RPG with friends being able to tag along made by Sony sounds way more interesting than what we got. Side note, remnant 2 is basically that and it’s amazing.
Step 1. Start developing your game during the highest high of Marvel Step 2. Make your game a derivative hero shooter with a Guardians of the Galaxy tone Step 3. Have a pandemic and mismanagement severely diminish the Marvel IP Step 4. Allow sexual misconduct and executive overreach to diminish the Overwatch IP Step 5. Have Marvel Rivals exist Step 6. Charge 40$ in a market comprised wholly of Free-to-Play titles Step 7. Launch the game
@@luke_rs I'm not interested in that angle. Overwatch and Marvel are diverse and inclusive universes, and they are some of the biggest franchises in their respective industry. What matters a lot more than the beliefs of those involved, is the power and vision of the director. People in tech and entertainment have always leaned progressive and liberal, because it makes sense; you always want to outdo yourself and see what comes next in those industries.
@@lastdayer101 DEI isn't bad in principle. It's that now it doesn't feel authentic, it feels forced. Concord feels like it is going through a checklist. Everyone loves Lando Calrissian. Everyone loves Axel Foley. Nobody cared that they were black. Their skin colour wasn't their entire personality. Everyone loves Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor etc. Their gender wasn't their entire personality.
There are two major reason why "Concord" failed: 1. The biggest and primary reason: Community management/PR. Gamers are going to always complain about something. How a company relates and deals with gamers/customers will make or break a game. "Concord's" community management/PR should be studied in business schools for the next 50 years and be a cautionary lesson on what NOT to do with games/customers. 2. This is an elephant in the room and I do not wish your comments section to devolve into a den of controversy. However, everyone reading this, you, and I know that reason. Enough said. Yours was a good and fair analysis. Sub.
For 2, for myself that doesn't even really matter if you make your game something people want to play. I'm playing a farming Sim with a Link to the Past graphics. Is cute as heck and EVERYONE has their pronouns in their bio. (Including you.) However the game is cute, charming and has interesting characters. So therefore being woke isn't entirely a problem. Is the fact that the developers of the game treat themselves as gods and expect everyone to bow to them. It's the fact that those involved in the game basically go 'you don't deserve this game' rather than. 'Yeah but look at this- **shows cool game mechanics**' I mean know what I haven't seen? A hero shooter that works EMOTES into game play. Like use an emote and this can give temp buffs or debuffs. Which would be interesting to see. This game is actually perfect for that. ((The farming Sim is called tales of mistaria))
@@ejeckk, honestly it doesn’t need to be studied extensively. You just need to tell your students that calling your target audience “Talentless freaks” in a public online comment section is probably… oh I don’t know… #%#^ing stupid? Really let’s the gamers know how valued they are by the dev team of this poor attempt at an overwatch clone. As for number 2. Maybe actively choosing to avoid making characters look attractive, believable or hench in an industry that loves those elements of a character design… is also just maybe… %+#^ing stupid?
17:46 This right here is part of why I stick to single-player games. Sure, they don't always have that mass market general appeal, but I at least am able to enjoy them without needing an entire group of people to make the game fun for me.
I actually think that cinematic that you played a part of was actually pretty cute. The writing in Concord probably could have endeared people to these characters. I feel like that's actually a strong suit in my opinion, I really like that woman who talks about not being disappointed and the robot talking about how clean he keeps. The ship is funny. It's just endearing and nice that he takes such pride in his primary design. Those are definitely little nuggets of brilliance to me, while that character that acts like drax is a bit played out and silly, I feel like they were at least doing something interesting with a few of these characters in terms of writing and personality.
the robot that cleans. So kryten then. The funny ship computer is done to death. All of it was done to death. Tropes so worn out you could use them to trawl for fish.
No hook, and i cant understand how the designer/artists can take themselves seriously. If you take a monochromatic filter on em youll discover they made a huge basic mistake in colour values, with no distinctions. This could be as you said; done after they were made and ruined by a committee, in some odd way. It seems like a dish that they tried to recook several times, but it ended up as some gray, odd, porridge
It's not complicated. They Made a game with ugly characters and decided to charge $40 for it. People didn't like it and moved on. That's it. The whole wrong time to release is not an excuse. Go take a look at Marvel Rivals.
Yeah the fate of games as a service is a cruel one..... Your first statement I think it summarizes it perfectly. Thats why im more inclined with single player experiences latelly and im happy about it
This was a well articulated video! I believe this game flopped simply because it had no real hook. The artstyle choice was just not interesting, the characters don't stick with you (and don't look very good for the most part), and the game was just too expensive for what ultimately turned out as a 'good' game in a market where your competitiors are free to play.
My theory: this actually was an _Ocean's 11_ or GotG co-op game fighting an enemy faction through complex missions. Like HD2, the campaign would evolve over time. But... Sony wasn't happy with the timeline and had the devs cut the missions and story to push it out as a 5v5 rather than wait for the completed game. They handed them a bunch of focus group studies and said "check the boxes."
One can hope that the contrast of Concord's terrible, expensive failure as a complete product and the ongoing rip-roaring success of Deadlock as an Alpha Test teaches more companies that you have to start play-testing early.
Definitely bad ides to not playtest this, warframe devs had closed alpha of hero shooter with a 80s comics artsyle and they cancelled it years ago(they actually showed it in their devstream and did allow youtube videos about it at some point as well, fitst was called Keystone and renamed to Amazing Eternals). There were already too many better options out there.
@@635574 Would you believe me if I told you I instantly remembered the art for that game, though crucially, not the name. It was going for a mix of retro sci-fi aesthetics from a number of decades, I think? Missed out on seeing the actual gameplay before I went hunting for it just now. Thank You for bringing it up.
The free gunners fighting each other is totally fine. Even if it doesn't fit the proper lore of who's on what side because OverWatch is constantly at odds when members of talon are fighting with previous members of OverWatch or tracer is fighting another tracer on the enemy team. I don't think the lore of Concord was an issue.
If I can throw in my 2 cents, I only liked It-Z and Teo because they had the most damage. Shooting opponents as any other character just wasn't satisfying. I didn't like the SHOOTING in this shooter.
I already questioned Devs since they thought they could win Hero shooter market. There are many games that ppl are playing so it doesn't make sense if they just slide themselves into this massive market.
I play OW with my gf and friends every week. We're totally casual and just play for fun, even if we also enjoy being competitive. Ive never bought a skin, tho i do buy the battlepasses and i think its money well spent. I consider Overwatch to be the greatest game ever made (controversial with the Blizzard and Overwatch derangement mentality, i know) and its completely free. I also have lots of friends ive met on Overwatch, some of the nicest, coolest people i know and ive known some of them since 2016. Ive also met multiple girlfriends on there, and our shared love of the game always helped us to bond. The vitriol against Overwatch is completely irrational imo, and people who dont like the game need to move on and accept that just because they dont like something, doesnt mean its bad. Over 100 million lifetime players proves my point i think. But hey, hate it if you want to, sad existence and a waste of energy tbh.
I still love playing Overwatch, and it seems like a lot more people are playing since it went free-to-play too - but I definitely don't unlock as many cosmetics as I used to!!
I still get frustrated anytime. Somebody says OverWatch 2 is a monetization nightmare. Like we used to do loot boxes in OverWatch. Objectively always took me more money and random chance to get any skin I actually wanted before. Plus I personally really enjoy the ebb and flow of battle pass progression. It's just me but I vastly prefer paying for a battle pass optionally then gambling away my money to loot boxes.
It's probably a good thing we've left loot boxes in the past, and I'm glad they backtracked on locking new heroes behind the battle pass at least, because that was the most egregious thing to me. Still though, I felt like I was unlocking a lot more cosmetics, more regularly, in Overwatch 1, and without paying more than the price of the game.
12:48 ESG/DEI designs, perfectly valid complaint, 13:57 it wasn't committee it was agenda pushing the issue of their design aside from agenda is their amorphous, lack any personality or anything at all 13:30 there were no "cooler designs", in their minds it was fine and any complaint was just "bigots/white noise" to ignore, this is the problem with narcissists in the industry now
Yeah no. Companies exist to make money, they only care about "agenda" as far as it will make more money. Don't be fooled by their BS, it's all about the money, and here the people making it didn't have the passion.
I do think they took the wrong lessons from stuff like OverWatch or valorant. Like yes, the character should be very identifiable and have a not overly designed base outfit HOWEVER, there are definitely ways to make a character's base really identifiable and stand out. I feel That Concord really didn't do this, which makes it feel like they're waiting to sell you items later down the line to make these characters look better. You'd also think they'd want the base outfits to be very good in identifiable to sell merch because OverWatch and other hero shooters clearly are vying for this sort of appeal and most of the designs in Concord end up missing.
You can watch videos created by experts on art design, color, etc. This title was noticeably aweful. Socialist ideologies come to inevitably hate and seek to destroy that which is beautiful as beauty in all its forms is hierarchical.
Its not that concord didn't do enough to convince people it was worth their time. Look at deadlock. It did nothing to convince anyone of anything and it has over 100k players. Concord was not worth their time. It came late bringing a $40 price tag to a crowd of free games that did exactly what concord did, but better.
What made me sad is that it was a 40 dollar paid game with no battlepass, no paid characters and all the seasonal dlc content up front and gamers said "Nah we want free to play, season passes and micro transactions."
I have no sympathy for Concord. It’s astounding that nobody realised in over 8 years that this game wouldn’t be popular with neither its initial target audience or the current one. In the end both laughed at the embarrassing display of corporate stupidity.
All that money could have gone towards a bloodborne remaster, or hell, just a 60FPS PS5 paid upgrade and more people would have been happier.
Who knew that making a Overwatch clone, slapping a price on it, and fill it with boring/bland characters was a bad idea?
What really frustrates me is that it was a competent, functioning shooter. In a market where releasing critically broken is accepted and common, this actually worked. And yet it failed worse than any of them
Buggy games can sometimes provide entertainment value in their own "so-bad-it's-good" right...Concord was an essentially functional game but had next to nothing of value worth your time.
Was it though? The game was incredibly slow and visually hard to read because everything's dirt coloured. Maybe it was functional but it wasn't fun
But was it a good shooter? 🤔🤣😂🤣😂 any they're asking for 40$ for the Overwatch we have at home.
The bar is set really low if you think functioning is enough to not just sell a game, but compete with other titles.
@@noBody-ue6cs that's the thing the bar has been that low for so long. We have given so many games second and third chances. AC Unity, Arkham Knight, No Man's Sky, Cyberpunk.
These games have vision and art. Yet at launch were broken messes. I just want a game that works on day one that has vision and compelling reason to stay.
simple; wrong time and place, they tried to compete against a multitude of free-to-play games, doing nothing innovative or special game mechanics wise.. IMO they tried to do Overwatch + Guardians of the galaxy (popular when this game was in early development) and failed to take into account how the gaming market changed...
The gaming market hasn’t changed that drastically. If your game is the kind of fun some/many people are looking for and it’s marketed effectively, people will inevitably play it.
That hasn’t changed since I picked up video games all the way till now, unless I missed something major. Although it’s easier said than done, a massive company with a budget like Sony doesn’t really have an excuse.
wrong, it was a tone deaf game pushing ESG/DEI agenda thinking "we if it plays like those other things and has a big budget it'll do fine" it was made by an echo chamber company that refused to realize they were the problem
Concord was dated, unbalanced, unfinished, unfocused & ugly. It wouldn't have a sustainable audience even if it was free and no matter how desperate entities are to call it functional and "good". That's why it's gone. The Robot Pronoun game will not be missed and is factually more revelant in death then it would ever be alive.
Nah men... if the game came out as free to play... the would have been a lot of latinoamericans that would play it
@@darkmisticoWould it've been enough? Concord had problems affecting it at every level, from design to management.
@@humrH2360 they. Shot themselfs in the foot by making it 40 dollars. We will never know what could happend if the game camee out as free to play
@@darkmistico It would've stayed active for only maybe a few months more *_at best._* The character design is still hideous, offering zero aesthetic charm or function, and the game is still just an inferior Hero Shooter that does nothing to appealingly differentiate itself in an oversaturated market. What is known of the dev team's attitudes tells us that the entire creation process was likely doomed from the start due to egotistic employees and team leaders and out-of-touch higher-ups likely leading to highly toxic work culture and social bubble where nothing could get done because no one would accept criticism or consider fault.
@@humrH2360 to be honest i just knew about the game when it flopped
Oh, this had a great trailer. Thought it was going to be a single player RPG with friends drop in.
Then it was an arena shooter for some reason.
They blue balled us
The concept of a big budget single player RPG with friends being able to tag along made by Sony sounds way more interesting than what we got.
Side note, remnant 2 is basically that and it’s amazing.
Step 1. Start developing your game during the highest high of Marvel
Step 2. Make your game a derivative hero shooter with a Guardians of the Galaxy tone
Step 3. Have a pandemic and mismanagement severely diminish the Marvel IP
Step 4. Allow sexual misconduct and executive overreach to diminish the Overwatch IP
Step 5. Have Marvel Rivals exist
Step 6. Charge 40$ in a market comprised wholly of Free-to-Play titles
Step 7. Launch the game
You forgot the part about being a vehicle for DEI trash.
@@luke_rs I'm not interested in that angle. Overwatch and Marvel are diverse and inclusive universes, and they are some of the biggest franchises in their respective industry.
What matters a lot more than the beliefs of those involved, is the power and vision of the director. People in tech and entertainment have always leaned progressive and liberal, because it makes sense; you always want to outdo yourself and see what comes next in those industries.
@@lastdayer101 Yeah, and Marvel is failing and Overwatch has overwhelmingly negative reviews on steam.
@@luke_rs come on, you are not this stupid. They had the same values when they were at their highest point. Logically, DEI can't be the reason.
@@lastdayer101 DEI isn't bad in principle. It's that now it doesn't feel authentic, it feels forced. Concord feels like it is going through a checklist. Everyone loves Lando Calrissian. Everyone loves Axel Foley. Nobody cared that they were black. Their skin colour wasn't their entire personality. Everyone loves Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor etc. Their gender wasn't their entire personality.
There are two major reason why "Concord" failed:
1. The biggest and primary reason: Community management/PR. Gamers are going to always complain about something. How a company relates and deals with gamers/customers will make or break a game. "Concord's" community management/PR should be studied in business schools for the next 50 years and be a cautionary lesson on what NOT to do with games/customers.
2. This is an elephant in the room and I do not wish your comments section to devolve into a den of controversy. However, everyone reading this, you, and I know that reason. Enough said.
Yours was a good and fair analysis. Sub.
For 2, for myself that doesn't even really matter if you make your game something people want to play. I'm playing a farming Sim with a Link to the Past graphics. Is cute as heck and EVERYONE has their pronouns in their bio. (Including you.) However the game is cute, charming and has interesting characters. So therefore being woke isn't entirely a problem.
Is the fact that the developers of the game treat themselves as gods and expect everyone to bow to them. It's the fact that those involved in the game basically go 'you don't deserve this game' rather than. 'Yeah but look at this- **shows cool game mechanics**'
I mean know what I haven't seen? A hero shooter that works EMOTES into game play. Like use an emote and this can give temp buffs or debuffs. Which would be interesting to see. This game is actually perfect for that.
((The farming Sim is called tales of mistaria))
@@ejeckk, honestly it doesn’t need to be studied extensively. You just need to tell your students that calling your target audience “Talentless freaks” in a public online comment section is probably… oh I don’t know… #%#^ing stupid? Really let’s the gamers know how valued they are by the dev team of this poor attempt at an overwatch clone.
As for number 2. Maybe actively choosing to avoid making characters look attractive, believable or hench in an industry that loves those elements of a character design… is also just maybe… %+#^ing stupid?
@mariawhite7337 TF2 kinda does that funnily enough, the taunts can be useful at times in weird and wacky situations
Well deadlock has 2 and is succeeding massively. I don't think the elephant is as big as you think.
17:46 This right here is part of why I stick to single-player games. Sure, they don't always have that mass market general appeal, but I at least am able to enjoy them without needing an entire group of people to make the game fun for me.
I play single player, cooperative, and competitive multiplayer. I play and enjoy it all.
I actually think that cinematic that you played a part of was actually pretty cute. The writing in Concord probably could have endeared people to these characters. I feel like that's actually a strong suit in my opinion, I really like that woman who talks about not being disappointed and the robot talking about how clean he keeps. The ship is funny. It's just endearing and nice that he takes such pride in his primary design. Those are definitely little nuggets of brilliance to me, while that character that acts like drax is a bit played out and silly, I feel like they were at least doing something interesting with a few of these characters in terms of writing and personality.
the robot that cleans. So kryten then.
The funny ship computer is done to death. All of it was done to death. Tropes so worn out you could use them to trawl for fish.
No hook, and i cant understand how the designer/artists can take themselves seriously. If you take a monochromatic filter on em youll discover they made a huge basic mistake in colour values, with no distinctions. This could be as you said; done after they were made and ruined by a committee, in some odd way.
It seems like a dish that they tried to recook several times, but it ended up as some gray, odd, porridge
It's not complicated. They Made a game with ugly characters and decided to charge $40 for it. People didn't like it and moved on. That's it.
The whole wrong time to release is not an excuse. Go take a look at Marvel Rivals.
The Acolyte of Hero Shooters
Yeah the fate of games as a service is a cruel one..... Your first statement I think it summarizes it perfectly. Thats why im more inclined with single player experiences latelly and im happy about it
This was a well articulated video!
I believe this game flopped simply because it had no real hook. The artstyle choice was just not interesting, the characters don't stick with you (and don't look very good for the most part), and the game was just too expensive for what ultimately turned out as a 'good' game in a market where your competitiors are free to play.
My theory: this actually was an _Ocean's 11_ or GotG co-op game fighting an enemy faction through complex missions. Like HD2, the campaign would evolve over time.
But...
Sony wasn't happy with the timeline and had the devs cut the missions and story to push it out as a 5v5 rather than wait for the completed game. They handed them a bunch of focus group studies and said "check the boxes."
One can hope that the contrast of Concord's terrible, expensive failure as a complete product and the ongoing rip-roaring success of Deadlock as an Alpha Test teaches more companies that you have to start play-testing early.
Definitely bad ides to not playtest this, warframe devs had closed alpha of hero shooter with a 80s comics artsyle and they cancelled it years ago(they actually showed it in their devstream and did allow youtube videos about it at some point as well, fitst was called Keystone and renamed to Amazing Eternals). There were already too many better options out there.
@@635574 Would you believe me if I told you I instantly remembered the art for that game, though crucially, not the name.
It was going for a mix of retro sci-fi aesthetics from a number of decades, I think?
Missed out on seeing the actual gameplay before I went hunting for it just now. Thank You for bringing it up.
From everyone I heard play
It, it was either fine, awesome game play, but it was never trash - I have not heard anyone say it was trash.
The free gunners fighting each other is totally fine. Even if it doesn't fit the proper lore of who's on what side because OverWatch is constantly at odds when members of talon are fighting with previous members of OverWatch or tracer is fighting another tracer on the enemy team. I don't think the lore of Concord was an issue.
1.hate the target audience. (And fight them on social media)
2.make characters ugly
3.oh look at that, even the gameplay is mediocre.
4. $40 upfront
If I can throw in my 2 cents, I only liked It-Z and Teo because they had the most damage. Shooting opponents as any other character just wasn't satisfying. I didn't like the SHOOTING in this shooter.
Haymar was OP
Teo definitely seemed like the favourite - I think I would have played as him a lot more otherwise!!
I already questioned Devs since they thought they could win Hero shooter market. There are many games that ppl are playing so it doesn't make sense if they just slide themselves into this massive market.
I play OW with my gf and friends every week. We're totally casual and just play for fun, even if we also enjoy being competitive. Ive never bought a skin, tho i do buy the battlepasses and i think its money well spent. I consider Overwatch to be the greatest game ever made (controversial with the Blizzard and Overwatch derangement mentality, i know) and its completely free. I also have lots of friends ive met on Overwatch, some of the nicest, coolest people i know and ive known some of them since 2016. Ive also met multiple girlfriends on there, and our shared love of the game always helped us to bond. The vitriol against Overwatch is completely irrational imo, and people who dont like the game need to move on and accept that just because they dont like something, doesnt mean its bad. Over 100 million lifetime players proves my point i think. But hey, hate it if you want to, sad existence and a waste of energy tbh.
I still love playing Overwatch, and it seems like a lot more people are playing since it went free-to-play too - but I definitely don't unlock as many cosmetics as I used to!!
It's not killed in 2 weeks. It has been dead for around 1-8 years already.
It’s rotting body barely made it past the 8 year development finish line and it was dead a few steps afterwards.
I still get frustrated anytime. Somebody says OverWatch 2 is a monetization nightmare. Like we used to do loot boxes in OverWatch. Objectively always took me more money and random chance to get any skin I actually wanted before. Plus I personally really enjoy the ebb and flow of battle pass progression. It's just me but I vastly prefer paying for a battle pass optionally then gambling away my money to loot boxes.
It's probably a good thing we've left loot boxes in the past, and I'm glad they backtracked on locking new heroes behind the battle pass at least, because that was the most egregious thing to me. Still though, I felt like I was unlocking a lot more cosmetics, more regularly, in Overwatch 1, and without paying more than the price of the game.
Playing the game is like liking the very individuals who careered demonizing and attacking the gamers for years.
12:48 ESG/DEI designs, perfectly valid complaint, 13:57 it wasn't committee it was agenda pushing
the issue of their design aside from agenda is their amorphous, lack any personality or anything at all
13:30 there were no "cooler designs", in their minds it was fine and any complaint was just "bigots/white noise" to ignore, this is the problem with narcissists in the industry now
Good points sir
Yeah no. Companies exist to make money, they only care about "agenda" as far as it will make more money. Don't be fooled by their BS, it's all about the money, and here the people making it didn't have the passion.
I do think they took the wrong lessons from stuff like OverWatch or valorant. Like yes, the character should be very identifiable and have a not overly designed base outfit HOWEVER, there are definitely ways to make a character's base really identifiable and stand out. I feel That Concord really didn't do this, which makes it feel like they're waiting to sell you items later down the line to make these characters look better. You'd also think they'd want the base outfits to be very good in identifiable to sell merch because OverWatch and other hero shooters clearly are vying for this sort of appeal and most of the designs in Concord end up missing.
If you know how the varietie systems was going work. It was always going die, it super convoluted and would of gatekeept casual players
You can watch videos created by experts on art design, color, etc. This title was noticeably aweful. Socialist ideologies come to inevitably hate and seek to destroy that which is beautiful as beauty in all its forms is hierarchical.
Who knew this game would keep Overwatch still alive.
I'm willing to play a game based in Scranton with Dwight as a hero... Just saying.
If they released something like this 2 years afrer overwatch, maybe it wouodn't be such a disaster. But the long dev cycle was also a big mistake.
Its not that concord didn't do enough to convince people it was worth their time. Look at deadlock. It did nothing to convince anyone of anything and it has over 100k players. Concord was not worth their time. It came late bringing a $40 price tag to a crowd of free games that did exactly what concord did, but better.
“It’s like Overwatch but… 50% worse and 25% different for legal reasons”
Well ... that disc may be collectors item. If it works ...
Unfortunately it just gets stuck at the launch menu! It's a real shame you can't at least play the offline training modes with each character.
I usually wait about a month before buying a new game (Space marine 2 was an exception lol) and concord failed faster than that
Two weeks? This game died right after that trailer was released, it had no chance 😂
game was bad tho.... atleast concord was worse than any live service competitor on the market =_=
It was mostly the ugly characters
Those discs are noww collectables because theyre out of production and useless.
What made me sad is that it was a 40 dollar paid game with no battlepass, no paid characters and all the seasonal dlc content up front and gamers said "Nah we want free to play, season passes and micro transactions."
Cuz we've essentially been conditioned by so many other games that have similar features, which is sad as hell
Being good??? Are you joking? Did you the characters? It was a woke shit show...
I'll buy that physical copy off you for $30.
Also the woke propaganda was extremely repelling.
👁️👁️