Man, I've said on so many threads to so many people that defend low quality content that it's okay (and healthy) to be critical about things you enjoy. I feel like so many people nowadays think that being critical is just being toxic.
because they do. ANY rejection is seen as the absolute worse. People need to learn the Toxic Positivity is a thing and its just as bad as Toxic Negativity.
Well this is also an industry where devs make a change to a game and the get emailed to kill themselves. So i get why they'd want to cool the temperature.
I see this very often, too. Particularly in Reddit subs for popular games (like Elden Ring, for example). Do not dare to be critical about something in the game, because the fanboys see this as an offense for their pipe dream of a masterpiece game. That is, they like the game to such an extent that they can not even imagine that others could have founded criticisms on it (so conclude that they are haters or just toxic without taking a look at the issues).
@@heideknight7782 The perfect game doesn't exist, and the right kind of criticism can go A LONG WAY with devs that listen. Even a top tier game like Elden Ring, one of my favorite games, isn't perfect. I have a lot of criticisms about it. The critical thinking about a product is how we get better games (or TV shows, movies, etc etc.)
I just realized they tried copying the TF2 "Meet the Team" videos but they forgot the likeable characters part. And appealing art style. And good writing...
@@johansvensson833I don’t know along time ago probably 10 years ago maybe more they actually had gamers trust and bad reviews could tank a game in general. Then they bent knee sold out for ad revenue and fear of losing access made them 7/10 we know today.
@kenpachiramasama1139 the funny thing about that is channels like this are actually no better they give the same scores they just "critique" a few points their handlers allow instead of going full glaze like ign
I absolutely hate the stance of no critique being always objectively positive is objectively lazy and dishonest could not stand the reviews for Star Wars Outlaws even when people had complaints they would back pedal and be like it wasn't that bad tho, if it wasnt that bad why did you bring it up? Absolutely hate when people dont stand their ground i despise cowardice
I had no problem reading the guys comment, Maybe you should learn to read better If you had an issue lol . The guys right it's a TH-cam Comment not an English Essay lmao 😂😂
It takes 5 years now to make a AAA game it just takes to long. By the time one exclusive comes out it's already close to the next generation honestly I'm a console gamer since 360 but p.c is looking better and better each console generation
I don't get how people can say "it was the higher ups and Sony's push for live service games that made Concord what it was" when the game was in the works well before Sony bought the studio, and the studio existed just to make Concord. Until someone at Firewalk comes out and says otherwise, there's no reason to assume this isn't the game the devs wanted to make.
Because at the end of the day to dumb people, successful people in powerful positions are inherently bad while blue haired activists who start convos with their pronouns are inherently good. And if you look at any photos of the concord dev team surprise surprise nothing but blue haired activists
Marketing is weird to be honest for concord they didn't showcase it in gamescon in a booth, but it has a showcase in an Amazon prime series. As if the game wasn't meant to be played and was created to build a franchise outside of gaming.
@@TheForbidden_1ne I mean...Destin seemed pretty on the ball. The other two were pushing hard on the apologetic stance, but he came in swinging with that 'what community?' thing. I laughed. Dude seemed to get it.
To give you an idea since playtesting was mentioned multiple times in this video. I was playtesting this game a few months before release, and it was the most boring 6 hours of my life, and not only that, but nobody liked the game back then. This makes me question if they either ignored the feedback or they couldn't change course for the game.
I remember watching Kevduit's video on playing Concord with his friends. They were all basically saying how the first couple of matches were great, but the more you played, the less fun the game got until they were hating it after an hour or so.
25:55 Max practically devolving into offended stuttering & coniptions over just how pissed he is at...whoever thought Concord was a green-light-able idea was a great touch
When Daemon brought up No Man's Sky, Cyberpunk and FFXIV, comparing it to Concord's future... Destin was shaking his head and I just laughed out loud when he said "what community?" If you hadn't brought up the name of the Concord reviewer, I would've thought Daemon was the one who gave Concord a 7.
Daemon proudly plays mostly mobile games, and is really only IGN because no else would have have him(same with Max but that is less to do with not knowing games, it's that most people hate him). He knows nothing about video games made after 2010, even though he has been their ages. You don't go to IGN for expert opinion, you only go because they get access before everyone else.
@@chuckles471 This. IGN is only good to watch some actual gameplay as they'll be among the first to publish some, and most of the time you can just skip whatever the presented opinion is.
When the focus on games switched to hyper focus on Greed and making as much money as possible gaming died, they have also raised a bunch of new kids on accepting broken, unfinished and hyper monetized games
Beating a literally dead horse. You would think this was one of the most anticipated games ever or the game became sentient and killed someone. People weren’t interested and it came out and nobody bought it, Sony closed it…What are we doing???
I think the increase in fascination with live service games at the same time a lot of corporations moved their products to the Saas (software as a service) model, just goes to show how connected the games industry is to big corporations and the business sector. It is rare to get a AAA game that is not online, reasonably priced, and isn't just a thinly veiled monetization scheme.
Concord was just a waste of money on all fronts and sony suits doesnt want to take the responsability of that mistake. Ugly characters when your genre needs awesome character design for you to want/like them, TTK was way to long and it was awful using the missile launcher goblin and those missile does less dmg that a baby rattle in the face and the gameplay sleven slower than a 3 legged drunk turtle race... Oh and the maps being generic as hell when you have a new complete universe to create whatever the hell you want... And the cherry on top add politics in the face of costumers that doesnt want that kind of things, or at least do it more casually like in a cutscenes show us X character being gay or w/e but nope! Show it really big on a corner when you choose it.. why?
It's a "bad game" problem. Live service can work but the studio has to be set up for it and have a solid road map on top of a GOOD game. To be completely fair if Destiny launched today it would have died after 6 months because of how bare the game was at launch. It would take a lot of time and money to get a game ready to launch with good size of content to hook players and then a steady stream of quality updates
I feel like live service only ever works if you have a game that plays well and that people like out of the box, and then you start grafting mtx onto that while taking care not to destroy what made people like the game to start with. And even then, the live service is nearly in all cases a detriment. It WILL make the game worse than it could have been, holding up devs and artists time and devaluing the players ability to distinguish them with skins that actually mean something. Life service makes games live shorter lives. If the games aren't terrific to begin with, it kills them even before birth as we have seen.
@@Knuspabrot I feel like live service only every works when you have an UNFINISHED game that plays well. All these early access titles have trained gamers into expecting monthly updates. If the game is unfinished and devs drop update after update to add core features with wipes every once in a while gamers are happy and they stay engaged. However, if devs fully flesh out a game, release it, and spend another year coming up with new content ... gamers will blow through the finished game in 3 months, get bored, and move on. Then when the new content drops they call it a dead game and don't even try it. As much as gamers complain about buggy launches and lack of initial content, interestingly enough when it comes to live service games, having those bugs at launch just so you can fix them 3 weeks to a month later gets more player engagement than not having the bugs at all. You fix those bugs after launch and the hyped has died down and they come back to "test the game out again now that it's fixed." Having next to no content at launch, means that companies have a built in marketing strategy of releasing content to draw people in and keep player retention.
@@Athasin A PvP only arena game is never finished. It's like football, do people quit playing football because there wasn't an update lately? If a game is fun, people will want to play it, especially with their friends and against other people, and from that point on they are emotionally invested enough to buy mtx and keep a stable ecosystem going. Your way of thinking really reminds me of that 'metric driven' non-sense optimization that is messing up game development for years now. Sure, you can maximize 'player retention' by creating a shallow experience from the outset, hyping it up with trailers get people in, and then when they quit 2 weeks in try to get them in again with fixes and updates. But that shit gets you unstable, drama trashfires like overwatch after it's hayday. That's the plan they had for starfield. Create a minimum viable product and then slowly bet on things getting good at some point somehow. I think the fatigue of that kind of shit within the playerbase is too high nowadays. And it's an immense risk. If you fail to capture any people with your intentionally shallow v1.0, there won't be anyone to get back with the 1.01 hotfixes. It'll just be DoA
@@Knuspabrot "A PvP only arena game is never finished. It's like football" Football is finished a PVP only arena game is not like football. Moreover, the yearly lifecycle of CoD proves that yes, people do in fact stop playing a game even though they're having fun. Because other games exist and the very act of something being new will draw people away from the game they consider to be fun.
I think red fall and ss ktjl should of been the real wake up call considering that make it a looter shooter live service game really hurt the development.
Love him or him you can't deny angry Joe is popular and has an audience who are willing to wait weeks for his full review of games so you don't need to kiss the behinds of these huge companies to make it in the review or gaming business
17:10 Foamstars is not on PC, what's he talking about? If it was on PC and free I would've at least tried it, but I'm not paying for overpriced splatoon with outrageous skin prices with AI art, square enix is insane.
It's a risky future. Sometimes you get a God of War or an Uncharted and sometimes you get Concord or a Foamstars. Key is to make enough profit on the good stuff, to be able to survive through the bad stuff.
I think the cutscene conversation is an interesting aspect. As another chatter said, I watch every single cinematic Overwatch releases whether I’m playing the game at that moment or not. I’ve also watched almost every Valorant one. I couldn’t care less about an Apex one though. I think getting people to care about your world and character building HAS to be done once people already care. It’s not a feature to people who don’t care about your game yet.
When me and some friends were watching the trailer we were invested! Then it cut to gameplay where we saw it was a hero shooter, and just all of us stopped caring.
48:20 i used to watch all the cutshenes for warzone 1.0, but after the release of vanguard i just lost all intrest, similar with overwatch and others. But man i still absolutely loved the nuke cutscenes for the end of wz year one. Amazing event, i miss it
I just realized Concord might've had a chance if they had did what OW2 couldnt - Launched it as a PvE with story and lore and customizable specs for each character. MAYBE that would've sold a lil better because at least theres still some uniqueness there. But ah well, like most ppls have assumed, they'd probably looked at OW in 2016 and was like "Hey we can do that too!" and was 8 years too late
Around 21.00 , that was my immediate question too. 8 years on this...how?! I get big open worlds with quests and an intricate stories take a long time, but this is a bunch of characters on a bunch of maps and thats it
Most of my playtime is live service ...but most of my spending is single player, especially in proportion to playtime. The corpos are not getting advertised return for their investment from live service, at least on PC.
I don't get it. Didn't Concord also have an in-game shop, and it is also a live service game? why does everyone make it out as it does not have microtransactions????
Daily reminder that live services are a cancer on the gaming industry. The less money you give them and the more that fail will lead to greater innovation and a healthier industry for years to come.
Guardians of the Galaxy was an awesome game, sorely slept on but understandable when folks were recovering from Marvels Avengers, although to be fair after the final update MA's was actually pretty good. Ill say rhis, for a games as service title it gave yhe customer a helluva lot more than your average live service titles.
Am I the only noticing that all of these hyper political far left game studios have been putting out absolute garbage slop for games over the past couple years, meanwhile the Japanese game devs have been killing it without all the “Lefts” horrible work culture.
Am I the only one noticing channels like shillup refuse to comment on esg and black rock financing all these flops? None of what is happening is on accident, everything we are seeing a purposeful calculation by some .01%ers who are hell bent on social engineering their own hyper insular and extreme beliefs on everyone else and funnily enough they are using the supposedly anti wealth and capitalism crowd to do it
I just play older games now like Borderlands 2. The only live service games I play are Warframe (because I can earn the premium currency by selling items to other players) and Rocket League (but I don't buy anything)
Games like Concord and Fairgame$ give me vibes of there being very few critical voices in the development process. Like, “all ideas and suggestions are valid” to the point of not turning down an idea for fear of alienating someone and putting down their contribution.
I too think that IGN's review scores are out of whack and unusable when trying to compare game A to game B. Partly because different reviewers will naturally put different weights and emphases on different aspects of a game, and partly because IGN obviously haven't established binding criteria or standards to enable viewers to "read" their scores, and to enable reviewers to be consistent. But - while I, personally, get my review input from other sources (ACG, SkillUp, Luke, etc.) than IGN, a lot of people in the comments are acting as though everything written or said on the IGN platform was the unanimous consensus of everybody working there, and condemning the website as a whole, even when videos like this one clearly show that people working at IGN have individual, differing views. It's like, come-on, bro, don't be dumb! Obviously Luke is gonna be more consistent than a staff of a dozen or so people, that exists as an attempt to represent every possible gamer out there. Mark down the names of reviewers you don't trust, names of reviewers that have a taste in games that is too different from yours, and disregard their opinions in the future! It's as easy as that. There is no need to poison the well, here!
"Mark down the names of reviewers you don't trust, names of reviewers that have a taste in games that is too different from yours..." Nah, I'm not doing research and keeping a word document to track reviewers whose opinions align with mine. That's IGN's problem to figure out.
You spoke about dev teams being tone-deaf, influencers being deceitful by dancing around the hot topics, while you often do the exact same thing. I do enjoy your videos, reviews and analyses of games, but just by calling certain character designs, lore (changes) and dialogue etc "cringe"; your purposely avoid calling a spade a spade. And that is that most games are made by devs teams who are strongly ideological driven aka activist, which seeps through in every fiber of a game. The same applies to saying things like "I' m sure these devs are good people", while they often are on record stating how much they hate gaming and gamers. People who only got into gaming not because they had the necessary experience, creative, technical and management skills, but because they checked the right checkboxes and either fully themselves believed in the ideology in the ideology that started to be forced onto gaming in the early & mid 2000's, or were willing to look the other way. And we see the exact same dancing around the table, when it comes to the long dev cycles, and the cliche statements that development is expensive. Which is logical when games during their dev cycle often are rebooted due to "creative difference" and again games being made by people who don't have the skills for it. Than wonder why they always go over budget, its the same in Hollywood, comics, toys etc etc. Don' t get me even started about dev teams attacking their customers, neglecting to mention that a lot of studios thrive on the name of devs who were forced out of the industry between 2005 & 2015, and in no shape or form are the studio who created the hits of the past. My biggest disappointment in all of this are content creators like yourself, people who often have been into gaming before it became mainstream and socially acceptable, and before activism took front and center in game development. Yet consistently avoid calling a spade a spade, and just call it "cringe" or blame everything on corporate.
Hey I'm not intending to be mean I promise you but...kinda feel gaslit because I remember you smooshing outlaws and defending it pretty aggressively. Just had to point that out. Access isn't worth reputation my friend. But I'm just a random idiot so grain of salt and what not.
Out of all the criticism for Concord, the thing that pissed me off the most during the open beta was the fact that you couldn't main a character by design. I don't think this is brought up nearly enough in the post mortems.
does anyone remember that old meme that had the little girl saying Go! then gets pulled over by a dog or something and then says bwaah! when she hits the ground? I think thats concord.
It’s perfectly fine to be critical of things that you really enjoy. The gaming industry is a very large and expensive industry, and so if you, as a consumer, are spending $70+ on a game, you should be allowed to be critical of the product you received.
@@johansvensson833and look how much they wasted this generation, what's your point? The PS4 generation was objectively better, plus the new games from Sony are taking WAY TOO LONG to come out, 4-8 years? Seriously?
It’s not just “white noise” to these devs (though they did say that): to many of them, any negative feedback (even when it’s constructive) is viewed as hate, and even bigotry. How often do people voice their complaints about a product and soon after we start seeing articles about the staff being “harassed”? They cannot fathom anyone not liking their game or the characters in it, and as they often take a moral high ground on it, they assume those that dislike it are bad people that need to be stopped. That is the real reason Concord won’t come back: Firewalk’s devs won’t admit the characters are ugly, the gameplay is boring, or the identity politics are too front and center. They would rather play victim and shift blame than admit they were wrong. Though honestly I doubt they even can tell that the characters were hideous.
I want ps2 era back where there wasnt live service bs and we enjoy story driven game which was nostalgia to me like bully . Og gtas, punisher and many more.
Lark looks like one of the monsters from that game where people need to fix generators while a monster can catch them and hang them. Think it'd dead by daylight or something. She's like the chappy monster in that, her legs just give me the ick never mind the rest of it
I think they might have sold a few hundred thousand if they had pivoted to have a campaign after OW2 announced that they were canning the only reason it had to justify it as a “2”, the campaign. But I can’t imagine it would’ve sold amazing even then, and I don’t know that the cost to add that would’ve turned out well. But it certainly wouldn’t have been so embarrassing if there was something redeemable in the game and playable after its MP component flopped. I think Sony needs to go back to SP with MP modes. They saw success in that method. They can spin off the more successful MP to a stand alone, or just divide the budget like they were back on PS3 and launch a SP game then the free MP after or vise versa depending on what it is and how it’s best to market it. They can feed each other.
If Luke has another kid I think he should name them after the games he's made the most content on this year so we all can remember the amazing year we had. Looking forward to Starfield Concord Stephens
I guarantee that they had a full advertising expo ready to go for their ps5 pro reveal with Concord. But because it failed they had to show games from the last 5 years.
If people think about a proper way to do character and story stuff... League of Legends is probably the prime example. People ended up liking what they did and just asked for more... There was a demand for it, and it is side content for the most part. Starting a brand new IP with characters no one got to even start on the premise of "everyone will watch and love it!" is pure hubris from the developers side... People need to want to know more before you create more... It's not a single player game that acts with an arch that gives you room to connect. These type of games need to first generate a craving. Concord did the exact opposite... It generated disgust. And now they are totally baffled without even thinking for a moment their entire approach was wrong since the getgo!
So many words but the truth is It is just not fun yes it is ugly yes they want money while other games is free if it was fun people would have played it
I feel like the game industry got about of touch when Sony stop showing up to e3/ games con. I can’t explain it fully yet but things definitely changed for the worse.
4:07 to 4:20... Remember this when you watch the Star Wars Outlaws video. Remember this because the video for Star Wars Outlaws was overall positive. If we only knew then what we know now....
The live service problem is that publishers keep pushing for new ones, failing to understand that unless your live service game is interesting and good it will fail because there are already more then a few interesting and good ones out there.
Concord is what we in the Galactic Federation call an SS - Slop Singularity. What's happened is that Borderless Genericism has been incorrectly alloyed to supreme self confidence, warping the fabric of space, time, and the holes in space called objects, and the collective neural eatherweb of all humanity, dead, living, or imagined, resulting in blandness of such density, focus grouped into a beam of a-grade, hyper realistic beige, in such a way that it literally repelled any conscious agent with even a single, sub muon particle level of coolness left in themselves after existing beyond its release date.
When I first heard of back for blood, or whatever the vampire game is called, I was pretty interested, and then I saw the trailer and I was like nevermind lol
The industry thinks that it's too big to fail, but if anything, it'll end up like radio and cable networks where the ones that survive are the ones that respect their audiences
-Devs being very aggressive about criticism -There are better options out there for free -Very unlikeable characters -Unappealing designs for most gamers -Story bad -Dialogue is cringe -concept is too generic Devs and game journalist: Why won't gamers give the game a chance? Don't ask questions don't have preferences, just consume product and get excited for next product I swear these dilusional people think that just by throwing a bunch of money to a problem and working on it that they are entitled to success, you are not entitled to anything first you find what people want and give them just that but instead they go " no no you don't actually want that, we know better than you what you want" They have thrown away years of research on the market in order to persue the modern audience, well they got their modern audience all 700 of them All the years of research shows that most gamers are male and that they prefer attractive designs, activists want to forcefully change that fact and force a new audience to take the place of current gamers and it's just not going to work
Both The Crew Motorfest AND the Crew 2 will get an offline mode, so hopefully game devs will start implementing an offline mode in EVERY game, even in Live Service titles!!!!
Given the direction of Sony, the PS6 might just be the first PlayStation console that I won't buy upon release. I have my PC and PS5 and I don't see any reason why I would need a new console, even 3 or 4 years from now. This generation, I've used my PC 75%-80% of the time, and if the PS5 wasn't backwards compatible, I would've used my PC 95% to just 5% for my PS5.
I think somebody at sony gave the studio a sweetheart deal...maybe they are friends or cousins or something...thats the only explaination to why they bought it before the product is ready
Or maybe the game just ticked enough esg scores and Blackrock gave everyone involved a bag like they always do and youtubers like this refuse to comment on it
38:23 overall with this statement in general not with concord I don’t agree I remember when apex story was at its peak the community loved it same with overwatch I mean look at the genji one people wanted more of this in the game so saying one thing can’t have the other is dumb
I’d stop gaming if it’s an all live service future
It won't be like that but I'm not disagreeing with you. Indie devs are the only ones that deserve our money
How about you just keep an open mind and not dismiss things because of marketing
Couldn't agree more
@@Xfacta12482I have no interest in playing with another person. I play games to get away from people and will never even try a live service game
Nah man we have more than 40 years of games to go back to... I'd just play retro
Ps5 pro reveal absolutely isnt gonna help them.
If you don't like the PS5 Pro, just go to the beach for a year - Sony Executive (probably) 🤣
Man, I've said on so many threads to so many people that defend low quality content that it's okay (and healthy) to be critical about things you enjoy. I feel like so many people nowadays think that being critical is just being toxic.
because they do.
ANY rejection is seen as the absolute worse.
People need to learn the Toxic Positivity is a thing and its just as bad as Toxic Negativity.
Well this is also an industry where devs make a change to a game and the get emailed to kill themselves. So i get why they'd want to cool the temperature.
I see this very often, too. Particularly in Reddit subs for popular games (like Elden Ring, for example). Do not dare to be critical about something in the game, because the fanboys see this as an offense for their pipe dream of a masterpiece game. That is, they like the game to such an extent that they can not even imagine that others could have founded criticisms on it (so conclude that they are haters or just toxic without taking a look at the issues).
@@heideknight7782 The perfect game doesn't exist, and the right kind of criticism can go A LONG WAY with devs that listen. Even a top tier game like Elden Ring, one of my favorite games, isn't perfect. I have a lot of criticisms about it. The critical thinking about a product is how we get better games (or TV shows, movies, etc etc.)
ThIs CoMmEnT iS aBuSiVe
Is it the same IGN that gave Concord and Dustborn a 7/10?
You can't spell "ignorance" without IGN.
concord is no worese than overwatch and is a 7/10 but it is no need for a new overwaych
@@johansvensson833 a hero shooter with hideous heroes is 7/10? Are you an IGN journalist by any chance?
I'd say Concord could have been a moderate success if it launched in 2015 or 2016. I don't know what they were thinking with Dustborn
it might be different employees that were talking and giving a score to game. And from what I see it’s 5-6, not buggy mess, it’s just nothing burger
@@TwoHandedChargedBonk The gameplay in Concord was good though.
IGN will still give all those games 7/10.
A game can still be 7/10 and still find no audience.
That's why ign isn't a reliable source of gaming news
@@Arizona-ex5yt it's just a meme. A quick look at their review history shows they go below it all the time.
Cause ign is horrible at their job and just push their politics now
It took 8 years because they have fake professors run the show😂😂
I just realized they tried copying the TF2 "Meet the Team" videos but they forgot the likeable characters part. And appealing art style. And good writing...
And the "meet the..." series came out AFTER the game was out for a while
But TF2 Characters are awesome and have distinct personalities. Concord where just Teemu guardians of the Galaxy 😂
@@alaskanyeti907Most of them did, but Meet the Heavy came out before release
Funny how IGN is responsible for making that worse when they had the power to tell these companies to stop it.
What?
@@arglebargle5531 he is a troll do not feed him
@@johansvensson833I don’t know along time ago probably 10 years ago maybe more they actually had gamers trust and bad reviews could tank a game in general. Then they bent knee sold out for ad revenue and fear of losing access made them 7/10 we know today.
@kenpachiramasama1139 the funny thing about that is channels like this are actually no better they give the same scores they just "critique" a few points their handlers allow instead of going full glaze like ign
Gooodamn Daemon Hatfield is still with IGN? I remember him back when i was in like Middle School/ Highschool and that was a long time ago.
I absolutely hate the stance of no critique being always objectively positive is objectively lazy and dishonest could not stand the reviews for Star Wars Outlaws even when people had complaints they would back pedal and be like it wasn't that bad tho, if it wasnt that bad why did you bring it up? Absolutely hate when people dont stand their ground i despise cowardice
@@devinkonquer3334 Consider learning to use commas, periods, and perhaps even the wily semicolon. This was borderline impossible to comprehend.
@OrdigTroll consider not being a pedantic fuckwit maybe? You’re in a TH-cam comment section, not school.
@OrdigTroll it reads just fine. Get over it, it's a TH-cam comment section.
@@dychostarr Nah, they have a point. That comment came off as an unhinged rant because of lack of punctuation. Yeah, it's TH-cam, not Reddit.
I had no problem reading the guys comment, Maybe you should learn to read better If you had an issue lol . The guys right it's a TH-cam Comment not an English Essay lmao 😂😂
Both Xbox and PlayStation really have been struggling this year
They're boring consoles
The only thing saving sony is exclusivity deals imo and they have fuck you money where they can take some Ls Concord was a bad one
@Theblackvortex75 People who support exclusivity are the problem.
It takes 5 years now to make a AAA game it just takes to long. By the time one exclusive comes out it's already close to the next generation honestly I'm a console gamer since 360 but p.c is looking better and better each console generation
I don't get how people can say "it was the higher ups and Sony's push for live service games that made Concord what it was" when the game was in the works well before Sony bought the studio, and the studio existed just to make Concord. Until someone at Firewalk comes out and says otherwise, there's no reason to assume this isn't the game the devs wanted to make.
Because at the end of the day to dumb people, successful people in powerful positions are inherently bad while blue haired activists who start convos with their pronouns are inherently good. And if you look at any photos of the concord dev team surprise surprise nothing but blue haired activists
IGN should QA test their own reviews.
They probably do have an editor look over it.
Marketing is weird to be honest for concord they didn't showcase it in gamescon in a booth, but it has a showcase in an Amazon prime series. As if the game wasn't meant to be played and was created to build a franchise outside of gaming.
I agree, live service is stifling traditional game development.
So many devs want the next big live service!
Don't think it's the Devs that want it
no live service games make declopers take the risk on single player games
"it (Concord) wasn't given a chance!"
I will literally never trust anything these people say
They don't understand that Concord never earned a chance
@@TheForbidden_1ne I mean...Destin seemed pretty on the ball. The other two were pushing hard on the apologetic stance, but he came in swinging with that 'what community?' thing. I laughed. Dude seemed to get it.
I can't wait for Concord's Morbius arc.
To give you an idea since playtesting was mentioned multiple times in this video. I was playtesting this game a few months before release, and it was the most boring 6 hours of my life, and not only that, but nobody liked the game back then. This makes me question if they either ignored the feedback or they couldn't change course for the game.
I remember watching Kevduit's video on playing Concord with his friends. They were all basically saying how the first couple of matches were great, but the more you played, the less fun the game got until they were hating it after an hour or so.
Yeah and if he doesn’t like it, you know it’s bad. Because he’ll defend almost anything if he had fun with it.
25:55 Max practically devolving into offended stuttering & coniptions over just how pissed he is at...whoever thought Concord was a green-light-able idea was a great touch
When Daemon brought up No Man's Sky, Cyberpunk and FFXIV, comparing it to Concord's future... Destin was shaking his head and I just laughed out loud when he said "what community?" If you hadn't brought up the name of the Concord reviewer, I would've thought Daemon was the one who gave Concord a 7.
timestamp pretty please?
Daemon proudly plays mostly mobile games, and is really only IGN because no else would have have him(same with Max but that is less to do with not knowing games, it's that most people hate him). He knows nothing about video games made after 2010, even though he has been their ages.
You don't go to IGN for expert opinion, you only go because they get access before everyone else.
@@chuckles471 This. IGN is only good to watch some actual gameplay as they'll be among the first to publish some, and most of the time you can just skip whatever the presented opinion is.
I can't belive people still pay attention to IGN or any mainstream "journalist"
When the focus on games switched to hyper focus on Greed and making as much money as possible gaming died, they have also raised a bunch of new kids on accepting broken, unfinished and hyper monetized games
Yeye focused on getting money..... name me 1game that got that other than some gacha games😂
@@ziebus904 every single live service game, Fortnite, apex, destiny, R6 etc want me to continue
@@naiko8412 doesnt apex fell on face like 3months ago? Fortnite i understand but others? Questionable
i expected max Scoville to be really spicy for some reason
Beating a literally dead horse. You would think this was one of the most anticipated games ever or the game became sentient and killed someone. People weren’t interested and it came out and nobody bought it, Sony closed it…What are we doing???
"You just bought the studio, why would you want to shut it down?"
...
*Microsoft has entered the chat*
Buying just one studio then shutting it down is a lot different than buying a publisher and shutting one of its dozens of studios down.
Luke has anybody asked the question if Sony made the game thinking they were going to get the rights to Guardians and then didn't then pivotted?
I think the increase in fascination with live service games at the same time a lot of corporations moved their products to the Saas (software as a service) model, just goes to show how connected the games industry is to big corporations and the business sector. It is rare to get a AAA game that is not online, reasonably priced, and isn't just a thinly veiled monetization scheme.
Who took my thing?! Red flag, red flag....
_sixteen times the detail_
Concord was just a waste of money on all fronts and sony suits doesnt want to take the responsability of that mistake. Ugly characters when your genre needs awesome character design for you to want/like them, TTK was way to long and it was awful using the missile launcher goblin and those missile does less dmg that a baby rattle in the face and the gameplay sleven slower than a 3 legged drunk turtle race... Oh and the maps being generic as hell when you have a new complete universe to create whatever the hell you want... And the cherry on top add politics in the face of costumers that doesnt want that kind of things, or at least do it more casually like in a cutscenes show us X character being gay or w/e but nope! Show it really big on a corner when you choose it.. why?
It's a "bad game" problem. Live service can work but the studio has to be set up for it and have a solid road map on top of a GOOD game. To be completely fair if Destiny launched today it would have died after 6 months because of how bare the game was at launch. It would take a lot of time and money to get a game ready to launch with good size of content to hook players and then a steady stream of quality updates
I feel like live service only ever works if you have a game that plays well and that people like out of the box, and then you start grafting mtx onto that while taking care not to destroy what made people like the game to start with. And even then, the live service is nearly in all cases a detriment. It WILL make the game worse than it could have been, holding up devs and artists time and devaluing the players ability to distinguish them with skins that actually mean something. Life service makes games live shorter lives. If the games aren't terrific to begin with, it kills them even before birth as we have seen.
@@Knuspabrot I feel like live service only every works when you have an UNFINISHED game that plays well. All these early access titles have trained gamers into expecting monthly updates.
If the game is unfinished and devs drop update after update to add core features with wipes every once in a while gamers are happy and they stay engaged. However, if devs fully flesh out a game, release it, and spend another year coming up with new content ... gamers will blow through the finished game in 3 months, get bored, and move on. Then when the new content drops they call it a dead game and don't even try it.
As much as gamers complain about buggy launches and lack of initial content, interestingly enough when it comes to live service games, having those bugs at launch just so you can fix them 3 weeks to a month later gets more player engagement than not having the bugs at all. You fix those bugs after launch and the hyped has died down and they come back to "test the game out again now that it's fixed." Having next to no content at launch, means that companies have a built in marketing strategy of releasing content to draw people in and keep player retention.
@@Athasin A PvP only arena game is never finished. It's like football, do people quit playing football because there wasn't an update lately? If a game is fun, people will want to play it, especially with their friends and against other people, and from that point on they are emotionally invested enough to buy mtx and keep a stable ecosystem going.
Your way of thinking really reminds me of that 'metric driven' non-sense optimization that is messing up game development for years now. Sure, you can maximize 'player retention' by creating a shallow experience from the outset, hyping it up with trailers get people in, and then when they quit 2 weeks in try to get them in again with fixes and updates. But that shit gets you unstable, drama trashfires like overwatch after it's hayday. That's the plan they had for starfield. Create a minimum viable product and then slowly bet on things getting good at some point somehow. I think the fatigue of that kind of shit within the playerbase is too high nowadays. And it's an immense risk. If you fail to capture any people with your intentionally shallow v1.0, there won't be anyone to get back with the 1.01 hotfixes. It'll just be DoA
@@Knuspabrot "A PvP only arena game is never finished. It's like football"
Football is finished a PVP only arena game is not like football.
Moreover, the yearly lifecycle of CoD proves that yes, people do in fact stop playing a game even though they're having fun. Because other games exist and the very act of something being new will draw people away from the game they consider to be fun.
I think red fall and ss ktjl should of been the real wake up call considering that make it a looter shooter live service game really hurt the development.
this game is the epitome of "we have that at home"
The color palettes are just all over the place in this game.
Love him or him you can't deny angry Joe is popular and has an audience who are willing to wait weeks for his full review of games so you don't need to kiss the behinds of these huge companies to make it in the review or gaming business
Bet you that they are banking on that Amazon secret level show to drum up more interest to the game, and relaunch it as F2P soon after.
17:10 Foamstars is not on PC, what's he talking about? If it was on PC and free I would've at least tried it, but I'm not paying for overpriced splatoon with outrageous skin prices with AI art, square enix is insane.
Did anyone else watch Rev3Games back in the day? Seeing Max Scoville brought me right back man.
I like how IGN does not know why people are reacting to a 7 for this game. And that 7/10 - IGN is a meme.
It's a risky future. Sometimes you get a God of War or an Uncharted and sometimes you get Concord or a Foamstars.
Key is to make enough profit on the good stuff, to be able to survive through the bad stuff.
I think the cutscene conversation is an interesting aspect.
As another chatter said, I watch every single cinematic Overwatch releases whether I’m playing the game at that moment or not. I’ve also watched almost every Valorant one.
I couldn’t care less about an Apex one though. I think getting people to care about your world and character building HAS to be done once people already care. It’s not a feature to people who don’t care about your game yet.
When me and some friends were watching the trailer we were invested! Then it cut to gameplay where we saw it was a hero shooter, and just all of us stopped caring.
48:20 i used to watch all the cutshenes for warzone 1.0, but after the release of vanguard i just lost all intrest, similar with overwatch and others. But man i still absolutely loved the nuke cutscenes for the end of wz year one. Amazing event, i miss it
The industry to trying to see how far they can get away with offering polished turds - simple.
I just realized Concord might've had a chance if they had did what OW2 couldnt - Launched it as a PvE with story and lore and customizable specs for each character. MAYBE that would've sold a lil better because at least theres still some uniqueness there. But ah well, like most ppls have assumed, they'd probably looked at OW in 2016 and was like "Hey we can do that too!" and was 8 years too late
People criticizing the amount of negative coverage of a game and then think theres a problem with the coverage rather the game itself ? wtf
Around 21.00 , that was my immediate question too. 8 years on this...how?!
I get big open worlds with quests and an intricate stories take a long time, but this is a bunch of characters on a bunch of maps and thats it
I stopped believing anything IGN says. The same people who gave 7/10 to Concord.
Didn’t they give dustborn a 7/10 too? 😂😂
One thing would have saved concord and justified the $40 price tag. A immersive and interesting single player/coop campaign.
Most of my playtime is live service ...but most of my spending is single player, especially in proportion to playtime. The corpos are not getting advertised return for their investment from live service, at least on PC.
I don't get it. Didn't Concord also have an in-game shop, and it is also a live service game?
why does everyone make it out as it does not have microtransactions????
Daily reminder that live services are a cancer on the gaming industry. The less money you give them and the more that fail will lead to greater innovation and a healthier industry for years to come.
Guardians of the Galaxy was an awesome game, sorely slept on but understandable when folks were recovering from Marvels Avengers, although to be fair after the final update MA's was actually pretty good. Ill say rhis, for a games as service title it gave yhe customer a helluva lot more than your average live service titles.
but sold zero copies
The scene where the guy talked with the computer and appreciated it made my Skin actually crawl.
Am I the only noticing that all of these hyper political far left game studios have been putting out absolute garbage slop for games over the past couple years, meanwhile the Japanese game devs have been killing it without all the “Lefts” horrible work culture.
Japanese, Korean and now Chinese with Wukong, yep.
“Far left” is online brain for neoliberal capitalist
Am I the only one noticing channels like shillup refuse to comment on esg and black rock financing all these flops?
None of what is happening is on accident, everything we are seeing a purposeful calculation by some .01%ers who are hell bent on social engineering their own hyper insular and extreme beliefs on everyone else and funnily enough they are using the supposedly anti wealth and capitalism crowd to do it
I just play older games now like Borderlands 2. The only live service games I play are Warframe (because I can earn the premium currency by selling items to other players) and Rocket League (but I don't buy anything)
Games like Concord and Fairgame$ give me vibes of there being very few critical voices in the development process. Like, “all ideas and suggestions are valid” to the point of not turning down an idea for fear of alienating someone and putting down their contribution.
I too think that IGN's review scores are out of whack and unusable when trying to compare game A to game B. Partly because different reviewers will naturally put different weights and emphases on different aspects of a game, and partly because IGN obviously haven't established binding criteria or standards to enable viewers to "read" their scores, and to enable reviewers to be consistent.
But - while I, personally, get my review input from other sources (ACG, SkillUp, Luke, etc.) than IGN, a lot of people in the comments are acting as though everything written or said on the IGN platform was the unanimous consensus of everybody working there, and condemning the website as a whole, even when videos like this one clearly show that people working at IGN have individual, differing views.
It's like, come-on, bro, don't be dumb! Obviously Luke is gonna be more consistent than a staff of a dozen or so people, that exists as an attempt to represent every possible gamer out there.
Mark down the names of reviewers you don't trust, names of reviewers that have a taste in games that is too different from yours, and disregard their opinions in the future! It's as easy as that. There is no need to poison the well, here!
i agree
"Mark down the names of reviewers you don't trust, names of reviewers that have a taste in games that is too different from yours..." Nah, I'm not doing research and keeping a word document to track reviewers whose opinions align with mine. That's IGN's problem to figure out.
Thanks for mentioning that titbit about Dragon Age, confirmed my suspicions that the game and it's community are suffering from toxic positivity.
You spoke about dev teams being tone-deaf, influencers being deceitful by dancing around the hot topics, while you often do the exact same thing. I do enjoy your videos, reviews and analyses of games, but just by calling certain character designs, lore (changes) and dialogue etc "cringe"; your purposely avoid calling a spade a spade. And that is that most games are made by devs teams who are strongly ideological driven aka activist, which seeps through in every fiber of a game. The same applies to saying things like "I' m sure these devs are good people", while they often are on record stating how much they hate gaming and gamers. People who only got into gaming not because they had the necessary experience, creative, technical and management skills, but because they checked the right checkboxes and either fully themselves believed in the ideology in the ideology that started to be forced onto gaming in the early & mid 2000's, or were willing to look the other way.
And we see the exact same dancing around the table, when it comes to the long dev cycles, and the cliche statements that development is expensive. Which is logical when games during their dev cycle often are rebooted due to "creative difference" and again games being made by people who don't have the skills for it. Than wonder why they always go over budget, its the same in Hollywood, comics, toys etc etc. Don' t get me even started about dev teams attacking their customers, neglecting to mention that a lot of studios thrive on the name of devs who were forced out of the industry between 2005 & 2015, and in no shape or form are the studio who created the hits of the past. My biggest disappointment in all of this are content creators like yourself, people who often have been into gaming before it became mainstream and socially acceptable, and before activism took front and center in game development. Yet consistently avoid calling a spade a spade, and just call it "cringe" or blame everything on corporate.
Preach shout out to Andy pants gaming for just making a video calling people out for this luke shoulda been on the video too
Luke is all about money if they pay good he ain't saying one bad word about the game
I watch the cutscenes, i like story and lore and being immersed.
legarie look 10000% like Anders from Workaholics
Hey I'm not intending to be mean I promise you but...kinda feel gaslit because I remember you smooshing outlaws and defending it pretty aggressively. Just had to point that out. Access isn't worth reputation my friend. But I'm just a random idiot so grain of salt and what not.
move on dude not all people hate the same things you do go watch nerdrotic and his trash kind if you want hate content
@@johansvensson833no clown we want someone whose review and opinion we can trust isnt paid for
At the end of the day it was a management/greed issue when it comes to Concord.
Out of all the criticism for Concord, the thing that pissed me off the most during the open beta was the fact that you couldn't main a character by design. I don't think this is brought up nearly enough in the post mortems.
We must make games great again but the only way is with our wallets. Don’t give garbage money. (Live service games) or live money grabs. 😂
does anyone remember that old meme that had the little girl saying Go! then gets pulled over by a dog or something and then says bwaah! when she hits the ground? I think thats concord.
I can't help but wonder if Max Scoville is related to the guy that invented the Scoville heat index for food spiciness.
It’s perfectly fine to be critical of things that you really enjoy.
The gaming industry is a very large and expensive industry, and so if you, as a consumer, are spending $70+ on a game, you should be allowed to be critical of the product you received.
I hope the PS6 generation has more single-player masterpieces like the PS4 generation
People don't truly realize how legendary the PS4 generation was compared to now
@@Jakco808 do you now how much money sony lost during ps4 ?
@@johansvensson833and look how much they wasted this generation, what's your point? The PS4 generation was objectively better, plus the new games from Sony are taking WAY TOO LONG to come out, 4-8 years? Seriously?
The real takeaway is that gen PS 3, 4, and 5 have all blown chunks.
At least 4 had the dreams thing, that was pretty cool.
I honestly wasn't really a fan of the 8th generation. I say 7th generation was the end of the golden era
Why are we still calling this gen next gen? Is it because it still feels like it hasn’t started yet?
It’s not just “white noise” to these devs (though they did say that): to many of them, any negative feedback (even when it’s constructive) is viewed as hate, and even bigotry. How often do people voice their complaints about a product and soon after we start seeing articles about the staff being “harassed”? They cannot fathom anyone not liking their game or the characters in it, and as they often take a moral high ground on it, they assume those that dislike it are bad people that need to be stopped. That is the real reason Concord won’t come back: Firewalk’s devs won’t admit the characters are ugly, the gameplay is boring, or the identity politics are too front and center. They would rather play victim and shift blame than admit they were wrong. Though honestly I doubt they even can tell that the characters were hideous.
I want ps2 era back where there wasnt live service bs and we enjoy story driven game which was nostalgia to me like bully . Og gtas, punisher and many more.
Lark looks like one of the monsters from that game where people need to fix generators while a monster can catch them and hang them. Think it'd dead by daylight or something. She's like the chappy monster in that, her legs just give me the ick never mind the rest of it
I think they might have sold a few hundred thousand if they had pivoted to have a campaign after OW2 announced that they were canning the only reason it had to justify it as a “2”, the campaign.
But I can’t imagine it would’ve sold amazing even then, and I don’t know that the cost to add that would’ve turned out well. But it certainly wouldn’t have been so embarrassing if there was something redeemable in the game and playable after its MP component flopped.
I think Sony needs to go back to SP with MP modes. They saw success in that method. They can spin off the more successful MP to a stand alone, or just divide the budget like they were back on PS3 and launch a SP game then the free MP after or vise versa depending on what it is and how it’s best to market it. They can feed each other.
If Luke has another kid I think he should name them after the games he's made the most content on this year so we all can remember the amazing year we had. Looking forward to Starfield Concord Stephens
Live service model games can be fun, but nowadays these games have become the most uninspired vanilla cash grabs
Destin with that vacuum cleaner in the back....
I guarantee that they had a full advertising expo ready to go for their ps5 pro reveal with Concord. But because it failed they had to show games from the last 5 years.
If people think about a proper way to do character and story stuff... League of Legends is probably the prime example.
People ended up liking what they did and just asked for more... There was a demand for it, and it is side content for the most part.
Starting a brand new IP with characters no one got to even start on the premise of "everyone will watch and love it!" is pure hubris from the developers side...
People need to want to know more before you create more... It's not a single player game that acts with an arch that gives you room to connect.
These type of games need to first generate a craving.
Concord did the exact opposite... It generated disgust.
And now they are totally baffled without even thinking for a moment their entire approach was wrong since the getgo!
The moment I saw "from IGN" all confidence vanished.
All I know definitively about Marvel Rivals is that it's fun to say like Scooby Doo or the Hamburglar.
Yeah thats the thing about people who go to these events and endorse the game. I don't ever take their word for it.
Satisfactory just came out in full release. I think that game took eight years to make too.
Of cause that game had more then 100k concurrent players.
So many words but the truth is
It is just not fun yes it is ugly yes they want money while other games is free if it was fun people would have played it
I feel like the game industry got about of touch when Sony stop showing up to e3/ games con. I can’t explain it fully yet but things definitely changed for the worse.
4:07 to 4:20... Remember this when you watch the Star Wars Outlaws video. Remember this because the video for Star Wars Outlaws was overall positive. If we only knew then what we know now....
what the hell are you babbling about ? you mean the game is great ? becuse it is
The live service problem is that publishers keep pushing for new ones, failing to understand that unless your live service game is interesting and good it will fail because there are already more then a few interesting and good ones out there.
Concord is what we in the Galactic Federation call an SS - Slop Singularity. What's happened is that Borderless Genericism has been incorrectly alloyed to supreme self confidence, warping the fabric of space, time, and the holes in space called objects, and the collective neural eatherweb of all humanity, dead, living, or imagined, resulting in blandness of such density, focus grouped into a beam of a-grade, hyper realistic beige, in such a way that it literally repelled any conscious agent with even a single, sub muon particle level of coolness left in themselves after existing beyond its release date.
When I first heard of back for blood, or whatever the vampire game is called, I was pretty interested, and then I saw the trailer and I was like nevermind lol
The industry thinks that it's too big to fail, but if anything, it'll end up like radio and cable networks where the ones that survive are the ones that respect their audiences
When Daddy wants a live service game, you make Daddy a live service game
-Devs being very aggressive about criticism
-There are better options out there for free
-Very unlikeable characters
-Unappealing designs for most gamers
-Story bad
-Dialogue is cringe
-concept is too generic
Devs and game journalist: Why won't gamers give the game a chance? Don't ask questions don't have preferences, just consume product and get excited for next product
I swear these dilusional people think that just by throwing a bunch of money to a problem and working on it that they are entitled to success, you are not entitled to anything first you find what people want and give them just that but instead they go " no no you don't actually want that, we know better than you what you want"
They have thrown away years of research on the market in order to persue the modern audience, well they got their modern audience all 700 of them
All the years of research shows that most gamers are male and that they prefer attractive designs, activists want to forcefully change that fact and force a new audience to take the place of current gamers and it's just not going to work
Both The Crew Motorfest AND the Crew 2 will get an offline mode, so hopefully game devs will start implementing an offline mode in EVERY game, even in Live Service titles!!!!
"Concord is a game for people who like Overwatch"
Super-dee-duper-cool, Sony. People who like overwatch are already playing overwatch.
Ign also gave SpongeBob squarepants battle for bikini bottom a 5/10. They gave concord a 7/10 just to remind you
I get the feeling Sony REALLY loved Destiny hence buying Bungie against best judgement of finance people and Firewalk who were former Bungie devs.
At least the good news is if you have an idea a major corp will pay millions to help you make it if you pass a Charisma check
Given the direction of Sony, the PS6 might just be the first PlayStation console that I won't buy upon release. I have my PC and PS5 and I don't see any reason why I would need a new console, even 3 or 4 years from now. This generation, I've used my PC 75%-80% of the time, and if the PS5 wasn't backwards compatible, I would've used my PC 95% to just 5% for my PS5.
I think somebody at sony gave the studio a sweetheart deal...maybe they are friends or cousins or something...thats the only explaination to why they bought it before the product is ready
Or maybe the game just ticked enough esg scores and Blackrock gave everyone involved a bag like they always do and youtubers like this refuse to comment on it
38:23 overall with this statement in general not with concord I don’t agree I remember when apex story was at its peak the community loved it same with overwatch I mean look at the genji one people wanted more of this in the game so saying one thing can’t have the other is dumb