Concord: Internet Reacts To Sony Shutting Down The Game

This is what happens when you chase the market instead of leading with innovative game design.

"Every time a live-service game with no hook or strong word of mouth fails to penetrate an oversaturated market, the most annoying people on the planet will be there to blame diversity."

No. Kidding.

"It's bad that Concord failed. The PS5 era is known for sequels and remakes. The fact that a new I.P failed only means more sequels and remakes are coming."

Stellar Blade begs to differ. A brand new IP giving players what they wanted instead of trying to pander to some non-existent focus groups. People want flashy single-player campaigns with tight combat and fun exploration, not generic multiplayer shooters with ugly characters.

This game had HORRIBLE marketing lmao. Saw a gameplay video for the first time today, reminds me of when I was seeing Battleborn ads where I lived. Hadn't seen a video of that either, but at least it's a game I heard of without word of mouth, marketing for this game was just cheap or lazy. Costing money while being totally generic ass didn't help, but I'd place more blame on people just having no idea it even exists.

Where are the modern gamers who cry if they are not represented in videos games to buy this special game that is made for them?

Those are certainly some cherry-picked reactions and takes. Let's be real, the entire internet is dancing on this game's grave.

To be fair to GameSpot, I don't think the honest reactions would make for a very classy article. It's not the role of the traditional games media to celebrate when a game fails, we have content creators for that. On the other hand, an article like this is so dishonest that it feels like damage control.

This title didn't hit the mark as it looks like so many online only PVP games already out there. It didn't bring anything new or exciting to the mix, both visually & gameplay. Thing with online only FPS or 3rd person runaround shooters, is that they need to be pretty special & unique in order to appeal. I agree with the statement of an oversaturated market with these online shooters. There are a good few out there that are established & keep being revised & updated, so another entrant featuring more of the same jusr won't stand out. A bit like these new boy band style young singers - they all sound the same as what's already out there. Close your eyes, & you think you're listening to anyone already out there. They all sound the same. Get my drift? 😁🎮

It's a lesson that 8 years of development time and $100 billions budget is useless when the gameplay and the vision of the game is lacking which are the most important aspect of the game, not to mention the business fail on its price compared to the target audience regarding how the current video game industry is.

Give a reason for players to play the game + target players who would pay for the game + satisfy their basic need of fun and distraction + game does what it does in a proper immersion by filling it with elements of what a clueless player would expect and want from that game + game is fitting for current players so they can relate themselves to the game + do something better in a new way compared to other games = profit. It's really not hard. Instead of playing Concord I would return to Team Fortress 2 or try billions of other games like that like Fortnite, Valorant, Overwatch and whatnot but I never played these 3 games so why would I play Concord is what Sony should have questioned. Another thing is when people already wasted time and money on X game, they have no reason to play your game for they wouldn't waste time and money on your game. So your best bet would be trying to attract guys like me who don't play these popular games because they suck for me so releasing a video game like these popular games is a business fail when there are already tons of games like that.

The best bet for Sony is using the same game but ditching childish and girly aspect of the game and make it actually cool that older boys would wanna play by reskin it and release it as F2P. Not to mention they should ditch straightforward aim-shoot gameplay style anymore as it's not 90s. They should add stylish way to kill and even move your character. Add new gameplay styles that changes a lot depending on what character you play that's beyond of stats. Video game companies should remember games suppose to be fun but they just machinegun microtransactions and battlepasses on paid games without actually offering a reason for why people should play it. They think since world population increased a lot there will be enough people to pay for the game enough to cover the budget but in reality there are lots of video games anymore so you gotta develop a way better game that's different than past games and current popular games but all Sony did is selling lemonade on the side of the road for $40 when they giveaway free lemonade in supermarket lol. In general video game companies still act like it's 90s when there were way less video games that were releasing so either way players were almost buying any game releasing to avoid being bored for their prime way to get fun was video games. Now tons of copy-paste games being released people can safely even ignore 90% of AAA video games so easily. For example I basically ignored 99% AAA games released since around Witcher 3 because basically all sucks as they are bunch of copy-paste games and most of them are remakes. I even started to explore MSX games and play MSX version of some games like Snatcher. Look what the current video game industry made me do. I rather go play hide and seek at this rate lmao. :DDD

Indie game with pixel graphics, no voice ovr or facial expressions at all, a 6 month development time frame and a short game with simple game mechanics and too high difficulty? Game of the Month.

A game developed for 7+ years with high production value but which is not very original? Picky gamers tear it apart.

I just want to say Jason Screier is kind of annoying himself because he is so self righteous writing the way he does. Like, virtue-signaling.

Also, i have heard many say Concord failed because it was too expensive, in an overcrowded genre or simply not good enough. But i have not read anyone or hardly anyone blaming diversity for the failure. So i feel like Jason Schreier is totally guilty of the Strawman approach to making an argument.

A strawman is when you describe an opponent in a wrong way ("building a strawman") and then attack the arguments and opinions you just made up.

It is, for example, like if i would say Jason Schreier wants to cut taxes in half (which is not true) and then i atack him for cutting taxes too far. It is an example of the Strawman.

Of course, Schreier does not even name anyone so it is sort of an anonymous strawman he builds. It is very hard to oppose what he says when he does not say anyone in perticular said such things, just "annoying people".

And also, there are far more annoying things or worse things in the world, perspective please!

Also, i feel like there are many games with diversity which are successful, and it is maybe also a way for the PR team or companies to stay out of criticism from politically correct left wing social justice warriors and such people. Diversity which is genuine, awesome. But diversity to sort of "stay out of trouble" is kind of a peer pressure. I do not like peer pressure when it is about for example wearing the "right" clothes or consuming alcohol, and i do not like peer pressure in entertainment or culture either. I do not want to go as far as to say it is "harmful". I feel like the word "harmful" or "dangerous" is a bit overused. But i think peer pressure is wrong, i do not like it.

And also, does not Schreier have another take on the matter than the cheap "woke" take?

I like how Cliffy B responded to it though. :) Short and sweet, genuine sympathy.

And Gene Park makes a fun little obeservation. :) Gene is a nice guy. Maybe. I do not know him. :)


I look forward to the Playstation Plus free to play version, if there is any.

If I was a developer I would study and observe the HIGHLY SATURATED market for fps games.

Internet reacting to stuff, huh? It must be a first. :)

I would like a balanced take on what people are saying please.

Always has to be something from the people who preach inclusion yet no counter argument.

Concord failing isn't the result of one thing it's many.

It launched at a time when the genre it's in hasn't been hot for about 4 years

It looked generic and the GOTG rip off comments weren't totally unfair.

The game did feel as though it was designed by committee to try and appeal to as many people as possible. In doing so you appeal to nobody.

40 dollars for a game that most of its competitors are free to play was also a death sentence.

In short, late to market, generic, not free to play and trying to appeal to every subset of person is what killed this game.

Na game was total cringe. I would of walked past this if it was in the arcade when I was a kid. This isn't what us gamers wanted.. just this mythical modern audiences. Go back 20 years and look at the gaming covers those are my games in my library. Been playing playstation 2 games and monkey magic TV show game (black myth Wukong). Hopefully Sony will kick all this activism nonsense out after concord failed embarrassingly.

Definitely sucks for the people involved in making these failed games for years on end. Hopefully they can all make something more successful next time around.

Jason Shreier is the such a baby. He's been crying foul since HS.

This is so sad. I was stoked to get this game to play with my sis once I got my next paycheck. 😔