https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/e18e54fe.jpgLOL
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/e18e54fe.jpg
honestly why didn't they just reduce the price to $20 or something?
even if game is trash if it is cheap people will be more likely to buy
server costs?
No it's not server costs. It doesn't cost much at all to run the one server they would need to host every player. They shut it down because it's expensive to keep needing to refund the game.
why would they need to refund if it is $20 and servers still work?They need to refund it because the customer requested a refund because it's a dead game and they live in country with non shit consumer protections.
refund is because they shutting it down and no one wants to pay $70 to play it or even $40
Lol, SwayM really has a kink for self-humiliation.That's why I just skipped straight to the taunting.
Dear Wolcen Community,
Weve read your comments, and, seeing that quite a few players are still doing their best to get the Dawns Healing achievement, we have decided to postpone shutting down the servers until September 17, 2024. During this time, we will work on finding a good equivalent for it that can be unlocked while playing offline.
We would also like to confirm that there will be an "Import Online Character" button in the games menu that downloads and converts your online character to an offline one, even when the server are already shut down.
The Wolcen Team
Artificially keeping a game alive for the sake of trophy hunting is just... achievements were such a mistake.
It's 2024, literally every game updates.
What are you even talking about?
Here I was thinking we all had a basic understanding of "Live Service" or "Games as a Service" meant any game that wants to supplement either a free to play model or just rake in extra cash by offering a multitude of microtransactions, i.e.: battlepasses, cosmetics, currencies, boosters, gizmos, hoosker do's, hoosker don'ts, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_as_a_service
Now we're just out here calling literally any game we don't like and wish to fail "Live service" because it updates?
Again. This game had none of that BS, and celebrating it's failure is definitely a bad look for the industry and gamers alike. Y'all acting like you want more developers to spoon feed you mtx, because the precedent is those games do very, very well.
The failure of it boils down to the fact that nobody really wants another live service game, particularly one you have to pay for. A 40$ model is fine 8 years ago but it isn't today when the cosmetics aren't worth it and nobody has any reason to trust this won't be like every other live service game that starts charging for all the cool cosmetics.
My understanding is that the gameplay is fine but the maps are mediocre. Combine that with pretty offputting designs and hoping the game doesn't do what every other game like it does, why would anyone invest 40$? It's not a bad look for people to reject this, it's years past its time.
What you're saying is that it should have been free to play and been overloaded with microtransactions then?
In a recent interview with Video Games Chronicle, Firewalk confirmed that the game will have a similar monetization structure to Overwatch as well, as it will offer skins and other cosmetic items for an extra cost to players.
What you're saying is that it should have been free to play and been overloaded with microtransactions then?
They literally said Concord was going to have microtransactions just like Overwatch.
In a recent interview with Video Games Chronicle, Firewalk confirmed that the game will have a similar monetization structure to Overwatch as well, as it will offer skins and other cosmetic items for an extra cost to players.
Listen, I don't want to alarm you either, but when a strictly multiplayer game gets released. I expect it to need to connect to the internet at some point.Quantity does not equal quality. Theres a dozen or more shit multiplayer games for every awesome single player game.
Wild shit. Take as much time with that as you need.
idk what rock you live under but the vast majority of games played today are multiplayer
i can't believe there's a defense force for this game.Its just SwayM, for some really weird reason.
Well I'll concede on that. That's is very foolish
Its just SwayM, for some really weird reason.
i can't believe there's a defense force for this game.There were people defending all the unwanted Ghostbuster reboots and Helldivers II fiasco as well. Almost as if there is this weird love for big corporations on CE.
Yeah, they made a lot of foolish decisions.
This really wasn't "The internet got together and decided to cancel a game for no real reason." This was "People hadn't even heard of the game, and then when they did, and heard everything about it, they voted with their wallet by not buying the game, and then nobody was surprised when the game sold horribly."
Yes, it's possible it could have played very well. But when the developer is outright basically telling people "Yeah, this is a less charming looking Overwatch, down to the microtransactions, but you gotta pay $40 first," then you can see why that would make people "Nope" and not even want to try it.
Posting this from another topic as an example of how terrible the visual design in Concord is:
Learning more about the game is fascinating and the little things add up why it failed. For example, they have a Pharah like character in Concord. The character really has no visual indication that she can fly just by looking at her though. No wings for example. She is wearing a skintight suit with a comically oversized helmet. She apparently flies around with jets coming out of her mundane looking boots.
The game didn't fail because people "dogpiled" on it.
Like is this game that special? Or do gamers just love the smell of stink on something.both?
Now the theory is "the game did poorly because all people talked about was how bad it looks and it dissuaded potential buyers" even though that has never been how anything in life workedWell who in specific created that theory? If people are talking about how bad the game is, its because the game was bad. Ergo, the game did poorly because the game was bad.
Well who in specific created that theory?
Its just SwayM, for some really weird reason.
Now the theory is "the game did poorly because all people talked about was how bad it looks and it dissuaded potential buyers" even though that has never been how anything in life worked
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/960f883c.jpg
Concord has *nothing*.It doesnt even have r34...
Going "it failed because people only talked about the bad parts!" Baffles me
Even things like forspoken and the marvel game that crashed and burned had a contingent of "okay yes the writing is ass but the game itself is fun". Concord has *nothing*.
I dont see any reason Concord is the biggest failure in gaming history by looking at the quality of the game they produced.
The magnitude of failure is determined by the money spent versus the money gained. I'd have to go through the numbers to prove this and don't really care so we'll go with Trust Me Bro as a source for now but at one point FF14 was the biggest failure in gaming. Square Enix managed to turn it around and kept investing in it to make it their literal biggest success ever.
Could Firewalk have done the same? Maybe but we'll never know for sure because Sony wasn't willing to give them any more money to find out.
I dont see any reason Concord is the biggest failure in gaming history by looking at the quality of the game they produced.
Yeah the money aspect of it I get
But shutting the game down in 2 weeks?
Like FFXIV at first launch was literally unplayable.
I dont think this game is as big of a failure mechanically / quality wise
I think I've already explained before the reason for the sudden shutdown is to limit the number of refund processing. They could drag it out but numbers were only going down and any new purchases would have been highly likely to request refunds. Refunds are expensive because not only do you not get any money you pay the payment processor fees to process the refund.That's business in general today. Surely, that won't blow up in our faces one day, right...?
Sony is a corporation designed to make money. They fundamentally do not give 2 fucks about games, art, or the few hundred people that were enjoying Concord despite the flaws. Or the developer team for that matter. All executive decisions are done in a pretext of "how can I present the best possible shareholder report" and they were bleeding badly here and essentially cauterized it before they lost even more.