mechoman444
I am live.
- 0 Posts
- 62 Comments
Look, the reason Concord crashed and burned isn’t some deep philosophical mystery. It’s because the game simply wasn’t good enough to survive in a genre that’s already stacked with better, cheaper options.
It launched with no real identity. Everything about it felt like a watered-down version of other hero shooters, same structure, same archetypes, none of the charm. Characters were forgettable, abilities didn’t mesh well with the modes, and the balance was all over the place. The movement was slow, the time-to-kill was absurdly long, and fights dragged on like you were playing in molasses. That’s not “a bold design choice,” that’s just poor pacing.
Then you add the fact that they tried to charge forty bucks for something that, by every metric, should’ve been free-to-play. On top of that, content was thin at launch. Maps were bland, the mode selection was tiny, and there wasn’t enough variety to keep anyone invested. When a live-service shooter launches with barely anything to do, the writing is already on the wall.
Players didn’t walk away because they “didn’t give it a chance.” They walked away because the game gave them no reason to stay. Sales were abysmal, concurrency numbers cratered immediately, and Sony pulled the plug in record time. That’s not player bias or community toxicity; that’s a product failing on its own merits.
You can dress it up however you want, but the reality stands: Concord entered a crowded market with nothing special to offer, priced itself like it was a premium experience, and then delivered something that felt half-thought-out and generic. It wasn’t some misunderstood masterpiece. It was just a bad game.
Here lies the core of the disconnect. The property is not yours. When someone takes or uses something that does not belong to them, against the owner’s wishes, they have committed a violation. The owner’s reasons are irrelevant; it is their property.
Consider this scenario: you write a book you do not wish to publish. Then an external entity steps in and announces that they will publish it and distribute it for free. You would rightfully feel that your autonomy had been overridden.
This is why copyright laws exist. They can be exploited, like any system, but they remain the most effective framework we currently have.
Sony isn’t giving the game away for free you’re taking it by force.
I’ve noticed here on Lemmy that the general user base just doesn’t like copyright laws or have a complete lack of knowledge of what a copyright is how they function and why it’s beneficial to copyright works.
It’s actually really frustrating mainly because you get downvoted for supporting copyright which is insane.
• The term endures for the life of the author plus 70 years.
• For works made for hire or anonymous/ pseudonymous works, the term is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.
Dude. I noticed that there is a collective misunderstanding of copyright and intellectual property on Lemmy y’all need to read some wikis or something.
Imagine you create a product that is mechanically functional but fundamentally terrible. Only a tiny group is willing to pay for it, and even that isn’t enough to break even. You have no choice but to pull it from the market and discard it. Then the government steps in and starts distributing that product for free. This is your personal intellectual property, you no longer control it or own it.
Your comment is deeply frustrating. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright and intellectual property, which is frankly astounding.
Your claim that all games deserve to remain playable is incorrect. If maintaining a game places the developer or publisher in a financial deficit, then the game does not merit continued operation.
The fact that third parties find ways to keep such a game running is irrelevant; it has no bearing on whether the game inherently deserves preservation.
Your position relies on an unsupported opinion and appeals to users’ emotions rather than presenting a substantive argument. As stated, it is an empty assertion without meaningful justification.
No… They don’t. If the cost of running the servers for that game is more than the game can bring in there is no point in continuing service.
I understand that “gamers” believe otherwise but Sony, or any other company is going to go into the red because an extremely tiny base if people want to keep playing said game. Especially a massive utter flop like concord.
I think you’re missing the point.
The steam deck is still relatively niche and unknown compared to a switch.
The namesake and brand recognition for nintendo completely dwarfs that of the steam deck.
More people are going to buy a switch on impulse and brandname alone so buying a steam deck is almost always going to be an informed decision as in it won’t be much of an impulse purchase.
Baldurs gate 3 ruined it for the large AAA developers/publishers. People are now excepting good games like that.
Look. I don’t care about the political content in a game as long as the game is good!
The issue is, these large game companies have been trying to change the mindset of gamers to accept games with less content because at the end of the day the only thing these companies want is to sell horse armour.
So let’s just address the meta here real quick. There was a comment on Lemmy to which I responded. In context the genesis of this comment is in reference to Ubisoft and the general state of inclusion politics in gaming today.
You are questioning the fundamental motivation as to why I have an opinion on the subject matter that is presented to me under the protest that “it’s just a game”.
I mean why even have an opinion? Why formulate thoughts? Why have any kind of discussions?
I am abreast of what is happening generally in gaming and the industry surrounding it because I’m interested in these things. I like playing video games.
I also have other interests. For example, I’m fairly good at playing the guitar, so there’s a lot of content in my social media about guitars and music.
I also find it entertaining to watch flat Earth debunking videos on YouTube to pass the time.
The reason I care about assassin’s Creed in particular is because I’ve been playing the game since the very first one. I like the franchise. I like the video games and watching it get ruined because of inclusion politics is heartbreaking.
Moreover, they already have the game. It’s already been made. Therefore I have the right to criticize it. Simply stating “it’s just a game” isn’t helpful.
I don’t care if there’s black people or women or LGBT people in video games. I could absolutely care less about that as long as it’s relevant to the game. If they’re just including it to be inclusive, then it’s a meaningless gesture. It brings down the game. It brings down the IP and it brings down the company that does it.
Furthermore, people play video games for a reason. Either it be escapism or immersion or simply to pass a small amount of time till whatever else they have to do. Seeing these inconsistencies in the game breaks that immersion it no longer becomes entertainment. It becomes a political statement which I have very little interest in when it comes to my entertainment.
You can pretend to be on your high horse all you want. I have no interest in seeing inclusion politics in my entertainment. It serves no beneficial purpose except to elevate the egos of people like you to make you feel as though something is being included.
Pure nonsense.
Also the new Star wars game which I don’t even remember the name of sucked universally. It didn’t make any money because people didn’t have any interest in it specifically and exclusively because of the inclusion politics added into the game. Also the main character is fucking ugly.
They already delayed the release due to so much negative feedback. It’s going to be a bad game. There should never have been a black person in this game at all. It’s 1600s Japan. It makes no fucking sense!
There are so many layers as to why Ubisoft is going through what it’s going through I don’t have the energy to express it here in this comment.
I can assure you, however, if they worried more about making good games and less of inclusion politics their stock would be worth a lot more than 2 bucks!
Disgusting.
This isn’t about being diverse. It’s about making bad games.
As a matter of fact, the new assassin’s Creed is so offensive that the Japanese government is in an uproar about it.
Ubisofts attempt to be so inclusive and sexually neutral is what’s making their games bad because they’re stifling good game design in the process.
That’s not to say that it’s not possible to make a good game while adhering to diversification and inclusion.
Hellblade and horizon zero Dawn are two excellent examples of incredibly good games that don’t expound sexism. Hell, look at destiny 2. They handle these kinds of situations perfectly!
But to simply imply people are upset because they don’t like “woke politics” is a gross over simplification of what’s happening to Ubisoft!
No they’re not. Those are the opinions of the majority of people that played the game and/or reviewed it. Also they’re quantifiable by the game play.
The fact that it was too expensive is not subjective, the fact that the art direction was poor is not subjective, lack of material at launch is not subjective.
I highly recommend you look up the definitions of subjective/objective.