• mommykink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    It’s actually pretty crazy just how hard that game flopped. I would have always thought that a company like Sony could’ve just brute-forced such a big project to achieve some success (or at least break even), but 25,000 units sold is almost unheard of for a game as expensive as Concord.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      52 minutes ago

      I don’t know how they expected to succeed without any marketing. I hadn’t seen hide nor hair of this game, even on my PS5 (where they usually advertise the absolute hell out of a 1st party title like this), until the day it released.

      Or how their game being just another hero shooter/moba crossover in a sea of such games would differentiate itself enough to warrant also costing $40 instead of being like its competition which is FREE.

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 hours ago

      It’s crazy that they released it. They had early access and preorders and those only attracted something like 1,000 players. This is a game that had a $100 million budget. So few players during the early stages should have told the studio to cancel it while it was still in production. Apparently they thought they’d release it and would just jump from 1,000 players to 100,000 overnight with no changes.

    • Altima NEO@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Its pretty tough when they release a game that took so long to develop, that was meant for an era of gaming when live service games were hot. Now that a lot of live service games are flopping due to over-saturation, I think even Sony saw it wasn’t worth the effort of trying to push the game further without either reworking it into something else, or just cutting their losses.

      • golli@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Importantly they tried to enter the market with a $40 purchase price, when the existing competition is mostly free to play.

    • TroublesomeTalker@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      What mystifies me is usually when they do this sort of thing they throw it on Plus and get a mountain of players. Fall guys, and Destruction All Stars spring to mind as examples. I guess the effect isn’t so strong with the new tiered system, but it may have saved them some face.

      • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        When the game had a free beta, there was hardly anyone playing it. At some point you’ve just got server costs and promises of live service content rollouts that can only cost you money.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      A lot of games media has talked on it (to varying degrees). But Concord basically had a bad beta/demo and launched at a time when EVERYONE wanted live games to fail (see: Stop Killing Games Initiative). AND it managed to piss off the gamergaters in the process.

      We’ve seen this to a lesser degree in the past with… basically every Battlefield since the WW1 one? Bad demo/beta (mostly because people still haven’t learned to not play Conquest and to instead play Rush) coupled with the CoD/BF fanboy war results in outlets and Gamers actively wanting the game to fail and shitting on it every chance they get. It is just that EA understand that BF is the kind of game that still sells enough to justify keeping Dice around.

      • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 minutes ago

        battlefields a bit different. battlefield basically nowadays is that the game always launch in a terrible state, and fixes itself a year down the line. battlefield players will play the game regardless and maintains ~6000 user playerbase active

  • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    My assumption is they are making sure they get their severance/golden parachute before the mass layoffs begin. But I guess it is still better than “This is a really hard day for me to fire everyone who put their trust in me. I am going to go drown my sorrows in a prostitute that is waiting with blow in my lambo outside” that we usually get.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      You are vastly overestimating how good contracts for creative roles in the industry are, especially for a mid-sized studio of under 200 people. But even if that wasn’t the case, the guy isn’t quitting the company, he’s apparently stepping down as creative director and staying on in some other role, according to the article.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        41 minutes ago

        Ah. Shame on me for not reading the article. Usually associate the director of a big game as high up enough in the studio that they still get good money.

        In that case… this is completely pointless and is just an attempt to avoid needing to figure out the right tone for the “This is the worst day of my life and I am so sad that I just fired a couple dozen people because of my business decisions” linkedin post that is usually associated with the mass layoffs. He isn’t even metaphorically falling on his sword. He is just washing his hands of it.