▲ 322 ▼ An important update on Concord - Being taken offline September 6th, refunds to be issued (blog.playstation.com) submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by li10@feddit.uk to c/games@lemmy.world 109 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] 60fpsrefugee@lemm.ee 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yeah, ain't no monetizing scheme is gonna save this one. There's just too much bad rep. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago (2 children) There's just too much bad rep. On the one hand, that's not a bet I'd take since No Man's Sky exists. On the other hand, NMS is definitely the exception, not the rule. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) I assume, NMS made money from their launch, despite it being so underwhelming, and that's what they used to patch up the game. Concord seems to have made essentially no money... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 10 points 2 years ago 25K units sold TOTAL. 10 on steam, 15 on psn. Some quick math, steam takes a 30% cut (10k * 40 * .7 = 280k), and since this is a sony published game sony got to keep 100% on their platform (15k * 40 = 600k). Sony made less than 1 mill in revenue on this game which allegedly cost 100M to develop. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago People wanted NMS, they wanted NMS to be good. It was a let down when it wasn't. No one wanted this. No one thought it would be good. It was a laugh when it failed. They aren't the same. permalink fedilink source parent [–] kaitco@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Yeah, ain't no monetizing scheme is gonna save this one. This is the key marketing fail. They released an OW clone, and then failed to highlight the differences. I might have thrown $40 at it, if I’d known that there wasn’t going to be a battlepass or something equally asinine to come with that price tag. I played through their free weekend beta some time in July and didn’t hate it, but it was clunky and the designs were uglier than OW. That said, I had expected them to clean it up before release; anything except let it stand with its overarching veneer of greyige+olive green over every character. I think they just released it to say it was released and be able to do the write-offs. Otherwise, any game that had been in development this long would have seen a huge marketing campaign that highlighted why players should abandon OW, et al for Concord instead. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago (2 children) There's just too much bad rep. On the one hand, that's not a bet I'd take since No Man's Sky exists. On the other hand, NMS is definitely the exception, not the rule. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) I assume, NMS made money from their launch, despite it being so underwhelming, and that's what they used to patch up the game. Concord seems to have made essentially no money... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 10 points 2 years ago 25K units sold TOTAL. 10 on steam, 15 on psn. Some quick math, steam takes a 30% cut (10k * 40 * .7 = 280k), and since this is a sony published game sony got to keep 100% on their platform (15k * 40 = 600k). Sony made less than 1 mill in revenue on this game which allegedly cost 100M to develop. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago People wanted NMS, they wanted NMS to be good. It was a let down when it wasn't. No one wanted this. No one thought it would be good. It was a laugh when it failed. They aren't the same. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) I assume, NMS made money from their launch, despite it being so underwhelming, and that's what they used to patch up the game. Concord seems to have made essentially no money... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 10 points 2 years ago 25K units sold TOTAL. 10 on steam, 15 on psn. Some quick math, steam takes a 30% cut (10k * 40 * .7 = 280k), and since this is a sony published game sony got to keep 100% on their platform (15k * 40 = 600k). Sony made less than 1 mill in revenue on this game which allegedly cost 100M to develop. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 10 points 2 years ago 25K units sold TOTAL. 10 on steam, 15 on psn. Some quick math, steam takes a 30% cut (10k * 40 * .7 = 280k), and since this is a sony published game sony got to keep 100% on their platform (15k * 40 = 600k). Sony made less than 1 mill in revenue on this game which allegedly cost 100M to develop. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago People wanted NMS, they wanted NMS to be good. It was a let down when it wasn't. No one wanted this. No one thought it would be good. It was a laugh when it failed. They aren't the same. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kaitco@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Yeah, ain't no monetizing scheme is gonna save this one. This is the key marketing fail. They released an OW clone, and then failed to highlight the differences. I might have thrown $40 at it, if I’d known that there wasn’t going to be a battlepass or something equally asinine to come with that price tag. I played through their free weekend beta some time in July and didn’t hate it, but it was clunky and the designs were uglier than OW. That said, I had expected them to clean it up before release; anything except let it stand with its overarching veneer of greyige+olive green over every character. I think they just released it to say it was released and be able to do the write-offs. Otherwise, any game that had been in development this long would have seen a huge marketing campaign that highlighted why players should abandon OW, et al for Concord instead. permalink fedilink source parent