this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
322 points (99.4% liked)

Games

32640 readers
896 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] simple@lemm.ee 25 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Wow, I expected they'll go straight to free-to-play but I guess the game has such a bad reputation that they decided to take it down completely. Refunds being issued is awfully nice though.

[–] 60fpsrefugee@lemm.ee 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, ain't no monetizing scheme is gonna save this one. There's just too much bad rep.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months 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.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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...

[–] drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 10 points 2 months 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.

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months 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.

[–] kaitco@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months 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.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Free-to-play is often a lazy comment from social media that represents an incomplete business plan. Developers have to get paid, and you need a plan for how players will be pushed into that.

The assumption is often on a vague “skins and charms” type of thing but it depends on whether the game was built for that expectation. They likely knew they wouldn’t be putting out compelling reskins of their characters.