Gaming

Thats a weird way to say the industry's been releasing shitty games.

Over and over and over and over the gaming community has been screwed over by Publishers so I'll stop grave dancing when Corpos stop being so horrible

• Requiring a third party account to play a game months after it was released and after selling it to customers who can't legitimately make an account because you don't feel like their country can make you enough profit. Helldivers 2

• Attempting to take away peoples digital "purchases" of media because you can't be bothered to pay licencing. Sony

• Changing the definition of "purchase" an established word in English and not defining your new definition until page 22 of a EULA that you know nobody is going to read. Sony, and everyone else

• Shutting down a server and rendering a game with a whole single player aspect completely useless and not telling consumers this at the time of purchase. The Crew (https://www.stopkillinggames.com/)

• Selling a terribly incomplete game filled with glitches for the price of a full game. Cyberpunk 2077 and so many others.

• Selling Pre-Purchases to let people play the game early but really its just another way to get people to pay to be Guinea pigs in your buggy game. That new Star Wars game and so many others.

• Adding so many stupid "micro transactions" to games to milk players as much as possible for useless skins and camos etc. Diablo 4 and so many more.

• Adding a "Season Pass"???? I don't even understand what this is??? Buy a full priced game and then buy a subscription to that game??? But still not have access to all of the content and then be shown a magic glove that costs €500, why is this not part of the subscription or is it???? I hope it is. New COD and probably others

• "Making" a game and selling it to people but really its just a scam where they got "volunteers" to work on the game for free. Then shutting the game down instantly. That zombie game with Will Smith.

• Something, something Overwatch 2 is a totally brand new game.

• Shutting down third party mods for an unsupported and dangerous game just after the sale for that game is over. Fine, they didn't own all of the assets used but they did fix the issue where people could infect your system with malware. COD

• Increasing the prices of all of your subscriptions and making those subscriptions worse by offering less while your parent company is posting ~$20 Billion profits in the most recent quarter, yes quarter, thats like 3 months...

Btw all of these examples have happened within the last 4 years. Its pretty sad that I can list these off the top of my head. I only play single player games and I only got back into gaming a couple of years ago after ~10 years of not really playing anything

There's no jubilation at "seeing a big game fail" there's jubilation at seeing a game fail that is developed by a studio that is doing fucked up shit, or a game that is shovelling some fucked up agenda, or the like.

We dance on the graves of any game developed by Actiblizz, Ubisoft, EA, etc not because they are big games, but because they are developed by evil corporations.

Have some empathy for megacorporations. They're moral (lol) entities just like you and me. /s

Then stop making games with no audience

I have a very simple reason for hating Concord and being slightly happy that it failed: They bait-and-switched the hell out of all of us with that reveal video.

You can't build up an interesting world filled with characters like that and then give us a PvP-only hero shooter. Who do you think you are, old Blizzard?

This is the first I've even heard of "Concord"

Sounds like I'm not missing much

Bad headline but reasonable argument within. Concord probably failed for the reasons people outlined, sure.

The point is that peoples fingers aren't quite as on the pulse of what will make something successful as what we give ourselves credit for. We attribute reasons for something's success or failure after the fact.

Personally, I don't know what makes a hero shooter successful or not. A game like this could be going gangbusters for some reason in 6 months time and I would probably not understand why. I say that as someone who's been an avid gamer over the last 30 years.

Dancing on concords grave is more fun than playing concord, and it's free!

Being critical about games is a bad habit?

In general talking about something bad, disappointing or controversal is always a good way to generate clicks. That works for news too. We humans are wired just like that. So its not something that has become recently a bad habit, this is something happening since decades, before and outside of gaming as well.

Pcgamer sure is putting a lot of words and intentions onto people.

Edit: I have now read Firewalks wiki and I'm starting to see a picture. Just seeing the words "Sony", "Bungie" and "Activision" repeated everywhere does kinda give an impression of what the hopes for the game were.

Not running on linux = no buy

Should have been PvE.

My main issue with it is that everyone is using it to push their own narrative about why the game failed. People doing the "It's a woke game, so it went broke", or "it's a saturated market", or whatever. These are just reactions, not data driven analyses.

I just want battleborne back...

this take in the article was really funny

My guess at the real reason for all this grave dancing is that it feels like a victory over FOMO. If the new $40 game sucks and no one is playing it, I can safely go back to whatever I was playing before without worrying that anyone's having fun without me.

i don't know what most people's reasons for deriving enjoyment from concord's failure are, but there's no way FOMO cracks the top 3 lmao

seeing the trailer, i definitely thought it was a bandwagon hero shooter that might have had some creativity if a bunch of suits didn't say "make it GotG", but realistically, it launched with little fanfare, in competition with valve's first new game (beta) in ages. not that it was fated to fail but it didn't have a lot going for it