A game no one heard of until it shut down isn't that interesting of a story. It's not that deep.
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
89 points (92.4% liked)
Games
32373 readers
1927 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:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's interesting in the sense that something went catastrophically wrong here.
This isn't just a small indie dev wasting a bit of money, it's hundreds of millions set on fire by an established company in this industry.
The fact that "no one heard of it" is exactly the point. What went wrong here?
I think it's a story when it's perhaps the largest flop in the medium, much like John Carter. It's somehow worth writing five articles about the Joker sequel flopping.
I'm not saying it's not a story, just not one most people care about. Avid gamers had barely heard of the game before it flopped, average non-gamer wouldn't care.
Joker sequel flopping is a bigger story because the first one was well recieved, also celebrities are involved.
If the next call of duty sells 14 copies and shuts down in two weeks it would be a big story.
Do you think more people care about the average video game story or the average story about the theater? Live performances, not movies. Theater, Dance, and Visual Arts all get their own sections in the NYTimes, for instance, but video games are demonstrably bigger and don't get the same attention. There's rarely even a mention of the likes of Call of Duty in mainstream media when they do exceptionally well, let alone exceptionally poorly, and that's really the crux of the article.
That has more to do with New York having a thriving theater scene and a NY newpaper promoting a local thing that is popular with its readership and the companies that pay for advertising. It is something that sets NY apart from a lot of other locations, even if theater is pretty common in most areas.
Kind of a chicken and egg when it comes to games, since readers won't be expecting games news in mainstream sources they don't dedicate resources to writing the articles. That makes business sense because most people who are looking for game news already have a number of web sites to choose from.
I agree that theater is something that New York has in abundance over most areas, but are there not movie focused sites better delivering those articles on movies as well? Is it not worth covering something at all just because it's at other news sources? If it wasn't, any news outlet would only print exclusives. And this extends beyond the Times, as the article points out; that's just the outlet I personally have a subscription to, and their circulation extends far and wide regardless.
My point is mostky about people's expectations and that people who want news on games probably aren't interested in gaming articles from papers/major news sites and companies in general aren't looking to advertise on gaming articles in the same way that makers of fashion would want to advertise in the theater section.
I really like this post btw, I never really thought about how sparse reporting on games is outside of dedicated sites.
Like I said though, they do have some really great articles in gaming, just not with their own header, so they're harder to find. And they do know what isn't covered by other outlets, because they tend to do profile pieces rather than news coverage. But if Joker's sequel is worth writing five articles about, surely the largest failure we've seen in games is worth one, you'd think.
An article about Joker 2 has the novelty factor of bombing as a sequel to Joker, which was a massive hit. They will got a lot more views on any one of those five Joker 2 articles than they will from multiple articles about a game nobody heard about.
More views = more money. It doesn't matter whether something is more 'worthy' or not.
For the New York Times, that's not really their incentive system compared against their subscription model. Still, it's a disparaging difference between how they treat both industries. Losing hundreds of millions of dollars would be news in any industry.
I think more people who pay to subscribe to NYTimes care more about live theater than video game news.
How about CNN, ABC, BBC, etc.?
How many times are you going to move the goal posts?
No one is watching CNN for gamer news.
I didn't move the goalposts. I brought up some of the other publications listed in the article.
John Carter didn't get that much attention either, and what it did was mostly about the leadership changes in Disney tanking the advertising and not about the movie itself.
Sounds familiar...
Also, generally speaking, people interested in news about games read and seek out gaming sources that cover gaming info. Like kotaku.
Gaming is popular enough that there are several dedicated news and information sites to choose from. The "news" is for stuff of general interest. They could cover some gaming news, but for the most part people who want gaming news get it from more dedicated sources.
Movies have flopped this hard before, it’s like when they made Catwoman and decided they’d rather shelve it and take the tax write off.
I've seen analysis that said Catwoman may have been more about royalties in the streaming era rather than solely tax write-offs, but this article does point out "this year" specifically. The lower bound for how much Concord lost is in line with the highest recorded box office loss of John Carter, according to the article. Previous Kotaku reporting confirms from multiple sources that Concord lost at least $200M, but did not fully corroborate the $400M figure that Colin Moriarty reported.
My first reaction to Concord’s record-breaking failure was sympathy for all the staff who had worked on and polished the game for years. All that dedication, passion, and effort, wasted.
Then, I found out the game had been live service, and my reaction could be simplified to one word: GOOD.
WWIII: Special Military Operation still going on. WWIII: Religious Extremism expansion pack just dropped. COVID: 2: Electric Boogaloo in some areas. Election year in like 4+ major countries. Multiple major entertainment failures across the board in multiple entertainment sectors. And major scandals to boot, most notably a massive media icon's fall from grace via nice and friendly things like coercion, conspiracy to murder, human trafficking, etc.
Gee Kotaku idk. You would think a Japanese corporation's failure and loss of revenue would be more important to American media outlets during an election year. Crazy how that managed to slip through the cracks.
I go on psplus and ps store just about daily and I had never heard of this game before. What kind of shit marketing is going on here? Looks like a basic game, nothing special, and it looks like it uses a card system which I despise.
Concord? No, it didn't, but this article isn't so much about Concord.
A live service game failing isn’t newsworthy. It’s newsworthy when one isn’t completely terrible
No no, mainstream gaming media definitely knew about it. But they were too busy shilling the game and trying to "own the chuds" or whatever it was they were doing with some of those articles to bother with actually reporting on what was happening with the game.
Plus the American mainstream news media has been obsessed with pushing/covering politics for the last 6 or 7 months, and both political parties are giving the media massive stockpiles of ammo for ragebait-fuelled ad revenue. Why would they ever cover video games, something mainstream media outlets have historically blamed some of the worst tradgedies in American history on, when it will neither give them free ad revenue, nor continue to villanize video games?