322
An important update on Concord - Being taken offline September 6th, refunds to be issued
(blog.playstation.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
322 points (99.4% liked)
Games
32969 readers
1387 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If it wasn't for hundreds of people likely losing their jobs it would be really funny that Sony's greedy, cynical attempts to cash in on the live service fad keep failing
It’s probably not even the artists fault it turned out this shit. My gut feeling is that the game is victim of incompetent leadership. Indecisiveness on important matters and micro management on stupid things.
It’s also the same incompetent leadership who will get bonuses and promotions after this.
Was it shit?
Shit in terms of having no players and being pulled back after just two weeks.
From what I understand, the game itself was alright. It had no major technical or gameplay problems. At least the team of programmers and game designers were competent.
The main issue is that the game was incredibly unappealing, and I believe this can only come from poor leadership.
Is that not a game designer thing?
Was the fame alrifgr, or "incredibly unappealing"? What made it so ubappealing?
I want to paint easy villains into the world as much as anyone, but I didn’t see anything especially “evil” about Concord; just poorly planned and uninteresting. It’s more of a tragic failure of incompetence than anyone being greedy or hurtful.
I don't think the parent comment was trying to say that it's particularly evil. They rather meant "greedy" in the sense that these companies get a bit too excited about money.
Basically, live service games are pretty expensive to make and generally result in an incomplete/worse experience at launch. But if they're successful and gain enough of a player base, then they pay for themselves manyfold.
That's why these companies keep on gambling, by building live service games, rather than two or three smaller games from the same budget.
Do they lose their jobs?
They delivered the product, they got paid for their work.
I can't imagine hundreds of people still working on the game beyond release. They'll probably move on to different projects.
A failure this monumental will almost certainly result in Sony taking the entire studio out back and shooting it, just to placate investors.
Edit: For context, Sony owns Firewalk - the studio - outright, they're not just the publisher.
Most big game corps just shutter studios, usually letting them know via the grapevine after a board meeting or twitter post...