• Stern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Three big reasons imo

    1. No iconic characters. Every character I remember looked kinda ugly or sidekick’ish at best.
    2. Charging for a game archtype others are giving away for free.
    3. Nothing new done in that archtype.
    • OrgunDonor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I don’t think point 3 is quite fair. There were some new ideas thrown into the game.

      The issue is those ideas were not fun, or very badly implemented. I believe it was the ranked mode, where if you won the round you were then locked out of playing that character again. They also had you build out a collection of characters to pick from before the game started.

      There were some new ideas, I just don’t know of any that were good and added to the game. The only ones I know of seemed bad(or at least badly implemented) and took away from what enjoyment people had with the game.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        The choose N heroes things is also in deadlock. They require you to choose 3 and you’re given 1 based on preference and queue time. Can’t be a1-trick but you can usually get the same hero each game

        • OrgunDonor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          I don’t think you can compare the deadlock and concord mechanics. The concord one is more like, congratulations you won a round with the M4 in CS… You can no longer use the M4 for the rest of the game.

  • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s a mystery how a paid multiplayer team hero shooter with microtransaction, featuring uninspiring character design, launched and compete with other good f2p multiplayer game, and won’t sell. Can’t crack the code, sorry.

  • BougieBirdie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Generally speaking, games don’t fail because of the decisions made by the developers. That’s usually caused by people higher up the food chain, you’d think a film/tv producer would know all about that

  • overload
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 month ago

    There’s no one accusing that Concord died due to lack of investment!

  • Jumi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 month ago

    We made a game that nobody wants! Why does nobody want it? We explicitly told you to!

  • Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    Let’s see, Sony is whining about not knowing what their players want…

    They want Bloodborne Remastered, ported to PC. They don’t want to sign in to PSN to play on non-Sony hardware.

    Want to print money? Do that…

  • alessandro@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I don’t think people shrugged off on Concord because poor quality such as bug or inconsistency. Concord was a fine Overwatch-wannabe that went for hard-sci realism (not as interesting as stylized/cartoon as TeamFortress2 and Overwatch). Pubg had realism, but it was the original trendsetter. CoD aside (which has its own historical fellowship) how many other multiplayer GaaS went successful with that sort of realism as Lawbreakes.

    Also, blue water/red water problem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy