MFTWrecks

For comparison, Valve's unannounced (and invite-only) game Deadlock hit over 81k concurrent players during the same period.

Especially of note is it is also a multiplayer only competitive shooter (obviously with a few different things also going on).

Concord is dead on PC. No way around it. I don't even think going free will save it on PC.

I loved Helldivers 2, but I fell off after the dev team kept messing with the fun weapons. I'm really intrigued by this, especially considering it's 4x as many players at one time. That's gotta be hectic in the best way possible.

I love me a good horde shooter. L4D, WWZ, HD2... loved 'em all in their own way. Hopefully I can convince some buddies to join me in this.

@get2sammyb So which one of those revered IPs is this?

People want those classic, name brand multiplayer experiences. We are BEGGING for those. Have been for years!

So, yes. Sending a message we want THOSE and not THIS is still a very valid perspective.

I've yearned for a new Killzone, a new Twisted Metal, a new War/Starhawk, a new SOCOM, a new TLOU Factions (a new Jet Moto)... They announced 2 of those and cancelled them both. Then released dime store Overwatch while their classic IP sit and rot.

Sony deserves to have some cash lit on fire if they think THIS is what the market demands. Why are you white knighting for them? I know you're a big fan and your job depends on their success, to a degree, but... they don't need you defending their objectively bad business decisions. Investing heavily in THIS particular game in THIS particular genre for 8(ish) years DESERVES to be criticized. It was a bad choice. They now reap what they sow.

I'd give it reps if it were free. Simple as.

The game wasn't worth $40.

They should have launched as free, with a $40 option to unlock every hero, forever. Like Smite does. Then let free players grind to unlock em.

This is going to pull a Battleborn right quick. And by then it'll be too late.

Rich take coming from fans who have to put up with Sony not saying a gotdamm word about a gotdamm thing for years.

What's so bad about Xbox ALSO keeping its cards closer to the chest, huh?

"Oh BuT wHeRe ShOuLd I bUy ThEiR gAmEs?!"

Well, do you have the patience to wait a bit to maybe play them on your PS5? Or do you need every newest game on day one?

What's the worst that could happen? If a big Xbox release interests you and you wanna play it, cool. Can you wait a little while? If anything, it'll save you money and headaches because like every modern game, waiting will give it time to iron out kinks via updates and likely save you money by way of sales.

So how important is it to you to pay the most money for the (almost always) worst version of the game?

Answer those questions for yourself and circle back, because that'll be your answer.

I've wanted a survival game with good shooting for a while. And all I could think of while watching Dune 2 was how amazing of a world it'd be for a game. So... yeah. I hafta keep my eye on this one for sure.

I liked the first one almost specifically because it was like a mix of first person Metroid and Ratchet & Clank. I am not vibing nearly as much with the switch to third person, but I'll to see more.

Paragon died for this.

@jrt87 You say that as though anyone could have predicted Black Myth's level of success.

I love the aesthetic of this game. I'm actually really looking forward to it. I'm pretty surprised that no real extraction shooters have cracked the console market.

I'd rather play this than 99% of shooters on the market.

The OG is $5 on PSN right now with PS+. (And $11.99 on Quest for another week or so.) With the $10 upgrade, that snags you the updated version for half the asking price (or $5 less than the pre-order price on Quest).

The community is super pissed about the horrendous UI "upgrade" so I think they still have some work to do.

This is one of the most imaginative games I've seen in a while. Was already planning on snagging it. Super excited it'll be a part of PS+.

This looks wild. Definitely keeping my eye on it. Gives me big "early 2000s shooter" vibes. And that's very much a good thing.

I heard good things about Wild Hearts but would likely never spend much for it, if anything. Seeing that pleases me.

God, Inquisition was a slog.

I really wish they'd open the beta or hand out more codes. I missed the first batch and have been itching to give this a try.

Honestly, one of my dream games is a survival horror title where you play as a person (or people) surviving a home invasion. Where you can avoid confrontation or engage your attacker (making fights scarce, but meaningful - trying to evoke a Shadow of the Colossus "simple person against the odds" vibe). Using a super detailed environment and all the items in said home, you'd then fight to escape or incapacitate your intruder to escape.

Something like that with a classic horror villain twist could be super cool.

But I suspect this will be yet another asometric multiplayer horror title and not remotely unique outside the use of the IP.

This looks real good. I liked what I played of the original, but didn't get too into it (stopped before all the community drama), so I'm really interested in what they're doing with this.

Shooters don't really interest me like they once did. But this looks different enough to what's out there to warrant some reps, for sure.

@Neither_scene Ah, yes. A true modern fan. Nothing like hoping for the failure of multiple titles, amiright?

I want Marathon to be good so badly. PS5 needs a good extraction shooter and I LOVE the aesthetic direction they're taking with it.

Exactly what fans expected.

The fact Gearbox was so heaily involved and they think this is good enough to release is all you really need to know about the writers at Gearbox.

Compare this to Fallout or TLOU, other adaptations with strong ties to the actual writers... night and day.

All I've read amongst the community is that Arrowhead has once again gone and needlessly nerfed a system (fire) into the ground. This time, right ahead of a brand new fire-based warbond.

So, no. I'm not jumping back into HD2 until the devs get their heads out of their asses and focus on making their game fun. I'm not going to put up with their continued BS.

So like all Ubisoft games, wait a year or so and get the complete edition for like $20. Got it.

I have wanted this Lego Star Wars for a while. With the character packs all on sale, I'll get everything the game offers for $7.50 instead of $20. So, yeah. I'm pleased with that.

It's those sorts of situations/savings that give me the best value out of PS+ these days.

3 was terrible. I could barely get a few hours into it it was so janky. Hopefully they return to the styles of 1 or 2.

Plus, they can take some of the great stuff they learned/developed for the Remnant series and apply it to Darksiders and maybe freshen up some gameplay areas a bit.

I'm not a Bugie devotee. Played base D2 but never played beyond that.

When I say I cannot WAIT to see what they do with Marathon... oh my. The look and feel of that teaser trailer just lit something inside of me. No shooter has an aesthetic close to it and I cannot wait to play it.

I want that game to be fun so badly. I think it looks (literally just looks) incredible. Something about the bright colors, blocky simplicity to the gun designs...

I just don't see how a developer as talented as ND could put so many resources into Factions' design and planning and realize THAT FRICKIN LATE that the resources needed to do what they explicitly planned to do would be far too great. Like... at some point, that's a failure of leadership/planning.

There are plenty of multiplayer games that release and get years of updates whose developers have A FRACTION of the resources ND has at its disposal. "It would have gotten too big" is not an excuse when THEY DECIDE HOW BIG OF A GAME IT IS.

ND may have created some of the best games of all time, but the failure to launch Factions is a huge black eye, imo. It speaks to some really poor decision making somewhere in their chain of command.

More like Bungle, amiright?

I played The Persistence once it was playable without PSVR. It was a solid little game, although it didn't light my world on fire and I abandoned it (as I sometimes do with rogue-likes) before the credits rolled.

It'd be a shame for Sony to buy a studio with emerging FPS talent and then put them on something that didn't utilize it. Especially when you consider that such a small fraction of their exclusive portfolio is FPS titles (Concord ain't it, folks). It'd really help flesh out the broader portfolio by putting a team to work on something to compete in that space imo.

I've played a bunch of this on PC (it's been in Early Access for a bit). I haven't played the most recent 1.0 release patch (which brought a bunch of gamepad updates with it to align with console support) but generally speaking, it's a really solid FPS rogue-lite with, as mentioned, a DOOM/Unreal/Quake-like feel to the shooting.

Too late. Bought a Quest a few months back already and am pleased. This price probably would have swayed me to a PSVR2 to be honest.

Say what you will about the game, but that Concord controller straight *****. I wouldn't even want to use it. I'd want it on my wall.

Looks as though this may be the opening/tutorial stage for the game. So... yeah. Probably not the most exciting gameplay possible, but the designs look cool and it doesn't look like it plays outright poorly. Reminds me of Remnant, only a little faster. Consider me intrigued.

ZIP ZAP YA DONE-ZO

Too bad they didn't make it a Smite clone. Having MOBA modes where you're smacking around AIM or Hydra goons, while building up to big team fights of classic heroes and villains would be super cool to me.

But then... I liked Paragon, Titanfall, and Battleborn, so what do I know? Lol

@RBMango This is the sort of game that could have set itself apart by not having a battle pass, but have a specific challenge in-game for every little tchotchke/reward. Make it a game where playing the game and playing it in certain ways automatically rewards you with stuff to SHOW how good you are with characters.

"Oh damn, that person has [such and such a skin]. Damn. They really pulled off [crazy challenge]!"

Then they could have added more and more as the game went on, but still kept it fundamentally tied to in-game performance.

The biggest problem with battle passes is they're JUST a grind. There is no skill involved. You can suck and still slowly grind them out. But a challenge-based system could keep players engaged for hours and play better to the sort of game/community they're trying to build.

And this is sort of a perfect encapsulation of my true problem with the game: this is a studio with lots of talent. Loads of shooter veterans, many of whom had a hand in numerous competitive multiplayer titles.

And yet, DESPITE ALL THAT TALENT, they still didn't design a solution for a blatant problem that ANYONE could see coming in regards to leaver penalties (or AT LEAST provide a backfill system in matchmaking).

How THE FCUK are you, a month or so from release, only looking into solutions to something people could tell you would be a problem IMMEDIATELY?!?

This stuff has been an issue for YEARS in other titles. Solutions to leavers have been implemented in COUNTLESS other titles. To not have one is fundamentally showing your ass as a team that doesn't fully understand their product, nor their target player base. It's a bigger problem than anything else with this game, as it is a failure of the team at its core.

It'll be $50 by Black Friday.

@Ainu20 Yeah, but I think the point is, the very nature of a GaaS means it should be built to have a longer tail than a traditional release. Their structure is that of a title that should be allowed to more slowly accrue their sales targets. It's improper/unfair for these titles to have all that effort put into them and then be shut down before they're given the chance to evolve and grow. Which, again, that is the point of these games. How do the publishers release them and not understand these matters?

@naruball I didn't say otherwise. But my point still stands independently of yours. If this game were good, it would be attracting an audience.

@naruball I don't see your point. Those games sold decently and attracted audiences larger than Concord is managing.

Those titles, even if they end up having sold fewer copies, will have made back a larger portion of their budget than Concord will in the end. Guaranteed.

If it were a good game, it would be attracting an audience.

It's made well. But it is not a good game.

@RoomWithaMoose You can pay outright for any character you want. There's no need to grind.

@zekepliskin No problem.

To hammer home my point, as negative as it was... I redownloaded the beta and played another hour last night. It's solid. It's just not "pay $40 up front" levels of good.

It makes some REALLY anti-player design decisions. The entire Crew system is absolutely bonkers dumb. "There are 16 characters (and more to come) but you're only ever able to choose 12 maximum. Enjoy!"

Or the rolling bonuses. "Hey, here are some obscure, passive buffs that are poorly explained and entice you to swap characters, thereby never allowing you to quickly master a single character OR get in a proper groove, because it actively hurts your team to do so."

Also, for a multiplayer-only title... WHY THE ***** DO YOU NOT AUTO-QUEUE INTO A MATCH?!? And why are game modes not just... game modes that can be filtered (a la COD, a la Xdefiant, etc.).

For a dev team with so many supposed multiplayer/shooter veterans, they made some MASSIVELY moronic decisions during development. And it sucks. Cause the moment to moment gunplay is GOOD. Really good. Made by Destiny/Halo veterans good. But it's all wrapped up in a package that, under no circumstances, warrants its pricing model.

The idea of this being about a "crew" of space vagabonds makes me wish desperately that it had some larger scale modes like 3/4 person teams in an extraction sort of mode. (Think COD DMZ in spaaaaaaaaaace.)

PvPvE with space heist/extraction shooter vibes would have been super cool and far more original than this.

I have no interest in a generic arena shooter.

There was one of these (I think) on Switch that I got into for a bit a few years back. It wasn't bad, it's just you definitely hit a wall with the way you unlock stuff. If all you want is a little bit of taste for some absurd arcade racing, have at it. It is free, after all.

But, yeah, it's sad when the companies get SO GREEDY you can't just casually pay here and there and still enjoy yourself. They don't want $5 from you. They want your whole wallet. They want whales. And if you're not one, you can ***** right off. It's aggravating as a consumer.

It's sad so few companies chase the Fortnite money, but don't do a better job copying the way they entice people to pay by - here's the shocker - being a well-built, fun game. Instead they choose to copy mobile F2P ***** to milk people's wallets dry. It's exhausting.

I mentioned this before: the subreddit for the game, prior to the first beta, had less than 700 people in it. Across all of reddit.

The number more than doubled after last weekend, but last I was there, it was still under 2000. For a first party AAA shooter releasing in a month.

That's not good.

Popular games tend to have subs in the hundreds of thousands. Or at least tens of thousands. Concord isn't anywhere CLOSE to that and its sales will reflect it, mark my words.

IMO, having played it, it's well made. It's just not a good game. It has fewer options than some multiplayer suites attached to full story-driven games. It is doing absolutely nothing new. Why would people put down $40 to play a game they've effectively played before, but better and more original?

It desperately needed something to separate it from the pack, and the crew system is NOT it.

Won't be surprised if it's dead within a year.