MFTWrecks

No game is at its best at release. Anyone paying full price nowadays has to be able to admit that. The issue is they won't care... for certain titles.

I have bought 2 full price titles in the past 5+ years. Everything else is worth waiting for. I'm okay with having made those purchases, but otherwise, I always wait for a solid sale.

If you don't like rising prices, learn some patience and don't get caught up in marketing hype. You'll save yourself a boat load of money AND end up paying for a less bug-ridden, more fully featured release (sometimes with the DLC included) for less than you pay at launch.

Like anything on the market, the true price is what YOU value it to be. So stick to your guns and get the best deal possible YOU think something is worth.

@DETfaninATL Perfect Dark had bots out of the box on N64. No need to cite a "modern" release.

@kentuckyfr1ed I'm completely relaxed. I use caps for emphasis since commenting here doesn't have formatting options.

I played the beta both weekends. That was all I needed to see to know the game wasn't going to find an audience.

The fact it took 8 years and reportedly $100mm to make a multiplayer suite that's lacking in features N64 games had out the box is mind boggling. It's "this must be a money laundering scheme" territory.

Stuff like this used to be the extra mode in full single player titles. Forget the gameplay, the features and modes are nothing special. Nothing it "adds" to the genre is as exhilarating or innovative as we were led to believe prior to launch.

Forget all the window dressing design choices (as those are subjective) for a second. The ACTUAL GAMEPLAY does nothing new. There's not a SINGLE gameplay feature I saw and thought, "That's cool. I wish other games had that." Not one. THAT'S one of its largest problems. It's stale.

The other is that Sony COMPLETELY botched the unveiling and marketing. All they've pushed is how this is some sort of cinematic experience with deep lore and amazing characters... all relegated to weekly cutscene drops. WHAT IS THAT?! That is absolutely meaningless.

The one arena I can recall was some sort of space port. It'd be amazing to play through that in multiplayer if I had A SINGLE IOTA of context. Think of how AWESOME it is to jump into Star Wars Battlefront and play in places YOU HAVE EMOTION ATTACHED TO. Concord completely and utterly lacks any such attachment because we were robbed of that context.

Meanwhile, it brings up the another problem: this is a hero shooter where LITERALLY EVERYONE is on the same side. AND YET... they are fighting mirror image copies of one another. Why? What's the explanation? Why are my friends fighting themselves? It makes no gotdamm sense. Is this explained in a cutscene I wasn't privy to?

This should have been a squad-based co-op shooter with a big storyline. Let each mission be you picking a squad of teammates (either AI or your actual friends) and planning your approach and pulling off heists and causing chaos across the galaxy. GIVE US STAKES. GIVE US PURPOSE. Then, within missions, have characters be able to take special routes or activate synergies with allies so that a) replayability increases naturally and b) make the crew matter. Make it like a co-op Halo campaign (or Mass Effect mission) where your crew choices dictate story elements or mission outcomes OR SOMETHING.

You take that sorta game as the base and you can copy and paste what is being sold today as the add-on multiplayer suite. Like TLOU Factions or Goldeneye or Halo (or any countless number of games before it), you'd give yourself a chance to capture more hearts and minds by casting a broader net. (Or at the very least make it a genre of shooter that is underserved on consoles like an extraction shooter.)

As it stands, it's friends shooting their doppelgängers to make numbers tick up in bland and uninspired spaces. These characters are thieves and scoundrels yet spend their time doing no thieving or conniving or anything.

As designed, it was never going to succeed. And I stand by that.

As for the business side, they should NOT have designed it as a paid multiplayer suite. They should have been F2P and had a "single payment gets you everything forever" option the way Smite has done for literal years.

They copied gameplay ideas but did not pay any attention to business models that ACTUALLY work in today's market.

It is, top to bottom, an abysmal mismanagement of resources and talent.

@GamingFan4Lyf Seriously. These are just as bad as cinematic cutscenes that show stuff that can never happen in-game.

No COD match has ever remotely resembled its hype trailer. Ever.

This all looks okay until you play for real and get murdered by Snoop Dogg or Shredder or Homelander in a puff of marijuana smoke and obnoxious visual effects.

Also, why TF would I want to play a game where people can seemingly swim like dolphins and dive out of the air like gotdamm Flipper?!

"Omni-movement" lol. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel. My goodness.

It's nice to see they have 16 new maps. But the map pool will be immediately diluted/ruined when DLC maps rehash yet more "classic" maps that have been in every game for over a decade.

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.