this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
104 points (98.1% liked)
Games
33221 readers
2502 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
Live service doesn't need to be shit.
There could have been games where there was just a brilliant idea for a game that keeps having engaging content on an ongoing basis with passionate devs.
But live service so an exec could check a box for their quarterly shareholder call was always going to be DOA.
Keeping engaging content on an ongoing basis seems to be such an unreachable target for most devs and game designs that it's undoing large swaths of the industry.
The game they killed 3 days after release might have been good but i haven't seen a single gameplay video or have any idea of what the game was about. Are they that scared of releasing a shit game and keeping it playable but dead for a while?
Keeping it running has ongoing costs involved. It would just be setting money on fire.
I mean, they spent what 400 millions on developing it and they won't spend 10k - 100k to keep that game running for a while? Like "NO NOT A SINGLE CENT MORE SPENT ON THAT SHIT GAME!" XD
They were shoveling money down the tube for a game that you literally couldn't play due to how few people there were.
Well, yeah. If it's clearly never going to recover, why keep spending money on it? They already took it as a total loss by refunding everyone, so that was probably cheaper than holding out for a recovery that wasn't going to happen.
Valve tried holding out on a failed game with Artifact, and git 0 return on investment, even after revamping it.
Still, Concord seemed kind of interesting with how ambitious it all was. I wonder if they could have pushed it off the ground with some redesigns
I don't know what the market at large wants, but I suspect its failure is based at least in part on the fact that the purchase has zero value if other people don't also value it, so the customer is now more reserved with their time and money unless a game seems like it's going to take off, which would theoretically make nearly every a game a huge success or total failure. What I want is for a scalable multiplayer shooter that gracefully handles 1-X players, and I hardly care what X is as long as it's more than 3. Let me host it on a LAN and play split-screen, and give me a deathmatch mode, among other things. We used to get this kind of shooter all the time, and now I'm starving for one, to the point that I'd happily have picked up Concord if it was that game, even with its wonky-ass character designs.