Bank transfers are slow. It is generally taken out of the account the next business day, sits in escrow for a few days, then appears in the destination account where it takes another day to clear. About a week total.
Though, if it gets held for suspected fraud or needs to cross international boundaries, it can sit in that escrow account for much longer.
Sounds like I should start holding my payments in escrow, just in case the publisher decides to shut down their game less than 2 weeks after taking my money. Got it!
In the EU we use SEPA and transfers are instantaneous. Used it when buying something of our local ebay when at the person’s house. Also most banks even have Venmo style payment systems… scan qr of your bank, click on my banks icon, authorize, done.
Companies sit on cash simply for cashflow reasons. Keeping the money in your account for an additional x days means it can be used for other stuff.
Your card is charged instantly, but it can take a week or two before it’s cleared the fed’s anti-fraud measures and they’re assured you’re not reversing it through your bank. Then they send the refund and it can take another week or two before your bank clears it and makes sure that they’re not reversing their payment. Add in some wiggle room to cover yourself in case something gets flagged as potentially fraudulent and someone has to manually review it, and it can take a while.
In practice, refunds should arrive this week, but they want to be careful not to promise that in every case. What they’re mainly worried about is people buying the game, immediately refunding it, and simultaneously doing a chargeback while in some faraway country.
Wow, this is absolutely wild. From launch to delisting in two weeks. Yeah, there’s a good chance that this is temporary while they pivot to a free-to-play model, but holy crap. Guess the PS5 player count must not be substantially higher than the abysmal Steam player count.
oof. Yeah, they did the right thing pulling the plug on this for now. You’d probably spend more time waiting for a match to queue up than actually playing the game.
If I had to guess, they started the process of pulling the plug when sales/players didn’t pick up on Labor Day, a holiday that normally sees increased player numbers.
Wow, I expected they’ll go straight to free-to-play but I guess the game has such a bad reputation that they decided to take it down completely. Refunds being issued is awfully nice though.
Some quick math, steam takes a 30% cut (10k * 40 * .7 = 280k), and since this is a sony published game sony got to keep 100% on their platform (15k * 40 = 600k). Sony made less than 1 mill in revenue on this game which allegedly cost 100M to develop.
Yeah, ain’t no monetizing scheme is gonna save this one.
This is the key marketing fail. They released an OW clone, and then failed to highlight the differences. I might have thrown $40 at it, if I’d known that there wasn’t going to be a battlepass or something equally asinine to come with that price tag.
I played through their free weekend beta some time in July and didn’t hate it, but it was clunky and the designs were uglier than OW. That said, I had expected them to clean it up before release; anything except let it stand with its overarching veneer of greyige+olive green over every character.
I think they just released it to say it was released and be able to do the write-offs. Otherwise, any game that had been in development this long would have seen a huge marketing campaign that highlighted why players should abandon OW, et al for Concord instead.
Free-to-play is often a lazy comment from social media that represents an incomplete business plan. Developers have to get paid, and you need a plan for how players will be pushed into that.
The assumption is often on a vague “skins and charms” type of thing but it depends on whether the game was built for that expectation. They likely knew they wouldn’t be putting out compelling reskins of their characters.
Concord will be back as a F2P, guarantee it. They’ve got Amazon churning out an episode of their Secret Level series for the game, they’re not going to fully kill it here and now.
The feedback that I heard everywhere was that the game should have been F2P, so they’ll make that happen.
I will bet you $0.02 that they will absolutely pull the plug on that episode, that they will indeed fully kill it here and now, and that it will not be reworked into a F2P game with the same characters or art style ever.
Maybe they will take some of the core gameplay mechanics and work them into projects totally unrelated to the ‘Concord IP’ they spent so much time hyping, but I see 0 chance that Concord just relaunches as Concord F2P in 6 months.
I think it’s too late for Amazon to be willing to take a bath on an episode of one of their new headline IPs. The show is coming December 10th. I’d be shocked if Amazon is going to be willing to just drop a whole episode of their show because the attached game launched flaccid. They’re doing a New World episode for goodness sake, so it’s clear that they’re very willing to push this vehicle for promotion all the way to the finish line even if the engine has dropped out and the wheels have ground down to nothing.
All of the other games/franchises slated to be featured still exist as purchasable products.
They do not own or operate Concord, which probably no longer exists as a product.
The servers will be shut down in a few days.
There are no announced plans to take it F2P, as that would require dumping even more money into a gasoline fire to rework it into F2P.
Why would you promote a product that does not exist?
Its no longer a headline IP… its a total flop of an IP.
I don’t know, maybe if the whole episode is basically already done, maybe it still airs, but all that does is remind everyone about what is potentially the most expensive disaster in the history of video gaming (barring possibly Google Stadia).
It’s an anthology style show, meaning a bunch of basically self contained plots and stories, you could easily just drop one.
It’s possible they air it, but again, I’ll bet two cents the entire Concord IP just vanishes as brand management trumps over anything else.
They do not own or operate Concord, which probably no longer exists as a product.
All the more reason for Amazon to not give a fuck and release the episode anyway. They already expended the effort and money, they’ve probably already sold the ads to run against it, they’ve got streaming hour benchmarks to hit if they want to claim the show is a success, so everything is running in favor of Amazon taking a look at the shitshow the game is in and saying, “SHIP IT” for their Secret Level episode. Normies who aren’t super into gaming aren’t going to know that the game it represents is dead, and there’s a fair chance that Sony will pursue F2P explicitly so that it can not be when the episode airs so they can attempt to get some money from those people who will see the episode and want to play the game. The people behind “Love Death + Robots” are behind this series, they’re probably going to ship a good Concord episode that will make that bland mess of Live Service nonsense seem interesting whether or not the game is good or even alive.
There are no announced plans to take it F2P
The fact that the announcement says they’re taking the servers offline and looking at options to connect with “their players”, while Sony have also not just shut down Firewalk Studios (A wholly owned subsidiary of Sony) is more or less a full endorsement of the idea that they think they can make a go of this by going F2P. Studios that flat out fail don’t stick around in this day and age and the director of the game is saying that they’re looking at options to connect with “their players”, how is that not saying that they’re going to remove the one barrier to entry that everyone is talking about by taking the game free to play?
Its no longer a headline IP… its a total flop of an IP.
I think you may have misunderstood, I didn’t mean to suggest that Concord was a headline IP, I was saying that Amazon considers Secret Level to be a headline IP for Prime Video and they’ve got zero fucks to give about what good (or bad) business the game their episode is based on is doing, they need butts in seats to watch their prestige video games anthology series from the makers of “Love Death + Robots” and I don’t think they give a single shit if Sony feels bad because their game didn’t make it and Amazon still launched an episode set in the same universe as the game.
It’s an anthology style show, meaning a bunch of basically self contained plots and stories, you could easily just drop one.
Not if ad sales has already written contracts for ads against a set number of episodes. Not if you have streamed hour targets that you need to hit for the show if you want to keep making future seasons of the thing. Not if you are not a gamer and don’t give any fucks about the stupid decisions that Sony made with the IP they probably paid you to make an episode about. There’s absolutely zero reason for Amazon to shitcan an episode of this show just because the game it’s based on was nonsense and everyone knew it years before the game ever launched, it’s an extra 30-40 minutes of space to stick ads and pump “hours watched” even if the episode is as bland as the game. Ads and hours are the only things that video platforms care about, they’re going to keep that episode unless there’s a contractual obligation to cancel it. I doubt that Sony had the foresight to put something in their contract that allowed them to shut things down if the game flopped, and even if they did, such a provision would usually mean that they’d have to pay Amazon some penalty to exercise that option which probably makes it cheaper for Sony to just allow it to move ahead.
I’ll bet two cents the entire Concord IP just vanishes as brand management trumps over anything else.
I would not take that bet. I also think the brand is dead. It’s got a year or two tops of being a shambling zombie, but you’re thinking too much like a rational person and businesses don’t think like that, they’re going to try to squeeze blood from this stone, it’s the only thing they know how to do.
It makes zero sense trying to save it here and now, but that’s how C-Suite idiots think, so I won’t be surprised. The show launches in just over 90 days, chances are pretty good that episode is already in the can and it’s far too late to steer resources into another franchise for a different episode to fill the spot. Ad sales against that content have already closed big contracts, marketing has already laid campaigns that mention Concord all over the place, and for the content industry 3 months is too late to try to steer the ship away from a disaster.
Animation (outside of South Park) often takes 7-10 months on the low end to get a single episode from start to finish. Like I said, they’re doing a New World episode and that shit is dead as doornails. I doubt they’ll allow an launched/un-launched game off the hook. Hell, it’s probably now their plan to convert the game to F2P in time to simu-relaunch with the animated series episode so that they can get Amazon promotion synergies.
On one hand, this does sound plausible, but on the other hand, Concord is such a disaster that said C-Suit idiots might legitimately fear that the mere existence of its episode could overshadow the entire rest of the show. It might be cheaper and more sensible to just write one episode off and, if there is any hint of an overarching narrative, fix this with a few edits to other episodes and maybe some quickly recorded voice over to bridge any possible gaps.
C-Suit idiots might legitimately fear that the mere existence of its episode could overshadow the entire rest of the show.
I’ve worked for those idiots. In the streaming video industry. They do not think this or fear this and this is one of those rare cases where they’re not being idiots. People will hate watch the Concord episode of Secret Level. People will be curious about the episode because of the trainwreck that the game is. The social media buzz around Concord being gawdawful will put butts in seats. These guys are not wrong that there is no bad publicity, and they don’t need people to love the Concord episode of Secret Level for the series as a whole to hit their “hours streamed” benchmarks, sell a fuckton of ads, and have them call the whole thing a success so they can do it all again for Secret Level season 2 where they never speak of Concord again.
What’s more, they don’t even care if the Concord episode is good, they care that you watched another 30-40 minutes of content and pumped all their metrics. They know that the average viewer of content on Prime Video doesn’t know what a ‘Sifu’ is, or an ‘Unreal Tournament’, or an ‘Armored Core’… They know that the majority of the viewers for Secret Level are not going to know that ‘Concord’ is dead, nor will they care if they ever find out, so it won’t matter at all for their single episode in an anthology. Hell, for that matter as much as it sucks, Unreal Tournament has been dead for years and you can’t even buy most of the legacy versions of that game anymore thanks to Epic, so I really doubt that Amazon Prime Video cares much at all about the games represented in their anthology being alive. They just need things to fit the framing of the show so that viewers at home will go, “Oh, it’s that thing from the makers of ‘Love Death + Robots’ about video games, think I’ll have a look.” So long as everything under the label looks sufficiently video gamey, the average viewer will enjoy the show and move on whether or not they could ever actually play those games.
I am fairly, but not 100% certain, that Ross Scott’s proposal currently making the rounds in the EU would say that you either have to refund a game (and all in game purchases) when it becomes totally unplayable, or you have to release some kind of way for dedicated fans to be able to least run custom servers and bypass no longer maintained, proprietary, always online verification/anti cheat schtuff.
I believe another alternative would be to make it completely clear that you’re getting a temporary license. You shouldn’t be able to try to make it look like you’re buying a game when you don’t then even own.
No, no no, that is the current practice and origin of the entire problem.
If you legally class a game as an ongoing service that is temporary and subject to termination, without recompense, soley by the decision of and according to the terms of the licensor, then they can legally sell you a game for $80 bucks and then shut down the next day.
If you legally class the game as a good, well you can’t sell someone a chair which then has 3 of its legs disappear or collapse (due to no fault of the owner) the next day without that being a scam of a defective product.
…
If you’re saying the emphasis should be on raising consumer awareness that they’re buying a temporary, revocable and non refundable service…
Who, other than children, do not know this yet?
That would not force the industry to actually change their practices.
It just slaps a big bold 'haha the fuck you isn’t even in the fine print anymore’ label on a product and makes our cyberpunk dystopia a little bit more obvious, but doesn’t achieve any useful goal in terms of altering actual game design/support or consumer rights.
Their parents, new/casual games, charity shops that might want to resell, etc.
It just slaps a big bold 'haha the fuck you isn’t even in the fine print anymore’ label on a product and makes our cyberpunk dystopia a little bit more obvious, but doesn’t achieve any useful goal in terms of altering actual game design/support or consumer rights.
True, but that would make it slightly easier for offline games, games that allow for private hosting, and games with an end of life plan that would allow it. They would be able to compete more easily if they could be easily identified. That could then incentivise companies to add end of life plans.
A step in the right direction would be great. Even if it’s a small step.
I feel like short of making it free to play and having a complete art style rework this game doesn’t have great hopes of ever being relevant. I mean from what I’ve gathered the gameplay itself is decent to good. But yeah they just misfired so hard with this.
Despite it all, I feel bad for the majority of devs who spent so much of their life working on this and who are likely going to be out of a job. Of course I don’t know anything about the inner workings, but I’d be willing to bet it’s not most of their fault’s that sony had been pushing so hard for live service stuff under their former leadership
I think that’s common in gaming development. You work on a project until it’s done, then pivot to another or get let go.
The game bombing likely doesn’t help but I expect most devs involved expected this. Apparently development ran 3-4 years, which is a good time to leave a job in tech generally, if not earlier if you want to maximize income.
they still got paid and made stuff for their portfolio, while executives get to explain why there is a hundred million missing and entire studios worth of manhours in the void
Normally it works exactly backwards to this in larger studios/publishers.
Game devs do backbreaking, insanity inducing levels of work, and all but 10% are laid off when the game launches, regardless of success or failure, and for this time they are making probably about area median wage, maybe 10 or 20% more.
Its the middle managers and higher up executives who make multiples to orders of magnitude that amount of money, and almost all of them are rewarded by either failing upward or bailing out with golden parachutes, even though its often their decisions and directions, often going against lower level devs, which lead to the ultimate commercial failure.
Perhaps this loss will be so serious that some higher ups will actually get axxed, but even then it hardly matters: They can easily retire on what they’ve earned so far, whereas the actual people writing code, making maps, making art assets, they’ll basically all be homeless if they don’t find another decent job in 3 to 6 months.
Devs be applying like “Hi! I’d like to join your development team! My professional qualifications are that I’ve spent eight years working on a failed game!”
Of course, it won’t be the individual devs’ fault but I don’t have any difficulties imagining that some of them have a harder time finding new jobs than people who were let go after the launch of more popular games.
I do not think this will go F2P at some point in the near future.
If you spend 8 years and 200 million + dollars on something that you expect to … you know, at the very least, recoup that cost… and it doesn’t even make a fraction of a percent of that?
At that point, someone with some modicum of business sense is likely to realize they’ve been chasing the sunk cost fallacy for almost a decade and that throwing even more time and money at this to develop it even more probably is completely insane, as its already shown that nobody wants this product.
I think its more likely this will be totally scrapped barring a few assets and code snippets that might be cannibalized into other projects.
This whole thing is an utter disaster from a branding perspective, if the core gameplay systems later emerge in some other game, its going to have nothing to do with the whole grand expanded universe they’ve envisioned and promoted as being a huge draw to this game.
As for the devs, sure I feel bad for them in theory, but it doesn’t help that you’ve got at least one that calls everyone criticising the game a ‘talentless freak’ and then having a twitter meltdown in response to a person saying basically: wow I’m sorry this game didn’t do so well on launch, it looks like a lot of time and effort was put into it.
The whole ‘feel bad for the devs, they did a good job, it was management that fucked everything’ is seriously undercut when you basically express that opinion to a dev and they act like a 14 year old responding to people that don’t like their Deviant Art OC.
It’s def not a great look but it’s also only 1 former dev. I’m not going to judge the whole team on the words of 1 person who isn’t working there anymore
This is the problem with spending millions of dollars on games and focusing on profitability over actual quality or expression. Video games are fundamentally an art medium. You can choose to make some uninspired cash grabbing trash, and can even make a whole company built around that and make profit. But are you going to make a great game that way? Probably not.
You’d be better off with half a dozen people with passion and a comparatively minuscule budget. You might have to scale back from ultra realistic graphics and massive explorable areas with dozens of voice actors, but I don’t really think that makes games any better anyway. A little 2d rpg with really basic pixel graphics can put a big project to shame if it’s made with passion and emotion.
Just read the article, id hardly call that a “meltdown” lol. Sure, it was unprofessional, but it wasn’t a rant. This article feels like it’s trying to spin a narrative that doesn’t exist.
The post in question.
eh, i don’t really care. it was a huge labour of love from a lot of insanely talented people making an awesome game. why would i care about a bunch of talentless freaks hating on it? i’m sure having fun playing it, and i wouldn’t trade it for anything.
Note that this is the only post they’re talking about. It wasn’t like a drawn out thread with name calling.
Again, not saying it’s professional, but calling this a meltdown? Come on now… Y’all are being ridiculous. This is like the tamest fucking tweet.
Make it F2P but charge for cosmetics that completely rework the art style. Almost all the characters look insufferable and I particularly want to punch Lennox in the face every time I see him.
I had to look his name up myself. 😄 I was going to post a picture of his punchable face, but seeing the whole cast, he didn’t even stand out all that much compared to the rest. They all look like a bunch of bad cosplayers.
It’s interesting that they are so repulsive to almost everyone (including me). I wonder what the specific traits are that makes people dislike the cast, I can’t quite put my finger on it.
(Except maybe for the roomba/hoover robot, that one seemed kinda interesting as a concept)
Don’t feel bad for them. Firewalk Studios may only have Concord to it’s name, but the Devs are all from Bungie and Activision. That should already ring some alarm bells.
They knew exactly what they were doing. They are the ones that sold the idea of Concord to Sony. For once I doubt Sony had to push for any of the bad decisions.
They didn’t waste $100 mill+ and 8 years development time on a random passion project. This was designed for a single reason, to make money in ridiculous amounts. To squeeze every penny out of kids and their parents.
I can’t feel bad for anyone that worked on something like that when it fails.
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.
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.
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.
Any game works as a LAN game. That’s the advantage of being a LAN game. Of course, when you build a game like that, you know not to assume that you’ll always have 10 players in a match, and you build it to scale to that. If they released it with LAN and a deathmatch mode for any number of players, even if they did no rebalancing on the character designs to account for it and the there were obvious top tiers and low tiers, I’d still buy it.
And I’m saying that if you throw in a quick deathmatch mode, it’s playable with only one friend. And when a game has LAN, that means that you can play with a gaming VPN regardless of the presence of official servers.
The age of DRM means that they can now “unlaunch” the game and force you into a reimbursement while giving up the game. Why? What if someone liked it and wanted to keep playing? is this an online only game? This is just sad.
edit: this is a good time to remind people, if you live in the EU, please support the “Stop Killing Games” initiative, it has just past a third of the required signatures, and has 10 months to go still:
Kekw is deeper internet slang than most people are willing to discover. Kek is like a giggle or snort, not a full laugh but a chuckle. The w modifier means this is a win for them, so kekw is a chuckle about a good situation. If you want more info you can ask someone on 4chan, they are super helpful and nice to new members of the community.
I’m a collector, and this is a game that may have a high value in the future due to being rare. If it was literally only available for 2 weeks and they pulled all the remaining copies and refunded people, there’s not going to be many, and I will have a sealed copy. Of course, it’s possible that they may re-release it in the future if they decide it’s worth the money to tweak it, but I honestly kind of doubt it. You may be wondering why it matters if it literally can’t be played and who would want it, and that’s absolutely a fair question, but in the end, the answer is collectors.
Have noticed any trend in how “collectible” something is with the introduction of “online/periodic patches”. I always wondered since there seems to be a lot of software at different versions gluing everything together vs what used to be the standard before (console software was for the most part finalized at launch).
I haven’t really noticed anything in that regard. I’ve also been curious about the collectibility of physical copies of online only games. If the game is no longer playable, is there actually any value? I feel like things are a little too early to say at this point, but given how rare this title will seemingly be, I’m hedging my bets.
I never saw a launched game unlaunch this quick. We talked about failures that got shutdown 1 year after launch. But now the record is what, 2 weeks? Question is, will they go back to drawing board and make changes to the game for a relaunch, such as a free to play model? Nothing is stated here, so probably not.
I would consider playing this game, if it was playable on Linux (and without a PSN account requirement). But clearly Sony does not care about me.
I actually liked that game. Sure, it was unpolished and unoptimized. But there were still some fun to be had. It feels like they gave up on that game within a week or two.
“Nobody” probably isn’t literal here, but I imagine some manager scheduling a meeting where they want a report on the game’s performance and feedback during the beta. Some higher up is going to sit in for the first few minutes for the KPI summary.
The sweating analyst jokes about the heat in the room, the higher up dryly remarks that the AC seems to be working just fine. The presentation starts, the analyst grasping for some more weasel words and void sentences to stall with before finally switching to the second slide, captioned “Player count”. It’s a big, fat 0.
They stammer their way through half a sentence of trying to describe this zero, then fall silent, staring at their shoes. The game dev lead has a thousand yard stare. The product owner is trying to maintain composure.
The uncomfortable silence is finally broken by the manager, getting up to leave: “I think we’re done here.” There is an odd sense of foreboding, that “here” might not just mean the meeting. The analyst silently proceeds to the next slide, showing the current player count over time in a line chart.
It fully released August 23rd. Beta started in July
While we determine the best path ahead, Concord sales will cease immediately and we will begin to offer a full refund for all gamers who have purchased the game for PS5 or PC. If you purchased the game for PlayStation 5 from the PlayStation Store or PlayStation Direct, a refund will be issued back to your original payment method.
Customers who purchased from other digital storefronts will also be refunded.
The game was alive for about 1.5 days for each year of development that they put into Concord.
Let’s acknowledge for a second that well over 100 developers are about to lose their livelihoods. Now let’s acknowledge that they were building a product from the start that disrespects consumer rights and preservation of the medium, and I’m still glad it failed.
Those artists and programmers had about six years to find different jobs in the industry, I have zero sympathy for the ones that stuck around and did not see the writing on the wall.
blog.playstation.com
Gorące