There’s a waste of time…zero gameplay for…the game they want us to play. Live action cinematics are utterly useless unless you like hyping your urself over lies from the beginning.
I was originally in this camp from the very underwhelming launch it had. Now though, they’ve spent 7 years actually completing the game they started and beyond and its definitely worth the money. Incredibly, all of the content you see in the video is included in the base game, there’s no paid DLCs at all despite the years of work that’s gone into it now.
It’s been 10 years in development and as far as I understand it, you can get off the ship at certain sports but most of the time you’re basically just playing as a ship while at sea, not a pirate sailing a ship. I say you’re right, this game will be DOA with a game like Sea of Thieves around.
As soon as I remembered this was Ubisoft, I had zero interest. I’m sure I’m not the only one with this perspective either, so yeah, probably gonna be DOA.
It might be, but what would that change about the story? Unless Larian is paying other studios to say that they're panicking (which I doubt, for a million reasons), then I'm not so sure there's any difference to the situation.
Sites like IGN must follow gaming trends to survive. BG3 is a huge release and I've been seeing this story everywhere for weeks, increasing in frequency.
Duskers is fun but I feel like it would put it over the top of it was even more scriptable, like Screeps or Bitburner. Whenever I played it I always imagined I might be able to get to a point where I could write code to play the game for me, but I don’t think that was really the design goal of it.
This was a great feature video, I really liked that they are making utilities more than just something you have to do but potentially something interesting.
This was a great feature video, I really liked that they are making utilities more than just something you have to do but potentially something interesting.
I agree. As someone who enjoys playing factory and logistics games- (factorio, satisfactory, creeper world, ftb minecraft, etc…), I fully welcome the additional control over utilities, and the additional challenges and elements of gameplay.
Not to mention the automatic placement of water pipes when you lay down roads. That’ll save a lot of time and allow you to focus on the more engaging aspects of the game more
Would be cool if there was 3 different teams instead 2. That could work with that team size. Plus the map needs to be smaller from what I have seen and read (I didn’t play myself).
The core gameplay looks interesting, with the Apex Legends like controls (at least it looks like) and all the abilities. Generally the game looks a bit too much inspired by Apex (size of team mates and map size and the looting). I actually don’t mind if they have their own formula and brings something new or different to the table, which it seems to do.
I keep seeing people saying that another team could work. But I think that would actually have a massive detrimental effect on the game. That adds another base, less chance of a comeback, and then you end up where you started in a 3v3 in an even more empty map with even longer matches.
This needs larger teams. Like 8v8 or 10v10 so you actually end up with skirmishes during the downtime. Your still going to have long matches, but at least something is more likely to happen. Or they need to rework the formula of the matches a fair bit.
Well its not Concord 2.0. Already has WAY more players than Concord ever did, almost 100k peak players on Steam alone, currently 67k in-game as of the time I am posting this.
I can’t say that 3v3 is the right fit for the game, the maps are rather large for it. But I think with a bit more work in a few updates, it has far more staying power than Concord ever had.
Even still, its got more legs to stand on than Concord had, which was zero.
I think its serviceable unlike Concord, which required too many changes.
I guess we just have to wait and see if the server is shut down in two weeks. In reality, I don’t think we will ever see as monumental a train wreck as Concord was. Probably ever.
I’m 100% of the opinion that the main reason Concord failed is because it didn’t get any advertising. The first time I heard about Concord was the news that it completely flopped at launch and I wasn’t the only one. When that’s the first thing people hear about the game they’re not even going to bother to get interested in what the game is about. To this day I don’t even know if Concord had any redeeming qualities because I haven’t even seen any gameplay outside of 5 second no-context clips. Even bad games receive better numbers than Concord.
Highguard is going to have more staying power than Concord solely on the fact that it actually had an advertising budget.
Concord didn’t have any advertising because the data was showing them beyond a shadow of a doubt that it would have been throwing good money after bad.
But after they revealed it? Yes. From their reveal to their beta test, it seemed clear the game was not going to find an audience; definitely not enough to recoup $200M-$400M.
You can dig through This Week in Video Games episodes on SkillUp’s YouTube channel from back just before the game released. That’s where I got it from. Live service games are looking for the hockey stick shaped graph in order to take off, and it was quite clear that even when the game was free, it didn’t have the juice to make that happen. And even the lower bound of $200M is a tough bar to clear, but Concord was funded at a time when borrowing money was cheap and every asshole with a war chest thought they’d make a fortune by following the same formula; the problem with that is that everyone else thought they could do that too. And that’s not even to say Concord was the worst game ever made or anything. It was just a game that cost way more to make than it was ever, ever going to make back.
What advertising though? They didn’t have to pay for The Game Awards spot, Jeff just gave it to them for free. I haven’t seen any commercials or ads outside of that either. I think Concord had more advertising than Highguard, with Concord getting multiple devlogs and previews across a few Sony hosted events, IIRC.
My bad, I meant marketing strategy not advertising budget. Concord definitely had a bigger budget considering they got a Secret level episode deal before the game was even launched. But the budget and bits of marketing don’t matter when it doesn’t gain any traction and whatever their strategy was it gained no traction what so ever.
As for highguard, they did pay for the TGA spot. They didn’t pay extra to be the premier trailer, that Jeff gave them for free. And they did had a weird strategy of going completely radio silent after TGA. But despite that people at launch knew this game existed and has already beaten Concord numbers (at least on Steam) by hundredfold and I don’t think that’s solely because this game is F2P.
youtube.com
Ważne