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.
Wo-ooh, finally! I was going crazy replaying the same few missions from previous games and Project Wingman. I needed a new game so badly.
The story seems good so far! First time Sotoa’s on screen, as well. I’m a bit tired of playing as Usea again, but oh well, it is what it is.
Also the first time we have a second seat character on screen. They are usually brushed off as non-existent (despite being visible in the cockpit). It was one of the best features from Project Wingman and I’m happy it’s being carried over onto AC.
My main hope is a more fleshed out campaign with longer and more in-depth missions. After almost ten years, I really don’t want another short game with 20-ish small levels centered on some gimmick that get boring on replays. Gimme big, dynamic battlefields in the vein of Ace Combat 6 and Project Wingman, and difficulty options targeted at veterans of the series!
One of the bonus levels in Rhythm Doctor is a Bits and Bops collab. There's also an Unbeatable level, so it's a funny coincidence to have all three games launch in the same week.
@pruwybn As I explained when I quoted this, our trucks genuinely weren't always massive like this, neither were our cars in general. I'm using this example because it's just on my brain right now, but a stock S10 from any year they were made in the US, is going to be significantly smaller than a stock Colorado you can pick up off the lot right now.
I have a close friend that drives an F150 like the one in the thumbnail. I give him relentless shit for it. The only guy I don’t give shit to is the one who uses it to tow boats on a daily basis.
I own RDR2 already and would sooner die than play multiplayer or pay for it again if you know what I mean. I honestly don’t have much interest in GTA6 unless it’s the gaming equivalent of a black swan event. Rockstar has little to offer me at this point and the will get no more of my money
Yee, I got to play Bloodthief’s demo at a Steam Next Fest this year. I also spotted Bombun there as well, which I didn’t know was Godot. Last year’s also had PVKK, which caught my eye.
It’s a good game, but at least in RtwP, it could be a real endurance test. Most of my combats that went wrong did so because I had decision fatigue from having to march through so many enemy mobs.
I played a few rounds during the playtest but I’ve been keeping my eye on it for some time. I don’t know what reviews you’ve read but the extraction shooter crowd is excited because ARC raiders gets so much right and is arguably better than the king of the genre, Escape from Tarkov. Tarkov goes for a different experience so people who enjoy Tarkov might not necessarily enjoy ARC, but there are objective things that make ARC better than Tarkov. For example the PvE enemies are not bullshit. They’re hard but you don’t need to pixel peek through a doorway to kill them. The audio is far better because you can actually use audio to locate people. Less useless loot due to the ability to recycle loot. The performance is more uniform (in Tarkov streets is still somewhat unplayable for some people). The only clear negative people have had with ARC raiders is the third person view but I would say that’s hardly a deal-breaker. The rest of the game is fantastic. I dig the art style. I dig the audio. I dig the ARC and I dig core gameplay loop. I’m seriously considering finding time to invest into playing ARC raiders because that’s how much I enjoyed the playtest.
But with all this praise it’s worth remembering that at the end of the day it is an extraction shooter and extraction shooters are not for everyone. If the entire concept of risking your gear to get loot doesn’t sound appealing then not amount of praise is going to make you enjoy ARC raiders.
I never played Tarkov, but it always seemed a little too heavy for me. And the cheating issues everyone seems to be complaining about, and the issues people have been having with the devs, it all put me off from playing it.
The reviews I’ve seen for ARC Raiders said that the game was doing a lot of things right, but everything could be a little better. One of them called it something like “pleasantly mediocre” which isn’t awful, but also doesm’t sound like a resounding endorsement.
If I find some people to play with, I may pick it up. It’s not the kind of game I want to grind solo or play with randos, but it looks like a good time.
It’s an interesting concept, but the pvp was a huge turnoff. Maybe it’d be different if there was an option to form an alliance or truce while above ground, but then it’s just PvE with one massive team.
It’s an extraction shooter. Not a game for everyone. For those that like that genre, it’s incredibly well-designed and a welcomed take on the genre. For those that don’t like it, won’t care for it.
The recent Server Slam had very limited progression enabled, which stunted many people’s first-time experience. The greatest thrill of extraction shooters is the moment you find loot your really want to keep and do whatever you can to extract safely. When majority of the loot was mediocre, there was no thrill.
I personally only play PvE. Played the hell out of Killing Floor, Deep Rock Galactic, and Helldivers 2. I was turned off by the PvP aspect of Arc and do wish they kept the game as PvE, but the more I played and listened to their design philosophy, I now acknowledge why they added PvP to their PvE game, the pure fact that it will keep players more engaged.
PvE alone can get very casual, which is what many dad-gamers want: something predictable to relax to. But by adding PvP, it removes the comfort and replaces with some of the most stressful experiences in gaming. It will lead to much stronger experiences at the cost of not targeting the casual market. It is definitely a deliberate decision and one that we shall see if it pays off.
youtube.com
Ważne