this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
178 points (96.8% liked)

Games

16858 readers
715 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
178
Concord allegedly cost over 400 million dollars to make (x.com)
submitted 2 months ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 33 points 2 months ago (18 children)

It wasn't a genre I enjoy, so I don't really know much about it beyond the stuff about how badly it sold. I have to wonder though, just how bad does a game have to be to sell this badly? Whenever I see people complain about something in gaming, I inevitably see people talking about how people should vote with their wallets, but then whatever the thing in question is seems to be quite profitable despite the complaints and calls for people to stop buying it. What was so wrong with this one that actually caused practically nobody to buy it?

[–] warm@kbin.earth 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)

A lot of shit games still sell millions on the back of marketing, so for a game to sell as little as concord, it had to be a whole new level of shit along with shitty marketing.

[–] kurcatovium@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That's the thing. They sell it due to marketing. Concord had virtually no marketing whatsoever.

So Sony came up with $40 game that failed to be as good and enjoying as mediocre f2p ones, supported it with zero marketing and expected profits somehow. Genius.

[–] warm@kbin.earth 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A good game will sell itself though. How they spent 8 years on it, I don't know.

[–] kurcatovium@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Good game, yes. Concord was not one of those. It was mediocre, nothing special, definitely not a game people would pay 40 for.

load more comments (14 replies)