I'm almost certain the only reason Concord has players is because of social media incessantly talking about it. The only reason I know of the game is because of social media.
Just let it die and move on already.
They'll keep this in rotation like starfield why make an effort to highlight actually good games when you can give AAA companies the exposure instead. After all they have lots of money.
Wait is that game out
I remember seeing a trailer for that a loooong (couple years I think) time ago
Yes, it came out on the 29th of August on Steam and Epic. It will release on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X/S this Fall.
Yo sick
I completly forgot about this game ngl
And yes, I can confirm that Squirrel with a Gun is fun. I've been having an absolute BLAST (pun intended) with the game.
It's absolutely nuts! (pun intended, again)
It looked fun when j watched the trailer with stuff like bullet jumping so now I gotta check it out
I don't blame the devs for making the game, I blame the suits for not letting anything more interesting come out of the studio
yeah a overwatch clone, even a really well made overwatch clone, 8 years too late and $40 too expensive... Was always going to have a really rough time
Plus... Dollar store guardians of the Galaxy vibes didn't help.
The studio is not at fault for making Concord, they were forced into making it by the executives and suits and didn't let the studio make anything more interesting. We have already got, like, a thousand Overwatch-like games as it is, we do not need more of them. And oh boy, Concord has been absolutely bleeding players as a result of Sony's poor choices and decisions. They have already killed this game off before it could even get up off of the ground. They forced the studio to make yet another uninspired Overwatch clone, and the game is getting barely any players as a result. It's not the studio's fault, it's entirely the fault of the executives.
There's Marvel Rivals which is going to be f2p and is another hero shooter too. So just bad timing and executive decisions overall.
Wasn't it the other way around? Studio making the game and Sony buying them because they saw potential?
Anyway, fron what I saw the gameplay is really tight, it's everything around it that is not so good. Slap a 40$ pricetag on it and you end up like this
Well, the Dev Studio is made up of Bungie and Activision crew.
So yeah, I don't think anyone got their arm twisted too hard. Concord seems very much in their wheelhouse. A rip-off live-service game with massive mtx potential.
Pretty sure it's the contrary since Sony bought the studio after they were already making it, they have some ex-bungie so they are multiplayer people.
I kept reading that they tried to be GOTG, but never really got it. Yesterday i watched the intro trailer thing and was like: ooooooooh
I blame that one Dev who said people who don't like the game are a bunch of talentless freaks.
They definitely ensured I became less inclined to even consider giving this game a chance.
Price plays a role too, only 17,55 Euros for Squirrel here and Concord 40 Euros, plus 20 for Deluxe.
I was interested into Concord, not gonna lie. But even if I wanted to buy and play the game, accept their terms of usage and create a Sony account, its not playable on Linux. And to be honest, I'm thankful for not being able to waste my money and time.
I would try it if it supported Linux, but it never will so…
That’s what happens when you mix a pile of abusive industry practices with an overall bad and iterative game that doesn’t bring anything new to the genre
The gameplay doesn't look bad to me, I am interested into it. It has way bigger problems, like the unpopular character styles and looks. But what do you mean by "abusive industry practices"? I like the idea of paying upfront and getting the whole game, way better than a Free to play model to me. But I guess that approach isn't working in today's world.
Paying for it is not the problem at all, in fact it’s preferred over a freemium model.
The practices I mostly refer to are:
microtransactions in any context;
requiring additional software (PSN overlay) that doesn’t support all platforms;
PSN account requirement for a game that’s sold on Steam (have they forgotten about the shitshow that was Helldivers II?).
EDIT: history has also told us that paying upfront for a hero shooter doesn’t work out in the long term if the game wants any shot at being popular, just look at Overwatch’s failure to capitalize on it’s momentum by not becoming free-to-play earlier (and everything else wrong with Blizzard and their management).
But those points are not the reason this game flopped. Lot of games have micro transactions and are popular. Other games require additional account (and even launcher in some cases) and are still popular. While these arguments are in fact negative, they are not the reason the game failed. If Sony comes to this conclusion too, then they will not learn anything from it. So I hope they analyze it better.
In example the initial trailer reveal wasn't good. Then the characters and the universe it is in isn't very interesting, huge problem for a hero shooter. Sony completely ignored the critics from beta test phase. The marketing in general was terrible. Game is not playable on Linux either, which would have gave them some marketing push too. And the timing of the launch day was badly chosen too lot of people and news was focusing on Wukong and Deadlock.
There are lot of reasons that are well orchestrated together to fail the game. It's not as simple as the list you gave (in my opinion). Games with worse industry standards get more popular.
Is squirrel with a gun any good?
Depends what you mean by good. Is it silly pointless fun? Yes it is.
Is it deep, compelling gameplay with a lot of replayability? No.
It plays kind of like Untitled Goose Game in a way. Short themed sections with vague goals.
I didn't expect anything else than silly pointless fun, after all it's a squirrel with a gun.
Sometimes I love a short game that doesn't take itself seriously, thanks for the info!
Is Goat Simulator any good? I would say (didn't play it yet) Squirrel with a Gun is in that ball park.
Janie's Squirrel's got a Gun
Am I the only one who thinks of this whenever I see this title?
I'm almost certain the only reason Concord has players is because of social media incessantly talking about it. The only reason I know of the game is because of social media.
Just let it die and move on already.
They'll keep this in rotation like starfield why make an effort to highlight actually good games when you can give AAA companies the exposure instead. After all they have lots of money.
Wait is that game out
I remember seeing a trailer for that a loooong (couple years I think) time ago
Yes, it came out on the 29th of August on Steam and Epic. It will release on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X/S this Fall.
Yo sick
I completly forgot about this game ngl
And yes, I can confirm that Squirrel with a Gun is fun. I've been having an absolute BLAST (pun intended) with the game.
It's absolutely nuts! (pun intended, again)
It looked fun when j watched the trailer with stuff like bullet jumping so now I gotta check it out
What are you talking about, it released on PS5 a week ago.
Pretty sure it didn't. The website says October 15th, and their link to the PlayStation store also shows that:
https://squirrelwithagun.com/
I thought you were talking about Concord, I don't even know what Squirrel with a gun is... 😶
Squirrel with a Gun is a game where you play as a squirrel with a gun.
There, now ya know! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpzdyx9No_Y
offffff. less than 200 players
Concord is definitely DOA (Dead on Arrival)
I don't blame the devs for making the game, I blame the suits for not letting anything more interesting come out of the studio
yeah a overwatch clone, even a really well made overwatch clone, 8 years too late and $40 too expensive... Was always going to have a really rough time
Plus... Dollar store guardians of the Galaxy vibes didn't help.
The studio is not at fault for making Concord, they were forced into making it by the executives and suits and didn't let the studio make anything more interesting. We have already got, like, a thousand Overwatch-like games as it is, we do not need more of them. And oh boy, Concord has been absolutely bleeding players as a result of Sony's poor choices and decisions. They have already killed this game off before it could even get up off of the ground. They forced the studio to make yet another uninspired Overwatch clone, and the game is getting barely any players as a result. It's not the studio's fault, it's entirely the fault of the executives.
There's Marvel Rivals which is going to be f2p and is another hero shooter too. So just bad timing and executive decisions overall.
Wasn't it the other way around? Studio making the game and Sony buying them because they saw potential?
Anyway, fron what I saw the gameplay is really tight, it's everything around it that is not so good. Slap a 40$ pricetag on it and you end up like this
Well, the Dev Studio is made up of Bungie and Activision crew.
So yeah, I don't think anyone got their arm twisted too hard. Concord seems very much in their wheelhouse. A rip-off live-service game with massive mtx potential.
Pretty sure it's the contrary since Sony bought the studio after they were already making it, they have some ex-bungie so they are multiplayer people.
I kept reading that they tried to be GOTG, but never really got it. Yesterday i watched the intro trailer thing and was like: ooooooooh
I blame that one Dev who said people who don't like the game are a bunch of talentless freaks.
They definitely ensured I became less inclined to even consider giving this game a chance.
Price plays a role too, only 17,55 Euros for Squirrel here and Concord 40 Euros, plus 20 for Deluxe.
I was interested into Concord, not gonna lie. But even if I wanted to buy and play the game, accept their terms of usage and create a Sony account, its not playable on Linux. And to be honest, I'm thankful for not being able to waste my money and time.
I would try it if it supported Linux, but it never will so…
That’s what happens when you mix a pile of abusive industry practices with an overall bad and iterative game that doesn’t bring anything new to the genre
The gameplay doesn't look bad to me, I am interested into it. It has way bigger problems, like the unpopular character styles and looks. But what do you mean by "abusive industry practices"? I like the idea of paying upfront and getting the whole game, way better than a Free to play model to me. But I guess that approach isn't working in today's world.
Paying for it is not the problem at all, in fact it’s preferred over a freemium model.
The practices I mostly refer to are:
EDIT: history has also told us that paying upfront for a hero shooter doesn’t work out in the long term if the game wants any shot at being popular, just look at Overwatch’s failure to capitalize on it’s momentum by not becoming free-to-play earlier (and everything else wrong with Blizzard and their management).
But those points are not the reason this game flopped. Lot of games have micro transactions and are popular. Other games require additional account (and even launcher in some cases) and are still popular. While these arguments are in fact negative, they are not the reason the game failed. If Sony comes to this conclusion too, then they will not learn anything from it. So I hope they analyze it better.
In example the initial trailer reveal wasn't good. Then the characters and the universe it is in isn't very interesting, huge problem for a hero shooter. Sony completely ignored the critics from beta test phase. The marketing in general was terrible. Game is not playable on Linux either, which would have gave them some marketing push too. And the timing of the launch day was badly chosen too lot of people and news was focusing on Wukong and Deadlock.
There are lot of reasons that are well orchestrated together to fail the game. It's not as simple as the list you gave (in my opinion). Games with worse industry standards get more popular.
Is squirrel with a gun any good?
Depends what you mean by good. Is it silly pointless fun? Yes it is.
Is it deep, compelling gameplay with a lot of replayability? No.
It plays kind of like Untitled Goose Game in a way. Short themed sections with vague goals.
I didn't expect anything else than silly pointless fun, after all it's a squirrel with a gun.
Sometimes I love a short game that doesn't take itself seriously, thanks for the info!
Is Goat Simulator any good? I would say (didn't play it yet) Squirrel with a Gun is in that ball park.
Janie'sSquirrel's got a GunAm I the only one who thinks of this whenever I see this title?
John Sqweak FTW