• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    252 months ago
    1. It’s free

    2. The gameplay is good.

    3. The characters are designed well

    If Concord had done two of those things, it would have been fine instead they’d didn’t even do one of them…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 months ago

      I heard the gameplay wasn’t awful, it just wasn’t stellar either.

      I got as far as seeing it on a store shelf, going “Huh, I didn’t hear about this one…” (Googles) “Live Service!” - “Right then, I’m out!”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 months ago

        I got as far as seeing it on a store shelf

        It’s on shelves?

        Most paid games don’t have a physical release because it adds costs these days, it’s surprising they have physical copies.

        Is it just a free disc that tells the hardware to download it? Or some kind of collector’s edition with extra stuff?

        But give it a try, quick play is quick play and you won’t get a good team comp, but I got to silver in ranked and people know what they’re doing most of the time. You won’t always get two tanks, but two heals and a tank is the worst I’ve seen.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 months ago

      “Free” wouldn’t have saved Concord. They had basically no interest in the game from the time it was revealed, and the open beta player numbers supported that. Putting a price tag on the game was an attempt to bleed out less profusely.

      • @zipzoopaboop
        link
        English
        22 months ago

        Yeah concord was"free" during open beta and lost users. It was just unappealing all around