Talk:Concord (video game)

Shut down

Sony said they were shutting down the game, I presume they mean permanently. But in the article, it's says unspecified time period. Is there any indication that they may keep it opened OR just remove that from the article? IrishDeafBoy (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

From the original post: Therefore, at this time, we have decided to take the game offline beginning September 6, 2024, and explore options, including those that will better reach our players.

It definitely sounds to me as if it's a temporary thing. DarkRevival (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It has been removed from digital storefronts and marketplaces along with refunds though. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it will be OR for long to say Concord was a game. But again, if Sony says it's temporary, then we'll go with that. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree for now. If we did put that it shut down or refer to it in past tense, it would fall under the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" fallacy. Still, this has to be the biggest major video games failure in recent years. Not even Suicide Squad: kill the Justice League or the entire Wii U catalogue failed as badly. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Given that the company is doing full refunds for anyone who purchased the game...that doesn't look like a "temporary" shut down, so I'd argue that it's not a crystal ball type effect. 2601:346:27E:53E0:CD11:B788:1A7F:AFC4 (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That is true, but I would off course assume that if a game were to be shut down for a prolonged period of time, preventing sales and refunding those who own it would be reasonable decision; it is speculated by some that there may be a free-to-play comeback which would explain the forced refunds, although of course we can't act on that for editing purposes as that veers off into unverifiable rumours. Either way, the initial statement is definitely worded in a way that implies they're not completely done with the game. DarkRevival (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

LGBT-related?

I noticed this game is in the "LGBT-related video games" category. The article itself, however, does not demonstrate this relation in any way, and I haven't seen anything about the game that would indicate that it's LGBT-related. It doesn't seem meaningful to that category (i.e., if I was surfing that category, I would be compelled to ask why this game is part of it) -- should that categorization be removed? 69.59.121.239 (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

69 IP, I did find this source from PinkNews that may justify the category. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The game features pronouns and a "diverse" cast of characters, to say the least. This should be covered in the article. Here is a general source: https://www.pcgamesn.com/concord/characters

DaVeers: If you’re after a they/them for some mayhem, look no further than DaVeers.. (snip)

Blockhaj (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2024

Change "is" in the opening sentence to "was". 2600:1000:A114:6B18:D02F:C990:3458:797C (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think it's defunct yet. But if it is, you need to provide a reliable source. ⸺(Random)staplers 02:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2024 (2)

Concord was in development for only four years, not eight. From Reddit:

"Concord was developed in 4 years not 8 years A dev in the official discord confirmed this. You can find the information yourself there. 8 years ago it was just and idea, Firewalk has only been around for 6 years, and most of the content that is actually in the game was built over the last 4 years"

The Discord message from a developer.

Currently the wiki states that "Firewalk Studios reported that the game was in development for around eight years.[10]", with the citation linking to a Verge article that contains no mention of the game's development. Alavilant (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Reddit is not a reliable source, same as with Discord. And that The Verge article did mention that "Concord launched [...] after eight years of development" near the end of that article. Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected grammar edit request on 6 September 2024

Please change the following sentence: "Eurogamer rated it three out of five, attributing the rating to the hero's "muddled" character design, writing: "The heroes seem to be visually either under or overdesigned"."

to: "Eurogamer rated it three out of five, attributing the rating to the heroes' "muddled" character design, writing: "The heroes seem to be visually either under or overdesigned"."

Reason: The quote shows that the term hero is pluralized as heroes, indicating that it refers to the total complement of the available hero characters. The correct possessive for the plural heroes is heroes', not the singular possessive hero's. https://grammarhow.com/heros-possessive/

 Done — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Petition

I had previously made reference to a petition being launched to bring the game back, but it was removed. Another story related to it has since come out, about the petition having more signings than it had peak concurrent player count on Steam. Is the petition notable enough now to mention? ISD (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Go woke, go broke.

This article should harbor a mention of this phrase. I say this not for comedic value, but rather as an ideal example to reinforce the phrase's meaning. This is very obviously evident of the commonly perceived 'woke' direction the game had and will probably be another one of many future commercial failures due to this perceived direction.

An actual comedic fact is that an common house fly's lifespan has officially outlived this game's release. Not really on-topic but I found that quite funny. 2A00:23EE:1920:6645:27A4:F09C:76B8:4114 (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

And as to your "comedic fact": Cyberpunk 2077 had a shorter initial release to recall timeline from Sony for the PlayStation (7 days). So this shouldn't be considered unusual for Sony when a game bombs on release. 2601:648:8285:6740:1D2C:BF1E:F643:ABCF (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Cyberpunk was neither a bomb nor a bad game. It suffered from technical issues as it was clearly released in an unfinished state during the pandemic rush lockdowns.

The reason it was removed from the PS store was because the technical issues, i.e the game just kept crashing.

Concord on the other hand has completely missed the point, characterising mainly lesbian, gays, fat non white characters, sure fire things that the predominately white male audience wants in their FPS games.

This genuinely is a case of go woke get broke as the devs are so out of touch with reality they think the terminally online skinhead fat lesbian men pretending to be a woman while rocking a full beard are the consensus for the normal people (gamers) of the world. 51.6.186.1 (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not an "ideal example" of this phrase. This was not a formerly successful 'non-woke' enterprise which changed marketing in a so-called 'woke' direction and then began losing customers.

And that's without even getting into the original research aspect of such a label. From the article there seems to be a variety of reasons this product launch failed that don't even get close to touching on so-called 'wokeness'.

2601:648:8285:6740:1D2C:BF1E:F643:ABCF (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The game seemed to had prioritised diversity over actual gameplay which hindered the majority of the consumers not being able to find anything in common with whomever they chose to play as. Obviously this would had lead to a divided audience that hyperfocused too much on the fact the game appears overly politically correct rather than focusing on the core-gameplay values.

I would argue to say that due to this and the reactions it produced, it wasn't the sole reason to why it failed but rather one of many reasons. Depending on where you stand on the political spectrum or your general views on the trivial never ending problem finding of modern society, then yes you can spun that this is an example of the political phrase.

Despite how insignificant it would seem in this game's failure, in the eyes of those who frequent this phrase can be used as an appropriate example. 2A00:23EE:1920:6645:27A4:F09C:76B8:4114 (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, please suggest an edit with a source, or move this conversation to your favorite forum. 12.75.41.25 (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

As a right winger, I actually don't think this was a key factor at all, simply because this game was very obscure to the vast majority of the market, people, left, right, or center, simply didn't even know about Concord. How much advertising and hype did YOU see for this game in the year up until release? How many articles or video fluff pieces did you see for Concord in that time? When did you first even learn about Concord's existence? Maybe you remembered it the few times it was shown off and you tried keeping up with this game, but most people didn't. At the very best, SOME people seemed to have this vague idea of Sony having this hero shooter title in the works, but with little else besides that.

Would typical DEI approaches to design have an effect on sales and reception to average non-left-wing people? Sure, depending on severity, but that assumes that those people are even aware that the product exists so they could even judge and consider it. One can harp about "Go Woke, Go Broke," but an even worse business move is to not even market your game, people can't look at your game and think to themselves whether or not they like what they see, if they never goddamn SAW it. This gets particularly strange when you account for what a staggeringly high budget this game has been reported to have, it seems very odd to not make much noise about an upcoming product which was as expensive as Concord. When this game finally got attention, it was when it finally got shoved out the door and everyone was writing stories about how poor it was performing on the market, and then Sony deciding to pull the plug on it very quickly thereafter. 78.72.68.246 (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Censoring the truth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This game has had a LOT of talk due to its pushing politically-charged, woke ideology. To pretend this isn't even worth mentioning is downright ridiculous.

I made some edits which I believe were written in a very fair and educated way, to mention this controversial aspect of the game, as well as presented how it's considered to have played a part in the game's utter failure. The sources I mentioned made fair points. But all of it was removed, claiming the source articles are "fringe" and "unreliable", and there is "no evidence" in "reliable media" to this. Most of what I added in the article, and was written in the sources, was info verifiable through the sources' own links, or valid points anyone could realize with a little thinking.

What IS a "reliable source"? Some of the websites present in the current References section previously noted the diverse cast of the game, the pronouns, and the backlash it received for these, but none of them mention this topic now that they're reporting the game's flop. Does that sound a "reliable source"? Instead, easily verifiable facts, and conclusions that anyone could reach with a little thinking, and that debunk some of the currently-presented reasons for the game's failure, are removed as "fringe" and "unreliable".

I would just add this information back. There was no mention of the game's woke content in the article before I edited it, but looking through the article's history and Talk section, I can tell it's very much intentional.

Let's be honest on what is actually happening: now that the game has made a record-breaking flop, the common agreement is to deliberately fail to mention this politically-charged aspect in the game, because if it was mentioned, people will connect its presence to the game's failure.

This is censorship. Last I checked, Wikipedia bragged about being "unbiased", but this article is being censored to hide facts that prove inconvenient to someone's agenda. This is not how an encyclopedia is written, this is how a propaganda tool is made. Someeditor7 (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Someeditor7: Please take a look at the Reliable Sources policy page. In short, the source you have cited, Blaze Media, is deemed as "generally unreliable" by community consensus, found here (under the entry Blaze Media), because it is deemed as "generally unreliable for facts" because of a poor reputation for fact-checking. At least that's the consensus in 2018. Wikipedia is not censored, but content do need to be verifible here. If you think it is reliable now, please go to here for further discussion. Thanks. Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The source articles I used had facts you could easily verify yourself. Dismissing it because the source has "poor reputation for fact-checking", when the facts in question can be easily checked by yourself, seems like a contradiction.

At any rate, I've decided to take what you said sincerely, and proceeded to write the controversy section again, as well as mention how the game's politically-charged content contributed to its failure, this time using sources that aren't listed in your "totally unbiased" list. Since other websites, not present in that list, are considered acceptable, I take it the sources I listed are also acceptable.

Looking forward to seeing what excuse will be used to censor the truth this time. Someeditor7 (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

TheSixthAxis is deemed unreliable as per WP:VG/RS, Forbe articles written by contributors, not staff, are also unreliable (see WP:FORBESCON), no idea about The Nordic Times. I've set up a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard here to figure this out. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 14:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC); edited 14:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Someeditor7: First of all I didn't wrote the list, the community did. The list is a list of commonly used sources and whether they are generally accepted, not an "okay this is the exhausive list of acceptable and unacceptable sources that is totally owned by someone".

Also, note that verifibility is over truth here, which I agree that I have failed to address previously. Yes, unacceptable essay I know! In fact, Wikipedia is Wrong!

Seriously though, note that the verifibility policy requires all statements which is likely to be, or has been, challenged must have a reliable source in it. Citing "you can verify it yourself easily" is not good enough.

In any case, I didn't, nor do I plan to, revert your edit, so I'd suggest to contact the reverter(s) if you have further questions or concerns. Also, please treat Wikipedian with civility and respect. Thank you. Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the Nordic Times part you silently reverted, as you are unable to conveniently pull out a list that shows it as "unreliable". Frankly, I believe you have no right in editing this article concerning these topics, as your use of pronouns shows you have a conflict of interest in these contents... Someeditor7 (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not the list that matters, but the discussions it links to. Besides, TheSixthAxis clearly states all its content is opinionated at the bottom, which is not accepted by Wikipedia, and all Forbes articles written by "contributors" are user-generated, also not accepted by Wikipedia. I'm not biased, as your constant obsession with pronouns assumes, I'm simply abiding by the policies put in place here. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 15:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

And in regards to the censorship claims, I simply didn't read your full edit summary, that's it. I wouldn't have a problem with the edit if the sources followed the policies on reliability, but in this case, they aren't. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 15:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest with one of the topics. I am pointing out you are unfit to discuss the topic as you are inherently unbiased. Denying it, calling me "obsessed" and claiming it was an "accident" that you deleted a piece of information that you were not able to find an excuse to delete does not make your stance look good. Someeditor7 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh damn, I meant to write "inherently BIASED", not "unbiased". Heh. Someeditor7 (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's the truth, and isn't that something you don't want censored? Jurta ^talk/_he/they 15:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Childish, meaningless reply. I'll link you to a page someone kindly linked to me: the COI policies Someeditor7 (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The policies mentions that COI does not inheriently contribute "bias", which you've been repeatedly claiming I have. (see WP:COINOTBIAS) The usage of pronouns does not also indicate COI, the policies doesn't even imply that edge case. On that note, aren't you violating WP:ADVOCACY, especially in regards to how you describe the game as "pushing its politically-charged, woke ideology", in a clear reference to LGBTQ+ content?

In addition, you only brought up the policies after someone on your talk page had already brought it up. I'm gonna assume this is you not knowing the policies yourself, which is fine, but please take the time to study them, or at least skim through them. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 16:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This conversation has derailed into a specific detail, but just to make it absolutely clear:

The game displays the character's preferred gender pronouns. It receives backlash for this, as it is perceived as propaganda. The game flops completely, with this being mentioned as part of the reason. A connection that is inconvenient for those in favor of this feature, and a connection that may lead media creators to decide not to have such a feature in their product.

A user who has gender pronouns alongside his name, defends gender pronouns being displayed.

The policies mention: "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia" alongside "you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles".

That user did not disclose any such situation, but edited the article. Someeditor7 (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I have not once defended the displaying of pronouns in the game. In fact, I do not care about it at all, why should I get worked up over a mere string?

I've already established that I reverted your edit because the information was only backed up by unreliable sources, there's no deeper meaning to this. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 16:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in Wikipedia CoI policies which even remotely supports a claim that "use of pronouns" constitutes a conflict of interest. That is absurdity beyond belief. AndyTheGrump (talk)

@Someeditor7: Again, I failed to see how does the game's characters' perferred pronouns have anything to do with Wikipedia's editors' preferred pronouns. Imagine this: on some person's article page, it mentioned that the subject like blue, but fails to give a source. Now an editor who prefers red comes in and removes the information, citing WP:BLP. The editor perferring red does have a bias, that bit is clear. But COI are concerned with external relationships - articles about yourself, your employer, your school, your company, your friends, etc. As the editor's perference aren't external relationships, the editor perferring red does not have COI. Thus, simliarly, Jurta (talk · contribs) does not have a COI. Replicative Cloverleaf (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The game definitely received criticism for injecting left wing politics, the criticism of this aspect was deafening. Saying that the game failed because it was similar to other shooters is just as much of an opinion as stating it failed due to identity politics. The providing of pronouns IS controversial, because the default for all of human history was people to infer pronouns not be told them, and not everyone is on board with being told pronouns. Now you may support this woke ideology but denying it was a factor in the criticism of the game makes Wikipedia seem incredibly biased and damages its credibility. You aren’t fooling anyone and anyone who reads this article will simply come away with a worse opinion of Wikipedia. Also even the devs do not deny that the character designs were bad as leaked tweets show. 90.255.18.151 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commercial failure in lede

Concord is already listed as a commercial failure in other articles: List of commercial failures in video games#Concord

The article also now cites the reported $400 million cost as well as some of the expectations Sony had with its release. Considering other games considered commercial failures list this fact in the lede and there already are such mentions in the article's body, it would seem appropriate to emphasize this in the lede as well, especially as this will probably the one thing this game will be remembered for in the future. 2003:CD:EF01:8800:6835:41B9:EA76:9DDE (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The lede currently states that the game was shut down after two weeks, with all sales refunded. I can't see how anyone reading that could possibly interpret that as describing anything other than a commercial failure. What else needs to be said? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Linking the list article would be a start, as common practice with many other games in that list. Right now it reads more like a side note when coverage about it has used plenty of superlatives (Kotaku calling its failure "historic", The Guardian names it a "spectacular" failure, etc.) in the still-ongoing coverage. Leaving this at "low sales" as it is right now seems like quite the understatement. 2003:CD:EF01:8800:6835:41B9:EA76:9DDE (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree, the game is probably the biggest commercial failure in video game history, it should be featured more prominently --FMSky (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Advertising

Is there any good source about how Concord was advertised? Like something going into any reported advertising budgets, or reporting on what advertising and articles which were put out ahead of the game's launch, maybe even interviewing marketers for the game. Because it seems like a pretty big part of Concord's poor performance must relate to Sony putting in very little effort into any kind of marketing for this title at all, I had no idea that the game existed until release, and neither did most people, apparently. It would seem that Concord was only sparsely shown off once or maybe twice in Sony events. I think some info and analysis about this would be a very good addition to the article.

Even if the game itself had its actual problems, it seems that Sony's negligent handling of such an incredibly expensive project made it destined to underperform as monumentally as it did, they pretty much failed the studio here. 78.72.68.246 (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Colin Moriarty

Why is anything being included from this guy? He is so obviously biased that there's no way any of his accounts of the game development or studio is accurate. Many have even questioned the $400m budget he claims the game had. Colin doesn't sound like a reliable source on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.125.249 (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That explains why the source says Moriarty is a very reliable and reputable source, especially when it comes to PlayStation https://web.archive.org/web/20240921014110/https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/concord-ps5-playstation-sony-star-wars/ --FMSky (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That's comicbook.com. Christopher Dring of the much more reputable gamesindustry.biz has refuted Colin's claim. https://x.com/Chris_Dring/status/1837554768689975801?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1837554768689975801%7Ctwgr%5Eb8a4596cef2190fc437c95430643d80cf84d80df%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmp1st.com%2Fnews%2Fgames-media-personnel-debunk-claims-of-concords-400-million-budget

Dring's point rings true as well. Very few games have been reported to have such numbers. You can extrapolate potentially half a billion budgets from studios like Rockstar or Ubisoft considering they employ thousands of employees. It doesn't make sense for a 200 person studio with a brand new IP to have a 400 million dollar budget.

The flagship title Spiderman 3 doesn't even reach that number.

List of most expensive video games to develop GloriaBurgle (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)