• NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    A lot of games media has talked on it (to varying degrees). But Concord basically had a bad beta/demo and launched at a time when EVERYONE wanted live games to fail (see: Stop Killing Games Initiative). AND it managed to piss off the gamergaters in the process.

    We’ve seen this to a lesser degree in the past with… basically every Battlefield since the WW1 one? Bad demo/beta (mostly because people still haven’t learned to not play Conquest and to instead play Rush) coupled with the CoD/BF fanboy war results in outlets and Gamers actively wanting the game to fail and shitting on it every chance they get. It is just that EA understand that BF is the kind of game that still sells enough to justify keeping Dice around.

    • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      battlefields a bit different. battlefield basically nowadays is that the game always launch in a terrible state, and fixes itself a year down the line. battlefield players will play the game regardless and maintains ~6000 user playerbase active

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I mean… where do you think the “this has a terrible launch” comes from?

        If Influencers like a game, everyone looks past the massive performance and stability issues. If influencers don’t like a game, a single crash is enough to mark it as trash that should be ignored until a couple patches… which is a death sentence for a multiplayer game that requires a critical mass of players to be worth buying.