Its trailer opened the spring State of Play, Sony’s big video to announce its upcoming video game releases. Released on August 23, Concord will nevertheless have had a short and sad life: on Tuesday, the publisher announced that access to the game would be cut off this Friday, and that buyers would be refunded.
On paper, Concord had everything to match the canons of big multiplayer releases. This first-person shooter offers players to compete between teams, embodying about fifteen characters with unique skills. In short, all the ingredients seemed to be there to make it a lasting game, with the possibility of adding new heroes, other game modes or encouraging a competitive scene.
“The game has absolutely not found its audience”
But here’s the thing, the ingredients are perhaps too obvious. “AAA games [les jeux à gros budget, équivalent des blockbusters au ciné] are saturated whether it’s open worlds, souls-like [jeux d’action difficiles à la manière de Dark Souls] and shooting games, like Concord, explains Stéphane Rappeneau, professor of video game economics at the Sorbonne. If, recently, Black Myth Wukong works, it is because it has a marked artistic direction inspired by China. A chance that Concord does not have. ” On X, many players have indeed mocked the character design of the Sony title.
“Concord can give the impression of a title that tried to bring together all the ingredients of a recipe for success, without however managing to harmonize them. The game simply did not find its audience, analyzes Karine Haucolas, expert in digital marketing for the video game industry and entertainment. On this type of game, if adhesion does not manifest itself in the first days, it is imperative to reconsider its strategy without delay.” According to her, Sony’s marketing strategy was also flawed. “Many players ignored the existence of Concord,” she explains. When a launch does not meet with the expected success, it can also be crucial to reconsider its target.”
Concord also arrives at a late stage, after eight years of development. In 2016, Overwatch has just arrived and relaunched the formula of the competitive shooter around people each having their own abilities. In the meantime, the concept has been used by Rainbox Six Siege (Ubisoft), Apex Legends (EA), Valorant (Riot Games), or, most recently, Deadlock (Valve). “The main flaw of Concord is linked to the development cycle of AAA games,” continues Stéphane Rappeneau. “It’s a market that evolves quickly, every two or three years the fashionable style of game changes. By the time the title is developed, it misses the expectations of the players.”
How did we get to such lengths? “The budgets involved are so large, there are validation processes at every stage,” continues the professor. “The productions are directed by marketing. Managers want to reach as many people as possible.” Problem: “At some point, taking no risks becomes the biggest risk, big productions do not serve creativity.”
A sector in crisis
Especially since “live service” games, which offer regular updates and are designed to generate revenue in the long term, “have a very high failure rate for the moment,” points out Karine Haucolas. The fault, again, lies in an already saturated market. “Most live games target 15-25 year olds, those who have time to play,” emphasizes Stéphane Rappeneau. “My children, between 15 and 25, only play Minecraft, Roblox or Fortnite. There is also a network effect on this type of game, where you can chat with your friends. Migrating to a new game, which is also paid, is an effort.”
Big-budget failures, such as Ubisoft’s Skull & Bones earlier this year, have heralded future austerity in gaming. “A lot of publishers have cut production values,” Rappeneau describes. “The video game market has hit a ceiling, it’s only going to grow with the demographics now. So we’re going to have to cut costs.” In the past year, the industry has indeed carried out numerous layoffs – more than 11,000 according to the site’s count. Obsidian. Even less ambitious games are likely to suffer. “The double AA game (between 5 and 10 million budget) will suffer a lot, because it will have fewer resources while maintaining the demands of the public,” predicts Stéphane Rappeneau.
For her part, Karine Haucolas sees several possible developments. Large publishers could buy out small studios, or at least establish partnerships with them, in order to produce more games, albeit less ambitious, but more numerous. A model already tested by Tencent, the Chinese giant. “They launch dozens of games and capitalize on the few that are successful,” explains the marketing expert. Another possibility: take inspiration from the economic model of music or video-on-demand platforms by offering a subscription to a catalog of titles – a model whose viability would again rest on the diversity of the games offered.
Nothing is lost
It remains to be seen whether the eight years of work spent on Concord can be reused. Sony could re-release the game on a “free to play” model (free to sell, but with micro-purchases in the game). “This would involve a thorough review of the game’s mechanics, and this time could not be considered without a hard-hitting marketing campaign, highlighting the game’s assets to attract new player profiles,” warns Karine Haucolas. “The problem is that below a critical size of players, the game does not make profitable the teams needed to maintain the service,” also warns Stéphane Rappeneau.
And all is not lost. “This failure is a stinging lesson for the video game industry as a whole,” says Karine Haucolas. “And, even if it is not perceptible to the player, we can hope to reassure ourselves by saying that after eight years of work, Sony will be able to capitalize on the game engine or certain 3D models that were developed for Concord to prepare its other productions.” Perhaps with more success this time.
