Foamstars' fate shows why a free-to-play return to Concord would be risky

There's no way around it: Sony Concord is one of the biggest AAA flops in recent years. Although the live team shooter was widely appreciated from a technical perspective, it found little traction with gaming audiences, fell largely into obscurity, and was ultimately canceled by Sony just two weeks after its release.




Concord is a fascinating failure, not only because its flaws aren't the usual suspects – poor performance, huge in-game spending, excessive bugs – but also because it was so quickly abandoned. In recent years, you'd almost expect a big-budget live service to fail in its early days and slowly regain interest as new content, bug patches, and quality of life improvements creep into the base product. However, this kind of post-launch scramble seems to be becoming less and less effective over the years, and even more dramatic changes have proven far less successful in changing public opinion about specific titles. A good example of this would be Square Enix Foam starsA Splatoon Derivative, which struggled to gain a strong following at its premium price point, leading to a switch to the free-to-play model. But that didn't make all that much difference, and the same strategy could prove similarly ineffective for Concord.


2:37

Related

Why Marathon's rumored $40 price tag may not be a death knell like Concord's

Bungie's upcoming revival of the Marathon series is the subject of a problematic rumor, but the game may still avoid the fate of Concord.

Foamstar's lack of free-to-play success could be a harbinger for Concords

There have been rumors of a free-to-play switch for Concord

Fortnite, War zone, Genshin Impact: three of the most popular and influential games today, and they're all free to play. The success of such titles is of course not a sign that free-to-play is the right path for every game, but they represent the power of the low-risk, high-reward dynamic that characterizes the GaaS model. Of course, it's a model that many companies want to capitalize on, although some publishers try to recreate the same addictive live-service gameplay loop while still charging a higher price for the base product, typically alongside countless in-game purchases. This can be considered one of the reasons Foam stars failed.


But even removing that premium price tag didn't do much to improve Square's misfortune Splatoon Clone, suffering from a steadily dwindling player base even after becoming a free product. Rumors have surfaced Concord could follow Square Enix's example here and re-enter the fray as a free-to-play title to make up for some of its losses. Assuming this is true, it might follow Foam stars' Legacy in more ways than one, taking the plunge into free-to-play waters only to drown again.

Concord's problems go beyond price

Concord is a game that screams “free to play” at first glance, so its $40 price tag could certainly have contributed to its weaknesses, but that's far from the only thing wrong with it. In fact, ConcordThe player decline can be attributed to a number of factors, but most of them stem from a specific pain point: a lack of soul, identity and charm.


Take a game like Overwatchwhich Concord is obviously very inspired. Overwatch features memorable character designs, storytelling, and varied gameplay that combine to give it a certain pizzazz. Despite being made by a billion-dollar company, it appears spirited, bold and seductive – qualities that make up the inevitable corporate feel Concord missing.

There is also the more pervasive problem of market saturation. Live-service competitive shooters are everywhere, and it's becoming increasingly difficult for new releases to stand out in this space. Not to mention the GaaS model itself, which is defined by a constant player time requirement, and time is the quintessential finite resource. The truth is that many players never wanted to Concord was worth their time and made a comeback unlikely, $0 price tag or not.

Leave a Comment