It’s early stages and buggy, but it’s on its way. All games, even bland, boring, or bad ones, deserve to remain playable.
If Sony sees this, they’ll misread it as interest, release it again, and it’ll flop again. It’s what’s known as a Morbious.
The correct lesson to take away from it, that they won’t ever do, is to release multiplayer games in a way where they can live on without constant updates or a central server.
Hopefully Stop Killing Games can achieve that goal because big bosses don’t see the benefits.
I’m not sure that’s possible with multiplayer games, at least the central server part. They could release the central server code as an open source project… that would be very useful. But MMOs need that central communication to even work. I mean I guess you could engineer some sort of peer to peer but I’ve dealt with weird firewall rules in various DCs I’ve had servers located in or god forbid the lack of incoming connectivity in peoples homes. Outbound traffic is usually fairly unrestricted so a publicly available server is the way to go architecturally.
In this case, the ask is to release the server binary and allow users to point their game to a different server when the official one is gone.
Make it a permanently free ps plus game as a bonus for ps plus
It’s concordin’ time!
Morbius
Fittingly, produced by Columbia Pictures, which is owned by Sony, and distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing.
A… Mourbioros? Morboros? Mouroboros?
imo, Mourboboros (last one with an extra b, for fun)
Not me. I want to watch it flop again.
I thought it was very funny that I only even heard about concord existing when it was announced the service was shutting down. I feel like they didn’t know advertising for it
I like how the two comment replies you got were completely opposite of each other lol
Yeah which makes me think that it was six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Terrible marketing and fairly mediocre gameplay.
Although obviously I don’t know because like pretty much everyone else I never actually played it. And I like hero shooters and even played overwatch semi-professionally, so I would have been in the circles that would have heard about it, if Sony had bothered to tell anyone.
Tbh the marketing and price tag are what killed it. The game itself was actually pretty fun, played a lot like Destiny 1 pvp and really didn’t feel like a hero shooter at all (which is a good thing). The abilities complemented the gunplay, not the other way around, and movement was crisp.
Firewalk had a great core, but Sony fucked it up.
Nah, it was just a terrible game, hence the lack of advertisement. A hero shooter with zero soul put into it.
Edit: I actually played the game, would love to see the person who downvoted me defend fuckin Concord of all things 😂
But I was told by pirate software that this was impossible and would devastated the gaming industry.
Ugh man, Concord gets fan servers but I can’t play BF1943 anymore…cruel world.
Impressive. This is like making a Star Trek replicator, but the only thing it can make is more garbage.
No… They don’t. If the cost of running the servers for that game is more than the game can bring in there is no point in continuing service.
I understand that “gamers” believe otherwise but Sony, or any other company is going to go into the red because an extremely tiny base if people want to keep playing said game. Especially a massive utter flop like concord.
What do you believe the cost to Sony is for community-run servers?
All games, even bland, boring, or bad ones, deserve to remain playable.
In answer to your question, zero, of course.
The above statement is the one I have an issue with.
If it costs them nothing, then what does the cost of servers have to do with anything? If someone else wants to run servers at their own expense, that’s their prerogative. Why would you have an issue with a bad game remaining playable? That’s valuable history that everyone can learn from.
Your claim that all games deserve to remain playable is incorrect. If maintaining a game places the developer or publisher in a financial deficit, then the game does not merit continued operation.
The fact that third parties find ways to keep such a game running is irrelevant; it has no bearing on whether the game inherently deserves preservation.
Your position relies on an unsupported opinion and appeals to users’ emotions rather than presenting a substantive argument. As stated, it is an empty assertion without meaningful justification.
I don’t believe I said anything like “all games deserve ongoing maintenance”.
No you didn’t. ??
I don’t see a “and they need to host it”
But allowing/enabling community servers would allow it to stay playable at minimum cost to the developers
I agree but that doesn’t qualify it for preservation.
