You can dig through This Week in Video Games episodes on SkillUp’s YouTube channel from back just before the game released. That’s where I got it from. Live service games are looking for the hockey stick shaped graph in order to take off, and it was quite clear that even when the game was free, it didn’t have the juice to make that happen. And even the lower bound of $200M is a tough bar to clear, but Concord was funded at a time when borrowing money was cheap and every asshole with a war chest thought they’d make a fortune by following the same formula; the problem with that is that everyone else thought they could do that too. And that’s not even to say Concord was the worst game ever made or anything. It was just a game that cost way more to make than it was ever, ever going to make back.

But after they revealed it? Yes. From their reveal to their beta test, it seemed clear the game was not going to find an audience; definitely not enough to recoup $200M-$400M.

Concord didn’t have any advertising because the data was showing them beyond a shadow of a doubt that it would have been throwing good money after bad.

I just watched 3 friends play it, and they were miserable.

Their concern isn’t that people are getting laid off but that they’ll be laid off here and replaced with people abroad; and the executives benefiting from the cost-cutting are no longer Americans in this case.

Nothing will come of this unless it also concerns Republicans, but it doesn’t, because the President’s son-in-law helped make this deal happen and personally benefited from it.

You can do all sorts of things with video games, even when sticking to realism, if it helps you achieve your goals.

If only more people had heeded her message, we wouldn’t have ended up with the “morality” system of Infamous, where it was such a hard choice to either save these people or harvest their energy for your own gain. Decisions, decisions.

One might argue that KOTOR semi-ruined a generation of video games with morality systems. I’m one. I would argue that.

I guess I don’t see either of those games as being massive open worlds but just a modern implementation of old-school RPGs like the original Fallouts.

It’s far better than the game dragging on longer than it has any business to, IMO.

I think this thing with Tencent is the only buyout they’re going to get.

To be fair, that story involves time travel.

I haven’t played Double Exposure yet, but my friends were quite fond of it, and I thought Before the Storm was okay.

I’ll give you the private fiefdom part, but whatever other criticisms you’ve got for the Game Awards, and there are so many, that man loves video games. Putting Highguard there was likely misreading the room, but he probably thought it would be a banger.

Are you calling Geoff Keighley a tech bro?

Friends of mine who played at two different points far after launch still found it to be just as great, even if the physics and facial animations were no longer best in class.

So then if Facepunch were to buy New World and allow players to self-host servers, it would be a first for the genre, which would be cool.

Survival games like Rust often offer, as an officially supported feature of the game, the server code for you to run your own. When a World of WarCraft community server is run, it’s against Blizzard’s wishes and terms of service, and when they find out about it, it gets shut down, because Blizzard only wants you to play that game on Blizzard’s servers. I’m asking if any other MMORPGs offer community servers as an official feature the way that most survival games do, because it would be the first I’ve heard of it.

In an official capacity? Because there’s something like City of Heroes, but they only have 1 licensee and that’s all they’re interested in. Or are they games that call themselves MMOs while doing way less technically than an actual MMORPG, like Guild Wars 1? I’ll grant you I could be way out of the loop, but I’ve only ever heard of pirate servers serving this role in proper MMORPGs before.