Sony's New PS5, PC Shooter Concord Confirmed as a $40 Game

I like that Sony is hitting a lower price point for their live service games.

But this game still looks pretty bad.

Do you have to buy the game in order to partake in the beta, @LiamCroft? Or is the beta free...?

@Fiendish-Beaver I believe you gain early access to the beta if you pre-order, but there will be a time when it's open for everyone to download.

Was kind of wondering if Publishers were paying attention to how well 40$ games were doing.......
With terrible economies world wide, 40 sounds more affordable than 80 and I imagine more people will bite

Even if Free to Play, I'm not interested...

These "Digital Deluxe" editions that Sony do seem like really terrible value

I don't think any price point is enough to draw me in (it's not my thing at all) but I'm all for this kinda price point for online games like this. Feels much less aggressive alongside all of the other 'micro' transactions.

I find the green guy off-putting. The way his little goatee tentacles sway in the wind.

@LiamCroft Pre-ordering for early access to a beta is a new one on me. Every time I think the have pumped the well of new ways to monetize something else comes along.

It’ll quickly be a free to play game 👍🏻

Really messed up they didn't just release factions for 40$ it would have sold millions and could have easily hired a third party studio to manage the live service part of it. Can't believe they would release this game over factions.

This game looks like absolute slop to me, but maybe it will find an audience, who knows. It will certainly be promoted more than the average hero shooter.

I'm shocked it's not F2P. I think $40 is a big ask for this game, unless it's best in class for the genre. Will the casual audience that will determine its success be willing to take the plunge at that price? Even Overwatch is F2P these days.

Is there ANY story mode to it? Or just 5v5 with the cinematic elements

@Stragen8 wouldn't even play it if it was free 2 play.

@glennthefrog psplus game a few months after release.
this is probably going to end like paragon.

Is this game player vs player only or player vs enemy (5v5) also?

Wait, this is that game with Green Starlord in the movies that you see that have little to do with the gameplay, right?

For a non-F2P title, they should at least guarantee operating servers for a certain period of time, e. g. until end of 2028.

@AdamNovice my don't believe for a second that they didn't know the amount of resources that live service titles requires. As for the state it was in, the game had been in development for a long time.

Someone finally noticed the one thing this string of surprise hits had in common.

@Frmknst Nah. A P2P model is better… Should hopefully keep micro transactions low, and at least will keep some toxic players at bay especially if the game doesn’t blow up in popularity.

@AdamNovice Yeah, as long as the cut scenes endear the characters to the player it can overcome a lack of plot. Overwatch did a great job of that. OW also had killer character designs though, which helps a lot, whereas this game doesn't imo. So it may require a bit more effort to charm players.

I expected them to try and follow Helldivers example when I saw that it required PS+ to play it. This could turn out to be a very savvy way to get money out of everyone that wants to play it while also keeping it from being too expensive to just blindly purchase.

If the beta impresses and perhaps they could say all year one characters are free, I could see it getting a decent community behind it. That beta is going to absolutely crucial though.

It’s hard to see this working when there’s clear alternatives. Helldivers at least has its own little corner of the market.

Imagine being a dev watching everyone hate on "marvel-style" dialogue these last few years knowing what you're working on. I don't know, man. I don't think the interest is there for this one, but I could be wrong.

As an Overwatch player, I was thinking about at least giving it a go, even if I had doubts it would be worth playing over OW.

$40 kills that completely for me. Why risk all that money for something I've already got and enjoy?

You telling me Temu Gaurdians of the Galaxy X Overwatch is going to charge people for entry in what should probably be F2P?! It's like they want it to be DOA.

Ah yes, The Suicide Squad clone.

Seems like a bad business model for a mid looking game in a market over saturated by the same stuff.

I couldn’t care less about this game, but I find Sony’s decision making with this title interesting lol.

The Helldivers 2 business model is an excellent one to follow.

Even if it was free to play it would struggle, but at $40 it will sink like a Rocksteady.

So £35.99 in the UK, very nice and means il be there day one without too much of a risk. I think this is the sweet spot for Sony's live service games going forward as its a price that people will take a gamble at.

Might be there day 1. Though compared to Helldivers 2, don’t think lightning is striking twice with this one.

I also think it’s funny because Fairgame$ I think is a 5 v 5 shooter as well

So many clowns acting like this game is bad because they don’t like the characters/dialogue. As if that has even 1% bearing on how good a PVP shooter will be.

The game will come down to gameplay only. If it’s good, it could very well be a successful game.

@ThomasHL

Why risk all that money for something I've already got and enjoy?

If you enjoy Overwatch 2 then you’re in the minority as that game is bombing hard and has an 18.62% rating on Steam, which is one of the lowest rated games of all time.

@ChrisDeku That's review bombing though. It's player count on steam is healthy and has actually been growing the last couple of months

Sony said that they had a dozen games a service in development. With the reception of Concord being so bad, I'm wondering what will happen to the still unreleased games. I only play SP games so I can't really be bothered.

The $40 price point is perfect. If it’s $60 or $70, it’s too much and everyone waits for the sale price drop that comes in about two months. If it’s $40, the price is low enough where people are willing to pay on day one.

Still kinda expecting this to be free with PS+
If not, well, good luck competing in an already difficult space full of F2P games.
Also battlepasses and such only feel justifiable in F2P games, I assume this will have one?

@ThomasHL The main point of contention is the aggressive monetisation so it’s debatable if that can actually be labelled as a review bomb. It’s certainly not considered Off-topic and filtered out by Steam.

D1 for me, can't wait

Everybody is so quick to judge this game after one trailer. Give the beta a chance and see how the game plays then you can judge it.

While it's not something new(as of yet), some of the characters look cool at least and the gunplay looks like it should be tight.

I'm interested in playing the beta next month and it being $40 isn't bad either if the beta turns out to be good.

I was excited and willing to pay. They lost my money when they decided to give made up, fictional characters pronouns. All they had to do was write a short bio about each character if they want to make their gender known. Giving pronouns is obviously pushing an agenda that shouldn't be a part of a video game designed to entertain and escape the political BS in the real world.

@glassmusic
Exactly

look at Sea of Thieves, Grounded, HellDivers.... all did really really well @40.
If Suicide Squad had released@40, maybe it takes off(okay big maybe).
I just think people will take a bigger chance at that price range, especially as games are basically not refundable.

Gaming is a mess .....

@Treestar
Eh🤷‍♂️

Every game has a market they want to appeal to, based on what I've seen of the game, I can guess the market. Money is the best way to vote if you aren't a fan.
Just a game after all

I actually don't mind paying the $40 to play if it means that it won't be as grindy as f2p games.

I still need to play it and see if I'll spend time with it.

Concord is DOA in its current visible form. At least for me. Nothing in that reveal sparked anything resembling interest.

Astro-Bot on the other hand...

A lot of People saying this game gonna fail doesn’t even play theses type of games lol.

With this priced at $40, there's a chance for Astro Bot price at $40-50 and not $60-70.

@Xbox_Dashboard Same for me.

All I could think throughout the reveal was the word "MEH". It just felt generic, derivative, uninspired.

I also found "Savage Dragon Yondu" whatshisname to be annoying in a very Forspoken protagonist kind of way.

@PuppetMaster if Sony gets smart and sells Astro-Bot at a budget friendly 50$. It sells 20 mill +. If they push for 70$...8 mill, if they're lucky. It's a shame they went PS5 exclusive with it. Could have reached some really stupid levels of popularity.

Sold. To be fair I'll have to check out the beta next month but $40 for a Playstation First Party Studio level game is a no brainer for me. Let's go.

If a physical copy comes, I will buy for the PS5 exclusive collections, this looks fun, a bit bland and already done, but no one will know until it releases.

How do I remove this game from my PS5 menu page? It keeps appearing when I press the ps button the dualsense

So if its the same as Helldivers 2 pricing it should be £30 at Argos for a preorder copy.

I think people are being overly negative about this game.

I'm not the target audience at all but it seems well made and the production values look good.

Not to mention it has folks from Bungie working on it and Bungie know good gunplay.

£35 with all that in mind seems pretty decent to me.

For people interested in it, it sounds like a good move. A high base price for a live service game that wants you to keep spending is always a bad look, so, fair play to them.

Though given that I only like live service done well, and loathe PvP-only games, I'd still rather spend that £35 on a complete, one-and-done singleplayer game on sale.

£34.99 in the UK so I'm happy with that, I think that price is fair for what the game offers.

I don't believe this gets saved by a $40 price.. It really depends on what gets released, but trailer/presentation looked subpar and in comparison to Helldivers 2 of all things it looks significantly less fun. Admittedly, Helldivers also looked "meh" in trailers, however delivered big time on release.

@Medic_alert It's funny people complained Sony didn't have a diverse set of games on the system then made something different and people complained.

Free wouldn't even get me to play this crap.

If this is being titled as Sony's Overwatch killer, which is a free game, then it's DOA. I'm not sure the logic of releasing a team battle style of game at a cost when there's a slew of games doing this already that are free to play or free with a subscription service. It's already getting a "meh" label and now a confirmed purchase for it, sorry but I can't see this doing well.

I think Helldivers was a hit not only because of the price but because it's PVE. The market already has a ton of PVPs.

@MrMagic is £32.85 at shopto atm…

i mean at the end of the day, it’s gameplay

I think it’s a very clever move for Sony to price it’s live service titles at this price point.
It’s at that price when sitting on the fence you could jump in for £34.99.

This is a smart business model, just like the Helldivers one. Having a game be free-to-play may be good for pumping up player numbers, but those games are microtransaction hells. The Helldivers 2 business model is generous and one I actually WANT to give money to. No $20 Fortnite and Call of Duty skins. You get actual content and it's $10.

I wonder if this would be £70 if it had positive reactions in the State Of Play? Or has Sony lost faith in the £70 RRP in such a hard time?

Curious to see what they price Astro Bot at.

I don't know why, but I am really interest in it. Never liked Overwatch or other games like that. Maybe its the Guardians of the Galaxy Vibe. Also 40€ is a good price.

This looks like it'll be forgotten about in about 6 months. Sony released a great trailer for this game, but the game itself looks average. Certainly not worth £35

I watched the trailer and was thinking it was a single player action type game and got quite into it until the 5v5 part and then I had zero interest.
Now I see they are going to charge for it and now I am laughing as that is definite fail.
Sony need to start listening to the people who buy their games.

$40 still too much

Hahaha anything more than 0 is too much. What a joke, expect you to pay to win, loot boxes, DLC probably, and charge for the game. I hope this flops hard.
Sony have lost the plot, they truly have. Ditch the woke stuff, ditch this studio behind Concord for sure who described those complaining of the robots with pronouns as ‘white noise’.

$40 is a fair price but I mean did they learn nothing from Destruction Allstars? I mean I know it's a different audience and appeal for that game and well vehicle games have a smaller audience and most people don't care for them but I mean $40 when their competitors are free to play.

Sony are just wasting their time. They clearly forget who they are marketing to and why their competitors are free to play and $40 plus the rest, oh sorry free to play change in the next month, they clearly don't know that their audience knows what access they seek.

Then again Foamstars lacked depth that made me laugh and come up with my own ideas. This will try to compete, others in the space will still exist, this will die in a few months. They change the price. It maybe has a chance but too little too late. Unless it has a good feel or good maps or content drops who cares honestly. XD I'm not a multiplayer person but it's not hard to read the room about multiplayer and handling it well if even my singleplayer 'this could benefit from this' or seeing what ideas multiplayer have over the years can contribute of worth content.

I mean if I see skating games or platforming or shooters and go this for moveset or level design or otherwise makes for good content then why wouldn't it be good in multiplayer games when how you play matters then some story trailer or a story multiplayer game approach.

@pharos_haven It is how they go about it and WHAT they do offer of genre, worlds, camera angle, less story focused or otherwise but yes.

I think Concord has a place but it's how they do it. How distinctive of multiplayer ideas it is. As if Rocker Arena (forget if it did well). But I guess audiences don't care and some high end staff don't get games well enough either such as Suicide Squad. Make something like this and that logic that don't understand games and don't even play the reference just what they see. XD

I think some PS3 era SP/MP could be cool but is a lot of work and why we see separate ones but combo ones have less to fail on as if the solo mode works it still is enough of a success/some more sales then the limited of both separate audiences.

I'm fine with Sony branching out, but I haven't care for much they make anyway these days so to me I just look at what they offer like I do researching any games I don't care about but just understanding them, caring about the industry rather than a 'how dare they not cater to me' some people give off. XD

I mean to me racing games make it clear to me they want to sell their licenses that offer decent modes/event types so why should I play some of them if the progression/mechanics are dull. I don't buy those games for the cars/teams. They can be a factor but they need more than that annual ones or non-annual or just dirt bikes/rally/etc that's a easy distinction of things.

That and even if many of us aren't the target audience. I myself am not either. I think it's how 'directly' they try to compete. That's the first thing that puts me off games even nostalgia marketing Indies with too close of a product. I'm just going to be like why even bother, offer at least something a bit distinctive in there.

Sony can seek story driven and multiplayer (or other offerings as well that they haven't which I can see why people want Astro or to prove a point too, I'm all for an Astro game) but it's how they go about it. I'm playing neither but it doesn't mean some of us don't have perspective or still look at what every side is doing.

I had some many ideas for Foamstars during it's period yet it lacked content. Was it so hard to offer a surfboard mode (not just a move), a Foam reversal option to remove the foam covering the map, traps, chemical or other foam combinations via power ups or just obstacles on the map. That was off the top of my head back then and still now. Same as animal traits for Biomutant to make navigation more fun, it sets up the start of the game to be more fun then wait until the vehicle missions, use swimming then a jet ski access later. Dig, flight, etc. Something literally 5th platformers gave me inspiration of, not even because they offered them moves it's just experimental design, making me think of such things. I mean if Splatoon has a solid ink to platform, reload and shoot, with 2 offering gun grappling and other things and was the best puzzle platformer with guns for a solo campaign I'd played in 2024 a 2017 game then just too much combat other games offer there is a reason why I was so surprised to go wow this offered something I was seeking. "HOW THEY GO ABOUT IT', WHAT THEY OFFER point.

Like we can easily break down the horror, open world, RPG or any other gameplay factors they all have, besides the cinematic story and third person camera and all that. But enough distinction I find is what some games lack. How direct they are of competition that why else would I care to play it let alone free to play or buy it cheap later.

I bought the Square published games that didn't sell well because they had genres I was interested in (I would usually care about such games in old gens to see what those left behind IPs were anyway). I saw some cool hack n slash, tactics games with fair worlds, I saw some lack depth and focus on other elements too much and suffer in quality, I still had a fair time with them, they varied of sometimes other publishers, in some games case themselves. The polish or marketing or cheap price I paid but still the 'new' price. But I'm not most people either in my gameplay focused purchases when people seek other aspects and that's totally fine. So many flops are games I really cared about and I still bought regardless of failing because they still interested, whether my purchase helped or not (Balan, Aveum as examples). I mean sure other shooters exist but to me Aveum compared to a SWAT or Atomic Heart or old age war setting was nice to see a magic shooter regardless of the 720p, the loot system and everything else even as a gameplay first type the setting/feel was good enough for me.

With just 'complaining' it's too much noise. With better responses than 'this is bad', 'this is good', the 'we want more of this for them to try, or revive or another solution' is what some people will say but finding them and also taking them seriously is another thing entirely.

Problem is they end up as long comments or only touch on certain details. Or if Youtube videos may or may not cover the topics well enough depending on the depth the creator points at such details, comparisons or just general.

Also as a hardcore audience (Push, Twitter, Reddit, etc.) our voices are very different across many platforms or our mentality if we use all platforms as well or broaden our game design/genre interests but still look at what is being done in the industry, versus the mainstream.

@SuntannedDuck2 Im not reading your Op-Ed