‘Concord is one of the best video games I’ve ever played’

A Reader’s Feature argues that Concord was a misunderstood masterpiece and that its only flaw was Sony’s marketing for it.

I’m one of the few people who bought and played the ill-fated Concord. Having heard little about the game prior to its release I stumbled upon it by accident and became curious when I learned it was a first party Sony game with a new IP. I’m writing because I feel the game has been misunderstood and dismissed, both by the gaming media and the gaming community as a whole.

The reasons for this are multifarious, but primarily it was a colossal failure of marketing on Sony’s part. At first glance, Concord looked like just another hero shooter in the style of Overwatch. However, those of us who actually played the game (all 25,000 of us) discovered it was so much more than that, and ultimately realised we had a real gem on our hands.

This may sound ridiculous to you, but I genuinely believe that Concord is one of the best games I’ve ever played, and I say that as someone who has been gaming regularly for over 30 years. I normally have no interest in online multiplayer games; however Concord drew me in with its weekly story updates, and a level of polish and attention to detail you would normally only associate with Sony’s first party single player games.

I’ve played Overwatch, Call Of Duty: Warzone, and many others, but none of them captured my attention the way Concord did, and one of the primary reasons for this was because I felt invested in the characters and their stories.

Gameplay-wise, I found Concord extremely engaging and incredibly well-balanced between all the different characters. Every character felt unique and fun to play, and I never felt that any particular one was over- or underpowered.

The gunplay felt smooth and snappy, and extremely satisfying in a way I’ve only ever felt in single-player shooters like Titanfall 2 or Doom. Movement was similarly joyful, and even when I was losing I was still having fun because moving around and engaging in gunfights was just so damn satisfying.

It was accessible for newcomers, but extremely deep and rewarding for those who wanted to master all of the game’s mechanics. In short, I was blown away by how good the game felt to play. I can understand that people were put off by a combination of factors, including cost, character design, and even culture wars.

Of these, the biggest factor was undoubtedly the price tag. We’ve become conditioned to the idea that live service multiplayer games should be free-to-play, even though we acknowledge that free-to-play often comes with significant drawbacks (microtransactions, pay-to-win, hiding important content behind paywalls).

Personally, I would much rather pay upfront and receive the entire game, rather than being milked for all I’m worth, however Sony didn’t do nearly enough to persuade people why they should part with their money for Concord, when they could just play their favourite free-to-play shooter. If they had released a demo, or made it available to PS Plus subscribers, I’m sure more people would have tried the game, the player-base could have reached a critical mass and it may have taken off.

However, it feels like Sony set this game up to fail, with poorly judged trailers that did little to convey what was interesting or unique about the game, and a price tag that acted as a barrier for anyone to even give it a chance. Much like its namesake, Concord was an incredibly well-designed premium product which ultimately went down in a ball of flames. I sincerely hope it returns in some form in the future.

By reader Adam West