247
Sony’s Concord Is Playable Again Thanks To Fan-Made Custom Servers (thegamepost.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/games@lemmy.world
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It's early stages and buggy, but it's on its way. All games, even bland, boring, or bad ones, deserve to remain playable.

all 41 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 81 points 9 months ago (5 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 36 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 31 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Useful idiots keep telling me people won't work for free.

    They say that if we don't pay businesses the prices they demand, then nothing would get done.

    Why are people so stupid?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Because they're correct, you're just being too literal in your understanding of the statement.

    Will people occasionally work for free? Sure. For friends, family, friends of friends, hell even strangers sometimes, volunteering is a thing, sure.

    Will they work for free reliably and consistently enough that they can be built upon by other people?

    Obviously not, they sometimes don't even do it for money.

    Society as it is today, with its insane population count and highly specialised workflows, requires an insane amount of logistics that absolutely can't bear "random cunt #354 decided not to work this month so the boat is without a captain" levels of random disruption without heavy consequences; this is incidentally also why strikes are extremely effective.

    No society that evolved beyond subsistence did so without some obligation to work, whether through monetary incentives or straight up serfdom/slavery; and if subsistence is all you want, I'm sure you can go live in like, some tribal commune on a Pacific island somewhere.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    You are a useful idiot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Sure, bud, that's why communism worked every time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    If communism was destined to collapse on itself every time, why did the US spend billions on overthrowing all the communist South American countries?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago

    For the same reason the USSR did the same shit to subvert countries all over the world?

    Power blocks are the basic concept underpinning modern multipolar foreign policy decisions, it's not rocket science.

    The difference is liberal capitalism won eventually, and the USSR didn't.

    Communism didn't and never will exist in a vacuum, you know?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (1 child)

    What makes you think people will work for free?

    I need some work done at my house, will you come take care of it for me?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I wouldn't do an Internet stranger's house. But I absolutely would help a friend's or neighbors if they so asked.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
    • [–] 26 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I like how the two comment replies you got were completely opposite of each other lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    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 😂

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 24 points 9 months ago

    Ugh man, Concord gets fan servers but I can't play BF1943 anymore...cruel world.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 12 points 9 months ago

    Impressive. This is like making a Star Trek replicator, but the only thing it can make is more garbage.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    But I was told by pirate software that this was impossible and would devastated the gaming industry.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [+] -13 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 12 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    What do you believe the cost to Sony is for community-run servers?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 6 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •