With Marvel Rivals accruing over 10 million players within days of its release, a question regarding the hero shooter genre has arisen. Why did Concord fail while Marvel Rivals is thriving? Sony's Concord had almost a $400 million budget with eight years of development. The game was still canceled after two beta tests, and that shows there is very little space for the hero-shooter genre to thrive. However, Marvel Rivals immediately grabbed the attention the moment it was released.
If you are wondering what Marvel Rivals did differently than Concord, here are some things that we might believe are the reasons for the game's success and Concord's failure.
Disclaimer: This article is subjective and solely reflects the writer's opinions.
Looking for Crossword hints & solutions? Check out latest NYT Mini Crossword Answers, LA Times Crossword Answers, and USA Today Crossword Answers
Marvel Rivals showed how to bring innovation while Concord failed to do the same
In a recent interview with Marvel Rivals game director Thaddeus Sasser, he stated that Concord "didn't bring any unique value proposition." Given what Concord offered at a $40 price point, that is absolutely true, and I do believe that compared to Marvel Rivals, Concord didn't have anything more to offer while catering to the same audience.
Furthermore — not just unique value proposition — there are several other reasons that I do believe that Concord miserably failed.
1) The price point was too high, and Concord should have been free-to-play just like Marvel Rivals
One of the biggest reasons that Concord failed was its $40 price point. Although Sony planned to release the game on both PS5 and PC, there were already free-to-play hero shooter games available for almost all platforms.
Even Marvel Rivals launched as a free-to-play title, and all the heroes were accessible from the get-go. Hence, there was no reason for the gaming community to spend money on Concord.
One might argue that Overwatch was a paid game when it launched. However, it has been more than eight years since the first iteration of the hero shooter launched, and the game became free-to-play with Overwatch 2. If players have the option to play a similar free-to-play title, spending $40 for an almost similar experience doesn't make much sense.
Also read: Concord review
2) Concord lacked innovation while Marvel Rivals brought a bunch of new players to the genre
As pointed out by Marvel Rivals game director Thaddeus Sasser, Concord seriously lacked innovation. From what I can remember from the closed beta session, Concord had the usual hero-shooter trope, with all the characters having different abilities.
However, the hero-shooter genre in general was in a struggling phase. One of the biggest reasons that Marvel Rivals became popular was due to the introduction of all our favorite superhero characters from the Marvel universe.
With the massive success that the MCU received, Marvel characters have been mainstream for years now. Now, imagine a hero-shooter where you can play as your childhood superheroes with all the abilities that you've seen in comics, movies, and series. Marvel Rivals was that dream coming true that you thought would be impossible to achieve.
If you want to shoot webs and be Spiderman, you have that. You can also fly as Iron Man while fighting against Hulk's rage; what more would anyone want?
Also read: Marvel Rivals review
3) Concord's gameplay felt sloppy, whereas Marvel Rivals focused on fluidity
From a hardcore gamer's perspective, Concord's gameplay was extremely sloppy. The gunplay felt off to me during the beta phase, and it genuinely lacked fluidity. Even the movement was slower than most hero shooters that you can find right now, and somehow it felt like an old game with a modern engine.
You have to keep in mind that Concord was an FPS game while Marvel Rivals is a completely third-person shooter, and as an FPS game, Concord should've had more fluidity as it was catering to the hero-shooter audience.
On the other hand, Marvel Rivals felt like a game with an innovative movement system. Each character in the game possesses a unique style that extends beyond their abilities. Although a small amount of characters in the game use guns, it still felt fun. Be it using Black Widow's sniper or The Punisher's weapons, Marvel Rivals never felt like another hero shooter with uninspiring gameplay.
4) Aesthetically, Concord felt like an old game where Marvel Rivals gave us a unique artstyle
Another reason that I believe Marvel Rivals thrived is its art style. Aesthetically, Concord felt like a game created years back. Although the game's development started eight years ago, it didn't evolve with time. From an AAA shooter, I expected more. Both the games use the same Unreal Engine 5, but Marvel Rivals felt like a breath of fresh air in terms of art design.
Be it Yggsard: Royal Palace or Tokyo 2099: Shin-Shibuya, if you don't even consider the ingrained Marvel lore in each of the maps, every single one in Marvel Rivals still felt like diverging into a new world.
While on the other hand, Concord had three maps, each with a very similar aesthetic to the sci-fi trope, and it felt generic. We've seen similar art styles and tones so many times, and Concord did not add anything new here as well.
In conclusion
While Concord had its flaws, the game didn't deserve to get canceled. I do believe that it could've been prevented if the game was free-to-play and some post-launch service introduced new game modes and some tweaks in the gameplay. However, that never became reality and in my opinion, the game was not worth the price.
On the other hand, Marvel Rivals has become one of the most popular games in the world while catering to the same community, and it has rightfully earned its place.
Check out our other Marvel Rivals-related news and guides:
- Best Marvel Rivals crosshair codes
- All Marvel Rivals classes explained
- How to turn off easy swing in Marvel Rivals
- How to claim Venom Cyan Clash beta test skin in Marvel Rivals
Are you stuck on today's Wordle? Our Wordle Solver will help you find the answer.