Sony Pulls Concord From Sale After Disastrous Launch (ign.com) 104
PlayStation hero shooter Concord will be taken offline on September 6, 2024 and all players will receive a full refund, Sony announced Tuesday. From a report: Announced on the PlayStation Blog, director Ryan Ellis said "while many qualities of the experience resonated with players, we also recognize that other aspects of the game and our initial launch didn't land the way we'd intended."
Concord will therefore be taken offline so Sony and developer Firewalk Studios can "explore options, including those that will better reach our players." The game will be removed from sale immediately and anyone who purchased on the PlayStation Store or PlayStation Direct will be refunded to their original payment methods. Those who purchased on Steam and the Epic Games Store will be refunded in the coming days. Firewalk Studios' AA shooter was released less than two weeks ago on August 23.
Concord will therefore be taken offline so Sony and developer Firewalk Studios can "explore options, including those that will better reach our players." The game will be removed from sale immediately and anyone who purchased on the PlayStation Store or PlayStation Direct will be refunded to their original payment methods. Those who purchased on Steam and the Epic Games Store will be refunded in the coming days. Firewalk Studios' AA shooter was released less than two weeks ago on August 23.
Re: Everything woke... (Score:2, Troll)
All the ooh so amazing success of artistic products like concord heavily contradicts your propaganda narrative.
You're playing Ensign Boimler in an FPS? (Score:2)
Re: Go woke, go broke. (Score:4, Insightful)
People have had enough of having politics in their entertainment. It's that simple. We seek entertainment to leave the chaos of daily work, the news and so on. You turn on your games, and you get the same garbage you want to leave outside.
Stop using games and movies as a platform for political messages. People are tired of it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The game also didn't fail because of "politics" or "wokeness", but because it was j
Re: Go woke, go broke. (Score:2, Insightful)
All you say might be true, however the extreme left heavily politicized the topic by blaming and shaming everyone who did not buy their favorite masterpiece. Publicly on twitter and other platforms. The product rode high up on its political high horse and now that it is one of the worst gaming holes in the ground ever, now suddenly it is not about politics anymore⦠yeah right.
And if you focus on politics and DEI and fugly characters in the making of a video, then surprise surprise, you did not fo
Re: (Score:3)
Thing is, I dispute the idea that Concord was seen as any sort of "favorite masterpiece" by the left. Ironically, it would have sold more if that was the case.
It just being a game without any outstanding features is what doomed, I'd argue. It doesn't take DEI or "woke" to do that. Having a single fat chick shouldn't count as "woke" either.
Not enough advertising, nothing to make it stand out from the already established and cheaper competition in a saturated market, etc...
At least Sony is recognizing that
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The game put gender pronouns on robots. Since robots don't biologically reproduce and raise child robots, there's no need to give them a gender, other than to signal virtue. They spent more time attempting to appeal to a vocal minority than they did attempting to make a game that was fun to play and they're paying the price for it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's almost as if extremism is the real problem, regardless of which side one is on.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> It's almost as if extremism is the real problem, regardless of which side one is on.
"We just want to be treated like human beings."
"We want to make those people's lives functionally illegal on every level of society and turn them into third-class citizens."
Brain-flu: "Both sides are bad!"
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It looks like you have a serious bout of it, judging by that histrionic strawman.
Nope. (Score:3, Insightful)
I did NOT say "Both sides are bad!"
I said "extremism" is bad. When one is not an extremist, one can see that both sides are good!
It is common that popular points of view have some merit to them even if they are also tainted by something harmful. It takes a non-extremist to be able to see the merit in the rival's point of view and give it due consideration.
Only an extremist sees their own position as the only correct position, and sees nothing but wrong with all other positions. The way you represented yo
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Or, to give an example: Even as you have right-wingers trying to ban some books, you also have left-wingers who also try to ban books. Not the same books as the right wingers, and their excuses are often different, but it still happens.
"Why can't we all get along?" is more a moderate position.
You go extremist on the left wing, you start getting people who think that all males should be confined to islands/their own communities. That private property should be completely abolished, etc...
Re: (Score:3)
"There aren't enough of us in movies and video games. We want there to be more of us in these places, even if this is not representative of the target audience (or hurts sales)."
Found another one who hasn't seen the ST:DS9 episode "Far Beyond the Stars".
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like they want the same thing the white male has had for generations.
Re:Go woke, go broke. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, that's why Baldur's Gate 3, a game where you can pick your own set of genitals and can literally fuck a bear, was such a massive flop. Too woke.
Re: Go woke, go broke. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Cut that guy some slack! We have reached peak satire. It is not longer possible to read a headline and with certainty decide if it's from a news or satire page.
And more than enough people made more absurd claims without any sarcasm. One of them is even running for US president.
So unfortunately, there is a rather large chance that that poster actually believes that that game was a) woke (whatever that means. Most likely: I don't like it) and b) a flop.
Re: Go woke, go broke. (Score:2)
BG3 was made as a good game first and foremost. The go-woke-go-broke thing complains about you focus on anything BUT making a GOOD PRODUCT. And then you whine and blame everyone for your failure because they did not buy your politics, when everyone just wanted a good game.
The issue here is the fundamental narrative of the left that a product somehow deserves to make money just because it has a purple hair fat character. And that this is somehow brave and amazing in 2024.
This narrative is complete BS and aki
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly my point. Concord is a massive flop because it's a soulless game created following market research and meant to maximize user monetization, in a saturated market. Gamers rightfully shunned it.
The whole woke/non-woke tirade is a smokescreen meant to paint an ideology over a simple case of a bad product not selling.
That's why I brought up the example of a game that many would describe as "woke", and yet being a massive success.
Gamers want good, creative, inspired games. The rest is noise.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's why Baldur's Gate 3, a game where you can pick your own set of genitals and can literally fuck a bear, was such a massive flop. Too woke.
Same with CyberPunk 2077... Hell CP77 had a shit launch, when I bought it at version 1.6 is was still bad... However it's amazing how well you do when you've got a good idea and a developer who engages with the community and is willing to support the product. Version 2.1 is gold.
So much for go woke, go broke... in fact I tend to see the opposite, the anti-woke crowd seem to be unable to produce anything of note.
Re: (Score:1)
That's because there isn't an "anti-woke" crowd(except the cottage industry of youtubers and cultural critics lambasting the garbage produced by "woke" companies) it is more woke/not woke as in caring about things like merit instead of intersectionality. One could argue that Larian Studios was simply not "woke" as opposed to Ubisoft who produced that barn burning success St
Re: (Score:2)
So much for go woke, go broke... in fact I tend to see the opposite, the anti-woke crowd seem to be unable to produce anything of note.
That's because there isn't an "anti-woke" crowd(except the cottage industry of youtubers and cultural critics lambasting the garbage produced by "woke" companies) it is more woke/not woke as in caring about things like merit instead of intersectionality. One could argue that Larian Studios was simply not "woke" as opposed to Ubisoft who produced that barn burning success StarWars Outlaws.
There's definitely an anti-woke crowd... you see them everywhere on Reddit and other sites when it comes to video games. A completely toxic community though. They do produce some stuff but it never gets any airtime because it has no mass market appeal and no artistic value (I.E. the kind of stuff you see at Cannes but not in an average cinema). For the most part it's just a vehicle to hate whatever they dislike this week, hence no-one else likes it.
When I think of popular shows I've enjoyed over the last
What if it did though? (Score:1)
And that had nothing to do with it.
That's all part of the art design for the product, which I heard a lot of people say they didn't like. So it was absolutely part of the failure. It wasn't just here, every character I thought looked just... unappealing. Any time I looked at video of the game playing, there was nothing about it from the levels to the characters that had any appeal. It almost if anything seemed super-generic.
From what I could tell though the major factor was the price, way too high when
Re: (Score:2)
And that had nothing to do with it.
That's all part of the art design for the product, which I heard a lot of people say they didn't like. So it was absolutely part of the failure. It wasn't just here, every character I thought looked just... unappealing. Any time I looked at video of the game playing, there was nothing about it from the levels to the characters that had any appeal. It almost if anything seemed super-generic.
From what I could tell though the major factor was the price, way too high when you could get similar or better with a free to play game.
I was about to ask... What makes this "woke"... I know "woke" has just become a word certain people say for anything they dont like, specifically anything they don't like but cant insult without sounding like a complete arse.
This wasn't on my radar because I've largely stopped caring about AAA games (or is it AAAAAAA games now, fuck it, we're adding another A) but it seems to be a generic online shooter similar to COD/Overwatch/Fortnite in a market already oversaturated by those games... Also it wasn't
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot that they charged $40 for a game that cloned free-to-play games.
Just $40... that's cheap these days even though the initial price is only half the game. New games are pushing upwards of £70 these days, which is why I tend not to buy them on release any more. If it's any good I'll wait for a sale.
Character Design (Score:1)
I was about to ask... What makes this "woke".
I would say primarily the character design, lots of alternative styles and body looks that are traditionally elevated by the people proclaiming to be Woke.
I think the game failed more because of the price but I have to say, if you make all characters have a look that is unconventionally attractive, that by definition means that a majority of people will not find them appealing and so it reduces the number of people willing to even try the game.
As others noted it
Concord disastrous launch? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Air France did that back in 2000.
And Welch’s [google.com] a few years ago... :-)
Watching a trailer of it right now (Score:2)
The problem with "live service" games is that there's only so many players you can have of ALL of them. There's also pushes to stick to the same ones, only changing occasionally, sticking with the biggest games, etc...
Between classics like team fortress, Fortnite, and more, I've seen a LOT of these types of games fall flat on their face because they don't offer anything new except for heavy monetization. IE in-app purchases to do anything.
They definitely spent a lot of money on the trailers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Once you played Duck Hunt (1984), these other games are the same damn thing, except with a fresh coat of paint."
And with other players to ridicule you instead of the dog.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no reason to buy a worse overwatch when you can play the real one for "free".
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. Spectre Divide, which is just a Valorant clone which you've probably never heard about is 50 times more popular: https://steamdb.info/app/26414... [steamdb.info]
The difference: It doesn't cost 40 USD to start playing.
Multiplayer live service games need a lot of players to ensure matchmaking is not dreadful. Having a barrier of entry like that for an absolute no-name entry-level IP (It's not exactly Battlefield or Call of Duty) is insane.
It must suck hard to have put 8 years of devving into it, only to see it bomb li
Re: (Score:2)
Multiplayer live service games need a lot of players to ensure matchmaking is not dreadful.
Indeed.
And yes, I feel sorry for the developers. If it had been a single player game, it might have had modest success.
Re:Watching a trailer of it right now (Score:4, Insightful)
The way some of the devs reacted to critique? Yeah, no. No sympathy from me.
Never even heard of it (Score:3)
They aren't going to be able to keep servers online to host a game no one is even aware exists, let alone plays
Re: (Score:2)
This is the first I really heard of it, looking at pre-release beta reviews, well, one of the statements during the open and free beta was that they couldn't even get players during that. How do they expect to get players at $40?
I'm seeing reviews saying "nothing new", "Boring", "Poorly balanced", etc...
Re: Never even heard of it (Score:2)
I also just read about all the self-inflicted "wokeness" controversy.
Seems like companies still aren't learning their lesson to just stay out of the culture wars.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't could you sum it up in a few words why it was seen as "woke" and in a way that could be considered worse than getting feedback as "nothing new", "boring" and "poorly balanced"?
Re: (Score:2)
The issue seems to be that it was in development for 8 years, and when the started it made sense, but today the market is saturated with similar games that are already established. On top that they ruined it with micro transactions and pay-to-avoid-grind.
Catering to a market that is nearly nonexistent... (Score:5, Insightful)
could explain the disastrous launch.
Re: (Score:2)
Or oversaturated. Concord is a live service game - ones of those MMORPG like games where you go online to do stuff in it. The big difference between an LSG and an MMO is the former typically doesn't have monthly subscription charges - maybe you might get "season passes" but other times it's free added content (aka "stuff to do").
Games like Destiny 2, Helldivers, and Concord. And what do they have in common? They're all by Sony owned studios. Bungie was bought because of Destiny in the hopes they could help
At one point there were fewer people playing (Score:5, Insightful)
Jimquisition over on YouTube has pointed this out before but live services don't work as an industry. They are a design from the ground up to demand hours and hours and hours of time so even if you could find enough Saudi Arabian sheiks to buy into their microtransactions and make them profitable there just isn't enough hours in the day to attract enough players.
When they lost loot boxes because of how predatory they were they moved to a battle pass model where you basically have to trade money for time if you want to get the various unlocks and where the mathematics work out to constantly keep you chasing and playing.
For a small number of players that makes hundreds of millions of dollars so I get the appeal of entering the market but you can't have more than about five or six of them in total operating in the entire market because they're just isn't enough hours in a day for the model to work and exploit players. If you're already spending 20 or 30 hours a week grinding destiny or fortnite or rainbow six you don't have another 20 or 30 hours to grind Concord.
What I don't get is how the suits didn't realize this. The developers are going to make whatever the suits tell them because their artists and they just want a chance to play with the cool toys and make a game. But I mean simple math should tell you you The market of people willing to spend that much time on a game is finite
Re: (Score:2)
But I mean simple math should tell you that the he market of people willing to spend that much time on a game is finite
It should. But it comes with two requirements: 1) You need to be able to do simple math and 2) you need to ask the question in the forst place. I think the type of "suit" prevalent today has real trouble with both.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
On a smaller scale, think about all of the people training/working really hard for careers as writers/singers/athletes/youtubers when we all know that only a small slice of those who try hard will succeed. It's just that when you succeed in something like that, the outcome is so incredible that tons of people chase after it.
Some of the microtransaction/live service games have made $1B+/year in revenue. For a company like Sony, even if they only make a hit 10% of the time in that market and spend $100M on
Re: (Score:2)
The market of people willing to spend that much time on a game is finite
The problem is the suits all think they shit pure gold and that this market will move over to them. It's not about sourcing infinite customers, it's the idea that releasing a game can lead to stealing all the customers from a competitor. And honestly if the game is good it will.
You know those meme videos of timelapse scales of popularity of certain things over the years, well I saw an interesting one about gaming, and something very interesting stood out. Back in the 90s it was a few key games up the top, a
Another one ... (Score:2)
... that has forgotten how to do it. Seems to be a common topic with the big IT players these days.
Not necessary (Score:3)
Why not have private server and offline play, then throw in modding support.
You sell the original game, run it through your authentication server if you must, and then sell subscriptions to your quality official server with moderation and cheat monitoring etc.
Then if you have to drop support for a specific title, you only have to support account authentication. And you know what? You can split that off into a separately billed service and maybe 40 years from now still have people paying to play a game you haven't assigned a dev to for almost as long. If you only sold one copy, that's still income you're not throwing away.
It also makes games playable in a way that can build and maintain a cult following. Maybe one day you'll decide there's new money to be made spinning up a server again. And you can even keep selling the game with local/private server play only. Money money money, and people who bought the game never get pissed off because you clawed it back.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not have private server and offline play, then throw in modding support.
You sell the original game, run it through your authentication server if you must, and then sell subscriptions to your quality official server with moderation and cheat monitoring etc.
Then if you have to drop support for a specific title, you only have to support account authentication. And you know what? You can split that off into a separately billed service and maybe 40 years from now still have people paying to play a game you haven't assigned a dev to for almost as long. If you only sold one copy, that's still income you're not throwing away.
It also makes games playable in a way that can build and maintain a cult following. Maybe one day you'll decide there's new money to be made spinning up a server again. And you can even keep selling the game with local/private server play only. Money money money, and people who bought the game never get pissed off because you clawed it back.
Their main business model is selling cosmetic micro-transactions. That wouldn't work with this model.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, I brought rational thought into a truly weird area of economics.
At an emotional level, I understand cosmetic purchases less than the P2W stuff. Which is already kind of stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Any "live service game" is like social media, it lives and dies on it's daily users. Nobody to play against means nobody is playing at all and if a person hits a 7-minute wait to find a match there are literally dozens of other games then can turn to. F2P is a way to get the servers populated and once people are playing they will tend to make some sort of purchase, a cosmetic, a battle pass, what have you. Get a steady community going and then you get the whales that make up a large percentage of F2P rev
Re: (Score:2)
At an emotional level, I understand cosmetic purchases less than the P2W stuff. Which is already kind of stupid.
Understanding cosmetic purchases all comes down to the idea that a player will see someone (another player, a streamer, etc.) wearing something and they'll think "I wish I looked like that." Keyword here being the second *I*, wherein the in game avatar is serving as a representation of the self. Then it's just as simple as answering the question why anyone would pay what seems like a silly amount of money to "look" a certain way: ego.
Re: (Score:3)
The major industry moguls like the ability to block players from being able to play old games at all, as it pushes those players to play the new games instead.
They don't want old games competing against new games for attention, especially since new games cost a lot to make.
In the case of this particular game, it looks like even if they did offer private server support, game sales were so low that they didn't even earn back the costs of development. Giving people their money back for a game that those same
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's a goodwill idea at all. It's simple economics: They sold enough copies that just shutting down the servers without refunding would get them a class action lawsuit that would end up more expensive than just refunding.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not have private server and offline play, then throw in modding support.
It was a live service game. One which never got a community built around it. It literally makes no sense to do anything other than throw it in the trash. Seriously check out this chart: https://steamdb.info/app/24437... [steamdb.info] it had a maximum all time high of 660 players. SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY. Sure that was steam only, but it's reflective of just how big of an uninteresting turd this game was.
Do you know just how shit a game needs to be for IGN to rate it 6/10?
I'm with you in general on principle, but this game
If you want something to fail (Score:2)
Re:If you want something to fail (Score:4, Funny)
Just name it concord, how dumb could you be?
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
I feel really bad for people working on this (Score:4, Insightful)
This is pretty astounding they would actually pull the whole product and issue refunds. But really it's the right thing to do when you release a multi-player focused game where there are no players.
I just feel really bad for people who have spent years of their lives working on what from I could tell from reviews, functioned mechanically quite well - it's just that the art design and pricing strategy seemed to have let down the whole company.
Game development just seems like a brutal industry to work in because so much that can make or break a game is out of the workers control.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, game making IS a very brutal industry. It is notorious for overworking staff to the point of burn-out, because they have an abundant supply of talent (young people like playing games and think it would be really cool to make them for a living).
Also, the market is very saturated at this point. Making a game that sells well is hard and expensive, and you still need a lot of marketing to compete against all the OTHER video game marketing that is trying to drown you out.
This genre in particular, the team
Re: (Score:1)
Also, the market is very saturated at this point. Making a game that sells well is hard and expensive
This is a great point, I am seeing ads all the time for game after game after game... even if they were all great there just is not enough time to play all of these massive games coming out, almost everyone has to pick a small number they will actually play.
This genre in particular, the team-based PVP shooter, is also a very thoroughly-saturated sub-market of the video game market
Yes also a great point, that
Re: (Score:3)
Try Rocket League.
The more you play the better you think your getting.
Re: I feel really bad for people working on this (Score:2)
Games like Rocket League are ruining the games industry by providing too many hours of play.
Re: (Score:1)
That's almost as good as the Baldur's Gate 3 is too good a video game and has set the bar too high for other game developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Tax-writeoff sounds almost plausible, given how generic everything turned out to be.
Re: I feel really bad for people working on this (Score:2)
Judging by what some of the people who worked on this been spitting out on Twitter etc I absolutely do not feel bad for them even a little, it is one of the most well deserved holes in the ground and I hope they learn a valuable lesson from it at the very least in humility but I am afraid they just wont and keep blaming everyone else instead.
Bliss on Tap (Score:2)
It's always freshly shocking to me how much the executive class of supposedly "creative" industries fails to understand how media works.
People like things that are new, sure, but only if they're also good! So sometimes new things that, on a shoestring budget and against long odds, actually managed to get made, perhaps largely as a labor of love by individual contributors, may become explosively popular and make money. As will the first few copies of that thing, because those early copies can incorporate t
Re: (Score:2)
It's always freshly shocking to me how much the executive class of supposedly "creative" industries fails to understand how media works.
People like things that are new, sure, but only if they're also good! So sometimes new things that, on a shoestring budget and against long odds, actually managed to get made, perhaps largely as a labor of love by individual contributors, may become explosively popular and make money. As will the first few copies of that thing, because those early copies can incorporate the improvements that become feasible, dependable even, when a soulless corporation authorizes you to spend ten times more money than on the earlier, rudimentary prototype.
But you can't keep doing that forever.
And battle-royale shooters like Doom and Quake and Counterstrike and Team Fortress and, what is it, Overwatch? Fortnite? are, like, a hundred years old now. There's no more real improvements to make. And there are only so many players who are playing this kind of game. Most players get tired of the same old mechanics and quit playing the whole genre after a few days or weeks or months or years. The ones that don't quit outright are adequately served by the old games, thank you very much.
This will keep happening, over and over and over. Because creativity and business are opposites. Maybe the executives could save a bunch of money next time by just bookmarking this post.
Creative "industries" tend to drown in the "industry" part. For some reason, the management teams never seem to be able to wrap their head around the idea that they are putting out "creative" products, not just manufacturing widgets. Selling the same thing with slightly different paint isn't going to do for creative works, yet a lot of the industry decision makers seem to be convinced that's literally the ONLY way to "create" new product.
I'm a creative in my hobby life, and I get no end of frustration from
Re: (Score:2)
And battle-royale shooters like Doom and Quake and Counterstrike
I don't think you know what battle royale games are.
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Most players get tired of the same old mechanics and quit playing the whole genre after a few days or weeks or months or years. The ones that don't quit outright are adequately served by the old games, thank you very much.
Yeah, no. Call of Duty is doing pretty well. Next month, Black Ops 6 will be released. That is the 21st Call of Duty proper game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I think they were probably going with an older definition, more medieval even. Where a "battle royale" was where you had a bunch of competitors enter the arena, normally just a marked area of field, with the last individual/team standing winning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Under the older definition, Doom, Quake, and Counterstrike qualify.
No one has even described it yet. (Score:2)
I loved the original team fortress, but the TF2 that everyone knows now was all cartoonified, which clearly has a market, it just wasn't the same for me as the classic.
This type of game sucks (Score:2)
I've never understood the appeal of cramming 50 to 100 characters into a small space and expect it to be fun. I want to take players on one-on-one and hunt for them. Searching through giant maps for an opponent is half the fun, especially when the map is interesting and engaging. I used to play on-line games back in the day like Unreal with the Serpentine Mod. Huge engaging maps, usually no more than 16 to 24 players at a time, and plenty of one-on-one action with the occasional asshole coming along a lobbi
Re: (Score:2)
I miss UT, though the graphics were pretty limited. I used to play a lot of Tactical Ops. My coworkers and I at Media X specialized in low-grav CTF, we played on Fridays "after" work.
8 years of development is the problem. (Score:2)
Back when Overwatch was the new hotness. They decided to chase this trend, and now the field is crowded with free to play version. The bad character design isn't helping.
Buh Bye (Score:1)
deadlock exists: concord never stood a chance (Score:1)
sony would have instantly made more money and had more players by giving it away for free and charging for skins.
but you can't beat free, especially when volvo is making it.
You guy can flamebait it all you want (Score:1)
I never heard of the game, or seen it, but someone said it was woke? And no one wanted it? It doesn't matter how much media you throw to pretend it's what people want, they don't, the vast majority don't care for the poor behaviors and attitudes of a few people of a specific ideology. It doesn't matter if you have an army of people dumping on any comments about people not liking it, or if you scream louder, but the world doesn't revolve around group identities, although many countries keep trying it.
Still r
Re: (Score:1)
I never heard of the game, or seen it, but someone said it was woke
Oops. You said the word that makes me stop reading your opinion. Have a nice day.
Massive extra risk in Multiplayer games (Score:2)
I think it's a big extra risk for multiplayer games (particularly co-op games).
With single player games if a certain
Say it with me! (Score:1)
Professor Lisa Brown cannot be reach for comment (Score:2)
Having someone who insisted on Professor's team to referred to the Professor by that pronoun surely help building the best game in the world?