Former Microsoft exec says “culture killed Concord”

Concord has been perhaps the most disastrous and uneconomical video game launch ever. Just two weeks after launched, the project was canned, refunded, and put to rest. Apparently, it was company culture that killed PlayStation and Firewalk Studio’s hero shooter – it was “unable or unwilling to see and fix its problems,” Laura Fryer said.

Fryer likens Concord’s development cycle to that of Vanguard. Developed by Sigil, the same studio as Everquest, Fryer became an executive producer for the game on behalf of Microsoft. When Everquest launched and “everyone at Microsoft stopped doing their jobs to play,” signing Vanguard seemed a natural and obvious development. “They wanted the next Everquest,” she said.

World of Warcraft then launched in 2004, which drastically changed the expectations from the market. “The Sigil team didn’t want to hear bad feedback,” she said, and “they were designing Vanguard to be more like the original Everquest.” Similarly, she notes the developers refused to play the games of their competitors, leading them to a path of developmental tunnel vision. It meant that Sigil’s vision answered none of its player demands – in short, nobody wanted it.

Fryer likens Concord’s development cycle to that of Vanguard’s. “It’s not surprising the market changed out from under the team that was making Concord. The question is why didn’t they adjust?” She even goes on to intimate that developers seeing this stubborn, obstinate work culture would likely have just left the studio alongside their talent.

Recently, I wrote about other live-service slop that foretold Concord’s eventual failure:

People don’t have the time, energy or money for multiple live-service games, let alone multiple hero shooters. With Marvel Rivals and Overwatch already dominating the space, attempting to break in with Concord was always a battle destined for failure.

Although Fryer and I ventured in alternative directions in our musings, there is a consistent sentiment that failing to listen to the game’s target audience is a path to doom.

While Fryer clearly points the blame at Sigil, it’s not so clearcut with Concord. PlayStation and Fireshine, either or both, were clearly trapped in a sunk cost fallacy – sometimes known as the Concorde fallacy.

“The Sunk Cost Fallacy describes our tendency to follow through on an endeavour if we have already invested time, effort, or money into it, whether or not the current costs outweigh the benefits,” Jesús Gil Hernandez writes. Six years into development, alongside the $100-$250m cost estimate – it’s clear to see how Concord was an project invincible to cancellation, at least not until after it launched.

To conclude, I agree with Fryer; culture will have played a huge part in the game’s failure. Both publisher and developer committed to a foolish project – a hero shooter – in a competitive, cut-throat environment that’s never going to receive a derivative game well, and all parties involved should have recognised that change was desperately needed.