Marvel Rivals dev on why Rivals succeeded and Concord failed - "it didn't bring any unique value"
Marvel Rivals dev on why Rivals succeeded and Concord failed - "it didn't bring any unique value"

Marvel Rivals dev on why Rivals succeeded and Concord failed - "it didn't bring any unique value"

All CEO's are going to take from this is they need to use popular IP's to make their low effort trash.
I was going to say "Marvel License".
If it were just 33 generic characters, or 33 comic book characters nobody ever heard of (Astro City anyone? Anyone?) it would have tanked just like Concord.
But, at the same time, it CAN'T JUST be the license. It's also free to play.
Look at Marvel Midnight Suns, which wasn't F2P, had the license, from what I'm TOLD was a decent game, but didn't go anywhere:
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/strategy/the-devs-of-the-underplayed-marvels-midnight-suns-once-more-blame-the-games-commercial-woes-on-the-cards-i-really-dont-think-it-was-the-cards/
A far better comparison is the Avengers game before that, which is a genre that the average person is more likely to play in the first place. Customers will avoid a game that they don't want, even if hundreds of millions of dollars was spent on it.
It's an amazing game.
The cards were a great way to handle combat, it was just a lot of new ideas, and the story parts slowed it down. If running around the abbey was something that could be turned off as an option and everything handled on a menu splash screen it would have done even better.
Nah, Midnight Suns was not good. They had some good ideas in the actual game play, but the other 80% of it dragged everything down.