@Kokoloko Uh dude...Overwatch 2 was declared
DEAD when it came out because Blizzard were screwing up before the game launched, big time. Apex Legends had a slow start IIRC; it wasn't until Season 2 or 3 where it finally found its footing.
As for those games having "woke" characters....I think this is where you've got a misunderstanding. Diversity doesn't inherently mean woke. Overwatch and Apex Legends are definitely diverse, no doubt (so is VALORANT), but the characters are still visually interesting, mostly avoid the worst of modern-day idpol nonsense, and fit well among the rest of the cast. They're good examples of diversity done right, and that's probably because they took cues from fighting games like Tekken, DOA, Street Fighter etc. which have also had very diverse casts and done very well by them (more or less).
Concord's idea of diversity apparently involves an androgynous blueberry human planet of a character, a robot with pronouns, and an "interesting" absence of white characters altogether save one (unless you also count "white-coded" Lennox....jeez I hate the "coded" concept and Steven Universe for making it mainstream :S)
Also thing is, both Apex & OW2 had
magnitudes more people interested in playing their early betas let alone at launch, and that's something about Concord which can't be denied. You can personally find the game just fine and enjoyable; fact is the vast majority aren't even interested to give it the time of day. We're trying to find out why a game's open beta had less players than a closed beta which didn't even crack 2400 on one of the largest gaming platforms out there (Steam).
Now yes the player numbers could be significantly better on PS5, but that's just theory work on our end. SIE don't provide player numbers or such data publicly, the most we get are ranking charts and even those don't tell much. For example Concord supposedly debuted at #29, as did VALORANT during its beta. However, VALORANT'S total player count could've been 2x, 3x, even 4x that of Concord's despite debuts at the same ranking. Just no way to tell.
Now of course there's a small percentage out there dogging the game because it's a PlayStation exclusive, because it's a SIE GAAS, because they don't want SIE to be successful in this venture. I've even seen some idiots on ResetERA try using the Concord drama to retroactively tear down Helldivers 2, Slaythe for example is a big culprit in that (the one with the Android 17 avatar, in case I spelled their name wrong). But these people are not forming the majority of discourse around Concord.
Maybe it's just easier to accept that a majority of would-be players just have no interest in the game due to any combination of the character designs, middling WOM (even from bad first impressions that didn't "get" the game), lack of marketing post-May SOP (was Concord at any of the PC summer game showcases?), the $40 price (probably one of the least significant factors, considering it worked just fine for Helldivers 2), the game just not standing out enough amid competition, or any combination of those. All of which would be legitimate reasons to explain the dismal Steam numbers and likely lukewarm PS5 numbers as well.
Also at the end of the day, it's SIE's game to fight for. What am I supposed to do to clap back against dismal narratives based on dead Concord numbers from Steam? Use hypothetical PS5 player numbers that I'd have no means of verifying? Why would I go to bat for a game where the majority of character designs aren't even to my liking? Where the idea of being forced to play as a roster of characters to get perks for the one character I would genuinely want to play, doesn't seem enticing as a game mechanic? As-is Concord's made it way too easy to pick it apart without even touching the irrational "it's a PS exclusive and I gotta shill my anti-exclusivity talking point (but only when it's PlayStation)" route.
Which, again, I've seen
some people basically try doing, but they don't constitute even 5% of total discourse with the game IMHO.
