By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Concord is Sony's biggest failure in gaming history.

JWeinCom on 02 September 2024

You are pointing out how “they” can in fact refer to companies, even though these are single nouns. Makes just perfect sense for me too: sony is a thing, a company. But it is comprised of many people. So, when we talk about sony doing something, we mean the people working there. “They” did that. I am afraid this does not address my complaint at all: using plural pronouns for a singular person (not company).

Nintendo is a singular noun. You would not say "Nintendo are a video game company". This absolutely addresses your complaint. That we are using a plural noun when the singular is gramatically correct. You can't be nitpicky and dogmatic about grammar in one situation, and then not care at all in another. Or well, you can, but I would have to wonder why.

But, w/e. Here are some examples that don't relate to corporations.

"When a person talks too much, they learn little." (Duncan Hines, Lodging for a Night, 1938)

"I know when I like a person directly I see them!" (Virginia Woolf, The Voyage Out, 1915)

"There’s not a man I meet but doth salute me as if I were their well-acquainted friend" William Shakespeare. 

"So likewise shall my heauenly Father doe also vnto you, if yee from your hearts forgiue not euery one his brother their trespasses…" Matthew 18:25

There are other examples of they being used as a singular, and the last two are refering specifically to a male noun. It is not a new thing, just new that people decided to get pissy about it for some very fathomable reason. 

JuliusHackebeil said:
JWeinCom said:

First off...

"I don't like Bungie pinning all their hopes on it, especially after they've changed it to an extraction shooter, I'd have rather they tried another Halo-like success, a game with a strong SP/MP but I hope it works out for them because although I'm not a big fan of Destiny, Bungie is my childhood developer, the first I knew by name, they gave me my favourite IP ever.

Amazon Prime apparently has a whole episode dedicated to Concord. They sure put the cart before the horse there.

If Sony decides to shutter the studio. They should just assign them to other projects/studios rather than layoffs. 

Manchester Studio was closed after they spent so long, without a single game. "

What do these quotes from this thread have in common? They all use they to refer to a singular noun. Strange how you did not take issue to any of these, or any of the dozen other times people have used they as a singular noun. It is a perfectly acceptable way for a person to speak or write if they don't know the gender of an object or if the object they are referring to is sufficiently clear.  "I.e. I love my cat, they're the best cat in the world" and nobody has ever cared. Oh you had lunch with Bob? Aren't they the best?" I do this all the time, not with any woke purpose, but because it's natural to me, and nobody has ever said anything outside of an academic setting. 

And I would say how you refer to your cat as “they”, even though he / she is a singular pet and has a sex, is wrong. That one does not concern me much though. Perhaps I did not lay out my concerns clearly enough in my comment. So another try: talk the way you want. And if you want me to refer to you as the sex you are not, depends on you (how you look mostly).

Ok then, you are basing your decision solely on gender O_o... If you just care that they look enough like the set of pronouns they want to use. 

Moreover, allowing people to choose their pronouns in a game or otherwise is a way for them to let people know which pronouns they prefer. It does not force anyone to do anything. Anyone who wants to ignore that is free to, and anyone who thinks they are an asshole for ignoring the preferred pronouns out to be free to do so as well.

It should also be noted that pronouns are optional. If you object to calling Jenny as "they/them" you can just say Jenny. There is a perfectly agreeable way to refer to them staring you right in the face.

JuliusHackebeil said:

What concerns me most is that gender (not sex) quickly becomes a protected category in legislation. In the UK for example thousands of people are charged with wrong think, wrong speak, wrong post online etc., because they would not want their speech dictated by a tiny, authoritarian, censorious mob of bullies. (I am not accusing anyone here of being part of that group.) I see “misgendering as a hate crime” in the same category as “you spoke the name of the lord in vain, 10 whips on the back”. And Concord, by inclusion of pronoun choices, gives legitimisation to these people and this claim: “as long as I perceive hate, it was given criminally, and the level of my indignation should be equivalent to your punishment.” That is horrible of course, but the woke crowd, clearly seizable enough to influence legislation like this, is exactly behind such statements.– I know this sounds hyperbolic, but the list of people suffering because of the gender-craze is almost never ending (including the ones prosecuted because of thought-crime and the poor women having to deal with ill men in their sports, in their changing rooms, in their prisons, as much as the ones misdiagnosed with gender-illness themselves and how they are treated medically and many, many others).

Yes, I agree that criminalizing blasphemy is vile. Then should I object to people teaching their children the ten commandments? Because that absolutely legitimizes anti-blasphemy laws. Yet, I suspect you would say that we should not ban parents teaching their children the ten commandments. 

Likewise, I would probably disagree with laws criminalizing misgendering. That doesn't mean we should ban people from saying what they would like to be called. If those laws are the problem, then just ban such laws, which I believe the US already does pretty effectively. 

This is a slippery slope argument, which is a terrible argument. It's arguing that we shouldn't make a good decision today because then we may have to make a good one tomorrow. You would have to show actual harm that comes directly from saying "hey you can add your pronouns here" for me to consider that something that ought to be avoided.

JuliusHackebeil said:

And it is true that social roles have existed forever. But not gender. Not how we think of it today. Not in the sense that gender, instead of sex, dictates if somebody is a man or a woman. Not in the sense that people can be neither, as long as that is what they feel internally. Not in the sense that sex becomes utterly unimportant, given how we are just tabula rasa and everything is nurture. That is extremely new. That is from Simone de Beauvoir (a certified dolt) and John Money (suffering from gender-illness himself and a paedophile monster), among others. (And just as an aside: I never get how “this is old” is an argument for the good quality of something. There are many old ideas we now thankfully live without.)

No dude, gender has existed forever. Gender is the social constructs we have for how males or females or whatever other category of sex should behave. We could discuss how it has changed over time, or rather you can discuss it with someone else, since I'm not an expert on that and I'm fairly certain you are not either. But it definitely existed just as long as pronouns have. Your statement to the contrary is just wrong.

JuliusHackebeil said:
JWeinCom said:

To your amusing suggestions about performing anatomical exams before using pronouns for any person: No. You know that we are a sexually dimorphic species. Men look different from women not because of how they feel inside (gender), but because of their biology (sex). I am basing my pronoun use on how people look (sex). Very rarely it is the case that how people feel inside makes their outward appearance closer to the other sex. But again, if a man puts on a wig and wants to be called “she”, perhaps.

You literally just undercut your own point imediately.

You used the example of a wig as something that would make one look like the other sex. Now, this may come as a shock to you, but women can cut their hair. Men can grow it out. Long hair is in no way intrinsically related to sex. Hair growth, on the head, tends to be similar in men and women, at least until the later years. It just so happens that in our culture it is typical for men to cut their hair shorter, and women longer. Hair length and style is purely about gender and gender expression. There are some natural characteristics that are related to sex, but many are purely social. And, even among those linked to biology, most are at least somewhat ambiguous. 

When you are saying that a man has to have long hair or a wig for you to use "she" you're actually not saying saying anything about their sex. What you are saying is "women should wear their hair long, so that's the rule you have to follow for me to consider you a woman". It's not about sex, it's about enforcing gender norms.

JuliusHackebeil said:
JWeinCom said:

You also made two claims I want to question: 1) Gender-ill people are constantly discriminated against. I don't see much proof of that. 2) Using incorrect grammar makes someone feel seen and respected. I don't see much proof of that either. It should not be our highest goal to appease the mentally ill the way they see fit. We should much rather try to really help them. Also, your suggestion at the end should be mentioned, too, in parapharse - please tell me if I misrepresent you: ("Nobody gives a shit" and "The only ones who do are sus" =) I know what group of people are the only ones ever complaining about misuse of language - the racists and sexists. Is that you saying how "sus" it is if somebody disagrees with you on language?

For the first claim, here. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brothers-sisters-strangers/202310/new-study-finds-half-of-lgbtq-are-estranged-from-family

https://www.them.us/story/trans-hate-crimes-increase-fbi-report

https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/ie-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/struggle-trans-and-gender-diverse-persons

https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-sogi-discrimination

https://www.kff.org/mental-health/press-release/1-in-4-transgender-adults-say-theyve-been-physically-attacked-new-kff-washington-post-partnership-survey-finds/

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-workplace-discrimination/

There's also tons of colloquial evidence. Just go look at any post by or about Elliot Page. People are literally shooting cans of bud light because they had a trans influencer promote them. I know a couple of people who are or have transitioned, and they have definitely experienced discrimination. Most trans people report they have. You can call them all liars if you wish, but, I doubt they all are.

I'm not going to swear by "frequently" because that's a bit vague, but I would say common. I've provided some evidence, but it would be very easy to look into it further if you are so inclined. If you disagree, you disagree. But, I'd say it is very fair to say that trans discrimination is a real phenomena. I think suggesting otherwise would be disingenuous.

As for the second claim, I didn't actually say that. There is an "if" in front of it. So I definitely did not say as a generality it makes people feel any sort of way. But, in individual cases, there are certainly people I know for a fact appreciate it when I use their preferred pronouns and would feel disrespected if I did not. So in such cases, hence the "if", I am happy to use a pronoun whether or not I think it is incorrect. 

Because again, it is grammar, I don't give a shit. 


It should not be our highest goal to appease the mentally ill the way they see fit. We should much rather try to really help them. Also, your suggestion at the end should be mentioned, too, in parapharse - please tell me if I misrepresent you: ("Nobody gives a shit" and "The only ones who do are sus" =) I know what group of people are the only ones ever complaining about misuse of language - the racists and sexists. Is that you saying how "sus" it is if somebody disagrees with you on language?

I would object to the term mentally ill, but I wholeheartedly agree that we should try to help people with gender dysphoria. And, as far as I can tell, the best way to do so is to respect their gender identity. So even if I thought they were mistaken or delusional I would still use whatever pronouns they wished. The best evidence I've been presented has shown that saying "Nuh uh you're really a guy/girl" is destructive to them in the same way that trying to force a gay person to be straight does nothing to help them and actually harms their mental health. 

I'm not going to argue for that though, becasue you can look that up yourself, and other people will present the case better. The more relevant point is that what pronouns I choose to use is 100% about what I believe is the best for the person, and 0% influenced by what I feel is proper grammar. And it is absolutely bizarre to me that anyone else would do differently. 

Also, your suggestion at the end should be mentioned, too, in parapharse - please tell me if I misrepresent you: ("Nobody gives a shit" and "The only ones who do are sus" =) I know what group of people are the only ones ever complaining about misuse of language - the racists and sexists. Is that you saying how "sus" it is if somebody disagrees with you on language?

Yup. You do misrepresent me.

My point is about consistency. If I knew someone who has genuinely been passionate and emotional about proper pronoun use and grammar in general, then I'd think they're a fucking weirdo, but not necessarily racist or sexist. If you show me that you have a history of making long posts about grammar issues, I would be like "Oh well, maybe that dude just has weirdly strong feelings about grammar." 

But it is far more often the case that people do not care in the least about grammar in any situation EXCEPT when it comes to trans people and pronouns. Considering the inconsistency, I think that they are full of shit, and their issue is not with grammar, but with trans people. 

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 03 September 2024

Around the Network
Zkuq on 02 September 2024
Leynos said:
Zkuq said:

Most seem just fine to me, some even good. Some are not great for sure, to put it nicely, but that one particular skin got way more attention than it deserved. Discussion about the main skins would have been more fruitful, and maybe it was on, uh, page 6/10? Yeah, I'm not reading that many posts when I want to address one point. I can't really see most of the characters really being major draws, but probably not bad enough to warrant such low sales either. Perhaps great character designs could have made the game successful, but considering how badly the game's done sales-wise, I doubt such greatness was ever likely, and just a good level of character design would probably not have cut it. I think the game would probably have needed more draws than just more appealing character design, but yes, better character design would certainly have helped. That at least my impression of the situation.

Tell me what one is good and why. Tell me what the design tells you about the character. The whole principle of good character design is their design tells you a lot about them like personality traits without context. None of them do that.

...I don't really analyze characters' personalities and whatnots based on their visual design, because I don't really find that interesting. My first impression is based on the looks, and I might complain if once I see the character in action the personality is in conflict with the looks, but I don't really analyze characters too deeply when I look at them without knowing anything more about them. Vibes suffice for me, and I'm getting good enough vibes from the characters in the game (obviously not all, but when do I ever). For all I care, for some characters looking cool is almost sufficient etc., with little importance left for the personality (but obviously I wouldn't want a hero game where every character is so shallow). And just to be clear, I'm looking at the whole character design part from a player point of view, not from a more professional (e.g. character designer) point of view.



EricHiggin on 03 September 2024
JWeinCom said:

Gender has existed for at least all of human history, and probably before that. Look in the bible, which contains different rules for men and women. There is no biological reason women should not be able to speak in church for instance, that is not about sex, that is about gender, the socially constructed rules we apply to different sexes. Absolutely not a new thing.

Some would argue that both church and religion are a social construct.

I think even religious people would have a hard time arguing that church isn't a social construct.

JuliusHackebeil said:

But using plural pronouns for a singular person? That is over the line for me. Or made up pronouns like xir, zyr,... I once unironically herd a person claim "clown and clownself" as her pronouns. Ridiculous.
JWeinCom said:

Gender has existed for at least all of human history, and probably before that. Look in the bible, which contains different rules for men and women. There is no biological reason women should not be able to speak in church for instance, that is not about sex, that is about gender, the socially constructed rules we apply to different sexes. Absolutely not a new thing. Unless you are performing an anatomical exam on every person before describing them with a pronoun, then your pronoun usage is based largely on their gender, your perception of their sex based on how they present themselves. 

But most importantly, I do not believe for a solitary second that anybody is so deeply concerned about proper grammar that they throw constant hissy fits over pronoun usage. The English language is routinely violated on a daily basis. You was originally used for formal situations (the equivalent of the usted form in Spanish), yet now we use it in very informal situations (i.e. you are late to the orgy). Yet, nobody is clutching their pearls and feigning outrage that the way we used a pronoun has changed. In fact, I can't think of any other time improper language usage has caused such disdain.

As someone who has a degree in English, I am perfectly happy to use incorrect grammar if doing so will make someone else feel seen and respected. Because, it's fucking grammar. I don't give a shit. Nobody gives a shit. And the fact that they only give a shit in one narrow situation which involves a group of people that is constantly discriminated against is sus as fuck. 

Seriously, if anyone is actually upset that they have to use a plural pronoun when they think it should technically be a singular pronoun, they should be in a padded cell. 
JWeinCom said:

But, in individual cases, there are certainly people I know for a fact appreciate it when I use their preferred pronouns and would feel disrespected if I did not. So in such cases, hence the "if", I am happy to use a pronoun whether or not I think it is incorrect. 

Because again, it is grammar, I don't give a shit. 

Person A - My pronoun is Xir

Person B - Nice to meet you Sir

Person A - No it's Xir

Person B - Yes I know, Sir

Person A - You're spelling/saying it wrong

Person B - I don't give a crap about grammar or pronunciation

Person A - (tears) You're a bigot and a racist

Person B - (confused) What did I do wrong?

A poor minority approaches the security guards at a bank and tells them they're a poor minority who feels disrespected and unrepresented and they themselves feel terrible about it, suicidal almost. They explain to the guards that they are going to rob the bank just this once to get some money, and that as long as everyone just goes along with it then nobody will get hurt, which will lead to they themselves feeling happy, more equal, respected and understood.

Should the security guards stop giving a crap about rules and make this individual feel better?

I'd say the rules matter. The only question really is what the right rules are exactly.



pikashoe on 03 September 2024

Wtf is this thread anymore.



Leynos on 03 September 2024



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Around the Network
LegitHyperbole on 03 September 2024

Ah, Gender studies, it's such a fantastic new gaming feature you won't be able to stop yappin about it.



Dante9 on 03 September 2024

The wokeisms certainly didn't help the game, more and more gamers are starting to take a stand and treat that as an issue of principle in the cultural struggle. But I don't think that was the most important factor in this disaster. Just the wrong game at the wrong time.



pokoko on 03 September 2024

curl-6 said:

The more I think about it, the more I'm sure these horrendous designs were flagged as an issue during development, but whoever was in charge decided to be stubborn and dismiss any criticism, thinking they knew better and wanting to force their preferences on others.

There's just no way a team of industry professionals looked at this garbage and honestly thought "yeah, this is what gamers want."

I wonder if this entire theme was part of the design from the very beginning, which would make speaking out against it almost impossible, especially if you were added to the team later on.

Regardless, you're right, it's very hard to believe that a studio of this size had NO ONE with an understanding of what makes professional character designs work.  I think that the people in charge had an agenda they wanted to pursue that they put above everything else.  No doubt in my mind that focus groups would have confirmed that the designs aren't widely appealing, as well.

Some developers/producers don't seem to understand that creating a product that appeals to enough people to make your project successful should be your FIRST PRIORITY.  Whatever message they want to get across isn't going to mean a damn thing if your work is a failure.

However, that begs the question of what the hell Sony was thinking when they approved funding?

Ultimately, I believe this whole situation boils down to Concord grossly overestimating it's target audience.  There are only so many "activists" who are going to plonk down $40 just to play drab characters.



G2ThaUNiT on 03 September 2024

Welp, Concord is officially Sony's biggest flop ever for sure. Game is getting pulled while the developers explore options.



the-pi-guy on 03 September 2024

Lots of thoughts. 

I wonder what Sony will do, and if we'll ever find out why this happened. It feels like something Schreier would be looking into reporting on. 

Are they going to rework the game and go free to play?

Shut down the studio? 

Give them another chance?

A lot of this feels pretty unprecedented. There's plenty of game projects that have lost a lot of money. Sega cancelled Hyenas and that was a lot of lost money. But this has to be a contender for biggest loss for any released game ever, and unreleased too. 

I'm very surprised that Sony is pulling the plug already. I think chances are good that Firewalk is getting shut down. 

Last edited by the-pi-guy - on 03 September 2024