The video game market is fiercely competitive, especially in the multiplayer segment. Add hero shooters to the mix, and the stakes get even higher. Many studios have tried their luck in this space, but the major winners remain Overwatch (which survives thanks to its loyal community) and Hi-Rez Studios’ free-to-play Paladins. Recently, two new titles entered the fray — Marvel Rivals and Concord. The former has become a global sensation, while the latter lasted just two weeks before the servers were shut down by the publisher. Despite their similarities, why did these two games have such drastically different launches?
Superheroes vs. loosers
The primary marketing engine for both titles revolved around their characters. For Marvel Rivals, the draw was obvious — Marvel's immense popularity. But rather than mimicking the MCU, the developers leaned heavily into the comic book counterparts of these characters. This decision gave players the chance to embody fan favorites like Iron Man, Spider-Man, or Rocket Raccoon, with a roster that promises to keep growing — after all, Marvel has no shortage of heroes. On top of that, players can customize their heroes with skins inspired by both classic comics and alternate interpretations.
Meanwhile, Concord aimed to be an original project without the support of an established brand. Firewalk Studios tried to create a world from scratch, but the lack of recognizable characters or a pre-existing universe put the game at a disadvantage. They attempted to craft a story and lore around the conflicts depicted in the game, but it fell flat. A cinematic trailer tried to channel Guardians of the Galaxy vibes, but it’s hard to care about characters you’ve only seen for a few minutes. In today’s market, dominated by franchise-based games, Concord lacked the foundation needed to compete in an already oversaturated multiplayer space.
And then there’s the design of the characters themselves. While Marvel Rivals offers hyper-stylized, idealized heroes — both male and female, in that classic over-the-top comic book way — Concord went for a more "grounded" aesthetic. Sure, there were aliens and robots, but none of the designs stood out or were particularly memorable. Aside from some parodies circulating on social media, there’s little to remember them by — and that’s definitely not the kind of buzz the developers wanted.
Gameplay Mechanics
Fast-paced, dynamic gameplay dominates the multiplayer genre, and Marvel Rivals delivers just that. Matches are quick and intense, with a heavy emphasis on both individual skill and team coordination. Each character has unique abilities, allowing players to form diverse teams and introducing a layer of strategy. The thrill of perfecting your skills and climbing difficulty levels keeps players hooked — I’ve personally lost hours to it without realizing!
In contrast, Concord offered a more traditional FPS formula, despite its sci-fi aesthetic and supposed focus on character abilities. The gameplay didn’t stand out in any significant way, lacking the innovation needed to grab players’ attention. It felt like Apex Legends without the mobility and looting elements. By the time Concord launched, the market was already saturated with similar shooters, and without a clear USP (Unique Selling Point), the game failed to capture enough interest.
Business Model Missteps
One of the most glaring reasons for Concord’s failure was its outdated business model. For some baffling reason, the developers opted for a premium, pay-to-play model. At a time when free-to-play is the norm for multiplayer games, this approach created a major barrier for potential players. As a result, the game never built a strong community. Adding insult to injury, there was no clear plan for post-launch content, causing players to lose interest quickly. The $40 price tag was an immediate turn-off, especially with so many cheaper or free alternatives on the market.
Marvel Rivals, on the other hand, launched as a free-to-play title with access to all characters right out of the gate. This allowed players to try the game without any financial commitment. The revenue came from microtransactions—cosmetic skins, special abilities, and seasonal battle passes. Combined with attractive cosmetic content, the free-to-play model ensured a massive player base almost instantly.
Promotion and Player Support
Marvel Rivals had the advantage of a robust marketing campaign, backed by Marvel Studios. Trailers, cross-promotions with Marvel films, and collaborations with popular streamers on platforms like Twitch and YouTube helped the game gain traction quickly. Regular updates and in-game events kept the community engaged, creating a strong sense of longevity for the title.
Firewalk Studios, despite Concord being a Sony-backed project, couldn’t provide the same level of promotional support. The game had little presence on social media, and in-game events were virtually non-existent. In today’s gaming landscape, players expect constant updates, community interaction, and meaningful engagement from developers—none of which Concord delivered.
Conclusion
Concord was a victim of poor timing, lackluster strategy, and a failure to adapt to the current gaming climate. While the game might have fared better a few years ago, it simply couldn’t establish itself in a market already flooded with multiplayer shooters.
Marvel Rivals, by contrast, succeeded by leveraging its recognizable brand, offering a free-to-play model, and delivering engaging, dynamic gameplay. Its ability to hook players with fast-paced matches, satisfying mechanics, and a constant flow of updates secured its spot as a standout title.
The contrasting fortunes of these two games serve as a lesson for developers: even a good game can fail if it lacks the right strategy, marketing, and community support.
