'This really doesn't look promising': Concord PC players are having a hard time finding matches thanks to ridiculously low player counts

During Concord's early access, it was pretty hard for PC players to find games without queuing in console lobbies. At the time, I gave Concord the benefit of the doubt, deciding to chalk it up to a slow early access. Unfortunately, things haven't gotten better since the game became available for everyone. 

There are currently 96 players in Concord. It's off-peak hours, but having a 24-hour peak of 276 and an all-time peak of 697 on SteamDB is pretty damning—it's been a tepid first week on PC for sure. There are no public records for player counts on PlayStation, so this is really all we have to go on right now regarding Concord's popularity. 

PC players have reported that long queue times are very much a problem for those not queuing alongside console players. "Just waited eight minutes for matchmaking, and then it timed out," one player says. "I love the game and want to play it. Unfortunately, I can't wait eight minutes plus between games. [So] I decided to play something else and come back on peak hours. This really doesn't look promising at all." 

I've also had some pretty long wait times on Concord over last weekend—I got to about seven minutes before I found a game. This isn't awful, and I've played plenty of other games that can have similarly long queues, but the difference is that I'm not sure Concord is worth the wait. The games are quite fun, if a little chaotic, but they aren't outstanding, which is probably why players are finding the $40/£35 price tag hard to stomach. 

I've played a few games, and while I enjoy some of the heroes like Haymar and Daw, most of the matches feel indistinguishable, and the maps seem too big for their own good. You spend a lot of time walking around looking for fights, and then when you find one, everyone's abilities blend into a big, chaotic ball of damage. There's more to Concord than just the fights, as the cosmetics are quite cool, but that doesn't mean it's worth the price tag. 

Criticism over the upfront cost appeared the moment it was announced, and some players still think the answer to its launch woes is shedding the price and going F2P "They need to go F2P, this game won't last the month, they can't wait." Something like this could help bolster numbers, although there wasn't massive interest around the free beta either. 

Even if the F2P route could help the dwindling player numbers, there's still a good chunk of the playerbase that doesn't want Firewalk Studios to make the shift to F2P. "F2P is super predatory and lives off kids' parents' credit cards," one player says. "Concord costs $40, and everything post-launch is free! There won't be battle passes, and every additional map and hero is free!" 

F2P definitely has its drawbacks, but when there are so many alternatives available at no extra cost, it seems like a misstep to try and subvert that. Some people say that this shows confidence, but it's not a great business model if you want to cast your net wide and encourage loads of people to play your game. If I had to choose between tons of free and fantastic team shooters or take a chance on one for £35, I'd go for the free games every time, and many would be just as good, if not better.