Independent strategic analysis
Concord
A reason to choose,
before a reason to pay.
In a market of free alternatives, I asked what a player would need to understand and value to choose Concord.
- My role
- Product analysis and strategic proposal
- What it shows
- Positioning · Value proposition · Messaging
- Project type
- Independent strategic analysis
The decision I would propose
I would validate the audience, reason to choose and price before investing in communication.
Conceptual comparison from 2024; no original buyer research or collaboration with Sony.Project details and scope
Interpretive diagnosis and product proposals.
A €40 entry price against familiar, free alternatives.
02 / My contributionI analysed the value proposition, positioning and price, and wrote nine slides.
03 / EvidenceA conceptual comparison of the launch, not buyer research.
04 / ConclusionMy analysis suggests that charging alongside free alternatives required a distinct reason to choose the game.
Conceptual proposal · Not implemented
How I would turn the idea into a message.
Who I would address
As a hypothesis: team-shooter players willing to try another experience with their group. This is not a validated segment.
The promise I would test
Rather than justify the price with a content list, make clear which shared experience is worth switching games for.
What would need to be shown
The 5v5 combat, characters and abilities can demonstrate coordination in a match. They do not establish a unique competitive advantage.
Your next match starts with your team.
A 5v5 team shooter. Characters with different abilities, so you can find your own way to play together.
CONCORDAn activation I would test
Show a match narrated from a group’s perspective: what each character contributes and why they would play together again. Then test the message with players of the alternatives.
This is a creative exploration for the portfolio, added to the original analysis. It is not a Firewalk or PlayStation campaign and has not been tested with players.
Product reference: official Concord announcement (2024) ↗
How I would test whether it worksWhat I observed
ENTRY PRICE · 2024 CONTEXT
Concord
40 €A proposition whose differentiation and positioning I questioned in the analysis.
Overwatch 2
0 €Free access
Valorant
0 €Free access
Apex Legends
0 €Free access
What new value does the player receive?
I compared the reason to choose it against familiar, established alternatives.
My own analysis of the 2024 launch · a conceptual comparison, not a campaign delivered for Sony.
What it means
My interpretation is that competing also means understanding the player's routine. To make them switch, a proposition must explain what they gain compared with what they already play.
That is why I analysed price alongside perceived value: communication can amplify a reason to choose, but it must first be defined.
Case interpretation. This is not buyer research or a causal explanation of commercial performance.
The strategic decision I would have recommended
What does this mean for marketing?
EVIDENCE → RECOMMENDATION
Select a finding to see the decision it informs.
WHAT I OBSERVED
Insufficient differentiation in the diagnosis
The proposition is evaluated against free, familiar and established alternatives.
WHAT I PROPOSE
Define the new value the user receives
Specify a differentiated contribution that supports positioning and price.
Specify the new value the player receives
Interpretive relationship in the case; recommendations are not measured results.
HYPOTHETICAL PROPOSAL · NOT IMPLEMENTED
What I would validate before launch.
This plan extends my Concord analysis. It does not describe completed tests or observed results.
Research the reason to switch
I would interview players of alternative games to explore motivations, friction and conditions for trying another title.
Test positioning
I would compare value proposition concepts with defined audiences, measuring understanding, relevance and differentiation.
Explore price and value
After clarifying the concept, I would test price acceptance and offer alternatives, comparing stated intent with trial behaviour.
Decide against predefined criteria
I would define go/no-go criteria before collecting data, revising the segment, message or offer if evidence did not support them.
Priorities for this plan
My own estimated impact and difficulty ratings; these are not market measurements.
Reason to choose
Impact: High
Difficulty: Medium
Message testing
Impact: High
Difficulty: Low
Price testing
Impact: High
Difficulty: High
Refine materials
Impact: Medium
Difficulty: Low
Before investing in communications, I propose answering three questions:
- Why should they choose this product?
- Which alternative does it compete against?
- What new value does the player receive?
View the remaining slides
A PIECE OF THE WORK
Price and value: an original slide from the Concord case
Why I chose this piece
I place price alongside the player's alternatives. The marketing question is not just what it costs: it is what the person gains by leaving a game they already know.