Marathon 2025 - Bungie's new AAAA Extraction shooter

[Swine Schwein]

Well Marathon's an extract shooter, you don't really have gamemodes in those. It's a very narrow type of experience

Yeah I know, i'm not saying it should not be what it is, or that extraction shooters should change for the normies, it's just that it seems so barebones from the outside with nothing seemingly happening around the most basic core of it. Again, haven't played it, but that's what it looks like to me.

For example if I was hosting dirty orgies for homosexual fat people, and I was the main fat homo (I AM NOT THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE I SWEAR I'M NOT, I DO NOT DO THIS) of the house, it wouldn't have to be just an empty house where people fuck on the floor. There could be pancakes and shit. And maybe a darts board on a wall. Perhaps one of those retarded sex swings hooked to the ceiling, I don't know.

It would still remain a homosexual event. Nobody would say that the evening is ruined because of pancakes. Some of those fat homos would come just for the pancakes and stay for homosexual activities. And who knows, some of those guys playing darts could be straight, but playing darts makes them horny enough to try fucking a man. In the ass.

That's all I'm saying bro

 

[moocow]

The concern about Marathon's playercount stems from the experience of D2 Crucible players, where reduced numbers could severely affect queue times, lagginess of eventual opponents, getting matched against the same teams over and over again in Trials, etc.

Yeah. From historical precedent (basically every other live-service FPS game in the past ten years, when they all started leaning heavily into "matchmaking" with endless behind-the-scenes voodoo to screw with everybody's K/D or W/L or whatever to force everybody into supposedly "even" matches), it seems like there's a bare-minimum number of active simultaneous players in a given game before its matchmaking system starts to break down, and it's a surprisingly high number. Low five-digits. I haven't pinned down the precise range where such systems start to fall apart, but it's pretty obvious they need at least 10k+ active players with different "qualifiers" or "metrics."

There's weird misbehavior that starts at that level of available players. Rules fighting other rules, some more heavily weighted than others (which makes sense), but with conflicting "overrides" that result in the worst possible outcome: potentially hundreds or even thousands of players, all readied-up and no technical hurdles preventing their playing together, but the "matchmaker service" says they can't play together because "reasons" so they have to sit in queue staring at "500+ players in queue" instead of playing together in a potential "skill mismatch."

The worst part is these companies have spent two decades developing their matchmaking stuff and it's all evolved towards this "everybody deserves balanced, fair play at all times no matter what" mentality (because fuck your skills and practice -- if you're doing too well, we'll intentionally set you up with our "best" players so you'll be roflstomped back down to know your place), and by god they're going to stick to what they've made no matter what feedback they get. And the dumb fucks ignore obvious fixes that are "better than nothing" because they fear the fixes aren't 100% perfect.

Namely, if you've got a game that's running 3v3 or 5v5 fights, if you ever have six (or ten) players in the same geographic region queued up for a new match for longer than one minute and they keep getting "rejected" by the matchmaker system for whatever reason, just fucking shove them in a match anyway. Randomize the teams, fuck "matchmaking," just spin up a session and shove 'em in. Get them playing. I guarantee they'll be happier playing a less-than-perfectly-matched game for 10-15 minutes than sitting in a fucking queue for 20-30 minutes staring at a spinning indicator.

But they won't fucking do it. They'd rather make people sit and not play rather than risk "making" them play an algorithmically sub-optimal match.

Low player counts exacerbate this. You don't see it when you've got an available pool of thousands of players just queuing up for a match at any given moment. But when you're down to "just" 10k or so, your super-choosy, super-clever matchmaking algorithms fall apart because there's always a nit-picky reason to exclude X hundred potential matches each time you check.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

All these redditors whining about player counts. I play Splitgate 2 and that game has like less than a thousand people playing. You don't hear me bitching about player count I just play.

Player counts are a lot like stock, with it being a measure of the perceived value. In general:
- It's not the best representation of the company/game's health
- But if it drops and keeps dropping to close to 0 that's very bad
- The same low number, depending on the company/game, could mean complete disaster or a normal day. There are companies that trade around $10-20 and are profitable companies, there are companies where dropping below $50 is a total disaster
- Watching numbers go up and down is stress-inducing or entertaining depending on your investment in it

The Redditors are mad because they "invested" at 60k and are mad to see their investment crater, whereas you have your <1k number are happy about it because you didn't invest at a high number.

 

[Oliver Onions]

Playercount is a vital statistic for Marathon because, like Concord, it costs $40 bucks up front so we can estimate roughly how much of a bath Sony is taking on this wreck.

If we take SteamDB's most generous estimate of 1.25M copies sold that's about $40-million, after factoring in Steam's cut. If we again generously assume parity on consoles that's $120-million total revenue, and this game definitely cost more than that to make, so with the playercount in consistent decline it's wildly optimistic to expect Sony will break even, never mind see any ROI.

 

[moocow]

If we again generously assume parity on consoles

I'm fairly sure they've actually admitted (finally) console sales have been dismal and Steam represents by far the bulk of Marathon's sales.

 

[Oliver Onions]

I'm fairly sure they've actually admitted (finally) console sales have been dismal and Steam represents by far the bulk of Marathon's sales.

I heard the same thing (along with the rumoured 7-11 million copies they have to sell) but I always try to be extremely generous with my estimates because even with ideal numbers it's still abysmal.

 

[Disc]

I'm fairly sure they've actually admitted (finally) console sales have been dismal and Steam represents by far the bulk of Marathon's sales.

I heard the same thing (along with the rumoured 7-11 million copies they have to sell) but I always try to be extremely generous with my estimates because even with ideal numbers it's still abysmal.

Indirectly admitted.

Alinea Analytics reported the below, and forbes writer Paul Tassi has said his bungie sources confirm they're close to accurate.

 

[ScurvyRat]

Indirectly admitted.

Alinea Analytics reported the below, and forbes writer Paul Tassi has said his bungie sources confirm they're close to accurate.

View attachment 8809872

with 50million in gross sales and around 300 million to make the game, they're already taking a 250million $ loss.

After their 600 million $ loss with concord, sony is down nearly 1 billion $ making shit games that no one asked for and no one plays.

Marathon will be shut down by the end of the year.

 

[big pauper]

There's weird misbehavior that starts at that level of available players. Rules fighting other rules, some more heavily weighted than others (which makes sense), but with conflicting "overrides" that result in the worst possible outcome: potentially hundreds or even thousands of players, all readied-up and no technical hurdles preventing their playing together, but the "matchmaker service" says they can't play together because "reasons" so they have to sit in queue staring at "500+ players in queue" instead of playing together in a potential "skill mismatch."

I remember trying to play Supreme Commander 2 and not being able to get matchmaking anymore. the game has never had that many players, steam charts has like 1200 players in 2012. it looks like it fell below 500 around 2016 which is around when i last tried. i distinctly remember sitting there looking at 300+ players online and sitting in queue for like 15 minutes

but i think it may have been a much simpler matchmaking. perhaps the same problem at a smaller scale.

 

[Cornlord88]

with 50million in gross sales and around 300 million to make the game, they're already taking a 250million $ loss.

After their 600 million $ loss with concord, sony is down nearly 1 billion $ making shit games that no one asked for and no one plays.

Marathon will be shut down by the end of the year.

Theres also the weekly cost of employees, servers, amenities, etc... Bungie is bleeding more money every single day. No way in hell that the mtx and sales of both destiny and marathon are making enough just to offset the cost of being a studio with 2 live services. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if Sony decides that shutting everything down would be cheaper than keeping it going for Bungie.

 

[Zenos Yae Viator]

Theres also the weekly cost of employees, servers, amenities, etc... Bungie is bleeding more money every single day. No way in hell that the mtx and sales of both destiny and marathon are making enough just to offset the cost of being a studio with 2 live services. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if Sony decides that shutting everything down would be cheaper than keeping it going for Bungie.

More people are playing Witcher 3 or Vampire Survivors than Destiny 1+2, it's fuckin dire, buddy

 

[creaturestorm]

Oh, wow, would you look at those player counts. Almost like no end of people have done just that.

It’s always people who mostly play single player games saying this.

Looking at what you play right now to confirm it and YUP its all Fallout, Mass Effect, Witcher, STALKER, Resident Evil, Red Dead... it’s all solo palyer games with not one mention of a multiplayer pvp game. Of course you’re not going to like it, no matter how they design it. You've spent years playing slop with out ever challenging yourself.

Every time...

 

[big pauper]

You've spent years playing slop with out ever challenging yourself.

You know, i take issue with this entire concept. Modern multiplayer video games don't fucking challenge shit. You are not challenging anything but a single vector in an abstract player engagement algorithm that really only exists to keep you playing the game. There is not a mutually agreed upon ruleset like soccer, there was a patch last tuesday. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insane but it's also what Ranked PvP is. There's no challenge to that. You are not thinking. It removes all of the fun out of multiplayer video games.

When i played quake back in the day there wasn't any of this shit, you would just grind railgun headshots on your favorite map to get better at it. Nowadays you would have to wait three minutes for a match on a random map and hope it's not a gamemode that disables one of the features you're trying to practice with. Just so you can do it in the Brimstone Nigger Zone until your elo score goes up.

 

[Mad as a Swan]

Does anyone except the most adamant Bungie defenders play this anymore?

These are the same people who spend 1000h in Destiny and happily shoot the same 100 reskins in the same 25 expansions...

 

[creaturestorm]

You are not challenging anything but a single vector in an abstract player engagement algorithm that really only exists to keep you playing the game. There is not a mutually agreed upon ruleset like soccer, there was a patch last tuesday. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insane but it's also what Ranked PvP is. There's no challenge to that. You are not thinking. It removes all of the fun out of multiplayer video games.

I think it depends on the game, what 'ranked' actually is, and if the match making/ELO system actually works.

In the days of server lobbies, i would match into people I would stomp and people who would stomp me all in the same game. Outside of raw aim I would have to rewatch game footage or live in spectator mode to try and improve. When your matching with peers you can slowly learn from one another and improve. How does a guy at the top end whose smashing the lobby get any better if 9/10 times he's just dominating? Iron sharpens iron, that kind of player needs to match with people who are similar to him in ability to improve.

Does anyone except the most adamant Bungie defenders play this anymore?

That's not even the case now. Other than killing a compiler for the sake of killing a compiler or grinding loot to unlock codex entries, i ran out of shit to do, I'm waiting on the wipe. I've never played Destiny and this is the first bungie game i've played since... Halo 3? They made that one right?



I think the only people left playing are the terminally online or people who are still casually playing through it.

I have enjoyed the game less with the shotgun nerf and they are talking bout nerfing the knife. The player base seemingly wants a game where you cant be pushed? I may not come back if they get what they want.

 

[Thomas Talus]

These are the same people who spend 1000h in Destiny

That would be on the extreme low end, I think.

 

[big pauper]

How does a guy at the top end whose smashing the lobby get any better if 9/10 times he's just dominating? Iron sharpens iron, that kind of player needs to match with people who are similar to him in ability to improve.

this is absolutely correct, but think about how we do soccer. people play soccer all the time for fun and change the rules based on their own skill level and enjoyment. The people who are really good at it go play at an organized level, and the absolute cream of the crop performs in stadiums. We do not make everybody play National League Regulation soccer (or Euro Regulation Football or whatever they call it). But that's how we've been doing video games for the last 5 years. but this isn't soccer. or chess. These aren't games designed with level playing fields, they are VIDEO GAMES with OBVIOUS BALANCING DECISIONS built into how the characters perform.

If you don't want to play ranked overwatch then the developers and community treat you like you're a big baby who can't handle ranked even though when the game launched you could just join a random match and people were doing funny meme compositions like 6x soldiers versus 6x junkrats. It was FUN. I don't know why people don't just call this out for what it is, they GOT RID OF IT (the FUN) because industry big wigs wanted to make E-Sports big so they can make money off of it like sports betting.

 

[moocow]

but i think it may have been a much simpler matchmaking. perhaps the same problem at a smaller scale.

That kind of matchmaking was a lot simpler. It probably just measured ping times and geographic location. Not to mention "300 players online" doesn't mean "300 players waiting to play" -- most of them were probably in matches already and the actual "available players in queue" pool was probably 20 people or less.

This modern stuff is nuts. They measure all sorts of different metrics, like K/D ratio, W/L ratio, how often you save/rescue other players (if that's a mechanic in-game), how often you use healing items on yourself vs. other players, your average health (as a percentage; indicative of your general comfort level w/risk), which character(s) you prefer, what time of day you play, how well you perform (by all these metrics) at a given time of day and day of week, all sorts of seemingly meaningless shit, and they try to divine a "performance metric" from it for you.

The stated goal is to try to give everybody a "fair" match (so newbies aren't forced to play with experts to get roflstomped every match, and conversely prevent experts from getting bored from being shoved into lobbies w/newbies), but there's usually a different goal they don't talk about. League of Legends is infamous for "rigging" things so everybody experiences a near 50-50 win/loss ratio, so no matter how good you are, you'll still lose about half your matches (they achieve this by shoving you onto teams with poor-quality players, or stacking the opposing team with high-quality ones, or both).

Supposedly it's to keep "engagement" high (it frustrates good players to lose matches they shouldn't really be losing, so they figure they'll keep playing to "win more games" to get their ratio back up; meanwhile it's encouraging for poor/new players to win when they really didn't contribute much to the team's victory, so they keep playing because they like winning), but there's plenty of people who think they just don't want anybody to get a big head and don't want shitty players to just give up.

 

[creaturestorm]

But that's how we've been doing video games for the last 5 years

Every game I play, even the more casual ones, have meta builds and strats which are spread through social media by influencers and content makers. The community all seems to agree to play in this way, even if its absolutely unnecessary.

I think developers are just giving the people what the want, every one wants to be recognized as some sort of gaming super star in their favorite game.

I blame twitch.

 

[big pauper]

League of Legends is infamous for "rigging" things so everybody experiences a near 50-50 win/loss ratio, so no matter how good you are, you'll still lose about half your matches (they achieve this by shoving you onto teams with poor-quality players, or stacking the opposing team with high-quality ones, or both).

Supposedly it's to keep "engagement" high (it frustrates good players to lose matches they shouldn't really be losing, so they figure they'll keep playing to "win more games" to get their ratio back up; meanwhile it's encouraging for poor/new players to win when they really didn't contribute much to the team's victory, so they keep playing because they like winning), but there's plenty of people who think they just don't want anybody to get a big head and don't want shitty players to just give up.

you kind of have to do that in a game like dota where the skill wall is so gradual. I have literally never played dota 2 and i would probably curb stomp green players who have never played a moba, but i have zero knowledge of indepth mechanics.

it makes a lot less sense in a shooter game where the difference between a win and a lose is not literally entirely 100% your strategic choices but leans towards you getting lucky headshots. which is exactly why i think overwatch completely collapsed. all of their metrics told them taking an axe to the game would fix it the new player experience but the game became impenetrable to anyone who wasn't already a loser who played ranked. it's even funnier that tf2 fully understood this and the entire crit system is a mechanic that exists as a balancing factor so people who can't aim can get that benefit too. lol.