I can't believe Sega of all corpos was smart enough to look at their AAA lootbox slop shooter and go "wow this looks like absolute dogshit better cancel it and write it off so we can put those resources towards better games."
I don't really see what the alternative for Sony rather than keeping the game running and hoping for some redemption arc to being back players. Shutting it down isn't worth it unless the cost of keeping it alive is less than the current earnings.
I don't really see what the alternative for Sony rather than keeping the game running and hoping for some redemption arc to being back players. Shutting it down isn't worth it unless the cost of keeping it alive is less than the current earnings.
Yes, something like 4% of the population has the server level 100 steam achievement. it's a roach motel for those 32,000 or so tarkov sweats that drove away 80% of the playerbase since launch. i didn't care about playing any more b/c it was too hostile a design, there is almost no loot on the maps and they have tweaked the matchmaking settings to be less crowded, or they are just throwing lobbies together within 30 seconds no matter how empty so ppl don't notice empty queue times. i saw multiple crew fill rounds where there was only 1 other team in the lobby.
high-level ranked is apparently rampant with ESP cheating, aimbotters get banned only if they kill streamers really blatantly
Good. He's a prick, an idiot, a liar and a journalist (but I repeat myself). And he was trying to prop the thing up and carry water for it. Let him suffer for his mistakes and relish his pain.
I don't really see what the alternative for Sony rather than keeping the game running and hoping for some redemption arc to being back players. Shutting it down isn't worth it unless the cost of keeping it alive is less than the current earnings.
That's more delusional than my hopes of them being squeezed into cranking out destiny 3 in a reasonable amount of time. A total rebuild would require a year, minimum. What's out now is what they have, there's no magic box full of almost finished content with maps, assets, mechanics and overhauls ready to go when Sony gives the green light. Marathon doesn't have a year left to stand on its incredibly feeble legs, while it waits for a miracle overhaul. Now I can't knock you too hard because I know just as much as you in terms of internal Bungie-Sony discussion. But if I was a betting man, my money would be on Sony to make them lean into an established franchise to generate hype and money. And their only one left is destiny. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Turning off the lights is always cheaper than keeping them on.
That's more delusional than my hopes of them being squeezed into cranking out destiny 3 in a reasonable amount of time. A total rebuild would require a year, minimum. What's out now is what they have, there's no magic box full of almost finished content with maps, assets, mechanics and overhauls ready to go when Sony gives the green light. Marathon doesn't have a year left to stand on its incredibly feeble legs, while it waits for a miracle overhaul. Now I can't knock you too hard because I know just as much as you in terms of internal Bungie-Sony discussion. But if I was a betting man, my money would be on Sony to make them lean into an established franchise to generate hype and money. And their only one left is destiny. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
But if I was a betting man, my money would be on Sony to make them lean into an established franchise to generate hype and money. And their only one left is destiny. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
You think it's more plausible that they would kill off both Marathon and Destiny 2 (the other live service game that they bought) and then spend 200 or 300 million and at least four years of development to producing a Destiny 3.
I'm the delusional one here?
What's the other option? Oni remake?
Total studio shut down and a 4 billion dollar tax right off?
How does this differ from depreciation, which is something almost all companies use in accounting for movable fixed assets and nobody really cares about?
Would "impairment" be losses taken on investments, overpaying for a company during an acquisition, government fines, etc.?
Reason I ask is I've never seen that term used in a financial context.
Note: Not from US so I apologise if it's common terminology for you.
This got glossed over and I'm not an expert but the difference is as follows.
Deprecation is a very, very common term to financially track the worth of assets as they're used naturally over time. Let's say you start a tow truck company and buy 1 brand new tow truck for $100,000 in cash to work in your business. After three years, instead of 0 miles it now has 70,000 miles on it (and some rust, it stalls sometimes, and it's out of it's powertrain warranty) - it is no longer worth $100,000. Deprecation is the specific value removed from the asset because of it's age/use/wear/whatever - so if that truck now has a KBB Value of $60,000, it would be $40,000 in deprecation.
Impairment is more closely tied to the valuation of a business. Let's say in the tow truck example above, you bought a tow truck and with it generate $200,000 a year worth of business for your Kiwi Farms Towing Company - your profit and your assets would combine into your valuation, generally speaking. You could reasonably sell your business for ~$650,000 because there's an expected revenue stream and an asset worth $~50,000 (the truck).
So you own a business worth $650,000 and then go onto a local news channel and saw "Gas Kikes, race war now" and your business plummets because of the backlash. Now instead of making $200,000 a year, you're lucky to make $20,000 off people that don't watch the news. Your business valuation would now be ~$110,000 based on your new expected income stream. The $540,000 value is lost - it's lost due to the company simply not being worth as much (the truck still exists and it's still worth $50,000) and that loss is referred to as an Impairment.
The main difference is you can (generally speaking) easily calculate and anticipate deprecation. It's mainly used for assets that have a given life/support cycle (cars, computers, tools, etc) but a computer/car you buy in 2026 is going to be worth less in 2030 simply based on usage, unless you come into some really weird edge case (like GPU prices) whereas Impairment is more a function of financial forecasting and is much less calculable (and, ideally, companies gain value instead of losing it).
TL;DR - Impairment means that part of Bungie's $3.6 Billion dollar value to Sony was likely going to be, in part, the profits from Marathon (as well as the intangible benefits of Marathon being successful - console sales, accessory sales, branding sales, and a more favorable position in future negations with other developers) that Sony reasonably believes are no longer going to be realized or something else that would hurt Bungie's longer-term earnings potential (a in-production title got shelved, several key departures, or some other large scale setback) but contextually it's pretty clearly Marathon.
