Just hours following the full unveiling of Bungie’s new extraction shooter, Marathon, the gaming community has already begun drawing comparisons to the ill-fated 2024 first-person shooter, Concord. Such parallels are not unexpected, given Concord’s reputation for exemplifying the pitfalls associated with launching a paid live-service game. However, there are far more intriguing aspects to explore about Marathon, and reverting back to Concord risks overshadowing what could be an exhilarating discussion about this new title.
While I recognize the precariousness of my argument—considering that any discussion on Marathon’s merits inevitably involves contrasting it with Concord—my unique position as one of the few who actually experienced Concord provides some validity to my perspective. Though Concord appeared doomed from the outset, there’s no inherent reason why Marathon must share its fate. In fact, Bungie’s new entrant is already implementing strategies that Concord failed to execute effectively.
Like It Or Not, Bungie’s Marathon Has Style
Aesthetic Choices Shape Its Identity
Concord was hindered by two significant challenges: a stale aesthetic and a premium pricing strategy, launched amidst a landscape filled with free-to-play titles. While these shortcomings might have been somewhat forgivable in 2016, when the charm of titles like Guardians of the Galaxy and the $40 price tag of Overwatch seemed reasonable, by 2024, this approach felt outdated. Lacking any unique stylistic direction, Concord struggled to alleviate these burdens.
In contrast, Marathon’s visual style is likely to be polarizing; however, divisiveness is not the same as apathy. Many players found Concord’s aesthetics unappealing, with most responses leaning towards indifference rather than enthusiasm. Although I valued the game’s attempt to step back from the overstimulating visuals common in many modern FPS titles, its character designs were largely underwhelming, and the occasional stunning map could not compensate for others that were utterly forgettable. It seemed like a game that had bypassed any real creative inspiration, instead being filtered through dull boardroom discussions.
Marathon’s aesthetics, however, are characterized by an eclectic mix of influences ranging from Mirror’s Edge and Garry’s Mod to the cold digital ambiance of 90s cyberpunk. While there may be traces of corporate sensibilities in its design, Marathon embraces this to foster an engaging environment. Instead of following the trend of avoiding stark visuals, it leans into bold choices that give it a distinct identity, unlike the uninspired tech demo style seen in competitors like The Finals.
Marathon’s Pricing Strategy May Outperform Concord
Bungie’s Legacy Holds Weight
The pricing of Marathon presents a layered narrative, and it is premature to jump to conclusions. Currently, we know that Marathon will not adopt a free-to-play model, which is an encouraging sign. Given the context of overbearing monetization in current games, I recall spending $40 on Overwatch, enjoying significant value without needing to engage with constant battle pass alerts. If Bungie opts for a fair price alongside quality gameplay and reasonable monetization methods, I have no cause for complaint.
Although the question of pricing presents challenges, Bungie enjoys a more favorable position than Concord’s developer, Firewalk Studios. Even though my interest in the Destiny series has waned, Bungie’s established legacy still resonates strongly with players. This reputation is instrumental in enticing players to invest in their paid live-service model. Titles like Overwatch owe their success to a celebrated brand like Blizzard, while less reputable names like Ubisoft have struggled with free-to-play endeavors. Firewalk, lacking an iconic creative lead, faced an uphill battle from the outset.
The Closed Alpha as a Crucial Benchmark for Success
Marathon Needs To Establish Its Viability
The true litmus test for Marathon will be its gameplay experience. While Concord’s shooting mechanics were solid, its game design suffered from a lack of innovation, which was an immediate red flag. Marathon appears promising as it approaches its closed alpha test, which will ultimately reveal its potential to succeed or falter.
While many criticisms of Concord may have been excessive—particularly from those who had not even played it—this previous title serves as a cautionary tale of unremarkable execution. Though it may not be the best baseline to compare against Marathon, if Bungie’s latest endeavor stumbles, I trust it will do so in a manner that provokes more discussion and intrigue.