Video Game Review: Marathon (Season 1) by Bungie

This ain't a sprint, it's a goddamn marathon.

My teammates are dead. I can hear the enemy team scurrying about; they’re searching for me: the rat in the attic. They know I’m somewhere around and they want to enforce a “no mercy” policy lest the festering rat comes back to bite them. I can hear them continuing their hunt. It feels like they can smell my blood. Then I hear a Recon prime ability activation; my heartbeat quickens: they’re scanning my location. I apply a signal jammer and try to lose myself in a group of bots. Two of the enemies give chase, but I lose them while they fight bots and then I circle back. One player stayed back to loot my teammates. I catch them with their pants down and kill them, then lay claymores around the body bag. I use my Triage Prime ability to bring one of my teammates back instantly (normally a ten-second process). While he heals up, the remainder of the enemy team rushes us. One hits the claymores and goes down to a few bullets, then my teammate and I take down the final player. The rat bites back. Marathon is filled with PvPvE moments like this, from 3v3 to 1v3 to 1v2 to 2v2 to 2v1, all in the matter of a few minutes. What seem like impossible odds are quickly reversed with patience and game knowledge. Not to mention hitting some of your shots.

Marathon is the latest effort by Bungie, an extraction shooter set in the world of their original Marathon IP from the mid-90s. While the original was a single-player series with some LAN multiplayer options, Marathon of 2026 is anything but: a first-person shooter multiplayer with no single-player elements whatsoever. If any of the old guard are seeking a throwback to the old days, this isn’t it. What Marathon is, however, is absolutely brilliant.

Bungie, despite its developmental and managerial mishaps, makes some good gameplay, and Marathon is no exception. For those who haven’t played an extraction shooter, the goal of the game is to gather loot, get to an extraction point, then leave with it. You can then use the good loot you’ve gotten to use in a future match. If you want to do a quest, or have a key for a loot room, or run Cryo Archive, you’ll want to equip your best gear. Bungie does this with panache. Every element of the game, while not perfect, is meticulously designed and creates an addictive loop that can hook you for hours on end.

The movement is smooth but weighted, with a feel that borders on Halo and Apex Legends. In a similar fashion to the latter-mentioned game, Marathon’s playable entities comprise different shells (playable characters) with different skill-sets. Each one has a tactical, passive, and prime ability, similar to Apex and Overwatch. My main shell, Triage, has three main abilities; med drones that heal over time and prevent a full death of a teammate on a down (not to mention, if a teammate has a drone attached, you can share your consumables with them), an ability that increases the efficiency of volt weapons, and the ability to revive teammates instantly or EMP enemies (or even both simultaneously if you aim it right). In addition, each shell comes with preset baseline stats. These stats can be upgraded over the course of the season either through faction upgrades or implants. For instance, a knife skill of 5 will take five stabs to kill an enemy at full health, but at 100? Two stabs and they’re mince meat. Gunplay feels incredibly responsive with satisfying hit detection. Playing the game is a real treat.

Marathon is a looker. With top-tier graphics and peak lighting, it would almost make me want to visit if it weren’t so deadly. Tau Ceti IV is a dangerous place, with UESC patrols coming in and out, not to mention alien lifeforms nagging you around every corner (damn you, poison plants!). Every map is distinct and enjoyable to play for its own reasons. Want a smaller, open map with opportunities for mid to long range combat? Perimeter will do the trick. Want to snipe to your heart’s content? Dire Marsh has your back. Close to mid-range? Focus on Outpost. Want to question your life choices and whether one, as a thirty-seven year old person like me, should even play video games anymore? Play Cryo Archive (only available on weekends). Each map is beautifully created and distinct from one another. And while there are certain parts of specific maps that look a little too similar for my liking (like North and South Relay on Perimeter, or some wings of Cryo), the attention to detail is there. Combined with the Codex entries, the artists at Bungie paint a lurid picture of the lives of the Tau Ceti IV settlers.

Speaking of the Codex, this is absolutely brilliant and a huge part of what drew me into Marathon. Certain items that you extract, or specific story missions you complete, or even certain places you discover open up codex entries that share insights into the lives of the scientists and settlers of Tau Ceti IV. What problems did they face? What diseases did they have to fight off? What was this room used for? What were the power dynamics between superiors and inferiors? While much is unanswered, there is much to read up on between matches, and it fills in some holes left by omitting a single-player mode. By doing this, they make four maps feel like part of something bigger. And the best part? Despite dying over and over and over, you can still make progress toward unlocking lore goodies. It makes the defeat not feel so daunting.

One of the biggest elements of this game is the audio. I highly recommend a decent headset for playing Marathon; it can be the difference between life and death and is without a doubt a game saver. Everything, and I meant EVERYTHING, makes a sound. Healing? Makes a sound. Aiming down your sights? Makes a sound. Switching guns? Makes a sound. Crouch walking? Sound. Granted, some things make less noise than others; being able to hear everything puts a player at a distinct advantage, and Bungle has created a game that rewards the ever vigilant. Turn your sound up and focus. The more time spent in the game, the easier it becomes to distinguish what each sound is and how far along an enemy player is toward pulling off a heal or revive.

But what are the flaws? Great question. I didn’t find very many in my multi-month marathon of Marathon. An occasional sound glitch here, a geometry bug there has definitely spoiled an experience and/or ruined a run, but they were rare instances. I’d say the biggest drawback of the game is the learning curve, and that’s not necessarily a negative regarding the game itself, but in the ability to onboard potential players. It took me five hours before I felt like I had somewhat of a grasp on what was going on, even longer to distinguish between the footsteps of UESC and Runner shells, and I am a dedicated gamer. I can only imagine what it would be like for someone a little more casual. The UI management system could be smoother, but like every other aspect of the game, I came to learn it and appreciate its depth. And, as is persistent in most multiplayer games, the occasional weapon balancing issues occur. At first it was the knife, then the bubble/shotgun meta on Cryo Archive, but Bungie has been doing its best to tweak these imbalances.

And don’t get me started on Cryo Archive. It is both the most frustrating and rewarding gaming experience I’ve ever had (in a multiplayer game). I completed a Compiler run (the final raid boss) the night before the end of the season, as well as every Vault except 4, thanks to some friends. The map is so huge it still confuses me in some areas, and despite how much time I’ve spent in there, I still have a ton to learn. I wish the visuals had a little more variance throughout the map (like how Control and Panopticon feel very distinct). But despite the challenge, the reward feels worthwhile.

Marathon is unapologetically hardcore. There is absolutely nothing about this game that I would recommend to a casual player unless they were willing to take the time to ensure that they learned the game’s systems. You don’t have to be great at this game (I’m not), though it certainly helps. What you need is stubbornness, perseverance, and the knowledge that you will die a lot. Sometimes unfairly, but mostly because you did something stupid. In an age of gaming where everything is made easier (not saying I have any problems with accessibility!), it is nice to see a game that doubles down on its goal, deepening the experience by creating a very hardcore sci-fi multiplayer experience. With Bungie’s regular efforts to update the game and consistently balance not only the gameplay but also the systems within the game, the future for Marathon seems bright, so long as they can retain a decent number of players. My advice: if you are going to play Marathon, expect to play for an entire season and give the game the time it deserves; otherwise, you’re doing both yourself and the game a disservice. With Marathon, I truly believe Bungie has crafted one of the best multiplayer experiences of the last decade and I'm so glad I took the gamble and purchased the game.

--

The Math

Objective Assessment: 9/10

Bonus: +1 for gameplay depth. +1 for world building.

Penalties: -1 for poor player onboarding. -1 for weapon balancing issues.

Nerd Coefficient: 9/10

Posted by: Joe DelFranco - Fiction writer and lover of most things video games. On most days you can find him writing at his favorite spot in the little state of Rhode Island.

Videogame Review: Dead Space Remake by Motive Games

So many limbs to sever, so little time

Sent on a mission to help repair the USG Ishimura’s communications breakdown, Isaac Clarke and the crew of the USG Kellion arrive just in time to discover that the Ishimura's comms are the least of their worries. Infested with monsters called necromorphs, the crew has their work cut out for them if they have any hope of repairing their ship and getting out alive.

I’m not one for horror games anymore, not that I ever was, but I would partake in them more frequently when I was younger. For me, Dead Space Remake was more of a nostalgia trip to the mid to late 2000s, when single-player games had fun interconnected-level design and unreliable protagonists (Bioshock anyone?). This remake does what a proper remake should do: it stays faithful to the original but builds on it in small ways and fixes some of its issues. It makes it feel like you remember it to be, a tough balancing act in the games industry. To preserve a game’s story is one thing, but to preserve the spirit of the entire project is another, and on that, EA Motive has done a superb job.

One of the most striking things that hits right away is the visuals. The lighting and reflections, the detail in Isaac’s suit, and the upgraded animations all contribute to something that feels like a high-quality product. But even more importantly (as mentioned before), it feels like Dead Space as I remember it. It was a quality product that launched, subsequently aged, and now feels brand new again. For all its gruesome, visceral violence, Dead Space Remake is a beautiful game that nails its sci-fi/horror aesthetic with aplomb. Dead Space is one of those games you remember for its atmosphere: the thrum of the engines, the vibrant large open rooms, and the small, dark, tight corridors. No detail was spared in the remake to ensure that old players and new alike will remember their time aboard the Ishimura.

But not all is the same, and this is a good thing. One of the biggest and best changes is a more vocal Isaac Clarke. This may not be a positive for some, but on the whole, I think it was a great change that enhanced the experience. Isaac has more personality now and contributes his expertise as an engineer. Instead of being guided like a puppet, he now comes up with solutions and reasonings for his actions. It brings a lot to the character, and by extension, the game itself. In addition, the weapons have all been rebalanced, and the flamethrower is a worthy weapon now. The mechanics are more in line with Dead Space 2’s superior gunplay. They also upgraded the de-limbing system, which adds not only extra detail but more strategy to gameplay.

When I mention the de-limbing system, I refer to the primary mode of dispatching enemies in Dead Space; removing limbs. Headshots hold no power here. In the original, simply shooting at a limb two or three times would make it come off. Now, certain weapons are better for cutting through flesh, and some for cutting through bone. You can see the enemy’s flesh disappear with each shot, eventually getting down to the bone (now it’s time to switch to the ripper). This is an extremely detailed addition that deserves praise. It’s advantageous to synergize your weapons loadout, especially on the harder difficulties (or just run around with the flamethrower). The rest of the weapons have been balanced and adjusted so that the combat feels great and the movement is smooth. I do wish there were a few extra additions that are staples in the genre, like a quick turn-around option and an over-the-shoulder switch. Their absence didn't hurt the experience, but they certainly would have enhanced it.

Speaking of combat, the weapons themselves are such a blast to use. One of the things I loved about the Bioshock and Ratchet & Clank series is their use of imaginary weaponry that you can upgrade over time. Dead Space turned the plasma cutter and its teal laser guides into an iconic weapon, and with good reason; it may be the first weapon you get, but it’s damn good. Its precision makes you feel like a surgeon as you sever necromorph limbs. But the plasma cutter is just the beginning. The ripper, the line gun, the force gun, and the contact beam are all useful mining tools-become-weapons that are inventive and enjoyable to use. The flamethrower and pulse rifle are a bit more basic, but their alternate fire abilities add extra strategic layers to more complex encounters. In combination with stasis (freezes enemies briefly) and kinesis (telekinetic module), combat is a blast.

Once in a while, one of the game's flaws would flare up, and while it doesn't deal directly with the combat itself, it impacts it. In larger open areas, lurkers (little baby-looking enemies) climb the walls and start shooting at you. This isn’t a problem in itself, but when the area is open and other enemies are assaulting you, this simply becomes an irritation. It doesn't add to the tension of the encounter. Any spitting enemies poorly placed make certain encounters feel cheap and unenjoyable. Luckily, those don't happen too frequently, but when they do, it’s noticeable. A frustration that did come up frequently was the kinesis’s inability to prioritize. When using kinesis, you can take items from the environment, as well as the enemy’s sharpened bones, and launch them. Sometimes kinesis picked up every other body part besides the weapon-worthy items, causing much frustration. A system should have been put in place to prioritize useful items before picking up useless garbage, especially in frantic situations.

One of the most important things about the original Dead Space remains here, in a way I wish it applied to more games. The in-game UI is smart, simple, and direct, crafting a more intimate experience as a byproduct. Everything the player needs to know is on Isaac. Sure, there is a menu for item and lore management, but when it comes to combat, there is no HUD on the corners of the screen: it’s all on Isaac’s person. The amount of ammo in your clip shows on the weapon. The amount of health remaining runs down Isaac’s vertebrae and his stasis stock is visible on his shoulder blade. You don't need to look at anything other than the character and the enemies. Since you’re looking at the character’s back the entire game, why not make it your HUD? Brilliant.

While Dead Space isn’t an open world, it does have an explorable ship that can be traversed more and more throughout the adventure, almost like a Metroidvania. This gives the player reason to go back and look around at things they missed. Luckily, the remake added more encounters to keep things fresh, even when returning to a previously explored area. That said, it would have been nice to have a fast travel option to go exactly where you want. The tram isn’t the worst thing in the world, but it isn't exciting or expedient.

What is a horror game without sound? The sound design here is part of what makes the game and its atmosphere have so much character. The whispering in the walls, the sound of necromorphs scurrying in the ceiling, the screech of the automatic water supply systems, the electrical currents running through the thrumming ship, and the sound of flesh tearing off necromorph corpses when you use kinesis to turn their sharp limbs against them all contribute to creating an immersive, tense environment throughout the entire game. The voice acting is great, and each character gives a solid performance. The audio logs are great; there’s nothing like listening to what transpired on the Ishimura, the experiments and religious insanity that brought the gigantic planet cracker to its knees. The music appropriately adds to the sense of tension and horror as well, though at times the music lingers longer than it should (same with Isaac’s heavy breathing). These are obvious bugs that are momentary immersion killers. Walking down a long, empty hallway while combat music played kept me on my toes for no reason. Overall, however, this isn’t extremely detrimental, though it was noticeable quite a few times.

One of the other issues I had with the game was a random jittery frame rate, sometimes when nothing taxing occurred. Random door opening? Frame rate drop. Walking down a hallway? Random frame drop. Thankfully, this never happened during crucial moments. I also experienced other minor bugs or glitches, like items randomly disappearing (I still think about that power node that disappeared on my impossible mode run). Another of my gripes deals with the game’s story. I won’t spoil it for those who haven't played, but the story cheats a bit to deliver one of the game's biggest moments. It’s a bit obvious that something is off, and while I love the unreliable protagonist, the delivery mechanism feels a bit cheap. That said, the story is still enjoyable. Who can hate everything going wrong all the time?

Going through the narrow halls of the Ishimura brought me back to one of my favorite eras of gaming. Dead Space Remake is a faithful iteration that builds on and adds to the original. For those who played the original Dead Space and loved it, this remake is worth the price of admission as it not only fixes much, but also adds an alternate ending for new game plus, and a more intense impossible mode (where you only get one save that deletes itself upon death!). For those who haven't played it, I ask you this: Do you like sci-fi? Horror? Fun weaponry? Interesting lore and story? Get Dead Space and support the developer. Maybe we’ll all be lucky and get blessed with a remake of Dead Space 2.

The Math

Objective Assessment: 8.5/10.

Bonus: +1 for smooth gameplay, +1 for beautifully detailed visuals, +1 for memorable atmosphere.

Penalties: −2 for bugs/frame rate drops, −1 for lack of fast travel.

Nerd Coefficient: 8.5/10.

Posted by: Joe DelFranco - Fiction writer and lover of most things video games. On most days you can find him writing at his favorite spot in the little state of Rhode Island.

The State of the Video Game Industry: A Discussion

Shaking up the Video Games Industry

Recently it was announced that Microsoft will be bringing some of its first-party games to rival platforms. While it is not unheard of (as is the case with the Ori series to the Nintendo Switch), this cracks the door open to a potential new era in the console gaming sphere. But before this, some history.

A little over twenty-two years ago, on November 15, 2001, Microsoft released a new gaming brand; the Xbox. This act reintroduced an American console manufacturer into the fold and brought innovations and new corporate tactics to the console side of the gaming industry for the next two decades. As Sega phased out (their previous two consoles failing to break the ten million mark), a huge shift occurred; Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft were now the big three. With an American console maker in the mix, the two Japanese giants would make pivots to stay competitive in a market that they’d dominated.

Bill Gates wanted a competitor in a sphere he assumed would compete with the PC industry. With the PS2’s ability to play DVDs and CDs in addition to games, this was perceived as a potential threat and thus a need to enter the arena. While the PS2 handily trounced Microsoft’s first offering and Nintendo’s Gamecube (Playstation 2 sold over triple the amount of its competitor’s combined sales), Sony relied too much on its namesake for their successor and hubris caused a gaping opportunity. This is when Microsoft brought out the big guns.

While Nintendo ended up doing its own thing with the Wii (lower power console for a more casual audience), Xbox and Playstation competed directly for the same audience. This is the generation in which Microsoft introduced the Xbox dashboard, better Xbox Live services, higher visibility of indie games, a great controller, and easily replaceable hard drives. They also highlighted micro-transactions, pointless DLC, a higher focus on timed-exclusive content, and the biggest repair bill that any console manufacturer has had to dole out (thanks Red Ring of Death). Despite Xbox 360’s shortcomings, Sony priced their PS3 at $600 and launched a year later. Their online tech was miles behind (though free), and their messaging equated to: “If you can’t afford it, get a second job.” It took Sony years to recover from their mistakes and eventually overtake the 360, but in turn, they learned a very important lesson; exploit your opponent’s weakness and hammer away when the opportunity presents itself.

Microsoft’s launch of the Xbox One (their third console, not to be confused with the original, simply named Xbox) was a mess. Their messaging confused fans and casuals. The inclusion of Kinect frustrated those who didn’t want it, the console requiring a constant internet connection angered those with poor or no connectivity, the focus on digital-only games left physical lovers in the dust, and to top it all off, the console was weaker, yet more expensive than it’s competitor; the PS4. The Xbox One was ahead of its time. This singular major Microsoft error set Sony up for success throughout the entire generation, which bled into the current one with the PS5. Sony deployed the same tactics Microsoft used in the previous generation; timed exclusives, full exclusive content, procuring franchises synonymous with the other platform, keeping certain characters exclusive to their platform, using their leading position to make better deals, etc.

Though Microsoft has put out some decent games these past few generations, they couldn’t match Sony or Nintendo in the breadth of titles that were either high quality or could sell on name recognition alone. Their Forza games have been a highlight, but their bread and butter, Halo and Gears, dropped from “legendary” status to “great”. In the case of Fable, it disappeared completely (though there is a new one in development). While they’ve released some fantastic indie games, nothing has propelled the Xbox brand to reach the same heights that they had in the 360 generation. So, Microsoft decided to buy a bunch of developers. Then they did the unthinkable in the console space; they bought entire publishers.

With Bethesda and Activision (and let’s not forget Obsidian, Mojang, and inXile) under their umbrella, Microsoft was sure to take the top spot, put their main competitor out of business (or at least demote them to third place), and begin to take control of the console narrative once again as they did in the glory days of the 360. But something happened. Despite all the acquisitions and even an entire exclusive Bethesda title (Starfield), GamePass subscriber numbers haven’t increased and Microsoft has decided to shift tactics. Recent rumors stated that the heads of Microsoft want ubiquity, no more console squabbling. Every screen is now an Xbox. The internet went wild with speculation. Which games would come to rival consoles? What was the point of owning an Xbox if there were no more true exclusives? Will there be another Xbox console?

Unfortunately, the messaging from Phil Spencer and company wasn't entirely clear. What we do know is that Microsoft will be dipping its toes further into the waters of third-party publishing (on PS5 and Switch) with four titles. Microsoft says that Pentiment (Obsidian), Hi-Fi Rush (Tango), Sea of Thieves (Rare), and Grounded (Obsidian) will be the first four titles to have the honor of building the bridge between Sony and Microsoft. While all four will be coming to PlayStation platforms, only Pentiment and Hi-Fi Rush will release on Switch.

With this bit of history and current information in mind, I’d like to ask G, being an Xbox owner, what his thoughts are on the matter. While it may make sense for Microsoft as a whole in the long run, is this a good idea for the Xbox brand or does it weaken its value?



G - I’ll be honest, I thought Microsoft was going to bring Gamepass to the PlayStation and thus end The Console Wars. I was convinced that Microsoft didn’t really want to be selling consoles anymore, but did want to be the Netflix of the coming age of video game streaming. What better way to do that than to first become the biggest and best provider of subscription content and then to offer it on all platforms?

That didn’t happen, of course. Instead we found out that some Xbox-exclusive titles would eventually come to the PS5. Which…doesn’t really move the needle for anyone. But I think it does point to a structural problem in gaming: namely, that The Console Wars are a relic of a lost age and don’t really make any sense for anyone anymore, but Microsoft and Sony are still stuck in the trenches because they are too heavily invested to pivot.

I want to explore that idea in a bit more depth - and get your extended thoughts. Here are mine:

So I’ve been on Team Xbox since around 2002. I had a PS2 already but got an Xbox so I could play Halo and the Splinter Cell games, which at the time were Xbox exclusives. When it came time to upgrade to the next generation, I went with the Xbox 360. It felt like a no-brainer - at that point Xbox Live was lightyears ahead of the PlayStation Network. If you wanted to play online with your friends, Xbox Live delivered a streamlined experience that Sony just couldn’t match. And, like a lot of others at the time, I got hooked on Call of Duty’s competitive multiplayer.

Of course Sony caught up, so when the Xbox One squared up against the PS4 Microsoft needed a new selling point. The Kinect was the gimmick, but really they wanted to sell the Xbox One as a media platform - the centerpiece of your entertainment system. This was around the time that streaming began to replace cable in earnest. The problem, of course, was that Apple, Roku and others were developing devices that could do this just as well, but were much smaller. And that’s even before Smart TVs hit the market. Now you don’t even need a device.

Microsoft’s pivot to streaming turned out to be both a dead-end and a distraction. As you say, the Xbox One just didn’t have the exclusives that powered the Xbox and 360. Sony, meanwhile, had decided to focus on games, bringing a diverse array of critically-acclaimed exclusives to the market that Microsoft failed to match. Turns out people buy consoles to play games - and that’s why the PS4 outsold the Xbox One by more than 2-to-1.

Fast-forward to the current generation. I debated getting a PS5 instead of a Series X, but it wasn’t easy to find either at launch. Eventually I managed to find a Series X bundled with Gamepass Ultimate so I went with that. It wasn’t intentional, though I’ve enjoyed the Series X and Gamepass quite a bit.

What I learned, though, is that Gamepass is more or less all that’s on offer. Despite all those big acquisitions, there aren’t many exclusives to speak of, and the ones that exist have been underwhelming (Halo: Infinite was a massive disappointment). Microsoft wants you to pivot to streaming - and the recurring revenues that a subscription model provides. And like with online play and video streaming, they have correctly identified the next big thing. But as with Netflix, there’s going to be a lot more competition soon too. And that doesn’t just mean fighting for customers’ subscription dollars; it also means fighting rival streaming platforms for content.

That said, Sony has also been struggling. The PS5 may be outselling the Series X/S, but Sony has overinvested in VR and spent a ton of money trying to get another Destiny on the market - and, in the process, lost focus on the exclusive single-player games that helped it win the last round of The Console Wars. This is partly because budgets for triple-A titles have ballooned, reducing their ROI - but it’s also partly because big corporations can be really dumb (and often are).

So here we are, at a crossroads where both companies seem a bit lost. Microsoft, for the 2nd generation running, is trying to find its killer app when we all know the killer app is releasing top-flight games. Sony, meanwhile, should know it needs to focus on games but those games aren’t as profitable as they used to be. Does anyone really benefit from The Console Wars anymore? And what does a viable alternative look like?

Joe D - It’s funny, I completely forgot about the whole multimedia approach that Microsoft tried to sell at the Xbox One reveal. It may have been the single most detrimental aspect of the showcase. While I never ended up getting an Xbox One—I had three 360s die on me and was hesitant to invest—I heard the television integration was well implemented. As I said, I think they were way ahead of the times with their focus. It may have gone differently if they focused as much on the games.

Getting back to the question, I do believe the consumers benefit from competition, but not the Console War itself. It has grown from a simple rivalry (from the Nintendo/Sega/PlayStation days) to a vitriolic cesspool. Console zealots now send death threats to developers and tear to shreds all who criticize their beloved. God forbid you want to make a post on social media criticizing a company you support (as I have tried to with some of Sony’s poorer choices), the rabid dogs find their way to you immediately. But outside of the crazy hecklers, the competition between the companies has forced innovation in the video game industry. Let’s go back to the 360/PS3 competition. Sony was so comfortable resting on their laurels at the end of the Playstation 2 generation that they didn’t think they needed to compete. With more third-party companies supporting Xbox, Microsoft’s pressure forced them to rely on their first party a whole lot more than ever before. During the PS3 era, Sony was much more daring than today. We got the Resistance 1, 2, & 3, Infamous 1 & 2, Uncharted 1, 2, & 3, The Last of Us, Killzone 2 & 3, LittleBigPlanet 1 & 2, and so many more. On the reverse, PS2’s success made Microsoft come out of the gates early and set the precedent for online reliability and services for not only that gen but the future of gaming on consoles. Sony’s insistence on BluRay made Microsoft do the same (Yay, no more disc swapping). Nintendo meanwhile just does unique things that Sony or Microsoft try to piggyback off of (motion controls anyone?). Once Nintendo began to do their own thing with the Wii, it became a two-horse race between Sony and Microsoft.

(List of Sony Published PS3 Games)

I think the reason the rivalry has gone on so long is because, as you said, both companies are entrenched. Sony even more so due to PlayStation’s importance to it, with PS accounting for a third of its revenue. This next part is speculation, but I believe Microsoft allowed the Xbox division to do their thing, to make Xbox the number one place to play, and the guys at the Xbox division were like rich kids at a playground trying to one-up their opponent. As recently as 2019, they spoke about how they were in a position to “spend Sony out of business.” After failing to get out of third place three generations in a row, and more importantly, after the massive acquisitions they made (Bethesda for $7.5 billion, Activision for $69 billion), the higher-ups at Microsoft decided it was time to recoup their investment and come up with a new strategy.

I agree with you that Sony seems a bit lost. I don’t know of any first-party games planned for this year (a first in a very long time), and that’s rather disappointing as I love a majority of their studios. I revere The Last of Us and thought that the Part 1 remake was brilliantly done, but if Naughty Dog releases one more remaster or remake of that series before another new game, I will lose my mind. Tying into what you said about Sony trying to create another Destiny, Naughty Dog’s live-service game was canceled because the studio was going to have to choose between being a live-service studio or a single-player game studio. I was rather disappointed because I enjoyed the Factions multiplayer, but I would prefer their single-player focus. That said, forcing studios that don’t traditionally make live-service games into live-service studios is an odd choice, especially considering people have come to PlayStation for their prestigious single-player experiences. Hopefully, their current success with Helldivers 2 will make them realize they could outsource to second parties for that sort of thing (or purchase a multiplayer dev).

There is something that worries me though. If Microsoft exits stage left, will Sony continue to produce as much excellent content, knowing that no competitor is trying to usurp their market share? Sony was misleading with their “We believe in generations” message at the beginning of this generation, but they have consistently released at least one or two Game of the Year contenders every year since 2015 despite being far ahead of their prime competitor. What will happen if Microsoft pulls out of the console space and simply goes full streaming? Will Sony keep their service as well, or will it let it die off since they own the hardware front? Their PlayStation Plus upper tiers have become much better in response to Microsoft, but it’s not their priority.

I fear that video games will go full streaming service and it affects the quality of the games. While we may get some decent AA games, AAA games will become a relic of the past. As much as I love my Netflix shows, I won’t find a movie with Avengers: Infinity War’s budget as a day and date release. I think Sony may go on for a while longer with consoles while Microsoft becomes more ubiquitous with GamePass. If every game has to eventually launch on a streaming service on release day, as Microsoft says they want to do, how do you think that affects the game industry and the games themselves? While I agree both streaming services are great for consumers, do you think it will be good for devs in the long run? Could it affect creativity in the AAA and AA space?



G - I’ll never understand why some fans think aligning with one massive corporation over another is an important moral choice. Just make the best choice for you and be happy with that choice - why does it matter what anyone else prefers? But everything is zero sum these days, no matter how mundane or, ultimately, inconsequential the battle is.

But anyways, back to the topic at hand…at this point I don’t think we have to worry about Microsoft abandoning the Xbox, at least not for a few years. But I also don’t think The Console Wars, as currently structured, really benefit either Microsoft or Sony. Sure, PlayStation revenues are higher, but the Xbox platform appears to be more profitable; as a percentage of revenues, Microsoft’s margin is almost double Sony’s. So there is something for each company’s Board to be unhappy about.

Also worth noting that Nintendo’s profit margins are the highest of all, and by a long-shot. This is a direct result of Nintendo’s decision to opt out of The Console Wars. They’ve had their ups and downs, but scored a hit with the portable Nintendo Switch - which is now the 3rd best-selling console of all-time. How did they do it? They stopped trying to keep up on hardware tech specs and instead focused on making high-quality first-party games and then making them fun (and convenient) to play.

I don’t know if either Sony or Microsoft can emulate Nintendo’s model, the same way Dell or Lenovo can’t really emulate Apple’s. But it’s time for a rethink - and that’s why it seemed plausible that Microsoft would start to offer Gamepass available on the PlayStation. They aren’t doing it, apparently, but would it really be a bad idea?

I agree that we don’t want a situation where only Sony makes a console for triple-A games, and recent layoffs suggest that’s not even a great bet right now. But maybe there are alternatives! Maybe what we really need to see is Microsoft and Sony strike a partnership where they both keep making consoles, but those consoles are compatible with each other. You would need a standard OS but each could have a custom build of that OS. Both could then focus on delivering games - and their streaming services, as I’m 100% convinced this is where the market is heading. Thoughts?

Joe D - You’re right about Sony’s current model being unsustainable, the profits get smaller while game costs continue to rise. More info will come from the recent layoffs, though it seems to me to be a restructuring of how they manage their studios. With Jim Ryan on the out, maybe the company will go back to focusing on single player games, or at least that's what they say. When it comes to hardware, I doubt that Sony gives Microsoft any leeway in the console space. If Microsoft backs out of making consoles, then maybe Sony will take a Nintendo approach and make their games with a lower budget. I think that having a dedicated gaming system could eventually become obsolete, with people streaming from their television, computer, or some kind of attachment (like an Amazon Fire Stick). Who knows, maybe the Amazon Fire Stick will eventually provide both PlayStation Plus and Game Pass on it within ten years. If it comes down to competing streaming services, Microsoft is well-positioned to demolish any competitor.

I think the situation could be this: Nintendo makes the casual console, Sony makes the high-spec console, and Microsoft tries to proliferate through using Game Pass. If Microsoft gets rid of the need to spend as much on competing consoles, they could use that money to grow the Game Pass library and put it on PlayStation and Switch. When the streaming service space expands, they’ll have more leverage to force Sony to innovate.

Eventually, I see the space becoming a place where Microsoft and Sony simply have timed-exclusive content on each platform (like Netflix and Hulu), with exclusive content that they make in-house. It’s kind of like it is now, but you won’t own any of the content unless you decide to buy it, and even then it will be digital so you’ll only own the license, not the game itself. So long as Microsoft produces a console, I’m not sure when Game Pass would come to PlayStation, as it would make their console obsolete. The only reason to get an Xbox would be because you like their OS, but I doubt that would be a high consumer motivator in the console space. I think that by publishing these four games on PlayStation, Microsoft is testing the third-party waters and it will eventually lead to their exit from the console space (possibly after the next generation). 

Though this is an inconclusive viewpoint, I think it could have both positive and negative effects on the industry. While we already discussed the negatives, the positives would allow Microsoft to play to its strengths and get on more screens, and it would allow Sony to back off on spending so much on their games since their main competitor is out of the race, giving them more profitability and the ability to create more first-party content. I can’t be sure how this is going to change the industry, but I’m sure it will have a profound effect in the upcoming years. I’ll keep my fingers crossed that whatever happens, I’ll always have a way to own my media.

https://www.deviantart.com/creepertube83/art/CT83-Big-Three-Gaming-Consoles-973691629

https://www.reddit.com/r/PS3/comments/m3mgo0/heres_all_the_ps3_games_that_are_published_by/

https://www.essentiallysports.com/esports-news-as-per-reports-playstation-scores-the-lowest-in-profitability-as-compared-to-xbox-and-nintendo-but-rules-in-revenue/

https://www.rappler.com/technology/gaming/xbox-game-pass-playstation-plus-philippines-comparison-2022/