Marathon’s player base is collapsing, and Bungie’s future looks increasingly bleak as concerns grow around the studio’s live‑service direction 81%

By Adam Hales0%

7/18/2026, 1:08:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Pessimism Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 41.6% saturation with 189 hits. Analysis detected 1,252 faulty-reasoning hits from 454 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 72.7% and a BS Rank of 81% (4,176 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.90% of the article peer group.

It’s hard to really put into words how I feel about Bungie right now. 
As a lifelong Halo fan, the studio will always have a special place in my heart, but the way it has operated since leaving Xbox has been less than ideal and, honestly, devastating to watch as a fan. 
For those out of the loop, Bungie recently shifted its focus away from Destiny in favor of Marathon . 
Unfortunately, that decision doesn’t appear to be paying off. 
Marathon recently peaked at around 6,000 concurrent players on Steam , while Destiny 2 reached almost 60,000 during the same period, around 10 times more than Marathon. 
It's also worth mentioning that Marathon isn't even within the top 100 most played games on Xbox, behind titles like Gears of War 2 and Fable 3, both of which are Xbox 360 games. 
Marathon's Steam Charts as of 18th July 2026 (Image credit: Windows Central | SteamDB ) Don’t worry, though, Destiny fans; Bungie has a solution. 
It’s adding a limited-time PvE mode to Marathon for just two weeks . 
I’m sure that’ll go over well. 
In all seriousness, though, I don’t want to make fun of Bungie too much. 
What’s happened to the studio, especially after the recent layoffs , which are genuinely sad to see. 
I really do hope Bungie lands on its feet, whatever that future looks like. 
Still, the studio’s direction feels increasingly uncertain, and it’s hard not to wonder what happens next for one of gaming’s most iconic developers. 
It’s not difficult to imagine a future where Bungie ends up as more of a support studio, especially as its valuation continues to decline from the $3.6 billion Sony paid to acquire it. 
For context, Sony not too long ago recorded an impairment loss of roughly $766 million against Bungie . 
In simple terms, that’s an acknowledgment that the studio is now considered less valuable than when Sony acquired it for $3.6 billion. 
Whether that figure grows in future earnings remains to be seen, but given Bungie’s recent struggles, I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. 
Mind you, this is all without mentioning that Marathon's game director, Joseph Ziegler, has just left Bungie. 
Although the torch has been passed on, his departure is yet another worrying sign for Marathon's future. 
Let me know how you feel about Bungie, the current state of Marathon, and where you think the studio goes from here in the comments below. 
Also, be sure to take part in our poll! 
Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.0%Adam Hales: 11.9%Windows Central: 4.2%Confirmation Bias7.0%This article: 8.8%Adam Hales: 4.4%Windows Central: 1.0%Anchoring Bias8.8%This article: 5.9%Adam Hales: 2.3%Windows Central: 4.6%Availability Heuristic5.9%This article: 13.4%Adam Hales: 2.8%Windows Central: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic13.4%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 1.4%Windows Central: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 2.9%Windows Central: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Adam Hales: 3.1%Windows Central: 5.0%Framing Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Adam Hales: 2.0%Windows Central: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect7.3%This article: 3.1%Adam Hales: 7.8%Windows Central: 8.0%Optimism Bias3.1%This article: 22.9%Adam Hales: 8.3%Windows Central: 3.0%Pessimism Bias22.9%This article: 32.6%Adam Hales: 11.7%Windows Central: 8.6%Negativity Bias32.6%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.5%Windows Central: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Adam Hales: 0.5%Windows Central: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error3.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Adam Hales: 2.3%Windows Central: 1.2%In-Group Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 2.8%Windows Central: 4.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 1.2%Windows Central: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.0%Adam Hales: 3.2%Windows Central: 2.2%Recency Bias11.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.8%Windows Central: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 1.7%Windows Central: 3.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.7%Windows Central: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 7.3%Adam Hales: 3.0%Windows Central: 1.0%Slippery Slope7.3%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.7%Adam Hales: 13.0%Windows Central: 8.5%Hasty Generalization16.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 1.1%Windows Central: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.7%Adam Hales: 1.5%Windows Central: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion3.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.8%Adam Hales: 8.6%Windows Central: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.8%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.6%Windows Central: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 7.5%Adam Hales: 1.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Composition/Division7.5%This article: 13.4%Adam Hales: 2.8%Windows Central: 4.0%Anecdotal13.4%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.8%Windows Central: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.8%Adam Hales: 3.0%Windows Central: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.8%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.3%Adam Hales: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.2%Personal Incredulity1.3%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 41.6%Adam Hales: 5.8%Windows Central: 3.0%Unattributed Quote41.6%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 1.4%Windows Central: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 25.8%Adam Hales: 24.1%Windows Central: 13.9%Biased Writer Voice25.8%This article: 5.7%Adam Hales: 0.8%Windows Central: 1.9%Indoctrination5.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Hales: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Adam Hales: 3.5%Windows Central: 6.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.9%

454 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.