Meanwhile in the real world, I already said that I was expecting the game to do at least 150K:
Yes, and can have a 150K. Several MP shooters had its peak on the 3rd or 4th week, or even years after launch.
Is it? Do you really think Sony/Bungie went like "ok it's gonna launch with bad numbers but no worries, it's gonna grow". That's some massive copium.
Also we already see it's not growing btw.
Projecting hard, huh? You're the one writing essays to defend mediocre numbers and calling people mad for pointing out reality.
Bad numbers according to you because of its CCUs, which as I shown are better than at the same moment many top performer MP shooters had at the same point. Which isn't mediocre at all.
But let's be real for a second, your cherry-picked 'second saturday' list is cute, but meaningless. PUBG, ARK, Overwatch etc all had massive early explosions (many free-to-play or with huge pre-existing audiences). Marathon is a $40 paid extraction shooter from Bungie with sky high expectations.
If you learn to read you'll see it's a list of games that performed similar or worse than Marathon regarcing CCUs at the same day Marathon is today (their second Saturday), which didn't stop them to become some of the most successful games in the genre.
Showcasing how stupid is to say that Marathon numbers are mediocre or a failure because didn't get better numbers than the some of the few top performing games ever in the genre.
And Marathon is already bleeding out: 88k launch peak then crashed to 28-32k mid-week, slipped out of top 50 and now clinging to a weekend 58k bump that's already fading. You call this higher than average retention and on track for successful and profitable?? WTH?? That's pure cope.
You keep moving the goalpost from ''no conclusions yet'' to ''actually it's doing great''.
Meanwhile the data shows exactly what I said: Bungie cooked a shooter that nobody wants to play long term. Cry all you want, facts don't care about your fantasy.
You're the one coping and crying, and the one saying fantasies (in this case, Marathon supposedly 'bleeding players'), when I already shown multiple times examples of Marathon performing better than several top performing similar games in terms of CCU or even CCU loss or "retention" (the real user retention metric is the DAU loss, not CCU) at the same point launch aligned.
You're being a gaming flatearther.
Finally, those 87% ''Very Positive'' reviews you love so much? Pure self-selection bias.
The massive free Server Slam (143k peak) let everyone try it. Only the people who already loved the gunplay and loop dropped $40 and bothered to review. The ones who found it mid or frustrating simply didn't buy so Steam is flooded with preconvinced Bungie fans in full honeymoon mode. That's why the score looks inflated right now. Doesn't mean shit long-term when the extraction loop gets stale and players ghost.
Now Marathon is supposed to have invented open alpha/betas/stress test servers? And the 88% positive reviews for Marathon aren't valid, but let's say the 87% positive reviews of Arc Raiders are, despite it also having a open beta stress servers just before launch, which was even also called "server slam"?
To make open alpha, betas, server stress tests or demos aren't something special, most MP/GaaS games do it.
That's multiple posts of mine you've replied to which have brought nothing to the table.
I just explained why they were wrong, quite often providing objective factual data.
In this case, Marathon did a server stress free weekend before launch. Which, like demos/open alphas/open betas, isn't anything special. In fact Marathon only had a single open one before launch (like Arc Raiders to name an example), while others even had more.