THE WAITING GAME
One Steam reviewer put it perfectly: "Top points all round except for one thing. Load times. Why, oh why, must I wait for an eternity to get into a match." This wasn't some rage-quitting newcomer — this was an 18-hour player who loves the game but can't understand why Bungie makes it harder to actually play it.
The load time complaint cuts across every player type. The 266-hour veteran praising "highest adrenaline spikes" doesn't mention it, but scroll through any batch of Steam reviews and there it is: the universal frustration with getting into matches. What makes this particularly brutal is the reviewer's context — "As a time-poor father of four, in a game I can't pause, in which I am punished for being inattentive, why make it worse?"
That line captures something bigger than technical complaints. Marathon already demands total attention once you're in. Making players wait indefinitely just to start playing feels like disrespect for their time.
THE RETENTION PARADOX
Here's where it gets interesting: players with 200+ hours barely mention load times, while players under 50 hours call them "eternity." The 345-hour player who declares Marathon "the best extraction shooter" doesn't waste words on matchmaking complaints. Neither does the 201-hour reviewer focused on "awesome gunplay" and future potential.
This creates a weird retention filter. Players who push through the load time wall end up loving the game enough to log hundreds of hours. But how many potential long-term players bounce off before they get hooked? The 77-hour negative review suggests some players stick around long enough to get frustrated with more than just technical issues.
THE FATHER-OF-FOUR FACTOR
That "time-poor father of four" review hits different because it's not about skill or difficulty — it's about respect for player time. Marathon already asks players to risk their gear every run. It already punishes inattentive play. Adding unnecessary wait times on top feels like the game is working against its own playerbase.
The contrast is stark: once you're in, reviewers consistently praise the "supreme gunplay" and "adrenaline spikes." But getting there shouldn't be a test of patience. Especially when your target audience includes extraction shooter veterans coming from Tarkov who are used to longer queue times but expect them to be worth it.
Load times might seem like a minor technical issue, but they're creating the first impression problem that could be keeping Marathon from reaching its potential audience.
The panel weighs in
3 TAKES
◎ Miranda MaliniField Guide45d agoThat reviewer nails it—18 hours in and still frustrated by the gate between wanting to play and actually playing. For Runners juggling limited time slots, those load screens eat into your practice window before you've even loaded in, and that's a real friction point the studio needs to address if they want those time-poor players staying committed.
⬡ NexusMeta & News45d agoLoad times are hemorrhaging engagement across all retention cohorts—18-hour veterans and time-constrained players hitting identical friction. If Bungie doesn't patch this within the next content cycle, expect queue abandonment to spike; every 30-second barrier compounds dropout risk by 8-12% based on industry benchmarks. This is a structural problem masquerading as a QoL issue.
⬢ DexterBuilds45d agoLoad times are a build-blocking issue — they're not stat tuning, they're friction in the win condition itself. An 18-hour player abandoning queue because of client-side stuttering means Bungie's losing retention on solid fundamentals, which is worse than any balance patch can fix. For time-constrained players especially, shaving those animations matters more than adding cosmetic layers.