Regardless of how good Indiana Jones and the Great Circle looked during last night's Gamescom appearance, one particular announcement has clearly overshadowed things. Of course, that's the fact that Microsoft is bringing the game to PS5 in Spring 2025 - just a few months after its Xbox release.
We're not surprised that this has become the hot topic in regards to Indy's upcoming adventure, for now at least. Earlier in 2024 we saw Team Xbox start to shift its strategy by bringing existing games to other console platforms, but this... this is something different. Microsoft has opted to announce a PS5 version of a huge first-party game before it's even launched on Xbox, and that's a bold move.
Sure, there's still a delay for PlayStation players here, but the fact that the community already knows about a PS5 port takes away much of the excitement about The Great Circle being an Xbox first-party release. In fact, aside from Xbox Game Pass — and a little bit of FOMO from waiting a few months — there really is no massive push from Microsoft to sell this as an Xbox game first and foremost.
And... maybe that's okay? Honestly, we're not quite sure at the moment - we're still processing the news and what it really means for the future of Xbox. While the brilliance of Xbox Game Pass and Microsoft's stacked first-party pipeline still has us excited for the future, we can't deny that this feels a little bit like Xbox's first big move towards becoming more of a platform-agnostic game publisher. Acknowledging and announcing a PS5 port pre-launch is certainly a move in that direction.
Ultimately, we have to continue with a 'wait and see' approach here, like we seem to be doing with Xbox a lot as of late. While the games keep flowing and Game Pass keeps growing, that approach is okay, but we do wonder how the team will position itself when it comes to the next generation. We know Xbox can build great hardware, but, will there be enough of an incentive to go out and buy a next-gen Xbox?
One other thing we want to mention here is that, emotions aside, an Indiana Jones game coming to multiple platforms does make a lot of sense. It's a hugely popular IP that already sells itself to PlayStation gamers, and maybe that's come into Microsoft's thinking here. At this point though, we're starting to think that anything is on the table - maybe even some of our classic, beloved Xbox IP. This is a bold step for Team Green, and we're intrigued to see how it all pans out.
We probably don't need to ask for them, but go ahead and drop your comments on this down below.
Comments 69
Bold step, or a foreboding sign for the future? Arguably, by far the biggest take away from last nights show was not what games were coming to the Xbox, but that an Xbox game is going to the PlayStation mere months after it releases on the Xbox.
So what has happened to the idea that Xbox exclusives will bring people into the Xbox ecosystem? How many PlayStation owners will go out and buy an Xbox in order to play Indiana Jones just a few months earlier than they can on the PlayStation? How many new subscribers will this bring to the Game Pass? The answer is clearly very few indeed, if any. It's as if Microsoft have completely given up on Xbox, and just see PlayStation as their most important market.
I made this point last night, but when it comes to the next generation, if, like me, you tend to buy both consoles, and they are £600 a piece, is it actually worth buying an Xbox as well as a PS6 at this point? And if enough people feel that way, then the number of subscribers to the Game Pass will take a hit too because owning an Xbox and subscribing to the Game Pass pretty much go hand in hand. It then follows that if the subscriber numbers fall too low for the Game Pass, then that service will suffer too, and even potentially cease.
Ultimately, it's one thing to plan to release the game on the PlayStation, but entirely another to allow that announcement to overshadow everything that is coming to the Xbox...
I mentioned on Push Square that I think bespoke hardware will be irrelevant after PS6 and the next Xbox. However, I think that Microsoft are in a strong position to win the next gen if they release a truly Windows based Xbox. Imagine a system that can play Steam, Xbox, Epic and PlayStation games VS PS6 tied solely to the PS Store.
After that I don't think either Sony or Microsoft will bother with actually manufacturing consoles at all. Plug and play PCs sat under a TV will be the norm.
the incentive to buy an xbox is gamepass and the savings versus buying $70 games on PS5.
people will keep whining online like they always do for minor things, but this doesn't change anything for me
Gonna keep xbox for cod and ubisoft plus. Going forward PS is my main console
I’ve said it elsewhere but I think Microsoft/xbox will do a rebranding at the end of this cycle.
I think it will just become Microsoft gaming and do away with the Xbox term.
I can understand why they are doing it. Because money. It’s the one and only answer.
It’s just (as always) a mess. Consumers don’t know where they stand. Fans don’t know what’s happening. So much rumour. So much negative press.
I just wonder how a multi trillion dollar company can operate so hap hazard.
Important to note that xbox does not own the Indiana Jones IP and is not necessarily in control of where this one landed. It is an assumption to say xbox made the decision when to launch on ps5 or when to announce it. I would pause on calling this "bold" as we can't confirm that it was even their call.
It will be fodder for the doomers but doesn't mean anything for the average xbox gamer.
As many others said, this is Microsoft Gaming and NOT Xbox. I don't understand how on Earth you manage to mess up things this bad... Xbox had a far superior start this gen with a better console plus a cheaper option. Not to mention the Bethesda acquisition etc etc. This will be my first and final Xbox console. What a joke this company has turned into!
I've already put Indianna Jones in my PS5 wishlist for when the date drops. I'll just wait for it there.
@BacklogBrad
I said this yesterday as you did. For all we know without official word Disney might have stepped in and changed the terms of the exclusivity deal. or maybe not. No one knows.
@BacklogBrad It was in the FTC docs that Microsoft had negotiated for Indy to be Xbox consoles only. This is their decision.
@Fiendish-Beaver I have bought both "hardcore" consoles since I was old enough to have a job. I just don't know what microsofts plan is next generation. As all generations up until now, I enjoyed the competition between Xbox and PlayStation. I liked the exclusives that both had. Next generation might be a PlayStation only affair for me and maybe a Nintendo console instead of Xbox. Which would be a first for me.
@demian for argument sake.
Series X (I won’t use an S which is a good console but because comparisons should be like for like) is £480 GPU is £15 a month (I also won’t use rewards/3rd party sellers because it’s too variable) so £180 per year. You would assume most people stay subbed to GPU pretty much yearly.
So so far this generation it’s £480. + £600 for GPU (I’ve lowered the figure because it’s not been £15 a month yet) so £1080.
If I already have a ps5 I could buy 18 Xbox first party games for the cost of buying a second console and GPU. That’s without waiting for a discount.
Yes GPU offers more than just first party but over the course of a generation most games end up on GP and Plus. And obviously to savvy customers there are 3rd party sites etc, but this is slowly vanishing in value.
Guess games are expensive to make so possibly their idea was keep the games on game pass for Xbox and then recoup as much as possible from ps sales.
So pretty much that the games like this that go to both the ps players are paying for Xbox players to get it on game pass.
This is a great move for Microsoft, terrible move for Xbox. Confirming a PS5 release before the game is even out creates the expectation that if you don't have an Xbox and if there's an Xbox game you want to play... just wait.
And gamers are happy to wait for sales and possible GP/PSN+ releases, so waiting so they don't have to drop cash on a different consoles is going to be easy.
As I noted the other day. I fully support a platform agnostic future, but being the only company offering up its first party games ISNT that.
It seems pretty clear that the XBOX ecosystem as it existed in the past is going away. In the future, there will likely be some type of device that is called an XBOX but it won't be the type of traditional console ecosystem that we are all familiar with.
Microsoft gaming is clearly going in a different direction. They are probably saying as little as possible right now because they don't want to hurt console or software sales in the short-term.
@Kezelpaso they had a deal with bethesda for multiple platforms and then amended it after the acquisition. FTC stated Disney still had "questions" regarding console exclusivity.
How can you say definitively that it was not disney requesting it be amended again? Disney easily could have pushed for it to be multiplat again especially after seeing xbox open up to the idea of multiplatform since then.
These are things we will probably never know but I dont think it helps to use this example as a template or evidence of a "bold new step."
To appreciate the scale of this move consider this:
3rd party timed exclusives on PS and Nintendo and even Xbox do not announce the existence, let alone release window of other platform ports until after the exclusivity period expires.
Sony does not release even PC ports of exclusives for at least a year currently.
Microsoft announced the PS port along with their own XB date, put a time window on it, and it's only 6 months+ exclusivity. For their own first party game.
Even as someone that likes the idea of ending exclusives, and understands exclusives are not what sells consoles anymore, even Sony, that's a massive self destruct button. They can' not really provide a compelling reason to play on their platform instead of competitors. That's a problem. "Game Pass' but that has, clearly, not resonated with consumers as a successful enough reason alone.
@GADG3Tx87 zero chance. Not even Disney would test a deal they signed with Microsoft. This was just Microsoft realizing they would make a ton of money by releasing this game everywhere.
I thought they said "when looking at games to bring to playstation we looked at games that were over a year old, and/or small passion projects that made sense". They need to stop talking cause within months they just end up reversing whatever they say.
@BacklogBrad To be fair yeah, I can't definitively say it either way - none of us can. It just feels like it'd be a huge coincidence to not be Xbox's decision considering everything else that's going on.
@Fiendish-Beaver same, with regards to owning both consoles. However, I sold my series x last year and bought a pc. I still have my ps5, but will probably sell that this year too.
If you live in the uk, I’m not sure there is much of a reason to get an Xbox over a PlayStation. There’s a third party company called boomerang rentals that allows physical game rentals on ps5, switch and Xbox for a similar price to gamepass premium.
The only thing you appear to be missing out on with an Xbox is day one timed exclusivity of titles and a 10% discount on digital copies of games that appear on the service with an active gamepass membership.
Id be very hard pushed to recommend an Xbox over a PlayStation right now, sadly.
@demian Gamepass is on PC. With free online, and costs less. If anything, Gamepass is an incentive to skip Xbox and get a PC.
@Fiendish-Beaver Agreed. If there is no incentive to buy Xbox, it goes away and Microsoft goes 100% publisher. Less hardware equals less completion and that is never good for a market.
They're probably gonna make more money selling the game than selling consoles if it stayed exclusive.
@FatGuyInLilCoat While nobody knows what's going on, stopping talking would be catastrophic. They need to just stop openly lying.
@BacklogBrad If a contract was in place for exclusivity (it was), if some new row appeared that caused Disney to bluster over it ex post facto, it would be due to cratering platform sales and open retreat in most markets that aren't America, and thus insufficient distribution market since the deal was inked. It's still on MS for wetting the green bed.
@abe_hikura Worse, with this and Doom, the two biggest Xbox releases this year both confirmed to PS5 before launch, even if they're special cases, it not only sets an expectation it'll all come to PS, but they've also shot their credibility so even if they say a game won't, everyone will still expect it will. And it probably will.
Xbox has become my Gamepass machine officially, and only because I stacked up until mid 2027. No need to spend a dime in a doomed library. All my multiplatform purchases will be done on PS5 from now on.
For all the "no incentive to buy an xbox" comments. Did you not see xbox survive for 15+ years while having next to zero internal studios? Their hardware sold well enough on the backs of halo, gears, and forza for along time. I don't see how having more exclusives than before but also releasing some games everywhere makes there less incentive to buy an xbox.
It kind of seems like people haven't grasped the volume of studios and IP they have. How many games have released or been announced without mentioning ps5? Don't jump to the conclusion that all games will be on ps5.
Coupling the "every game is going to ps5" assumption with the constant "Phil lied 8 years ago" mentality, I assume people also believe that this strategy of releasing some games on ps5 is set in stone. They can reverse this tomorrow if it actually harms their xbox business (it wont). How many exclusives does Valve make for the Steam Deck?
Moves like this makes perfect sense. The install base of PlayStation is massive compared to that of Xbox and it's growing. Microsoft have realised this and realised they can't change it now. They have games PlayStation owners want and they know PlayStation owners wont buy an Xbox for a small of exclusive games. Releasing multiplatform going forward means they can probably double, triple or even quadruple software sales by tapping into the Playstation market. It could spark the beginning of the end of Xbox as a console manufacturer (that would be bad for the industry) but they're profit will certainly get a massive boost as a game publisher instead. Xbox only players may not like this, but they need to remember regardless of any messages saying gamers are important to Microsoft, their sole aim is to make profit and you can guarantee they will do whatever is necessary to make that profit regardless of your feelings.
Guess we have to get used to the biggest XBox announcements being about PS and not their own ecosystem (which at this point is basically a dead man walking).
@BacklogBrad at this point it’s bold to assume all those games will remain exclusive and not get a superior version on Sony‘s hardware.
@BacklogBrad and don’t be so naive that once some games have gone, the rest won’t follow. In Feb Phil said Indiana jones wasn’t going to ps5, by August it is.
Fanboys said no games will come, rumours are a lie, they then said it’s only 4 old games no big ones will, now doom and Indy are announced it’s ’they won’t let any Xbox franchises like halo go’. Yet slowly they are being disproved.
A trajectory has started and we can all see where it’s going.
The incentive to own an Xbox is dropping daily. It’s also backed up by figures. Sales are tumbling. It’s not hyperbole it’s not railing on MS it is what is happening.
It’s not harming MS bottom line at all. They get more money doing this, it’s 100% understandable. They can do away with expensive hardware R&D, losing money on each console etc. but it harms us enthusiasts. Sony being the only manufacturer is not good.
Sure there’s Play anywhere but it’s currently just not as good to do.
@BacklogBrad they may have survived on the back of Forza, Halo and Gears for 15+ years but the most recent entries in all 3 of those IP's are nowhere near the standard of the games that propelled them to the top. Xbox are losing ground everywhere to PlayStation and throwing money at the problem, e.g. buying Activitision, is not going to solve it and I think the backlash from people thinking CoD would stop being multiplatform showed them that having exclusivity on games wont help them in the long run either. So yes, while they have been propped up by Forza, Halo and Gears, that is no longer the case and they can't depend on that anymore
@PsBoxSwitchOwner you're misquoting him.
Phil said indy was not part of the 4 games being announced then. He specifically did not rule out future plans for any game.
Indiana Jones is a pretty niche franchise, or at least hasn't been good in decades. If it was ever considered a console exclusive on any platform would've been a risky choice. Still not sure how a game got greenlit or wasn't canceled after the last last movie. But I would lovet to be proved wrong. Game looks nice afterall.
@FuzzieGinge88 losing ground to playstation does not equal xbox is going away. It never has and never will.
(Playstation has its own issues right now with their massive exclusives not making much profit.
We will see where that leads in the future.)
@DarkCvrle I made the switch earlier this year when I saw the writing on the wall
This ball game is ovah!
@Reptilio amen brother
Personally I don't care if it comes out on PS5. Makes no difference to me playing it. I'm also not having to pay £70 for it. These console wars are just childish. We are gamers. Who cares what platform it is. We just want to play games.
Halo. Gears. Forza. Fable... any official announcement of them for PS is the signal for me to stop spending money on Xbox as it'll be the end of the console.
"Don't jump to the conclusion that all games will be on ps5."
@BacklogBrad
That's exactly what people will do. If you do it once, there's no reason to think they won't do it again.
I know MS will thrive because of this tactic because the PS base is too big to not to take into account. Non Game Pass subscribers will rethink what there main console will be though.
Spencer retweeted that from today there are 3 new consoles available to purchase. The comments on there say a lot ...
@Kezelpaso Once they said it was exclusive the deal was done. Things like that don't change overnight. I agree that MS made the decision by seeing the sales of the already released games on PS5. As a business it even makes sense but (new) people will think twice before buying Xbox hardware imo
Self immolation is bold, yes.
How it has all come crashing down in such a short timespan is beyond me. To think this is probably a direct result of the Activision Blizzard acquisition that so many here championed (and will now be paying the COD tax in their increased Game Pass sub prices). Game Pass tiers, clumsy console branding this gen, making fridges, toasters and more gamepads than first party games. Yeah, Xbox in a nutshell. I will still be playing Xbox/Microsoft Gaming games but on different platforms. Don’t care about subscriptions so Game Pass is no incentive to me. To each their own, but this is the last thing I expected when I bought a Series X at launch (glad I got rid of a long time ago).
What I'm interested in though is how long it takes (and costs) to port a game from Xbox to PS5 for instance? Is it a special (small) team of the OG devs or do they outsource this?
Actually, @BacklogBrad and @GADG3Tx87, this decision was entirely in the gift of Microsoft. The FTC Court documents showed that Microsoft had renegotiated the agreement with Disney. The agreement they signed with Disney was for the game to be exclusive to the Xbox. So, there was either a clause that allowed them to port it to the PlayStation, or Microsoft renegotiated the deal in order to enable them to do so. Either way, the decision was made by Microsoft and no one else. They did not have to do this, they chose too...
@Fiendish-Beaver
With all your wise words yesterday and today.
Do you think there will be another Xbox console.
That is the issue for me as you know.
I prefer the series x hardware to the PS5 and the Xbox controller in the hand.
But I can keep putting money into third party games on Xbox, say SW outlaws and the new AC in November, if I feel I will not a next generation Xbox console.
The same goes for continuing my GPU subscription after March 2025.
Would have been better if Phil had mention that today.
@Fiendish-Beaver the deal was amended once already as it was originally in place with bethesda to be multiplat. We can't really say that Disney didn't put pressure on them for the second amendment to their deal going back to the original multiplatform strategy. The FTC lawyer made it clear that Disney was still questioning the exclusive strategy at the time of the trial. The verbiage around the trial doesn't even technically rule out it just being a timed exclusive (admittedly unlikely that they wouldnt clarify but its not that uncommon for timed exclusives to be marketed as fully exclusive).
If you want to believe that microsoft made this decision alone, that is up to you. We can't say for sure what happened here. All we can do is speculate.
Whilst I agree with you, @FatGuyInLilCoat, the statement you quoted was made by Phil Spencer, I believe, and therein lies the problem, because he is no longer in charge, thus anything he said in the past is entirely irrelevant now. It is also most likely the reason we have not seen him in months, which is really odd for a guy we used to see and hear from most weeks...
I think you are misunderstanding the issue, @Deformedpye. It's not a question of console wars, it's actually more of a question of whether there exists any reason to own an Xbox console next generation.
If you've got an Xbox right now and a GPU subscription, then that's one thing, but looking ahead, what does a move such as this spell for Xbox as a console next generation. Is there really any point in investing £600+ in an Xbox console when their games are going to the PlayStation, and if you invest in a PS6 you will also get all the Sony exclusives?
The issue is that once the contract is signed, both parties are locked into whatever was agreed, @BacklogBrad. Disney could have moaned about it until the cows came home, but the contract would have been watertight and they could have done nothing other than moan once it was signed. The only other possibility is that there was a 'sales' target in place, but as the game had not released there was no way of failing to hit that target yet. Yes, Microsoft could have come to the conclusion that they could not hit that target, and thus changed the contract, but the reality is, the decision would still have been theirs to make. Had the game failed to hit the target of units sold / money made, it would have been on Microsoft to compensate Disney. Ultimately, whatever has gone on behind the scenes, it will still have been Microsoft that changed the deal, and taken the game multiplatform, not Disney. After all, for all we know, the game may have sold many, many millions on the PC, so this is far more likely to have been Microsoft changing the deal the Xbox made because Microsoft want to tap into the PlayStation sales, whereas Xbox were thinking this is good for Xbox, which Microsoft cares much less about. For Microsoft it is all about profit, and there is more of that to be made, in the short-term, by selling the game on the PlayStation too...
@Fiendish-Beaver clearly the deal is not final as it was reworked once already from the original multiplat deal that bethesda signed with Disney.
Disney could have heard the comments from xbox about some other games going multiplat and asked to rework their deal (kick in more money).
But we will never know the full details of what the contract is or was. So speculate to your hearts content. The point I'm making is that it is not a good idea to speculate their future plans based on what happens with an IP they do not own.
Wasn't doom the dark ages technically the first time xbox announced a 1st party game for ps5 before it was launched on xbox. What makes this case different?
Yes, @BacklogBrad, the deal was renegotiated with Disney. The way that worked would have involved Microsoft throwing a boatload of cash at Disney to allow them to have it as a console exclusive. Disney would not have thrown money at Microsoft to allow that to happen, they would have been the recipient of a lot of money to make the deal happen.
So, unless Disney went to Microsoft, and offered them even more money to change the deal, then the only way it was changed to what we have now is through Microsoft either agreeing to amend the contract, or there being a clause in the contract that allowed them to go multiplatform. Either way, it was down to Microsoft to change the contract. There literally would have been nothing that Disney could have done to change the contract once they signed it. This was entirely Microsoft's decision. They did not have to do so. They chose to...
@Fiendish-Beaver that's not necessarily the case, there are plenty of other ways to negotiate these deals. Disney as we all know has some of the best IP in the world. We also know xbox has a deal in place for Blade (owned by disney). Maybe they even have another disney game in the works. Who knows, Disney wants more games and xbox has the studios.
Like I said, feel free to make these assumptions but that's all they are. We don't know and won't know what this deal looked like.
Is Indiana a sign that all future games will be going multiplatform, @BacklogBrad? No! It absolutely isn't. I'd even dare to suggest that when Starfield goes over later this year, you could argue that it was a game that was always destined to go to the PlayStation. In view of the fact that 3 years of development time on the game was done under the ownership of Microsoft, does stretch the credibility of that argument, but nonetheless, you could get away with making that claim.
Then you have the likes of Hellblade 2, and even then, that would not signify that all games are going over, as you can argue that the first game was already on the PlayStation, and thus on that basis, there is what could be considered to be an existing fanbase for the game. The same is true of Doom.
Porting the likes of Sea of Thieves can be argued was due to needing new players in order to keep the game alive, and so isn't necessarily a sign of things to come. The porting of Hi-Fi Rush, which was a genuine hit for Xbox, is a more questionable move.
So, what that then means is that if any game that has pretty much / or entirely been developed under Xbox leadership, or was never previously announced as going to the PlayStation, or has no prior connection to the PlayStation by virtue of a previous entry having been available on that platform, goes to the PlayStation, then at that point you can legitimately question whether that will be true of all Xbox games. Until that point, there will always be arguments, no matter how tenuous, that there is a reason for a game going to the PlayStation. With regards to Indiana, that is that is was initially intended to go to the PlayStation, even though we are now 3 years later, and there is also that it is a widely recognised IP that maybe deemed unfair to keep from the PlayStation crowd (though you then have to ignore the fact that is precisely what Sony does with Spiderman)...
I get what you are saying, @BacklogBrad, but whilst we do not know the ins and outs of the deal, we do know that for a deal to be changed it needs the consent of both parties. Disney may have taken the proposal to Microsoft, but it would still have required the consent of Microsoft for that to happen. Microsoft could just have easily have said no.
As for other IPs, yes, something like Blade could have sweetened the deal for Microsoft, but it still required Microsoft to agree the change of the contract. Disney could not have unilaterally changed the deal...
@Fiendish-Beaver i don't think I ever said it was solely Disney's changing the deal. But if it is them offering to sweeten the deal to make it multiplat (which is just a possibilty). I would argue that it was them making the "decision."
My original post was to say that it's not a good idea to say it's a bold new direction for xbox based off of what they do with someone else's property.
It's a done deal it seems like for exclusives on Xbox going forward.
Phil should just resign instead seeing this through, why build an Xbox for the next gen when you can just create the game and put on some else console/PC.
@FakeSunkist Spencer has made the right decision, if Microsoft did not buy Bethesda this game would likely of been exclusive for a year on PS5, remember Sony were paying for year long exclusives of Bethesda games I. E. Deathloop, Ghostwire Tokyo and they would of had Starfield as well if Microsoft didn't step in.
I don't see anything wrong here.
MS makes their games available mostly on XB first. Then, on other platforms. The MS games are available on GamePass day one which is a huge benefit. On the other platforms, gamers are paying to play each game.
This gives MS more dollars as profit and to invest in making games better as well. I don't see where XB gamers are losing at all.
This multi-platform thing was inevitable I think both Sony and Nintendo will eventually have to go here too. If they don't their games won't sell as well and their games will take longer and longer to make or they will have to charge more and more to look as profitable as MS.
Shareholders don't care about console exclusives. They care about how much money they get on their investment. And if MS is making more because their games are multi-platform then shareholders are going to demand the same from Sony and Nintendo. It is that simple.
It's hilarious watching people whine so much about something that just does not affect them. "Oh no! This game that I can play on release is going to another console so other people can enjoy the game too! Oh no, it's also bringing in more revenue for Xbox! Oh no! Xbox is going to have more money to do cool things with! How terrible!"
Console fanboys (and to be fair, fanboys as a whole) are an utter cancer. Play the console you want to play on, if you're having fun playing the games you want to play why the hell does it matter what other people are playing on where?
Nintendo will never for multi platform. I just can’t see a need for them to do so, although o do think they will struggle to sell the Switch 2 up against handheld PC’s. It’s USP is dwindling now so it’s gonna be a much harder sell this time around.
Xbox is essentially trying to put the pressure on Sony to make their games available on other platforms as well. Phil Spencer wants to be seen as the guy who made gaming available to everyone but he’s doing it for his ego not for gaming.
I suspect that the next gen Xbox we heard about from Sarah Bond will be canned fairly soon as well. Now that Phil has given the full direction of Xbox being to go fully multi platform, it doesn’t matter how powerful whatever she was talking about might be, because it will be pointless now.
I don’t think the announcement about it being canned will be all that far away either.
I'm really an Xbox and Nintendo fan. Certain Xbox games going to other options doesn't really bother me too much. I do hope that eventually PlayStation will start to move some of their first part IPs to other consoles.
Removed - inappropriate language
@PsBoxSwitchOwner yeah but you can always buy from a 3rd party and upgrade with $1 to ultimate, so in practice its much less than that. I like Microsoft a lot but that's what I'm doing
with GP you would also be able to try hundreds more games, that you couldn't possibly buy on Ps.
imho it's exactly like streaming services, I prefer paying for Max and prime and get dozens of content rather than buying individual series
@InterceptorAlpha a gaming PC is much more expensive than an xbox though and will become irrelevant faster than an xbox that lasts for 6-7 years
@demian Well that's just factually incorrect. And incorrect informarion like this is why people buy consoles.
My last PC I built cost 1.5x a console. And remained running games at higher settings than consoles for 2.5 console generations. It was only at that point that I had to even lower settings. It was only at point that it was old enough to be on par with consoles.
My current build, also about 1.5x a console, is already running games 3-4x better than what console hardware does.
In addition to that, on PC I can use virtual reality to its fullest and even my VR treadmill. Something I cannot do on console either.
have they forgotten that the idea of having a platform is to take a cut on every 3rd party content and make first party as incentive to bring people on said platform? How many copies of Indiana Jones do you need to sell on Ps5 to make up for all the loss of not selling consoles? They won’t subscribe to Gamepass on PlayStation, they won’t spend money on your store…
What’s sad is that they were RiGHT THERE on the edge of having an overwhelming amount of content that had the potential of bringing people in, as long as they were exclusive. It’s sad they gave up on competition.
@InterceptorAlpha 1.5x a console. Even assuming you're talking Series X, that means your rig cost only $500 or so and can run games 2.5x faster than Series X. Don't believe you.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...