Topic: General Xbox Series X|S Thread

@Grumblevolcano Actually I'm not worried at all. Since they switched from the 'Console' gaming side Project that Xbox was to Microsoft, the MS that 'screwed' up with Rare, Lionhead etc and cancelling Fable Legends and Scalebound to Phil Spencer with the FULL support of Microsoft and Game Pass as its main focus, I have NOT been concerned at all.

Game Pass takes away that 'commercial success' viability decision from the equation and now puts the 'focus' on Players. Its not 'which' project could 'sell' more or stifling creative 'freedom' because someone thinks it won't 'sell 'enough, it allows for 'experimentation' - put it on Game Pass and let the Gamers play it - they will let you know if they want 'more' or not.

Game Pass also needs at least 1 big game 'EVERY' month to bring in new Subscribers. They need big games every month so those people want to remain Subscribed. IP's will bring them in, but 'great' games will keep them subscribed. Therefore, these studio's will need to be working on their OWN projects - whether 'new' IP's or games from their 'existing' portfolio of growing IP's. 343 is 'Halo', the Coalition has Gears and Turn 10/Playground have Forza and these studio's will continue to be the 'main' studio's for those games - although another studio may have a great idea for a 'spin-off' project.

Anyway, the point is, they want Studio's making their OWN games with their OWN studio Identity. Ninja Theory, Compulsion, Rare, Mojang, Undead Labs, inXile, Obsidian are ALL making their 'own' games in their 'own' style. When MS bought Bethesda, each of those Studio's have their 'own' games in their 'own' style too - Elder Scrolls, Fallout and Starfield are all 'typical' Bethesda games, Arcane make their own games too. Therefore it stands to reason that MS will want ALL the Game Studio's at Activision/Blizzard making their 'own' games - not ALL now working on CoD. They want to foster and grow great communities around gaming so want to keep 'CoD, Gears, Halo etc communities growing.

One of the reasons I think CoD MP will go F2P is because its all about the 'CoD' community. They don't want to 'split' that Community between Game Pass platforms and Playstation, don't really want to split the Community by those playing the latest, and those still stuck with last years and would want to 'encourage' more to jump in so remove the price point to entry. Of course the F2P model will have monetised 'features' like BattlePass, CoD Points for Cosmetic purchases etc but being F2P on EVERY platform removes ANY barrier to entry and won't split the Community every year as ALL updates, ALL Maps, Modes etc will be available to 'EVERYONE' at the 'same' time. No 'ONLY on Playstation 'modes', or 'early access' to Maps to PS owners...

Maybe one of the 'Activision' Studio's will become like 343, the Coalition - basically in charge of CoD Online to run for the 'CoD Community' - in charge of MP, Warzone and all ONLINE CoD. For example, Raven could take on CoD (or make a Studio staffed by 'ex Infinity Ward, Treyarch etc Devs that want to work on CoD) and then the rest of the studio's/staff will be 'free' to make the Games they want. Treyarch could make a new Zombies game like CoD:Zombies but without having to go the WW2 Nazi Origin route to fit the 'CoD' theme Exclusively for Game Pass. Infinity Ward may want a break from making a Military First Person campaign and make a 3rd Person Action Adventure, Sledgehammer may have an Idea for a new IP, High Moon may want to work on their old Darkwatch IP, Beenox or Toys for Bob could make a Kart Racer/Smash Bros/Party games with characters from Spyro, Crash, Psychonauts, Conker, Banjo, Warcraft, Starcraft, CoD, Doom, Quake, Halo, Perfect Dark, Wolfenstein, Skyrim, Fallout, Fable etc etc

The Game Pass model and MS's own statements is all about giving 'individual' studio's the 'creative' freedom to make the games they want, the financial and expert support to realise those ideas and a platform to reach as many players as they can. Its not about making 'commercially' successful games because SALES are not that important. Its about Subscriber Growth, Subscriber Retention and Player engagement. They don't just want you to subscribe for 1 month but once you Subscribe, you stay subscribed and the only way to do that is to make games that people want to play EVERY month on Game Pass. There is 'NO' pressure to make a 'new' Gears/Halo etc game EVERY year, but those games are still important to the Coalition/343 etc but also not going to 'force' them to make 'new' games - they can take a break and work on some other projects. If those Studio's have a great idea for a 'new' game that may well fit an IP, they will probably be given the opportunity to do so..

Therefore, I am NOT concerned at all. Machine Games are working on Indiana Jones and maybe won't revisit Wolfenstein for a while, but maybe Sledgehammer or Infinity Ward has an idea for a 'Wolfenstein' game instead of 'CoD' so they make the 'next' one - with 'support' from Machine (assets, artwork, lore etc).

Since MS switched focus to the Game Pass model, I have not had any concern about the 'future' of those IP's and/or the future of those Studio's. Its set up so that 'individual' studio's making their 'own' games have a platform that is focussed purely on the 'gamer' so Player 'engagement' and 'Retention' so Subscriber numbers 'grow' is far more important than making a 'game' just because the 'name' sells. 30+ studio's is 30+ new games coming. If a new 'Gears' is 3yrs away, there is games coming from ALL those other studio's, games that Xbox Publishing will bring (like Contraband) and then, if they still have 'months' where NO Xbox Published game (1st or 3rd Party) is due to release, contact other publishers who have a game releasing (like MLB, Outriders etc). Of course they want to be 'self sufficient' - in other words at least 12 big Xbox Published games every year for Game Pass. They want you to Subscribe to play Treyarch, Bethesda, Arcane, Rare etc games - like people buying a PS5 for Naughty Dog, Guerilla, Insomniac etc games as much as subscribing for 'IP's...

@LtSarge Activision is a Publisher as well as Manufacturer of games - just like MS, Sony, Nintendo TenCent, EA, Square Enix, Capcom, Bandai Namco, Sega, TakeTwo, Ubisoft etc and as Gaming isn't 'just' Consoles and includes Zynga, Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple too, there is NO chance of MS becoming a Monopoly. MS could buy EA and Ubisoft and still not risk being a Monopoly. When it gets down to 3 or 4 companies owning 'EVERY' Gaming Studio, then Monopolies may well come into play.

Its not MS that will 'stop' games releasing on Playstation, it will be Sony refusing MS to put their Game Pass app on their Playstation hardware. If Sony were to take MS to a judicial court over keeping well loved and respected IP's off of Sony's Hardware, MS can turn around and say we want Game Pass on Sony so their 'gamers' can play. MS's mission statement is they want these games EVERYWHERE Game Pass exists which is 'EVERYWHERE' except PS/Switch hardware. Every time MS acquires 'new' studio's and/or announces 'new' games, its always available Day1 where Game Pass exists, its Exclusive where Game Pass exists - its basically saying, it will be available on PS/Nintendo IF they allow us to put Game Pass on their Hardware.

The mentality of 'some' is still somewhat stuck in the 'past' with older more traditional business models. That being why would MS want Game Pass on Sony as that would impact their own sales of Series S/X hardware - wrong!! Game Pass on PS would have to be predominantly streaming because no 'Port' to PS5 version of Starfield will 'exist' - it would run on Series X hardware in the cloud and stream at 1080/60 to PS5 so the 'best' Console version will be Series X at 4k, and even the Series S at 1440p would be 'better' and both offer the option to 'download' and play -but you could also carry on playing on a PS5 through streaming. Sony's Spartacus could do the same with their 'games' to on Xbox and whilst that may seem counter productive to Sony, the 'native' support, playing H:ZD, GoW etc on their own hardware instead of only being able to play via streaming and of course Sony's PSVR2 still give Sony its Unique Selling Point. Nintendo's USP is the Portability of the Switch which would really help both Game Pass and Nintendo - bringing great games that would never release on Hardware that can't run it so boosting Switch's Library and Sales as people may buy it for Game Pass on the Go.

Ultimately MS sees Nintendo and Sony as 'Partners' not Competition. They see Nintendo and Sony as part of the 'status quo' of gaming today and want that to remain. They want Game Pass on their hardware and creating the 'games' and unique experiences not 'disappear' to a service driven by Money and Consumerism that Google, Amazon and Apple are looking at - keep the creative freedom and uniqueness that individual Studio's and Platforms bring. They love the idea that Sony created Haptic Feedback, PSVR and GotY games, love what Nintendo offer etc.

I think the ultimate aim will be to get Game Pass on Sony/Nintendo hardware.

@BAMozzy Yes I know, but just like Brittney explained it in the video I posted, Microsoft is not seen as a company on the same level as Activision Blizzard in the legal world even though they both make games. I obviously don't know if this is true or not but I still thought it's an interesting thing to point out.

Hi everyone, just signed up here. Got the Xbox series X yesterday and wanted to check some recommended games. Got gamepass and tried out Forza horizon 5 and Halo infinite. I’m impressed so far, great games! Looking for a solid plattformer and an rpg also. Other great games tips are welcome too of course. Thanks in advance!

@Goldbox I have yet to play it, but Psychonauts 2 is supposed to be very good and should cover your itch for a platformer. The original from back on the original Xbox is also on there of course if you haven't played that either. As for an RPG, there's a lot on there. For modern ones, The Outer Worlds is solid. Older classics such Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, Oblivion, and of course the Mass Effect trilogy via the recently added Mass Effect Legendary Edition are all highly recommended.

@KilloWertz
Thanks, will definitely check them out starting with psychonauts and oblivion!

So I went back to Shadow of the Tomb Raider and it's a massive upgrade on Series X compared to when I was playing on the original XB1 last year. A lot more stable and honestly is one of the best looking games I've played on my Series X. I know of course Series X games would look better on a better TV (my current one is like 7 years old) but I have no intention of upgrading my TV.

@Grumblevolcano The Tomb Raider games were some of the best looking games of the Generation and still impressive by the latest standards. The 'leap' for me wasn't as impressive as I came from the XB1X to Series X and have one of the best 4k HDR displays of 2016 (yes its coming up to 6yrs old now and therefore is lacking 'some' modern features like HDMI 2.1 so no 4k/120, no VRR etc, but still one of the 'best' HDR displays that 'cheaper' more modern TV's can't match). That being said, I think its still one of the best looking games of the generation and a great trilogy of games too...

@BAMozzy I forgot 4k HDR was a thing back then, I thought saying how old my TV was would be enough to get across the impression that a current 4K display would be gigantic upgrade. It's very basic 23 inch LED; 1080p; has HDMI, SCART, component and RCA ports.

The advantage of having such an old TV is that Switch games look good, I have heard that Switch games don't look particularly well on large and 4k displays.

@Grumblevolcano That was basically the first year of HDR10 specs when you had TV's that were 'HDR Premium' certified (min black levels, min brightness, min 'colour' range gamuts) but things like VRR, HLG, HDR10+ etc were not around. I bought my first 4k TV in 2014. Most 4k 'HDR' TV's for the first few years were nothing more than 'SDR' TV's with the brightness turned up to max and barely much brighter too but at least you 'could' watch HDR content without getting a 'black' screen or error message because the TV doesn't 'recognise' the HDR content.

When you have a '1080p' display with '4k' content, you have 4 'game' pixels to every 1 pixel the TV can display. Super Sampling would look at those 4 pixels, the 'colour' and decide what colour 'best' suits that '1' pixel. Two perfect Black and two perfect white game pixels may end up as a medium grey pixel because the average colour over the '4' pixels is grey. However, you are getting '4' pixels of information to try and make that '1' pixel the best colour it can be.

However,when you have 1080p game on a '4k' display, they don't use '4' display pixels as '1', they spread the 1080p image out across the whole displays pixel grid and interpolate. A single Black game pixel next to a single white pixel at 1080p gives a 'sharp' edge due to that contrast difference. But when 'spread' out to fill a 4k pixel grid, that leaves a 'small' pixel between the black and white game pixel that 'could' be any colour at 4k but without the 'information', the 'native' pixels around it are sampled (which are 'black and white' in this example) and a 'colour' is assigned (which would be medium grey) which is why things start to look much 'softer'. Those 'sharp' contrast edges now have reduced contrast edges so look much softer. This is more obvious on larger screens too as we tend to see with most 4k TV's in peoples homes. At 1080p, only 25% of the pixels are 'native' - the other 75% have been 'interpolated' from those.

Its the same as trying to compare '520p' content on your 1080p screen. Even 720p content, which is the equivalent of 1440p on a 4k Display, looks 'softer' on your HD TV. The XB1S and Switch in docked modes are often 'below' 1080p - 900p for example is like 450p on a 1080p in terms of upscaling and 720p, is like 360p on your HD TV. It doesn't look as bad, because 720p has 4x the information to begin with and 4k TV's at the 'same' size has smaller pixels so the difference isn't quite so bad, but, in terms of scaling, the image has to be scaled up the same percentage. The Switch on 4k TV's would be like having a 360-540p (sometimes dropping even lower) handheld 360p screen device running on your HD TV which is 'why' its often said that 'games' really don't look as 'good' as they do on HD TV's.

Great interview with Tim Schafer (Double Fine) which also talks about the MS acquisition, what its 'meant' to Double Fine and how they are 'operating' and allowing their studios creative freedom, supporting them to realise their ambition.

Microsoft’s video game subscription service Xbox Game Pass may be a fantastic value for money offer for Xbox gamers, but many have wondered where the profit is for Microsoft. Unsurprisingly, there isn’t much.

Speaking on an episode of the What’s Good Games podcast (July 20), Xbox marketing general manager Aaron Greenberg explained that, while the subscription service isn’t extremely profitable, Microsoft is in a very early privileged position where they don’t need to worry about short term profits.

“It’s a different mindset, because if you do optimise for profit… you can either say, “How do we get as much profit out of each customer?’ Or, do you pivot that [to its] opposite and say, ‘How do we add as much value to our fans, how can we actually over-deliver on value? And if you do that, you build fans for life.”

“Ultimately, we think long term that’s the right thing for the business, and will have long-term benefits for us. But, in the short term, yeah, it’s not a big profit play.”

By over-delivering on 'Value', MS have 'fans for life' who want to tell their friends, family and everyone who'll listen about Game Pass.

Even back in 2020, Game Pass was 'profitable' but not a 'big' profit service.

@BAMozzy I think you'd enjoy reading this article if you haven't already: https://www.axios.com/microsoft-activision-blizzard-phil-spen...

"Spencer maintains Microsoft's bid was greatly influenced by the completion of the company’s $7.5-billion-dollar ZeniMax/Bethesda gaming deal in early 2021. “The board of Microsoft, on the day that we got approval for ZeniMax, asked, 'What was next?'”

It genuinely sounds like the upper management at Microsoft isn't that bothered by profits for Xbox right now because they see huge opportunities with video games in general that they want to keep acquiring more companies. It's crazy to think that Phil has managed to convince Satya and all the other execs with his vision. I mean, just look at how much they spent on the Activision Blizzard deal. That to me is a strong indication that the higher-ups at Microsoft are completely on board with Phil's plans for Xbox.

@LtSarge What I find interesting about the statement that it was 'profitable' back in July 20 when this came out, was that at the time, Game Pass had between 10-15m Subscribers.

In the Q3 2020 earnings call in April 2020, Microsoft reported that there were over 10 million Xbox Game Pass subscribers. By September 2020, it had reached 15 million subscribers, 18 million by January 2021 and greater than 25 million by January 2022.

So with more than 'double' that number now in less than 2yrs, it shows good growth. Game Pass isn't yet 5yrs old and much of the investment into Studio's came later. That, plus the growth in the Gaming industry overall is a good reason for Microsoft as a primarily 'Software' Company and who want to champion their 'Cloud' services to be fully committed to gaming instead of keeping it as a 'side' project.

Cloud Gaming is perhaps the 'toughest' test for a 'Cloud' based solution as it means running extremely intensive 'software' in the cloud but also to have minimal latency to actually 'play'. It doesn't matter too much if MS Word has a bit more latency when typing, but if your game doesn't respond 'quickly' enough, it becomes unplayable. So if you can get high quality games running in the cloud with a 'minimal' increase to latency at worst, it helps promote MS's Cloud.

So it makes even more sense for MS as a 'corporation' to invest in 'Software' and 'Services' that ultimately also benefit their 'cloud' ambitions. As I have said, the Xbox 'Consoles' are NOT MS's primary gaming focus. They are a bit like 'Surface' is to their 'Windows' software. Their Primary platform is Game Pass, which does benefit their 'console' too as those games will release on that console exclusively, but its playable on a PC and/or iOS/Android powered Mobiles/Tablets too.

Microsoft would know they need 'big' games in Game Pass every month to attract and keep subscribers. Therefore they 'need' a minimum of 12 games a year and if you can make all those in house, then you don't need to negotiate with outside Publishers who want their profits too. They also have Xbox Publishing to find 3rd Party devs making games that their first party aren't offering. Therefore it makes sense that MS as a corporation would be willing to finance 'big' deals to bring in Software developers to be able to bring the majority (if not all long term) of BIG AAA new releases every month.

It wouldn't make sense for the board to 'settle' with just Zenimax and maybe add maybe a few more individual studio's - certainly not if an A/B type opportunity presents itself - and I think they would need more to be completely self sufficient (ie not having to negotiate deals to bring 3rd Party Published multi-platform releases day 1 to Game Pass). Not saying they 'won't' make 3rd Party deals,it just means that they don't 'have' to find 'something' to offer every month but can be more selective.

I know MS (like Sony) have made mistakes in their past, decisions etc that I didn't like or agree with. However, I also like to believe that you can't keep holding Companies (just like you can't keep holding nations etc) responsible for the 'mistakes' of their past - especially when the management (leaders, politicians, military etc) are long gone. I think MS at the moment are not only 'saying' the right things, they are backing that up with Action. When they say they want to be a fully inclusive, equal opportunities employer, I can see that in their actions and not just in the staff they employ, but in the products they make.

When Phil says he wants 'individual' studio's with their own culture, making the games they want to, that all the Studio's have 'free' choice, and all he does is ask what 'help' they need to make that dream project a reality, its evident when you hear interviews with those Studio's. He isn't going in and telling them what 'he' wants them to make - like we hear from others.

I make no secret of the fact that as a 'gaming' company, regardless of what mistakes etc have been made, MS are setting the 'best' example right now. I really do think that their business model is the 'best' in the industry as it gives creative freedom and individuality back to the Studio's, removes the 'commercial' pressure and decision making. The value is 'ridiculous' - 2 PS5 games (Say GT7 and God of War) will cost £140 to play on Day 1, yet a year of Game Pass Ultimate costs £132 a year - although with Rewards etc, you can end up paying less-as part of the Xbox Ambassador programme, completing missions every month gives me a 'free' month of GPU ever 3 months - so I only pay for 8 months and get 4 free (£88 a year) plus with 'rewards', I could probably get that down to less than just 1 Sony PS5 exclusive. GT7 and GoW aren't going to be significantly 'better' than Forza Motorsport or Hellblade 2, not to say you may 'prefer' one or the other, but overall they are all likely to be critically acclaimed on their respective platform.

We have seen what chasing Sales has done to gaming - Activision is one of the biggest examples. Nothing can 'compete' with CoD sales every year so it becomes the 'priority' to ensure it releases every year and to do that, they sacrifice 'creativity' by forcing studio's to crunch out CoD and all the seasonal crap to sell instead of 'new' games. Often, the 'best' games critically don't get played by many. Take the 'Game of the Year' nominees, few played 'It Takes Two', Returnal sold 560k, R&C 1.1m (old figures from mid 21) but Cyberpunk sells 'millions' yet is a complete 'mess'. Best Selling games of 2021 - CoD Vanguard and CoD: Cold War. Sales is not a great metric for gaming in general as 'Great' games may not sell enough that the publisher will greenlight a sequel and instead opt for the more commercial project.

That's what excites me most about Game Pass - the fact that it needs great games 'every' month, that those games will be games that the developer is passionate about and been supported well to bring that vision to us. That they can be 'creative', take creative risks and have a growing platform to reach as many people as they can...

@BAMozzy That's a very good point regarding accountability. I still find it bizarre how people these days actually use Rare as an argument when stating why Microsoft cannot manage their acquired studios. It happened 20 years ago under different leadership! If it had happened today with Phil Spencer, I'm sure it would've turned out much more differently. Even still, Rare is doing well for themselves in terms of Sea of Thieves.

But yeah, from what I've seen, Microsoft is managing their studios quite well generally speaking. We're obviously viewing them from an outside perspective, but logically speaking Microsoft wouldn't want to do anything that damages their ability to put out unique games on Game Pass. So it makes sense to leave them alone and give them the resources they need to produce great games.

@LtSarge It bugs me too. MS are not the same as they were 20yrs ago and even 8yrs ago were a different company with a different business model.

I doubt Lionhead would be closed and Fable Legends would of been released to Game Pass. Scalebound too would be Xbox Published and released to Game Pass. They were cancelled because of the 'sales' business model where 'low' console sales and increasing development costs make the project too expensive to finish. Why spend millions more on getting those games to release when hardware its releasing on is unlikely to sell enough copies to recuperate those costs.

The whole Game Pass model would have helped them, certainly helps Rare today although whether they can get back to their creative best now,who knows. I do think that Sea of Thieves would of been another 'flop', another thing that people will use to show how 'bad' MS are for devs if that game was not on Game Pass. I doubt it would of sold more than a few million at best, and died as that 'small' community couldn't help Rare support the game as well as they have. However, Game Pass gave people the chance to try free and its probably Rare's most 'successful' game of all time now with over 25m that have played it.

Its 'typical' Rare, which is what the Game Pass model is great for. All the studio's have their 'own' identity and style - whether its Rare, Bethesda, Arcane, 343, Ninja Theory or Double Fine for example. They are 'free' to create the games they want and feel passionate about, with the full support of MS. It was interesting to hear some ways they helped Double Fine on Psychonauts 2, particularly around Mental Health.

I have not been this optimistic about the future of gaming for a while - especially with so many companies recording bigger and bigger profits yet constantly complaining about rising costs and trying to find ways of extracting more and more money from consumers from fewer and fewer games, sticking only with the 'commercial' IP's, almost 'reskinning' them every 'year' to extract more money, reducing the overall quality and variety of gaming experiences. It was looking like that was the 'future' for AAA games with 'indies' offering the 'variety'.

Today seems like a good chance for the cancelled 360 Goldeneye remaster to be announced for Xbox given the N64 version could be announced for NSO Expansion Pack in the Direct.

Not that I want Rare to be stuck on Sea of Thieves indefinitely and I'd love them to make more games, more traditional games but the success of Sea of Thieves is astonishing. I wonder about the number of Minecraft players. Rare could do like Obsidian and support a few games simultaneously.

Total players:

• Sea of Thieves - 25+ Million
• Halo Infinite - 20+ Million
• Forza Horizon 5 - 18+ Million
• Minecraft Dungeons - 15+ Million
• Grounded - 10+ Million

What do people reckon about this?

I have got a modified IKEA Lappland TV Unit with a few of the glass shelf/door inserts. I have only three places within this unit that I could put the Series X, in an open cube (similar to a Kallax Cube), sideways or vertical on top, or what I've actually done which is inside a glass door insert with shelf removed and ventilation holes drilled in the back of it.

Do people think that's enough ventilation? I've got intake holes down the bottom and exhaust holes up the top. Before I drilled the holes I just used the Series X with the door open, reckon I could leave the door closed now and those holes will offer enough ventilation?

I've tried it with both streaming video and gaming. I think I could definitely have the door closed for watching Disney Plus etc. In terms of gaming, even with the door closed, it seems a lot cooler in there than it was with the door open before I drilled the holes.

The main reason I like the door closed is to prevent dust getting in. I know drilling massive holes into it is going to let some dust in but it will be a lot less than if the console was in a completely open area.

What do people think?