Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League Shows Off Its Frantic Gameplay, Coming To Xbox This May

Looks like what Marvel's Avengers should have been. Though I will say why isn't Viola Davies in this @JamesGunn.

Look abysmal I like the Arkham games for their more gritty serious tone this just looks like they decided to use Fortnite & crackdown as a template & just stick some DC characters in their 🙈 also I lost it when the bald guy started talking about brainiac 🤣

@BrilliantBill
Well for Xbox sake let’s hope it is.
This year will not be great for Xbox console sales wise, mainly due to last year 2022.
And also probably Starfield if amazing releasing November 2023 in my opinion.
And that the other two are always pushing it hard with many fingers in the gaming or movie pie and advertising a lot etc.
meaning they are expanding general public awareness in different ways, which brings in consoles and game sales.

Avengers also had a cosmetic only battle pass at launch… you got to give a lot more information than just that.

Is story mode playable solo and offline?

Edit:
OK after watching that video, even the shark wielding a gun and just shooting? Thats... uninspired...

Story looks interesting (well, aside from being yet another what-if-braniac-won, arc) but not really all that intrigued with that combat.

Edit 2: turns out the game requires an always active online connection even to play solo, so this is another game that as far as I am concerned, has been canceled and isn’t to be worth wasting any more time thinking about.

First Avengers, then Gotham Knights and now this, these studios making bland live service games using the DC/Marvel popularity to drive its sales. Why can't we get decent single player games like the old arkham games, spiderman and deadpool etc

Hopefully the iron man game doesn't follow the live service route.

The Gameplay alone wasn't what I was expecting. It looks bad and now the whole "live service" aspect, this might end up being Avengers 2.0

At least one good Xbox thing, their recent showcase was a lot better than what Sony just showed in their state of play tonight.

Not feeling this at all.
Gameplay looks your standard shooting at bullet sponges till they drop...and repeat. It looks like the variety of Arkham games isnt really there. Frankly, i feel like i've already played this in Avengers. And then there's all the battlepass stuff etc.
And I don't know if its the passage of time as we've been waiting so long, or that it has had a graphical downgrade, but even visually it no longer screams anything special

Shame as this one has been waited for for so long. At least its out fairly soon i guess

This looks beyond disappointing.

So, it's Crackdown but with tinnier guns (seriously those guns had no impact).

What a mess. This is the opposite I would like from rocksteady

@Dezzy70 The only reason why PS5 sales went high for January is because the console became available to buy everywhere, one more month of high sales then they will drop and level off.

@BrilliantBill ign says it requires an online connection to play so no offline

@Dezzy70 PS5 sales will go down, the only reason why they had such a big jump is because they finally became available to buy everywhere, give it another month and the majority of people who wanted one will have one and then sales will drop and level off.

@Kaloudz to counter, why arent people buying the Xbox ready for all these games? You are Literally saying people are buying PS5 for upcoming games in your first paragraph?
So why are people buying PS in advance and not Xbox?

This game looks very disappointing to say the least. 8 years in the making, and this is what they came up with? Woof.

I loved the SS showing, its more Crackdown/Agents of Mayhem then Avengers. I dont think its going to sell bonkers, but Ill play it once its on discount (like a month or two after release).

The overall show is disappointing for sony. MS is taking away all the best content without people realizing it. It'll be more evident when ABK passes! When Sony is digging for a PC focused RPG like BG3 (which im excited for!) you know they're stretching. Hard times in the future for Sony! CoD coming home to gamepass!

@Kaloudz
How hot its VR scene is blowing up...? Excuse me, did I miss something or watch a differfent show than you just now? LoL

The tech in the PSVR2 is nice, but its launch line up was extremely lackluster. With GT7 being the best game on the headset by far, their are plenty of VR racing games already out that dont switch to flat 2D screens in the menus in between races.
Call of the Mountain should have just been called Horizon:Climb the Mountain. N it just is no where near the quality of experince I was expecting for it being pretty much the only first party IP game in available at launch.
For their VR scene to be blowing up as you said, they realllly should have shown off at least one first party VR game that is coming down the pipeline preferably before this holiday but really just a glimpse of anything so we know they are actually supporting this thing with their 1st party studios... not just bringing games over from the Quest 2 at a promised higher resolution but with a higher price as well.
Not even having beat saber at launch... that just feels weird that it is missing.
I could go on, but I think I made my point... PSVR2 Still has a ways to go

So wth Brainiac indoctrinated some of the justice league??

@Kaloudz
Okay... I just played PSVR2 RE Village and okay... This is BY FAR the best VR game on the headset. It is impressive. An actual full game with such proper thought to the VR aspect.

Well I hope people have fun with this before the servers are taken down and the game can no longer be played.

It looks like what I imagined a Marvel or DC game to be in the year 2023 - souless and online.

They have a talent for making me care less and less each time they show more of the game.

Another live service game that will be shut down in a year

@Sifi
We shall see and time will tell.
I’m also not to bothered about the PS5 sales, it’s just Microsoft with Xbox are not doing things right and sales of consoles are really suffering.

@Kaloudz
Time will tell, but you are far more optimistic than me and that’s good and I hope you are right.
But they need to start advertising getting out to the general public etc and get some momentum and be trendy again.
And straight away the first month of the year they are minus 150 thousand console sales compared to last year 2022.

My point is I think they have lost that public appeal and it’s too late and I would bet they will sell less consoles this year 2023 worldwide than last year 2022.
They have now given themselves an even bigger hill to climb than when their new generation started and Microsoft are solely to blame.

Why everyone in it is flailing in the air?
And it's look like that characters are almost the same.
And you have to connect to internet to play even for single player.
I'm disappointed

After The Avengers was a decent idea ruined by making it into a Live Service game with "years of content" I'm not liking the look of this.

@Kaloudz
Fingers crossed for Xbox as I’ve been with them since day one and through 360 glory days.
I tend not to take to much notice of them now as I don’t think Microsoft or the upper team have their true heart and working souls in it.
But time will tell and I really hope you are correct.

@Kaloudz
What I don’t get with sales in the UK is this.
When you look at charts they have PS5 ahead by a lot sometimes each month. Fact.

If you go in shop sites the main ones in the UK you can see how many buying PS5 or series consoles leave a review. Fact.
Now let’s assume we use the amount of reviews as sales and both percentage on gamers PS5 or Series who buy a console leave a review.
Data captured today at 3 very well know different shops UK.
If you go by this sales are only very very tiny slightly ahead for PS5.

So are all these sales chart just rubbish and my review by consoles idea is better to go buy, as it is real people buying the console and leaving the review.

@Kaloudz
I think some of it goes by how many the manufacture says it had distributed to the shops, but then that is doesn’t necessarily mean they are sold to general public.
In reality I bet there is a lot of guess work in some cases and it’s all put in a big pot and a number comes out.
I know USA have NPD and UK GFK these are suppose to be official numbers but where these numbers come from I don’t know.

@Kaloudz
There seems to be good stock of all the consoles now. My locals between them seem to have them all. Smyths Toys always have good stock and usually get forgotten in gamer world.

@Kaloudz
They have a dedication section, and are very good with PS5 stock and you can check online to see store stock around the country.

I'm sorry but raising the full price of games and then setting solo campaigns up as online-only is ridiculous. Why expect us to pay full price to own a game when they're only selling them as rentals, essentially? Forget it. I'm already not planning to give Redfall any of my attention due to this scheme. Suicide Squad's also an instant hard pass. No sense bothering as I won't even want to look at their shops, battle passes, deluxe additions or DLC expansions if the game's completely unplayable after a year.

@Dezzy70 Yet again you are FOCUSSING on Sales as some sort of 'benchmark'. If Returnal sells more than Hi-Fi Rush, does it make it a 'better' game? more popular?

Of course more people could play Hi-Fi Rush because its available on more platforms and you don't 'need' to buy to enjoy it - but Sales alone is a 'poor' metric to use in this case because the 'majority' could play without being forced to purchase.

PS5 should sell better than Xbox - It has MANY more games that are 'ONLY' on Playstation as well as the only console to offer Virtual Reality and VR experiences. Nintendo sold more Switches with its Exclusives and USP of mobility...

PC gamers and all those that can access 'Xbox' games on other devices (inc XB1's as they can 'stream' next gen only games) don't need to rush out and buy a Series S/X or 'miss out' on being able to play. When Spider-Man 2 releases, only those with or can afford to buy a PS5 and buy the game too can play it. That will likely push people to 'buy' a PS5. When Starfield releases, no-one needs to rush out to buy a Series S/X and could play day 1 for just $10 a month on their XB1S, their Laptop, their Mobile etc so no 'rush' to buy an Xbox.

Cloud is Entry - not Series S so ANYONE can jump into the 'Xbox Ecosystem' without needing to buy Xbox hardware - therefore its 'likely' to sell less - although there are 'advantages' to buying hardware (like bigger libraries, better PQ/FPS options, lower Lag/latency, offline gaming etc), its 'optional' so people can 'choose' what 'Tier' suits them and their budget. Sony gives 'no' choice, buy their Hardware or miss out...

If Forza, Redfall and Starfield released today, people would not be forced to buy a Series S/X or miss out completely. I doubt Starfield will 'sell' as many copies as GoW:R for example - because 25m+ don't have to 'buy' but could still have a MUCH bigger launch with MORE people enjoying the game than have played or 'could' play GoW:R because its available on MANY more platforms despite only releasing on Series S/X & PC. XB1 owners can probably play via streaming so don't 'need' to upgrade, PC gamers won't need to buy an Xbox at all and many 'casual' or skint gamers can still play on devices they have too...

MLB23 could only sell 100k on Xbox, 1m on PS5 so Sony has 10x the sales but Xbox could have 10x the players thanks to Game Pass- Which is 'better'? having 10x more SALES or 10x more PLAYERS engaged, 10x more people to sell MTX/DLC etc to and 10x more players as 'fans'...

@Kaloudz
Also sometimes they cheaper for all consoles, controllers and games as well.
When I got my switch OLED it was £10 less than Argos.

@BAMozzy
I get what you are saying but a console sale can lead to a game pass sale which creates more revenue. Also extra controllers and paid games and dlc.

Remember they need to sustain this business model they have created moving forward.
Yes we both now they could make zero money profit or minus and the Microsoft division could bail them out every year.

Cloud - limited to 1080/60 with slightly more lag/latency than 'Local' play can offer. Limited library of games you can play - definitely not the 1000's hardware offers but can be accessed almost anywhere on a wide variety of devices and 'performance/PQ' is NOT hardware dependent - meaning you could get 1080/60 Forza Motorsport on XB1S when that console can't play it locally at that PQ and Frame Rate. The increased latency/lag is still better than 30fps local input lag so its still a 'viable' option. Its also 'cheap' as its from just $10 a month and you probably have 'devices' already. Point is, its the 'Entry' Tier - not Series S.

Series S is the 'entry' Console tier bringing a bigger 'Console' Library and will get all 'next gen' games playing 'locally' like the Series X. It maybe lower PQ (1440p maybe dialed back visual settings etc) and/or fewer HFR modes (like the 1S vs 1X) but its a 'lower' cost...

Series X is the 'Premium' Console Tier competing with 'Sony's' Premium Tier offering similar Picture Quality - up to 4k, more Ray Tracing modes, higher graphical settings and more 'HFR' modes too - as well as a Disc Drive, but it also comes with a 'Premium' Cost

PC is the 'Highest' Tier with the largest Library and highest 'upfront' costs to offer the 'best' visual quality at the highest frame rates but you do have to 'optimise' your games to your specs but 'EVERY' Xbox Game will be available Day 1, as well as some Playstation games eventually, VR as well...

So depending on your Budget and what 'tier' you want, there is an 'option' available which may mean that people don't 'buy' a Series S/X because Cloud or PC suits them better.

Of course a Console sale can lead to a Game Pass sale, but a 'game' release can generate a Game Pass subscriber on PC/Cloud too. PC gamers with 'decent' rigs aren't going to buy a Series S/X to play Forza, Starfield etc day 1 but they may Subscribe to Game Pass. People that don't have the money to buy a Series S/X could choose to Subscribe on their XB1S/X to play despite the game not 'releasing' on that hardware....

They lose money on 'every' console sold so that puts them 'down' on money before they even buy a game or subscribe to Game Pass. Why 'force' people to buy Hardware they can't afford or 'need' when they can get people into their Xbox 'ecosystem' on PC or via Cloud? Sony only has their Playstation 'ecosystem' so if they only sell 20m consoles, they only have 20m 'Players', 20m that can buy/play their games etc.

Series S/X will 'sell' because they offer 2 different tiers to suit different budgets etc. But they are not 'essential' to play Xbox games day and date. MS could sell 20m Series S/X, but their 'Xbox Ecosystem' could be 10x that...

@Dezzy70 And don't forget all the 'licenced' products they get money from - those 'controllers' work on PC too, work on tablets and Mobiles etc - so if you want to turn your Samsung/Apple Phone into a 'Switch' like device with a Licenced Xbox peripheral to play Game Pass on the Go, MS get money from that.

If people have their OWN hardware, be it a purpose built Gaming PC or just their phone in their pocket, if they get them to Subscribe, they haven't lost money on selling them a Console for 'less' than it costs to make it. If they lose say $100 on a Series console and that person only subs to Game Pass, that's 10 months before that starts to make them money. If they Sub on PC or a phone, its instantly making them money...

As I said, the Consoles offer 'something' - whether its the bigger library, the offline and/or local play, the 'value for money' compared to PC, plug and play. That is why they 'will' sell - but all I am saying is the difference between ONLY on Playstation and AVAILABLE Everywhere as 'Xbox Ecosystem' is available almost everywhere (except Switch/Playstation hardware) will make a big difference in the SALES. But like I said, MS are 'service' based, Sony and Nintendo are 'SALES' based so it make sense to them to have 'exclusives' to their 'Console' as that is their 'ecosystem' too. MS's Ecosystem is the PC and Consoles and now 'Virtual' Consoles in the Cloud too. Xbox is 'Microsofts' Gaming Brand, Xbox is on Windows, is part of Windows and Xbox OS is Windows. Xbox 'stopped' being 'just' the Console when they merged it into Microsoft around 2016 - so ALL their 'Windows' based Gamers get 'Exclusives' to their Ecosystem regardless of their budgets, preferences or hardware choices. That's why since then, ALL games released on PC too 'day and date', and to bring 'games' to more devices, they built the Cloud to bring 'Xbox' to more players - whether they 'buy' Xbox Consoles or not...

Getting them 'in' the Ecosystem is important too for 'Sony' and 'MS' - its just 'different' business models - Sony being 'sales' driven want you to 'buy' their Hardware and 'keep' you there buying their games - MS want you to buy into their Ecosystem - either with a Sub or by buying their console hardware too and plan to 'keep' you there with their games - however you 'want' to enjoy them - be that on a Sub service too or Purchasing for PC/Series S/X hardware, but its 'optional' for the 'consumer' to choose which suits them best - with Sony, its 1 choice 'buy' their Hardware, buy their Game or miss-out until we decide it needs a 'PR' boost and more 'sales' by releasing it to PC and maybe PS+ Premium too to try and get more Subs...

Sales of Series S/X won't determine the 'success' of this era, Game Pass growth probably will, games being played by 25m+ in the first few 'weeks' of release instead of maybe 1 or 2m at best - going on to sell well eventually, maybe break the 10m mark but have 25m players in the first few weeks and that 'help' grow that beyond their 'biggest' hopes...

I bet Hi Fi Rush had a MUCH bigger launch than ANY Tango/Bethesda game ever thanks to Game Pass - I bet it sold 'poorly' by comparison....

The point is, Consumers can 'choose' to purchase a Series S/X as and when it suits them, if it suits them at all and still Play Xbox games, be part of the Xbox 'ecosystem' so its only a 'fraction' (big or small fraction) of the Xbox ecosystem. Like I said, people could 'choose' to play via streaming on their XB1s at '1080/60' because its still an upgrade on the performance and PQ the XB1S could run natively and they see 'no' advantage to being out of money buying a Series 'S' on their 1080/60 screen anyway. They are still 'playing', still part of the 'Xbox' ecosystem, like those on Windows PC too - just different 'tiers' to suit different people, budgets etc...

As such, they are not 'forced' to spend money on a 'Premium' Console or 'miss out' on playing that game. It may not be a 'premium' PQ, but you can still play a 'Premium' next gen game on any compatible device which maybe 'enough' for many people too but they are still part of a 'growing' Xbox Ecosystem even if the 'Sales' of Xbox Hardware aren't growing as 'fast' as Sony's...

Internet and wi-fi is getting 'better' in general and more and more people are getting 5g mobiles as they 'upgrade' eventually or get other's hand me downs so its going to 'improve' and become more viable for more people to want to use Game Pass Cloud - I use it on my Laptop and XB1X in the Bedroom to play games neither 'could' locally - saved buying a Series S (1 less Sale) and I bet the PC gamers that 'consider' buying consoles for 'exclusives' won't buy an Xbox anymore, but will buy a PS5 for certain, so you see how 'SALES' are not representative of the 'growth' in the ecosystem and why Xbox Console hardware Sales in particular are 'irrelevant' today - because they only represent a 'part' of the ecosystem, not the 'whole' like Sony/Nintendo hardware....

Its the same with 'Games' on Xbox too now because you have 25m+ people waiting to play Redfall, Starfield, Forza, do you really expect them to 'outsell' Elden Ring? Gran Turismo? God of War: Ragnarok? How do you think that affects 'pre-orders'? Why Pre-order when you can pre-download and play DAY 1 on Game Pass? Sales is now an 'option' - Buy to keep or Sub and Play as long as 'you 'keep' subbing and/or the game remains on the service - whether you have finished with it or not... but there are always 'new' games coming to replace them with....

Sales alone is meaningless when you have alternative ways to access - like Cloud/PC, like Subscription services - all these 'affect' sales of a product - whether specific Hardware like Consoles or Specific games. It really does depend on whether the consumer has a 'choice' or not to 'buy' a specific item or 'access' the exact same 'content' you want play via alternatives.

To play Spider-Man 2 you need to buy a PS5 and pay $70 to play day 1 - sales matter hence ONLY on PS5
To play Forza Motorsport, its releasing for sale on Series S/X and PC as that is the 'minimum' spec it can and was built for, but if you don't have the 'hardware' or the Budget to buy the hardware, you can also 'subscribe' to Game Pass and play on your XB1S/X, your Student Laptop, your Apple iPhone, your new Samsung TV all without needing to buy ANY Hardware. Also those on the 'right' hardware can 'benefit' from Game Pass a 'bit' more, its still an option so you don't 'miss out' - hence 'sales' don't matter, Player counts do because that is a 'combined' figure of all the Players it attracted in via Sales and Services.

@BAMozzy
Well let’s wait and see what happens
Will be interesting if the ABK deal doesn’t go through. That doesn’t mean I’m against it by the way.
Perhaps I’m just too old fashioned and probably am. But if you sold say 100 million series consoles and with game pass at 25 million on all devices.
Then another 100 million from the Xbox console members would definitely make Microsoft smile and Phil and gang would telling the world about it.

@Dezzy70 You sound like a butthurt Sony fanboy worried about Sony losing. Sorry to tell you, they already are losing, you just dont see it yet because you pretend everything is fine and that xbox is 'teh dying npd numbers dude show it!'

And there losing even BEFORE ABK passes!

If PS were 'winning' it all then they would have had a showcase LAST YEAR in June. They didn't because guess what, they just have remakes and GaaS for you! Have fun!

But I'm a HUGE sony fan been playing PS and Nintendo my whole life. So don't take it like I'm against Sony being terrible, they just need to do better.

@gogolpoe
We definitely don’t want anyone to lose, not to the degree of leaving the market.
Competition is the only thing making these three main gaming companies try harder.

See I’m not a Sony fanboy, I’m a pissed original Xbox fanboy from the old days who has owned every single Xbox console day one , watching Microsoft not really trying and not managing their studios and messing what for me was one of their greatest franchises Halo.
Halo Infinite should have been a AAA reimagining of Halo like GOWR and BOTW instead we got a trillion dollar company, miles away in dreamy land with the higher ups creaming the money in and doing nothing for it.

@Dezzy70 It doesn't matter if they sell 50m or 100m consoles. If they have say 200m users in their Ecosystem, does it matter if half or a quarter are on Consoles?

If they 'sold' only 5m consoles and still have 200m users, does it really make much difference? To Microsoft, who lose money on each unit, that may be 'better' than selling 50m and losing 10x more on 'Hardware'.

It doesn't matter to MS whether you join 'Xbox' by buying a Console or by Subbing up to Game Pass on devices not made by MS - you are still a 'new' person in the ecosystem playing in their games and part of the Xbox family contributing to MS's growth.

MS don't talk about their Console Sales, don't talk about Game Sales and certainly don't talk about SALES charts in general. Because they are 'irrelevant' to their overall success. If they don't sell 5m Consoles/Games, it doesn't matter, because they could still have MORE people playing thanks to Sub services and being available on MORE platforms.

GoW:R could sell 10m copies, but Starfield only sell 1m - but Starfield could be played by 25m+ in the first week - a much bigger Launch than GoW:R but far fewer sales. Sony could 'grow' their ecosystem and sell 150m PS5's to have up to 150m players to play their games, MS could sell 50m consoles and have 300m in their 'ecosystem' on Cloud, PC and/or Xbox Consoles - Sales don't tell the whole story so are 'irrelevant' in discussions. Their business model is 'detrimental' to Sales because they are more 'service' driven...

@BAMozzy
Well GP is at around 25 million I think they still have to make it economically viable.
All I’m saying is the more consoles they sell the more chance they have of more game pass members and that’s a fact.
Yes they get GP members other ways in the ecosystem of course they do.

I think their aim is to own as many studios and developers as possible and just bring software out and not have a console at all. But we shall see.

As for playing a game statistics. Look at atomic heart. They count who has downloaded it and tried it, many have. But also in here many have and played for an hour and not played anymore, is that really a good measurement of a game being played and successful.

Microsoft are attempting to try and change the way we purchase games that is all by using a paid service instead of buying game’s individually.
So far I see nothing really that is showing a success of that, but of course time will tell.

@Dezzy70 All I am saying is that SALES are NOT a 'metric' for MS anymore.

If Sony 'sell' 100m PS5's, that's 100m in their Ecosystem, 100m people that 'could' spend money and contribute to their Success.

If MS only sell 50m Series Consoles, that doesn't mean they ONLY have 50m users as they also have gamers playing on OTHER Platforms - like Cloud or PC. They are still part of the Ecosystem and 'could' have 200m users of which only a quarter play on Consoles.

If God of War sells 10m, you can say that 10m people played that game - whether they played 10mins, 10hrs or beat the game. It has NO measurement of 'Quality' - Cyberpunk 2077 has sold 20m copies now after '2yrs' on the Market but Hi-Fi Rush may only sell 1m but have 'more' players than Cyberpunk.

Point is, SALES alone is not important when you give consumers the choice to 'purchase' or use alternative ways to access the SAME ecosystem and Games.

As I said, it doesn't matter if Starfield doesn't sell 'enough' copies at launch to be the best/#1 selling game of the week, month, year because 25m+ people don't have to 'buy'. It doesn't matter if Xbox consoles don't sell as many as PS because MS could still have 'more' growth, more users etc in their ecosystem.

It's you 'very' blinkered' and 'ignorant' attitude towards MS and/or their 'business' model that is the issue here. What matters 'most' to Microsoft is 'growing' their 'ecosystem' which is NOT console dependent. People can 'choose' how to access their ecosystem without BUYING anything, without contributing to 'sales' figures - therefore Sales 'alone' are irrelevant.

10m may buy Spider-Man 2 in the first 6 months or so, but Starfield could be 'played' by 30m in the first week but only sell 1m. It won't be a 'Flop' despite not selling 'well' or mean Spider-Man was 10x more popular because 10x more sales - it's a 'meaningless' statistic.

Hi-Fi Rush could be a 'Sales' Flop, not sell a 100k copies - but still have a bigger launch than God of War, than Zelda etc despite 'fewer' consoles in peoples homes - because those people 'choose' to play on 'other' devices via 'Game Pass' so sales of Consoles/Games are negatively impacted, but 'consumers/gamers' have much more choice and freedom to play without 'buying' anything.

Also, if you have '30m' playing your game vs 5m that bought a game, when it comes to 'Game of the Year' votes, which do you think would get more 'votes' in general? Less than 1m played 'Returnal' in the first few months of release. It sold 'poorly' - selling only 560k in the first 3 months of release - an 'award winning' game - yet Halo:Infinite had 20m players in the first week. Also if 10% go on to buy DLC, MTX etc that's 'more' sales on Xbox due to 'more' players so 'more' revenue generated with far 'fewer' base unit sales...

25m subs at ~$10 a month (I know some got 'deals' and others pay more for 'Ultimate and/or Gold') would bring in around $250m a month - 3bn a year without any 'sales' of hardware, games, peripherals etc. A game like Horizon:Zero Dawn cost an Estimated $48m (a bit more than Mass Effect: Andromeda to make) over 5yrs so MS effectively have enough money coming in 'every' month to fund 5 'Horizon' AAA games over 5yrs without considering 'sales' revenue required to 'recuperate' that $50m you 'invested'.

If a Studio costs 5m a month to run (Wages, rates, insurance, extra's (like Actors or outside help) whilst they are developing games, in a Sales based format, they are 'not' bringing in revenue to offset that cost until they release a 'product' to sell. Therefore, when it does release, the first couple of 'million' sales could be just recuperating that investment.

With 'Service' based, they are bringing in $250m to pay the 'costs' so that when it does release, its already in 'profit' because those Subscribers basically 'invested' their Subscription fees into those Studio's, paying their 'costs' so even if it sells just 1 copy, that is 'pure' profit...

@BAMozzy
We shall see what happens and what Microsoft do.
But it has been said that Microsoft are probably the only ones that can do this as they can bank roll the process.
That tells me that profits are not there yet and it’s not a simple money making scheme else Sony and Nintendo what be doing the same.

@Dezzy70 'That tells me that profits are not there yet and it’s not a simple money making scheme else Sony and Nintendo what be doing the same.'

WRONG - Sony and Nintendo are 'SALES' based businesses and 'copying' MS would be 'detrimental' to their 'Business' Plan, their entire Business strategy. Sony and Nintendo want you to 'BUY' their 'Hardware' to buy their Games - hence they don't offer a 'choice' to play on 'other' hardware OR to play via a Sub Service - at least not until those 'games' have basically stopped selling and can be 'used' to sell on PC or sell Sub services like PS+.

MS are more 'SERVICE' based so SALES are 'irrelevant'. They don't 'keep' their games off of PC or their 'Sub Service' day and date to 'SELL' more copies, to 'SELL' more consoles, in fact they are more concerned by Game Pass Subscriber figures and Player counts than 'Sales' and growing their 'ecosystem' a different way to Sony & Nintendo, whose 'ecosystem' is 'locked' to their Hardware only - if they don't sell a Switch/PS5, that's someone not in their 'ecosystem', not spending time and/or money. If MS don't sell a 'console', they could still sell a Game Pass subscription, still 'grow' their user base, bring in more 'revenue' etc...

They are NOT copying MS because it would be 'detrimental' to their '|Sales' based Business model. If Sony released ALL their games on PC too day and date, that would affect PS5 sales and affect Sony's 'user' base growth. If they were in PS+ too, that would affect Game sales, stop them being the #1 selling game, stop them getting their $70 and dominating 'Sales' chart.

Just go on Push Square every week - there is always some reference to 'Sales' charts, sales of hardware etc because Sony are 'SALES' focussed - like Nintendo, Like Xbox used to be prior to 2016...

@BAMozzy
But surely the service based system is a sale
As you pay for it?

@Dezzy70 not really, you pay for a 'subscription', you are paying for a 'service', not 'buying a 'specific' piece of Hardware (like a Console) or a specific 'Game'.

Those 25m+ GP subscribers aren't going to buy 'Forza, Starfield & Redfall' for example so there is a LOT of people that don't 'need' to BUY. They don't 'need' an Xbox console to play so don't 'need' to buy an Xbox or game - which will impact 'negatively' on the sales.

Sony and Nintendo are 'Sales' focussed. Therefore, if you want to play 'their' games Day 1, you have to 'buy' Hardware made by Sony or Nintendo and 'buy' that game or 'miss' out. As a 'consumer' you have NO choice but to 'BUY' a Sony/Nintendo branded 'box' and 'BUY' the game.

MS is 'Service' driven so you don't need to 'buy' MS branded hardware to play - they have an option for you whether you have weak/incapable hardware, opt to buy a Series S/X or invest in a Gaming PC. Can't afford or not sure if a Game is worth buying, well you can still play Day 1 via a Sub service so you NEVER miss out - even if you can't afford the 'Premium' cost of Hardware and/or Premium cost of games.

For $120 a year, you have access to $1000's worth of games, get more 'new' games a month than you could 'buy' with $120 in your pocket. Redfall and Forza is likely to cost more than $120, let alone all the 'indies', 3rd Party and whatever else comes during that 'year'. Not everyone can afford $500 on a 'Premium' console and $70 on 'every' game they want to play - but if you do 'Subscribe', you are still part of the Xbox family, part of the Xbox ecosystem yet don't have to 'BUY' anything.

Like I said, if Sony sell 100m PS5's, 10m Spider-Man 2's, you can say that Sony has 100m users and 10m played Spider-Man. If MS sell 50m Series Consoles and only 1m Starfields, that doesn't mean they 'ONLY' have 50m users and only 1m played Starfield. They could have 200m users and 55m playing Starfield - SALES don't tell the 'whole' story.

Do you think MS will 'care' if Starfield or Redfall don't 'sell' as well as Horizon or God of War or more likely to 'brag' about the fact that these games had 'massive' launches with 'more' players enjoying their games than ever.

I bet FH5 won't 'sell' as well as FH3 did in its first 6months or so, but FH5 had the 'biggest' launch in Forza History with 4 or 5x more people playing FH5 in the first week than ever played FH3 because 'SALES' of both XB1 and the Game limited its reach only going on to sell 2.5-3m I believe yet 15m played FH5 in its first week and now has over 20m players - more than Gran Turismo, more than God of War...

At most, its an additional 'Subscriber', an additional member to the Xbox family - and they may or may not have bought an Xbox or would now 'buy' Starfield, Redfall etc - it could be another 'Lost' sale of those games, of the Xbox hardware because they 'could' choose to play via Cloud and never purchase any games....

@BAMozzy
So they totally become dependent on making money through subscriptions only and of course some controllers.
Does gamepass make enough money to support the entire and whole Xbox business and all studios, from pay to builds and bills and other developers games like Atomic Heart etc.
Don’t forget the service itself needs paying for, for support etc across many platforms.
Development time is more costly and longer as many platforms.

I would love to know the balance sheet from current subscriptions, don’t forget some gamers are on cheap discounted subscriptions, like me until March 2025.
Would be interesting to see if they actually make any true money.

@BAMozzy
Anyway what do you think of the UK trying to block the ABK deal.
Considering the UK has good manufacturing relations with the USA, Military, Ford, Heinz, Kellogg’s all have factories here and employee thousands and all are USA companies.

@Dezzy70 First off, There are others who are paying 'more' for Game Pass Ultimate and some paying only for Gold. I don't know what the 'operating' cost per 'studio' per month - but I bet no-one is taking home 50k a month. With ~$250m coming in 'every' month regardless of how many Consoles or Games you are selling, that's a 'big' chunk of money to 'cover' a LOT of staff salaries, a lot of Studio overheads etc. Even if it cost '5m' a month to keep a 'large' Studio making games, paying all their wages, all their 'overheads' and costs, they have 'enough' money coming in to run 50 studio's of that size coming in every month - that's before you factor in the 'Sales' of Hardware, Peripherals, Software (not just 'full' games, but DLC, MTX, Season Passes through their Digital store) etc. Lets be honest here, even if they only get 200m every month, I can't see a 'single' Studio costing 5m a month to keep 'open'. Most staff aren't taking home more than 2-3k at most. I know Electric is expensive, but as games tend to 'cost' 50m or so over 5years, that's 10m a year with 'external' costs added like voice actors, mocap actors, mocap studio hire, external testers etc etc all adding to that 'cost'.

What we don't know is how much its 'cost' MS to use '3rd party' games and 'compensate' for 'sales' losses. For Indies, it may cost MS more than it cost to make (not that they cost a 'LOT' as the wage bill alone is 'significantly' smaller with maybe just 10-20 people compared to 500+ people and didn't pay 'famous' people to voice their games. BUT for them, its 'covered' their costs and set them up nicely to make their 'next' game before any 'money' from sales can do that. Don't forget that without game pass, they have to sell enough to recuperate all those 'costs' before they start to make money and can start to pay for their 'next' game development....

As for the deal in the UK/EU, we all know Sony has a Massive lead (80/20 split) and therefore likely to be 'bias' - even if they aren't 'gamers', I bet they have kids, family members etc that do and 'CoD' & 'Playstation' are names most non-gamers would still recognise so the 'threat' of Playstation losing CoD may seem like a 'bigger' deal than it really is - so therefore threatening to 'block' to 'Force' MS into 'concessions' that they are 'happy' with or take MS into a Court battle.

The 'longer' they can 'legally' prevaricate, the more they hope MS will 'concede'. Its already 'forced' MS into making Legally Binding deals with Nintendo and 'nVidia' (thus their argument about 'exclusivity' and/or gamers 'missing' out, even their 'hypothetical' Streaming ONLY (no 'premium' devices offering 'premium' quality improvements... I bet Sony will still have a 'Premium' Playstation to play the 'best' version of their games at a 'cost' - even if they do offer a streaming service to 'rival' Game Pass and offer 'Playstation' on Any Device too (limited to 1080/60)

@BAMozzy
I know a good few that just have PlayStation for COD and FIFA so it is very much linked to PlayStation.
The funny thing about that I’m sure in the 360 Xbox had the COD and Fifa deals and dropped them and let Sony have them. That’s was a mistake to this day. Hence some of the ABK deal COD.
I think Xbox have this future plan and are starting to undertake that now. But in general public world they are making themselves not known and slightly irrelevant.
Sony and Nintendo always advertising or making a movie etc to create brand awareness, or theme parks 😂.
If they want Gamepass to become the thing they need to up their game for sure else it will become a small subscription service for gamers and stay at that level.
Whatever we think of Sony or Nintendo they know how to get the general public going and buy their product over the general public buying game pass.
At the end of the day Sony and Nintendo sell things one way, Xbox are doing it another, but Microsoft won’t be happy if sits around the current subscription level moving forward surely.

As I keep saying MS is Service based so you can't use SALES as a metric. It may well help when MS says they only have a 80/20 split in EU because most decided to game on PC and/or PS5. I own both a Series X and PS5 because I don't have a decent gaming PC - but if I did, you'd have a 'hard job' convincing me to buy an Xbox Console...

And I've said before, the deal should go through without concessions at all in my opinion because it doesn't threaten Sony - even if CoD went 'Exclusive', Sony would still sell 'more' Consoles because you won't 'need' an Xbox to play CoD. People will still want to play 'ONLY on Playstation' games like Horizon, God of War, Last of Us, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Uncharted, Gran Turismo etc - all Massive IP's now transcending 'Games' with merchandise lines, TV shows, Films etc...

People will still buy Playstation to experience VR (if they are interested in VR) because its the ONLY console to offer VR and all those 'VR Exclusives' that will come for that.

There are 'AMPLE' Studio's and Publishers that are not owned by Microsoft to make CoD competitors and there are 'plenty' of alternatives. Sony own Destiny now too don't forget and the Studio that made 'Halo' as well as the Studio's behind Killzone and Resistance so they have the IP's to compete with CoD. Let alone the likes of EA, Ubisoft, TenCent, Embracer Group etc etc that can also publish games and 'compete' with CoD so 'no-one' is 'threatened' by this. Sony's income would, but that's why signing a 10yr deal guaranteeing Parity until 2034 is a 'no brainer' as it gives them income from all the CoD gamers that won't now rush out and buy an Xbox - they'll still buy PS6 because they'll want to play Sony's IP's too....

All this 'prevarication' and 'threats to go to court is more about putting 'pressure' on Microsoft to make 'concessions' - and its worked. They have 'deals' with Nintendo, the 'biggest' console leader right now, and nVidia, the most popular Gaming GPU supplier on the market and the same deal for Sony to sign too...

Therefore they have essentially extracted 'more' from MS in essence as this is 'legally binding contracts' not we expected them to 'honour their word'. Something other Governments were 'content' to let go through with 'no' extra concessions - as I expect any 'rational' judge with the 'evidence' in front of him, the facts not 'what if hypothetical situations', would obviously conclude that this deal does not harm consumers at all - not in any way, and benefits those involved (i.e MS and A/B as they 'want' to be sold, their workers want to be 'employed' by MS etc) with concessions, now they have 'forced' MS to put in writing, I can't see them doing anything less than accept the Deal with those Concessions in place, then the FTC will declare it OK with the same Concessions, thus settled out of court as far as the claim goes - they must know they'd lose, so its forcing it 'Legally Binding' Contracts rather than 'honour what they said they in always intended to do - bring it to 'more' platforms inc Sony's - like Minecraft....

@Kaloudz
"Its VRs Mario 64 moment"
Hahaha Have you tried it yet? I am going to take that as obviously not and aregoing by someones headline. It is NO WHERE NEAR being able to call it that. Mario 64 ushered in 3D gaming to the main stream and was a benchmark moment in gaming history really.
PSVR2... well it just is not close to that level.
The lackluster amount of games and with nothing big to even be looking forward to right now besides RE4 is a major part of that. (Also, RE4 is already out on the Quest2 and yes it may not be this new version, it still is the classic "best RE game" in VR and has been on the Quest 2 for like 8 months or something already)

Sony has had a couple shows that have showed like 4 or 5 VR games off in them each but besides Horizon their has really been no first party epic games for the player base to even be looking forward to. And IMHO, someone who has had VR for years and has a huge library of games, Horizon VR was not the hit that Sony needed it to be. The visuals are nice, but their is no breakthrough game mechanics that will make your jaw drop or make the player feel like "now this is why I spent another $600 on this headset".
I am still very curious to see how much Sony really supports the thing, seeing as Horizon was not even fully made by a first party studio, I think Gorilla just partnered on it. I want to see that PS has a handful of first party studios working on major games, like Half Life Alex level games for the thing.

When they literally omitted Beat Saber from the launch line up, that just makes you wonder if this thing is truly something PS themselves really are backing 100%