BAMozzy

I went for the Premium Upgrade via Game Pass for 'early' access and played quite a bit but never finished. I even started again recently just because I had lost track of where and what I had seen/done etc and hadn't played since they added a performance option. I didn't have a VRR display when that was introduced but do now.

Therefore I have this to look forward to. It's not just Microsoft, Activision were doing it with Call of Duty for years (premium versions got access to Beta early and pre-ordering got early access) - but I get it, they want to incentivise you buying it Day 1 when the game is at its most 'costly' and also least known quantity.

Over Time more and more people will have had access and will have their opinion on it's 'worth' - but others will still wait months, if not years for the price to drop below a certain threshold. There are 90% off sales and if released physically, Black Friday and then the after Christmas Sales maybe will be a better time to buy.

A few days early isn't costing them anything in essence and something you have to 'pre-order' to take advantage of. Therefore an 'incentive' - DLC and/or Season Passes with the Premium edition is just payment for everything up-front rather than give them a bit now, a bit later, and maybe some more after that.

And what has that got to do with the Beta? The Beta was only a 'test' for the Multiplayer component anyway and therefore has no impact on the Campaign at all - regardless of how successful the Beta was.

All this means is that instead of having to wait to play the MP, or only give/force you to play the campaign only until the MP/Zombies modes release. Now you can choose to play whatever you want, when you want from the day it releases....

Before we got Standard, there was a Console tier that had Day 1 games, but you couldn't always play the games or all the content as that was 'online' and locked behind Game Pass Core (formerly Xbox Gold). In other words, for you to play some of the Games offered in Game Pass under your subscription, you needed another Subscription - which was fundamentally wrong - you are paying for access to those Games/modes yet can't due to not having 'Gold/Core' online access.

For example, Games like Back4Blood or Call of Duty are (or have) Online modes that require Game Pass Core/PS+ subscriptions to play. If you only subbed to GP Console, despite that game being 'available' as part of your Sub fee, you couldn't play it without Subbing to Gold/Game Pass Core. Now if that game is in GP Standard, its playable...

Therefore, it made more sense to either Subscribe to Gold purely for Online Access or Subscribe to Ultimate to get Online Access and Game Pass in one 'convenient' Subscription. EA Access too was an extra bonus. Now of course, consumers may choose Standard and play EVERY game/mode they want

Now you have '3' tiers for Console gamers - Core with a handful of games you can play, Standard with around 10x the number of games you can play and Ultimate adding in Day 1 releases and EA Access - and ALL will let you play ALL the content, nothing hidden behind another Subscription.

@101Force That's the difference between Sony's and Microsoft's business models. Even if you were to buy a PC with DLSS for example, you won't be playing Sony's games the day they release - but you can with ALL Xbox games.

In other words, MS don't 'need' a high cost, high performance system with AI Upscaling options, with the ability to offer 'Quality' visuals at 'Performance' levels of 60fps (or more) when they already have PC's delivering that. The Console is supposed to be a 'low-cost' box to allow the mass market to play games much more affordably. You want 60fps Starfield, Hellblade 2, Avowed or whatever other '30fps' Series S/X games release, then the PC can deliver - and with DLSS, has AI upscaling too if needed.

MS went a different route for a reason - they stuck with the '$300' entry console (similar price to XB1S/PS4/Switch launch price and many consoles before) to keep giving people that 'low' cost entry option into gaming. The $500 Premium (PS4 Pro/XB1X equivalent) Consoles are already on the Market.

They don't need to 'compete' with themselves on the PC - why buy a Console if you have a Decent PC anyway - unless you keep Games away from that market to force them to buy Hardware for the 'Exclusives', PC gamers aren't buying an Xbox these days regardless so you don't need to make a Console for that market when you already have that market in your ecosystem.

At the end of the day, its them trying to do a 'fair' trade essentially. Paying for 3yrs of 'Core' and then upgrading to 3yrs of Ultimate for £1 is not a 'fair' conversion rate for MS and people took advantage of that, so now they have to crackdown otherwise they'd lose money...

As long as people also get a 'fair' conversion - ie one that doesn't lose them any money (you get the same length of time for the amount you spent or slightly more) then I see no issue..

The difference between Microsoft and Sony is their own game releases. Sony's are 'Only on Playstation' at release but Microsoft also releases Day/Date on PC. If you want 'Quality' modes at 60fps or more, want AI upscaling tech on Day 1 then you can buy a PC instead of an 'Xbox Elite' but you'll have to wait for Sony's releases on PC or buy their 'Pro'.

From my perspective, Consoles were always affordable boxes for mass market access to games. Until this gen launched, the console was a $300 box. Last gen gave us the $500 'Premium' Pro/X models and $500 should be the premium price point for a console. I wouldn't pay more to eliminate the choice between Quality/Performance modes and it seems that PS5/Series X will still offer 60fps 'Performance' modes...

To be honest, I don't miss it - the anticipation that this month will be 'worth' adding to a growing backlog of games I still haven't had the time to play.

Then you get the utter disappointment of games II and it seems many others wouldn't play and many of them would voice their negativity on the internet too.

So no I don't miss it in the way it was going for the previous years - since they dropped the 360 games really.

At least for those who only Subscribe for Online Access, they do have access to those games in the core - an 'intro' to the more expansive 'Console' tier collection of Games it offers and 'Ultimate' adds even more on top for obviously more money - so to me it, it makes much more logical sense.

All the XB1 games required you to remain subscribed to Game Pass Core at least to keep playing, keep 'access' to. If you cancel your Subscription, you'd lose access and have to 'buy' to keep playing.

As a Game Pass Ultimate Subscriber, the Games with Gold added 'nothing' of value to me after they stopped giving away 360 games. Whether its the 'latest' games in Game Pass or the XB1 games from GwG, they all require a 'Subscription' to keep playing, and the delivery method is exactly the same too...

I guess some niche AA game that no-one really wanted to 'buy' let alone 'Play' despite being 'free' with Game Pass wasn't enough to save them. MS obviously wasn't interested in a 'Hifi Rush 2' or the Studio they bought for Horror games no longer making horror.

When Mikami, the studio creator as well as creator of Resident Evil, Evil Within etc left Tango, that creative vision and driving force of that Studio has gone. Its clear that the 'new' Tango under 'new' management is Hifi Rush, kiddy 'cartoon' games now instead.

It was barely played on Game Pass - and when sold 'everywhere', barely sold. Sea of Thieves for example and even the 'old' Fallout games were more popular based on Sony's sales charts.

Maybe MS bought Tango because they wanted Mikami and his great mind, wanted the creator of Resident Evil but when he left, Tango became a 'different' Studio, a 'Hifi Rush' Studio and MS don't want/need a Studio making AA niche games that won't sell enough or bring people to Xbox/Game Pass...

@smoreon and last gen games had some games from the gen before 'boosted' to 60fps due to improved hardware. Look at Uncharted 1-3 for example - PS3 era games that were 30 fps and Game of the Year winners at 30fps, were then able to be run at 60fps on PS4.

What you want is the Next gen Hardware to play current Gen Games at 60fps - that is why you have a Console and not some PC hardware. Some 'budget' hardware built to sell for $500 or less just to enable you to play some of the Latest games.

Consoles are generally the minimum spec hardware required for the latest games that are pushing the technology forward. That's why they are often scaled down from the 4k ultra settings on a PC - that's why you have games that can't run at 60fps even at 480p because the CPU can't work fast enough. That's why next gen, these games will likely be 60fps.

Its ALWAYS been that way - and then you get next gen games being 'stripped' back or even altered to 'release' on last gen consoles at the start too during that crossover phase until they can't release on last gen at all - some may say Cyberpunk should have released only on Current gen for example and you need a 'beast' of a PC to play it at its best...

If 60fps is most important - buy a Decent PC and then you can scale the graphics right down, use DLSS to improve it and get 60fps+ in every game. Otherwise, like EVERY console, you'll get whatever the devs decide to 'set' the Frame Rate as - maybe they don't want their game to look Ugly, low res etc so 30fps gives them enough frame time to make the game look great. 30fps is the 'Standard' on Console with 'some' games offering a 'low res' performance mode or targeted 60fps specifically as a 'design' choice and limited their 'frame' budget to ensure their design was never too 'complex' to go over budget.

You chose to buy the Console, the 'budget' option for playing the latest games so can't complain about 60fps when that option is available on PC's...

@abe_hikura Not really - Fallout 4 was built for Xbox One hardware to 'run' at 30fps and therefore probably has a lot more overhead to be scaled 'up' to 60fps.

Its the same with numerous other 'XB1' era games that were targeting 30fps for that Hardware. When played/updated for next gen hardware, that hardware has a lot more processing power to 'boost' the Graphics, Frame Rate or 'both'.

Certain things don't scale either. AI for example is the same 'cost' regardless of whether the resolution is 420p, 1080p or 4k - it doesn't scale. If they use the 'extra' resources to improve AI, Physics, maybe even use it for Procedural Generation or whatever they chose to improve over Fallout 4, that can be why.

Warzone was a teaser of what to expect - an Alpha at CoD Next so that is not included - its also the F2P component so 'linked' to BO6 but also 'separate' too so won't be included in the Bets, Just BO6 MP- with 'rewards' available if you reach Lvl 20 this weekend and more too reach Lvl 30 next weekend...

There is no need to Beta Test the Single Player and never have either. This is a 'pre-release' Beta to see what the community thinks and if its 'performing' as expected. Those who 'pre-order' are those who are most excited for the MP so its those that the Beta is primary for. Now, for the first time, the Beta is also available to all those with Game Pass Subscriptions too.

I'm looking forward to it - would be cool to have a Zombies map too but I doubt they'll let us loose on 1 of the 2 maps coming at Launch.

I'm looking forward to the full release!

Typical CoD trailer but I'm looking forward to playing the beta...

It's NOT unique to Microsoft - Pre-order Space Marine Warhammer 40k 2 and you can play that 4 days early - that's NOT a Microsoft game.

Activision did it with CoD too so it's not 'new' and I remember playing games 'early' because a shop put them on sale 'early' or ordering and getting it delivered a day early...

It's also gauging interest and getting some money in from 'Game Pass' Subscribers too...

@OldGamer999 They don't 'need' to sell as many Consoles anymore - that's also a factor! The Xbox Console is literally a'4-tier' Platform right now with their 'Cloud' as the 'basic' tier - certainly not the 'best' for hardcore Gamers but good enough for all the casual 'mobile' or whatever device (My TV, Amazon Firestick) you may choose to play on

The next two tiers are the Consoles - the Series S being the 'entry' tier for playing the next generation of games at a 'budget' price (or standard $300 'Console' Price for years as the Xbox One S or PS4 were around the same price. It's also the 'low end PC' Spec that their games will ALL be built to cater too using the Hardware features and DX12 Ultimate they have built these consoles for.

The Series X is the 'Premium 4k' Console with tha premium price tag that the PS4 Pro and Series X tried to keep to and currently, the highest tier Console to match Sony's Premium priced Console - targeting the Gamers who most likely frequent sites like this.

Then you have PC too that has a wide range of specs but all use windows. So PC gamers and the 'casuals' are still part of that Xbox ecosystem but have no 'need' for the console. The Console is NOT the Focus, that's just the 'method' of Access. Some Gamers may well want a Console because it suits their budget or preference to play on a 'console' but Games are.

Those Games are all in Game Pass and the only Console with Game Pass is Xbox. Those games are and will be associated with Xbox. The Only console you can play games like Stalker 2 and Indy this Christmas is on Xbox and with games like Avowed, Doom: the Dark Ages, Fable, Perfect Dark, Clockwork Revolution, South of Midnight, Gears of War: E-Day etc to look forward too, let alone all those IP's in Game Pass - the Console is still 'important' in its position but Sony and Nintendo only have their 'console' as their entire 'ecosystem' - you can play EVERY Xbox game virtually everywhere except Switch and Playstation. Indy and Blade are also NOT owned by Microsoft so getting 'Exclusivity' (which may have been a Sony Exclusive like Deathloop and Ghostwire had MS not bought them - unlikely to have had any exclusivity as it was also announced before they acquired Zenimax)

MS said their plan was to make sure these games were on Xbox first and foremost and all the games will be in Game Pass so these are the reasons to buy an Xbox. Indy was unlikely to be fully exclusive and cut off the majority of 'buyers' when it's 'free' in Game Pass on Xbox - same with CoD, stalker 2 and all the other games in Game Pass - a great package for those newcomers to 'Console' gaming...

@TheSimulator Officially, PS Plus Essential: $9.99 monthly / $24.99 quarterly / $79.99 yearly where as Game Pass Core too costs $9.99 monthly or $74.99 a year just to play online and $19.99 for Game Pass Ultimate per month is effective $10 for all those games + EA Access if its $10 per month just for 'Online' on either console.

Every game is eventually discounted - but Game Pass allows you to play games when they release, when they are at their most hyped and most relevant. No-one cared about 'Deathloop' when that finally came to Xbox - it was old news, had been discussed enough and the gaming world had moved on. Ask most Xbox gamers about 2022 and none will mention Deathloop as game Xbox released on their platform - its a 2021 game.

Yes you can wait for ANY game - some maybe waiting eternally for some games to come to Playstation but would rather wait indefinitely to play Halo or Gears or Forza for example than buy an Xbox - after all, if they really wanted to play those, they'd have bought an Xbox. The People buying Indiana Jones on PS5 won't likely be Xbox owners or hyped enough to want to play it when it releases this year to buy an Xbox. If it doesn't release on PS5, they won't give Xbox any 'money'. If they wait until the game is heavily discounted, its no different to waiting for a movie to come to terrestrial TV, not paying for a cinema ticket or 'renting' on a Sub service, not buying it on DVD/Bluray but by then, its 'old' news too....

Yes - if you have a PS5 already and don't own an Xbox, then its cheaper just to buy the game when it eventually releases on PS5, but will miss out on it this year. PS5 owners also won't get Avowed, Fable, Perfect Dark, Clockwork Revolution, State of Decay, Gears E-day etc and waiting for games like Stalker 2 as well. This Holiday, the ONLY console with both Indiana Jones and Stalker 2 is Xbox so if you haven't decided between Xbox or Playstation yet, maybe Xbox has the better line-up and future games coming first and foremost to their hardware.

Playstation may get Indiana Jones sometime next year but its not getting it this Holiday so those wanting a Console for Christmas may want Xbox because of all those games actually out on Xbox and the games coming in 2025 when Sony's line-up seems rather lacking and being bolstered by MS's games that are all Xbox games first/foremost. Sony can't market CoD or say their Playstation is the 'home' of Call of Duty anymore, its now an Xbox game, same with Diablo, Fallout, Doom, Elder Scrolls etc - even if they do release on PS5 too.

That may make some buy an Xbox next gen, even though they can still make do with PS5 this gen as CoD is still on their hardware. It maybe not enough to convince a PS5 owner to spend £400+ on Series X hardware this late in the Gen, but next gen, the 'home' of all those games is Xbox - they are all MS owned Games and can be discounted 'lower' as they don't have to give Sony 30% - even if they are 20% cheaper on Xbox, MS makes more money so can 'discount' more. By the time Indy releases, it could be cheaper on Xbox as its 'discounted' as an old game versus a 'brand new' release on PS5...

@PsBoxSwitchOwner They aren't going to buy an Xbox anyway - its about getting Sales of hardware to all those this Christmas and there after - the fact is that Indiana Jones itself isn't a Microsoft owned IP and yet its still on Xbox First!

Maybe when the Nextbox releases and PS6 is its rival, Some Playstation owners now may jump to Xbox because games like Doom, CoD, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Diablo, Wolfenstein, Crash Bandicoot, Minecraft etc are all on and marketed by Xbox as well as all their other IP's like State of Decay, Halo, Gears, Forza, Perfect Dark, Fable, Clockwork Revolution, Avowed, South of Midnight, Flight Sim etc are also on Xbox.

Yes the sub fee is part of that, but you have to pay nearly half of that just to play 'online' every year on BOTH consoles anyway. This Holiday, the only console with Stalker 2, Indiana Jones and Flight Sim is Xbox - CoD too of course and there is more than £180 fee - plus in that 'year' you have a LOT of Day 1 and other great games - EA Access too of course and can play 'Anywhere on my Gaming Laptop, RoG Ally or even just stream to my Samsung TV.

It's £75 a year just for Online gaming Or £10 a month if you pay that way and £80 a year or £10 a month on PS5 + £70 a Game too...

You have to remember Indy was announced before they bought the Studio and Indy is not their IP, neither is Blade - but having them first and 'exclusive' on Xbox, also makes Xbox the 'lead' platform and all the Marketing for, is going to sell Xbox hardware. Selling them months, if not years later in some cases, is just extracting money from those that can't or won't buy an Xbox regardless. Its generating revenue for 'Xbox'.

And 'Play it First' or Only on Playstation for 'timed' exclusivity worked for Sony. None of these games now will ever be associated with or ever be 'first' on PS again and they'll all be in Game Pass Day 1 which still saves you money over playing on the 'alternative' platform - plus I also get to play them on PC too at no extra cost!

Those games are 'Free' as in NO EXTRA COST on top of the Game Pass Subscription which compared to the 'cost' of the games it offers, is a lot 'cheaper' than the cost to play on PS5 or its equivalent PS+ and you may not get these games in PS+ for another 'year' after they have released on Playstation as MS won't put them in there Day 1...

So if you want to play CoD, Stalker 2, and Indiana Jones this Holiday, the Cheapest Option is Xbox (It's also the ONLY Console too for two of those) and with a Game Pass Subscription - Plus you'll get to play games like Flight Sim, Doom, Avowed, Fallout, Gears, Halo, Forza, Wolfenstein etc etc for 'Free' too as part of that 'Game Pass' package.

Buy a Playstation 5 and then pay £70 to play CoD, another £80 for Online Access (required even for Single player), wait for Stalker 2 and Indiana Jones to eventually release at another £70 each, don't have anything else to play unless you upgrade to PS+ Extra or Premium and can't play on PC unless you buy there too...

Personally I thought it was OK - nothing that I wasn't really expecting or surprising.

I don't get the 'controversy' surrounding Indiana Jones - it's still coming First to Xbox, still 'exclusive' this Holiday season and will be the 'lead' platform for Call of Duty. That gives Xbox quite a marketing opportunity - Xbox, the ONLY console with Indiana Jones, Call of Duty, Stalker 2, Flight Sim 24 etc this 'Holiday' season and all those games are on Game Pass Ultimate too.

The selling point of Xbox Consoles is that those games are ALL on Xbox Day/Date, can all be played 'free' via Game Pass Ultimate and will be the ONLY Console this Holiday with Indiana Jones.

By the time it releases on PS5, Xbox gamers will have had the chance to play it, to finish the story etc. All the walkthroughs, the guides, twitch/youtubers etc that will post videos so it will be 'old' news by the time it releases. People still don't count games like Deathloop or Ghostwire as 'new' games for Xbox when they released - they were too focussed on the fact MS had 'little' to offer rather than celebrate they could finally release on Xbox. Sony uses timed exclusives (as deathloop, ghostwire, Kena etc) prove because they know that it matters who gets to play 'first'.

I'd argue that having CoD, Indy, Stalker 2 etc (despite the fact that these will be on PS5 too with CoD Day 1 on PS5) as well as Avowed, Fable, Perfect Dark, Forza, Gears, Halo, Clockwork Revolution, Doom, the Dark Ages etc etc coming with many of those 'exclusively' if not first on Xbox will sell Console Hardware and/or Game Pass Subs...

I think its down to the Devs to decide whether they would rather have the visual impact or sacrifice that for frame rate. 30fps has NEVER been an issue for many games and the majority of Game of the Year winners are 30fps games on Console - only playable at 60fps once newer/better hardware comes out. The XB1/PS4 era games are '60fps' now on newer hardware...

Many games offering 'Performance' modes aren't often delivering 60fps consistently (if at all) and some even run at XB360-like resolutions (720p internally) that look ugly - especially in motion. FSR3.0 Frame Gen too adds more lag/latency making it feel worse to play than 30fps despite delivering a more 'consistent' 60fps frame rate - so you may get '60fps' but 30fps feels more responsive to play.

Forza Horizon 5 is a fantastic example of 30fps done right - 60fps maybe 'possible' but the trade off in Visuals is to high for what feels like little/no difference in responsiveness.

Or maybe they are 'right' to use Steam who's audience are much more use to playing 'early access' builds on their platform - some that are even pre-alpha builds. It may also 'help' that its the PC build too so can tweak that quickly before porting a more complete/finished build to Console.

Early Access seems to mean something different to Console owners - that they expect the game to be much more polished and/or less inclined to 'feedback' - seeing it more as a way to play the game 'early', than help the Devs.

That will still be an upgraded 'edition - like Ubisoft selling a 'Gold' Edition with the DLC, some cosmetics and early access for Digital Pre-orders....

Everyone else - whether you buy the Physical Editions or Standard edition or play the Standard Edition on Game Pass has to wait for its 'full' releases...

Its a 'bonus' for pre-ordering when they take your money in advance so know they have made a sale!

Xbox is the lead platform from now on, its the one that will be associated with CoD, Indy, Stalker 2, Flight Sim etc this Holiday. If you want to buy a console to play Indy, its only on Xbox this Holiday!!

CoD, Doom & Minecraft are all multi-platform Microsoft games - so these will always be on 'Playstation' as long as it exists. It still has 'Exclusives' and even if a few end up releasing on Playstation, its extracting money from Playstation gamers who wouldn't/didn't buy an Xbox.

If you are looking to buy hardware, assuming you haven't already got an Xbox, look at all these games - let alone 2025 with Avowed, Fable, Perfect Dark, Clockwork Revolution, Blade, South of Midnight etc...

All those are First and Foremost 'Xbox' Games - even if 'some' release on Playstation too. Its bringing in 'money' from users who wouldn't or didn't buy (not penalising them for buy Playstation - just delaying access). Xbox is still the Lead Platform, still the ONLY hardware to offer all these Day/Date on Xbox Hardware, and Xbox Hardware also is the ONLY console with Game Pass.

If you want to play Indiana Jones, CoD, Flight Sim 24, Stalker 2 etc this Holiday, the ONLY console is Xbox, and play them 'free' Day/dat with Game Pass Ultimate....

That's their Holiday Marketing to 'Sell' Xbox Hardware this Holiday season and the Games that will follow on in 2025...

Then when the Holiday season has cooled, Indy isn't 'selling much, (if at all with focus moved on to 'new' releases), sell the Game to all those who have Playstations to extract money from those that would never have the 'opportunity' to give MS money to play their Game(s) - 1m Sea of Thieves sales - how many Indy Sales on PS5?

For Xbox gamers, they still get all these Games Day/Date - Some may well release on PS5 too - but they always have - CoD, Doom, Minecraft - they all exist outside just the console gamers and all make MS money. Others may release later on PS but again, you've had exclusivity for a period of time, got to play it first and really shouldn't care that MS is selling their games elsewhere to extract more 'money' for 'growth' of their IP's and Revenue...

@EVIL-C Again - the Console isn't that important overall - MS have the PC as its also a Microsoft Windows based platform - the original 'Windows' based gaming platform that MS released games on long before catering to the 'budget' end of gaming. Xbox was after all a 'low cost' way of bring PC games to that audience - DirectX in a box for console pricing...

Since they now support PC with their entire releases, then PC gamers don't need an Xbox to play. So all those PC gamers that bought a console for exclusives, the games they can't get on PC, then they aren't going to buy an Xbox. They've lost that market since the 360 days so chances are, they'll never get those back.

The fact is that Microsoft is much more associated with PC and they have that 'platform' too. It may not be 'locked' like a Console so MS can't 'monetise' it in the same way, force people to pay for online, extract more money from the gamer on games etc, but PC is their platform too and also the other hardware that Game Pass allows for downloading and local play of Games. If I buy 'Starfield' from Microsoft store - I can play on Xbox or PC - my 'Xbox' profile allows me to play Games on PC or to put it another way, my Microsoft account lets me play on PC or Xbox so if I have a 'decent' PC, why buy an Xbox?

The Console isn't that important - whilst I will agree that it is still important to offer a console as a 'low cost' and simple solution (plug/play) for those that want/prefer that over a PC that may cost 'more' or put off by 'PC issues' - but its just an 'option' and others may 'prefer' to play on PC whilst others may even settle for playing on Cloud.

Cloud might not be 'good enough' for the hardcore gamer - but there are millions, if not billions who are happy playing more 'casually' - hence MS's big push for the Mobile sector too - especially as Mobiles have become more like computers and able to play more than just 'simple' games like Snake or Candy Crush.

Point is MS has a 3 pronged attack - Cloud (still very much in its infancy and reliant on infrastructure), PC (their 'first' gaming hardware they made games for) and Console (their own 'DirectX Box' for those who prefer the fixed spec lower cost way in to Xbox gaming). All 3 are MS platforms, are Game Pass platforms! Even if you just have a Student laptop, you may not need to buy a Series S/X to play or even upgrade from an XB1.

Of course MS would prefer it if you bought an Xbox over a Playstation and the Xbox still is important in that particular sector but Hardcore gamers with PC's for example will likely buy a PS5 for 'exclusives' because Xbox release their games on their PC platform day/date too - thus not giving PC gamers a reason to buy the Hardware.

Again it comes down to just that very narrow minded 'Console' gamer who thinks that their 'box' is more important than any other box, but its not even the 'only' box to sell Game Pass for example - unlike Playstation which is the only hardware with PS+. You don't need a Series S/X to play Starfield via Game Pass - you can play it on a mobile or XB1 with cloud or PC - its still part of 'Xbox' though despite not requiring a Console.

@EVIL-C And Game Pass to play those games locally on Hardware for 'Free' - No other Console will let you play Indiana Jones this Holiday Day 1, as well as Flight Sim, Avowed, Fable, Perfect Dark, Call of Duty, Doom, Forza, Gears, Elder Scrolls, Clockwork Revolution, State of Decay, Halo, Fallout or South of Midnight.

Even if 'some' release on PS5 making money for Xbox too as you have no choice but to 'buy' the game(s) as and when MS 'choose' to release - if they 'ever' do. There are still full exclusives on Xbox - Flight Sim, Forza, Gears, Halo, State of Decay etc are all, and still remain fully exclusive on Console - although again SteamDeck and Handheld PC's are 'consoles' too by design and so nothing is 'console' exclusive these days as they'll end up on steam/pc 'consoles'.

Of course you can play on PC day/date so don't 'need' a console, can also play on Cloud no doubt so again won't need a 'physical' box - but you can't play on Playstation this year anyway.

So the ONLY Console Hardware that lets you play 'locally' (not streamed) and/or at no extra cost Day/date via Game Pass in Series S/X - same as it was for games like Hifi-Rush, Grounded or Pentiment. The only console you can play CoD and Doom for 'free' Day 1 is Series S/X so along with games like Perfect Dark, Fable, Clockwork Revolution, Blade and Avowed - there is 'reasons' to own an Xbox Console.

Whilst you maybe able to buy CoD, Doom and eventually indiana Jones too, doesn't mean you'll get to play Fable or Perfect Dark - certainly not the day they launch and may need to wait until PS6 for some 'Series X' games if they take as long as Sea of thieves did.

Therefore there is a reason to buy an Xbox and for 'exclusives' - whether timed (like Indiana Jones) or permanent (like Flight Sim or Forza) - The ONLY console to play on Hardware on Day 1 is Xbox - the only console that also offers Game Pass!!

@PsBoxSwitchOwner How do you know the terms of the deal? MS never announced that they paid for this to be 'exclusive' for any time, let alone around 3-6mnths as this looks.

It was announced BEFORE MS bought Zenimax and may well have had 'no' exclusivity AT ALL and what they 'negotiated' was a 3-6mnth 'exclusivity' period. They had Starfield and Redfall which are 'full' exclusivity.

Its only Fanboys that are crying - I always said that even IF the games release day/date on PS5 - as IP's like CoD and Minecraft are, then Xbox still has the benefit of Game Pass. Yes you can play CoD on PS5, but Xbox Game Pass subscribers get to play it free. Indiana Jones is still 'exclusive' to Xbox this Holiday season...

I couldn't care less if 'Every' game was released on every platform - in fact I'd be happier. I couldn't care less if Sony gamers (I am one too). Since buying Zenimax, their first 2 releases didn't even release on Xbox until after they were on PS and now we have 'exclusives' inc the only Console to get Indiana Jones this Holiday season - something that certainly wouldn't have happened without paying 8bn for Zenimax and selling on PS5 too will help offset me playing it free on Game Pass.

CoD too isn't 'exclusive' after paying 70bn - it is NOW on Game Pass day/date and unlike the past 'decade', will never have content 'ONLY on Playstation'. It may not be 'exclusive' but it is a 'win' compared to the situation it was before.

Whether you think the deal was about MS ensuring all those games/IP's would be 'Exclusive' (not timed, but permanent), the deal seems more about ensuring ALL those games release on Xbox First and foremost. ensuring those games will be on Game Pass for Xbox Game Pass customers - all of that was NOT guaranteed - CoD has never been on a Sub service and never would under Kotick, May even of had Sony making another deal for CoD so Xbox/PC 'misses' out - won't happen now...

Its not defending MS, its being realistic and not an emotional fanboy who has no idea of the real situation to make statements like MS paid to have Indiana Jones Exclusively for Xbox and cannot release on PS5 at all, ever, just to appease some Fanboys...

@InterceptorAlpha Competing doesn't mean they are 'competing' on the number of Consoles 'sold' - they can compete by number of Gamers in their 'Games', the amount of 'revenue', their software generates, the number of top games they release a year (best Publisher) etc.

Microsoft aren't just competing with Sony, but also EA, Ubisoft, tencent etc as well. They want to get more people into their IP's, their Games than their hardware can ever possibly reach. For 'Xbox' customers, the advantage of 'Xbox' hardware is the fact that Games will come 'first' to Xbox and will be available on Game Pass at no extra cost. They are 'exclusive' - whether for a few months, years or permanently Exclusive.

Its not 'all' games - It's a game that was also announced 'before' MS took over Zenimax. So far, games like Starfield, Redfall, Flight Sim, Avowed, Fable, Perfect Dark, Clockwork Revolution etc etc are all 'exclusive' to Xbox and games like CoD, Minecraft & Doom remain multi-platform - but again, they'll be on Game Pass day 1 on 'Xbox' which you can play on Xbox at no extra cost - which before the deal to acquire would not be on Game Pass and, in the case of CoD, likely to have 'benefits' for Playing on Playstation...

The way some talk, you'd think that Xbox Consoles had no 'exclusives' or 'advantages' - yet these games are 'exclusive' at launch on Xbox or at the very least, available in Game Pass at no extra cost. If a 'few' end up on PS, how is that different from Sony releasing on PC - may as well just buy a PC as you'll get every Xbox and Sony Game as well as all those 'exclusive' PC games you can't play on either Console. PC has more games inc Sony's (as well as their 3rd Party deals to keep Final Fantasy away from Xbox for example) so instead of buying both a PS5 and Series X, invest in a PC to play even more games. A SteamDeck console has both Xbox and Sony games...

Buying on Sony will still benefit MS as Publisher and IP owner - they'll see it as 'extracting' money from their 'rivals' - money they perhaps wouldn't have gotten otherwise and justifying their decision to release. They'll see it as getting a 'Sony' gamer into a MS owned IP and that IP is generating revenue for MS. They are one of the 'biggest' Publishers on Playstation now with a number of IP's in their Charts as best selling games of the year...

For Xbox customers - you get to play these 'first' and at no extra cost to Game Pass Ultimate Subscribers. By the time it release on PS5, Xbox gamers can play the game to completion and less chance of it being 'spoiled' too...

Every first party game seems to be rumoured going to PS5 at some point - I can see Hellblade 2 or Outer Worlds 2 going to PS5 at 'some' point after release - much in the same way that Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Wolverine, GoT, Horizon etc all release on PC.

I really don't see how this is 'different'. MS games already release day/date on PC so don't have any other 'platforms' they can utilise to extract more 'sales' revenue for their games other than Playstation/Switch hardware.

PC is also a Microsoft Windows based gaming platform - the vast majority require 'windows' to run (or a windows layer like Valves SteamDeck Proton layer) so are 'Microsoft' customers who bought Microsoft Windows with their PC.

The fact is that these games are still coming first to Xbox and can be played Day/Date for 'free' if you are a Game Pass Subscriber. By the time it releases on Playstation - every Xbox gamer has had ample chance to 'buy' or Play the game. Forza Horizon 5 is already nearly 3yrs old and if that does 'release' on PS5, will likely cost $70 at launch as a 'new' release, whilst its on sale on Xbox as an 'older' title or 'free' on Game Pass.

No-one is buying an 'Xbox' to play FH5 today specifically or signing up to Game Pass specifically to play that game. When BO6 launches on both PS5/Xbox hardware, that 'could' sell Xbox hardware or Game Pass Subs - same with the 'Xbox' release of Indiana Jones. If that does eventually go to PS5, it will be because the game is 'old' news for Xbox, its not selling hardware/subscriptions or 'game' units anymore as Xbox has moved on to Avowed, Fable, Perfect Dark, Doom or whatever other 'big' release that is due out on Xbox exclusively that month.

Its the same as Sony selling Spider-Man on PC when that game is no longer selling PS5 hardware, no longer selling 'game units' on Playstation, so release 'elsewhere' to increase their game unit sales figures. If you didn't buy a PS5 to play Spider-man when it was exclusive on PS5, chances are you'd never give Sony money, but Sony can get money from outside their 'ecosystem' by selling their games on PC, Xbox or Switch - they 'choose' not to sell on Xbox and give MS money through their 'Locked' Platform as their major 'rival', but MS is happy to extract money from Sony's Gamers, even if that helps 'Sony's' revenue too. MS get more and a LOT more than they would if they didn't release as those games are 'not' selling units, hardware or Subscriptions anymore by the time they release as the focus has moved on to the 'next' Xbox exclusive (even if timed)

Apart from the games you'd expect to release simultaneously - as Minecraft has continued to be 'multi-platform' as will CoD and Doom too - the fact these are all on Xbox and Game Pass Day 1 is the 'Xbox' selling point. Even 'old' first party games - like Sea of Thieves which was 7yrs old, Pentiment, Grounded and Hifi Rush (all at least a year old) were 'exclusive' and there are still a LOT of Exclusives on Xbox Consoles - Flight Sim, Ara, AoE, Age of Mythology, Gears, Halo, Starfield, Redfall, etc with Fable, Perfect Dark, Avowed, Clockwork Revolution, State of Decay, South of Midnight etc that will be 'exclusive' on Xbox - at least Day/Date so Playstation gamers will 'miss out' - may even have to wait for PS6 to play if they don't release for several years, and some you may never play at all...

I refuse to pay more than £50 for ANY game and for £50, I'd expect to get 'Everything' - not have to pay more to get the content they have 'cut' or haven't finished yet so will arrive post launch.

As it's a Ubisoft game, it will likely be on sale in months after release so if it reviews 'OK', I'll consider picking it up as and when its on Sale. Its an Ubisoft game so I expect it will feel like I've already played the game - just with a different skin...

I refuse to buy games 'Day 1' - not because of Game Pass - but because I am not 'desperate' for something to play and therefore not paying a 'Premium' to play it Day 1 - the day it is often at its worst to play and also has the least amount of Features and/or Content as they'll be patches to add features/content and improve the way it runs, fix bugs etc so it will be a 'bigger, better' game for a lot less money in a year. Every game these days seem to release with a 'base' game - but then you'll miss out on all this extra stuff that should be in the game, but now you need to pay more for the 'full' experience... Look at Goldeneye - extra Maps, Characters etc were all in the game and lasted me 'years' of playing it regularly...

I grew up when you could buy a game for £2 on a tape - Dizzy by Codemasters for example and 'Premium' games were £10 but came in a box with either tape/Disc and often had a 'book' with the box. Consoles were 'Premium' priced because they came on Cartridge with massive manufacturing costs and materials so can't 'compare' with modern Pricing even taking inflation into it - £10 in 1986 is like £36.73 so they are exploiting Gamers and using Console Cartridge prices as their example despite a completely different and 'almost non-existent now' Manufacturing/shipping cost.

I still have hundreds of games to play in my backlog - thanks to years of Gaming and Backwards Compatibility. I'll still play the 'same' online games with friends too. Add in all those years of Games with Gold and Game Pass games I also have access to, I'm now happy to wait and spend money my money in sales (adding to my Backlog) and/or content in games I'm playing (DLC, Cosmetics etc) - get a lot more for my money instead!

Well I heard that it also uses Assets from other CoD games - not their 'own' or 'required' purchases from Activision to run.

Personally, I think that they should shut down ALL Mods etc that are using their intellectual property, their 'name' etc. Make their own games!! I have NO Sympathy!!

@TheSimulator ...and no it makes no difference to 'hifi rush' the first game as that was and still is 'Published by' Microsoft and released 'everywhere' so they'll still make money and control its 'Game Pass' access - like Sunset Overdrive - but have no control over that IP anymore...

@TheSimulator The game was quite niche and didn't sell well but if some other publisher want the creative team that made Hi-fi Rush and are 'available' to be acquired, rather than be 'shut down' along with IP, that makes it a more 'worthwhile' purchase to Krafton.

They don't 'need' a studio to make whatever game they are 'forced' to make, not able to make a 'sequel' to their own IP, but a Studio with a critically successful IP and ideas/plans for Hifi-rush 2, that's a more interesting 'buy'.

That way, both the Studio, or the Creative Talent behind Hi-Fi Rush, and the IP are 'saved' because the Heart and Soul of the game is acquired - the Developers who 'created' the IP. Chances are, MS would let that 'die' like some of their other IP's as their studios have their own 'IP's' they are working on anyway.

So now this way, MS gets 'money', they lose Tango and Hifi-Rush but the future of 'both' is now 'promising' for fans. The alternative was 'both' were gone...

A studio costs a 'lot' to run - wages for peoples time over years over many staff - they need Funding and Toy's for Bob found ways to 'independently' self fund and buy their 'freedom with no IPs. But then MS have 'partnered' with them on something.

@TheSimulator Of course getting into the Japanese/Asian market is 'A' goal, but you also have to look at the games, the studio, the logistics etc. They may have wanted Mikami as the way into Japan but he left and the Creator of the Evil Within/Ghostwire was no longer at the studio.

Logistically too with raising differences in the exchange rate, Japan is also a long way from all their other studios and and in different time zones too which makes it extremely difficult to support and check up on when they are the other side of the world.

HiFi Rush too wasn't a big seller or particularly highly played game on Game Pass either despite trying to sell on PS too - it never moved the needle - and the Studio, now without Mikami wants to make another 'Hifi Rush' despite that - so no wonder MS wasn't that interested in keeping them when they have 2 new Studios (under ABK) and a new 'team' in Blizzard too to make 'AA' games which would be a lot easier and logistically superior to keeping Tango...

@JH64 To you maybe - but the fact is Xbox will have ALL those games day/date on Xbox hardware and can be played a whole lot cheaper on Xbox too - by the time they release on PS5, the game is 'old', yesterdays news, its finished and Xbox gamers have played it for the last year or more.

Xbox is basically releasing more games on Playstation, dominating their sales charts and being one of the biggest, if not biggest publisher on Sony's platform with their 'old' catalogue that is no longer 'selling' on Xbox as everyone has bought/played on Xbox. Sony have basically nothing for their platform and all their games are on PC anyway - so may as well get an Xbox to play them 'free' on Game Pass or maybe a PC and save having to pay for Online gaming...

Yes you can buy a Playstation and wait, wait and wait for MS to decide to release some games - you may get Redfall or AoE2, Age of Mythology or some other 'old' game that they want to extract more money from Sony gamers who will have to buy if they want to play...

Even if Starfield comes to Playstation - its already last years games. No-one really 'cared' about Deathloop or Ghostwire when they finally released on Xbox and even games like Kena after 3yrs is so much less of a 'release' than a 'Day 1' game.

As I said, you are better of with a PC as ALL the games are released their and can play better than the Consoles. Also will save $75-80 a year on paying for PS+/Game Pass Core just to play online - You'll get all Xbox Day 1 regardless and they have a LOT more Studio's and Games coming than Sony now.

The point of an 'Xbox' hasn't changed - its still the best place to play ALL of Xbox games when they release, maybe even play them 'free' with Game Pass Ultimate and with the 'best' controller too. You can wait 'years' and hope MS will release games like Starfield, Indiana Jones, Avowed, Fable, Perfect Dark, Clockwork Revolution or State of Decay 3 for example and even then, all you get is CoD, Minecraft, ESO/F76, Doom, Age of Mythology and Towerborne because MS chooses not to release those 'big' games on PS5 - maybe release Starfield on PS6 when Xbox gets a 'next gen' upgrade - Sea of Thieves was a 'last gen' game and the rest were AA games that wouldn't sell Game Pass or 'Xbox' hardware anyway. Playstation has 'few' games these days and they release on PC so why buy a Playstation? You can buy a Gaming PC (handheld) for Console money now and it plays MORE games than PS5, Xbox and Switch combined!!!

@JH64 Because you can play via Game Pass at no extra cost and the games are already released on Xbox so are 'console' exclusives - even if that exclusivity is 'timed' for a year or more.

Why buy a Playstation when ALL their games are on PC and with Xbox games all on PC too as well as all the 'exclusive' PC games, you have a much bigger Library on PC and won't miss out on Spider-Man or Starfield as both are on PC. Its the same argument - so you may as well quit Consoles because all the games are on PC's and PC has Game Pass too so can play MS games for a LOT less money - and you don't 'need' a Subscription just to play 'online' either...

Yes you maybe able to play some Xbox IP's (CoD, Minecraft, Doom) Day 1 on PS, others (Sea of Thieves, Grounded etc) after some time, but Xbox is the only 'console' you can play via Game Pass and 'Day 1' - even if you can play Day 1 on PS, you'll have to buy. Want to play BO6, well its on Game Pass or $70 on PS5...

The Xbox Console has not been 'required' for the last decade - ever since MS stopped making their games 'exclusively' for their Console and decided to release Day/Date on PC.

Their games have been available on Steam Deck consoles and PC so you have not needed an Xbox to play any MS Xbox game. In fact some MS games released on PC first - Gears Tactics, Flight Sim, Age of Empires etc all released on PC before they came to 'Series S/X' and Gears Tactics was a 'launch' title for Series S/X. Minecraft has never been 'exclusive' either despite MS owning that.

Yes some games maybe able to be purchased on Playstation too, but you don't have 'Game Pass' on Playstation. If Starfield does release on PS5, you can play it 'free' with Game Pass on Xbox or pay $70 to play on PS5. Games like Sea of Thieves will require a PS+ Subscription to play as well and if you also want to play on a 'PC' too, then you'd likely have to buy twice. Game Pass Ultimate can let you play 'anywhere' (except Playstation) and buying on Xbox will likely get the PC version too but you won't get that with PS5.

If they do bring FH5 or Starfield to Playstation - that's not really different from Sony releasing their 'exclusives' on PC to extract more revenue from their IP's from 'gamers' outside their own platform. Sony has the PC as well as Xbox/Switch hardware but the PC is also a Microsoft (windows) platform. Also you've had a year or more 'exclusivity' on Xbox, those games aren't 'new' and currently are Console Exclusives to Xbox hardware.

So not only do you get to play 'first' on Xbox, you can also play via Game Pass. If you want to play Indiana Jones, that will be on Xbox consoles Day/Date, can be played at no extra cost to Game Pass Ultimate Subscribers etc. If MS do release it on PS too, you'll have to wait and hope and wait until MS even announce it will release on PS whilst Xbox gamers are enjoying the Game.

Obsidian have been remarkably productive since being acquired. As pointed out, they spent the first year finishing the Outer Worlds, and have made Grounded, Pentiment and have Avowed coming soon too.

I'd rather they playtest them well enough to ensure that we get games that run smoothly Day 1. If that means taking a bit longer to 'polish', I'd rather wait 'months or even years for that...

Some games take 'years and years' to make, some Publishers either announce them too soon for whatever reasons (often because Fans want to know what their Studio's are 'creating' next) or Push them out too early so 'Day 1' is terrible. Some of it Studio's and the Studio Heads who aren't managing and focusing the team to meet 'Deadlines' and/or asking for 'help' when unforeseen technical issues crop up...

But at the end of the day, as long as I get a 'finished' and polished game, I will be happy. I'd rather they didn't announce things until they are 99% sure they can give a date and stick to it releasing in a great state than hear of delays but I'm also aware that it isn't easy and Obsidian are productive....

@DdG1408 You are missing the point - the 'Community' is the 'Online' one that is participating in playing together in Community based seasonal events, modes etc. That is ONLY the 'current' game with the current Seasonal content as the 'old' games are no longer 'supported' - even if they remain 'playable'.

If you 'buy' MW2 today, that game is no longer 'supported' by its developers as they have moved on and its not supported by the new Season and Season Pass content. You are NOT able to participate in any Community 'events' or play with the 'Community' in 'new' content, get the 'exclusive' rewards that will not be available again.

MW3 however is the Current game and maybe why it came to Game Pass at the start of the current Season. Its the game where the 'Community' are playing - between this and the Current 'Warzone', you are part of the Community participating in Community events.

So yes, you can't 'participate' in Community based seasonal content, won't be able to get or play some Content too because its no longer available - Specific Maps, modes etc if you don't play the latest CoD game. Doesn't mean you can't 'play' old games or choose to play, but you aren't 'participating' with the Community who are actively playing the latest. If you buy MW2, that is not going to let you participate in any of the Community based events - not even the ones they had in MW2 because those 'events' were timed. You can't get the season pass content, the camo's, the 'rewards' etc and you can't 'participate' with the Community on current Events unless you also buy MW3 - MW2 is not the 'same' now the Community and Support have moved on.

Of course, you don't have to be part of that Online Community - you can still be a Fan of the Single Players (which isn't a 'community' based mode) or still play 'old' versions of their 'online' games - BO3 still has the best Zombies mode imo.

Every year a 'new' CoD releases with a new Dev team leading that - this year it was Sledgehammer with MW3 and next its Treyarch with BO6. When BO6 starts, MW3 support will 'cease' - even though it still remains 'playable'. There is no more 'community' events, community seasons or anyway to unlock certain characters, camos or gear in MW2 anymore. You maybe able to 'play' the basic MP, but you aren't 'participating' in the Community Events and won't unlock any Season Pass rewards.

Being able to play 'old' games doesn't mean you are 'Participating' or even part of the 'Community' when you are not playing the 'Active' game. The Devs too have moved on from that game, the Community have moved on from that game and all the Community based events/content has moved on - its no longer 'supported' by the devs or getting Community based updates/events/modes etc. You'll never be able to unlock 'Community' rewards for 'Participating' in Seasonal Community events etc and you won't be buying Season Passes to Participate in Community events because those 'old' games are no longer 'active' or 'supported'.And by 'active', I don't mean not playable, just that its not the game where all the 'Community' based Events etc are happening so you 'cannot' participate.

@SleeplessKnight The fact that the witcher, with all its complexity and scale, runs on a Switch just proves that really no game shouldn't be able to 'run' on the Series S.

It runs Xbox games well enough and its only '3rd' party Devs who have needed more 'time' and/or help from MS to run on their Series S because they don't have the time/experience to optimise and/or take advantage of the full features of the 'Xbox' hardware. It is built for 'generic' hardware first and foremost and if you see how their games are built, they aren't 'optimal' but built 'quick'.

Given 'time', they can probably make the games run on a switch as they aren't doing 'anything' vastly different, its just resolution, level of detail and doing more of that per 'frame' than they could before - 4k, HDR at '60fps' requiring at least a 4090 to do that 'natively' without DLSS and $500 consoles 'Struggling' at 1080p with FSR to do '4k/60', and the Series S may only offer 1080-1440p at '30fps' for a $250 console, that's not underpowered to 'run' the game well enough for the majority.

For most, the Series S will be perfect - it will run CoD, Fifa, Fortnite, Apex, Minecraft and whatever other games they'll want to play on it...

@SleeplessKnight As you said, its more 'work' for the Developers to optimise their game for, and my take a bit longer to get 'ALL' features enabled for parity, but that still doesn't mean the game can't and won't run on a Series X with Parity to the 'Premium' (disc or discless) PS5.

The point is though that it is down to the devs to make it work - all of Xbox games 'work' and actually work fine on Series S. I expect their upcoming games like BO6, Fable, Avowed, Perfect Dark, Gears:E-Day etc to all run well enough for ANYONE upgrading from an XB1S or anyone 'new' to Xbox and cheap enough to be an Exclusives only one a 1080p or even 1440p Displays as it was 'designed' for

The difference is that MS Devs will 'optimise' for their hardware and aren't having to produce 'discs' for the 'few' Series X owner who still buys physical - the 'smaller' of the two SKU's with a simple 'port' of the PS5 settings can suffice for Series X...

Having to spend a bit more time to get their game running on the Series S is not an example of it being 'underpowered', more an example of more 'pressure' due to two SKU's - like they had for the last 8yrs or so with PS4 and PS4 Pro or XB1s and XB1X

When games like the Witcher 3 can run on a Switch - any question about 'under-powered' is ridiculous - its the Devs and it's not as if the games are any bigger, better, different and are barely using any (if any at all) of the Hardware Features built in or features of DirectX12 that 'could' help because that takes 'work' and would really help on Series X too but that's 'more' work and only benefits 'Xbox' as PS5 can't use them and they can get their game running 'well enough' on 'Premium' consoles just by 'porting and tweaking a few settings...

Few games yet have even used Multi-threading, despite the fact these Consoles are capable of that - because it makes it easier and better for PC with so many different CPU's for 'ease' and compatibility across a wide range of devices. If they aren't willing to put in the work, that is more an indication of the Studio, their experience and/or the amount of sales they expect to get on Xbox to determine if the 'extra' work is worthwhile...

So if customers want a $250 console and are playing on 1080p TV's, why should they pay more for 4k or 120fps when they are happy with 1080p/60 at best and used to 30fps anyway...

I've had my Series X since Day 1 and would buy a Series S for my Bedroom ,buy a Series S for the kids in their bedroom, all the students too may benefit from a cheaper option.

Point is, the market too is determining the Series S was 'worthwhile' and is selling 'more' than Series X which may be also an indication of people more interested in being able to play locally on the Hardware - hardware their 'old' console wasn't able to run at all!!

@SleeplessKnight It is not underpowered - it runs games that no other $250 machine that's great for kids with 1080p TV's in their bedroom.

Its perfect for many who don't care about the graphics or frame rate, they'll play Starfield on their Series S and be just immersed in the game as they would on a Series X -it tells the same opportunities and questlines - Audio is the same, Stories too!.

It's only 'geeks' that care about resolution and frame rates - as long as they are not a distraction and aren't 'broken' games, the same games as the Series X for just $250 - that's competing with all the other cheaper options like Switch, Steam Deck and a whole 'history' of $300 or less Console price point. It was only the introduction of 'Premium' consoles for '4k' and faster frame rates for $500...

It might be 'under-powered' compared to a Series X for '4k Displays and maybe less capable of offering 120hz modes for those with the latest TV's capable of using them, but 'perfect' for a 'normal' console price (like the XB1S was, the Series S is the perfect 'upgrade' for - they also didn't care about the XB1X when that released and whilst I have a Day 1 XB1X in the bedroom, a Series S would be an 'upgrade' over that on my 1080p TV.....

@Rog-X All that says to me is that 'PC' is the place to play ALL games 'eventually'....

The difference is that MS is both essentially as one is the OS inn a PC with DX12, smart delivery etc that their Console is built around for a 'locked' system at an 'affordable' price.

Sony Playstation is looking very lean on first party content. Sucker Punch took 6yrs between infamous and Ghost and ND have 're-released' everything now so can't rely on those to bolster releases...

Does it matter if they say its on Game Pass or not?

If people choose to come to Xbox and subscribe to Game Pass Ultimate to play CoD, Microsoft is going to benefit from that - especially if those people buy Season Passes, Bundles, CoD points etc as MS will get 100% of the money as they are the Platform Holder, IP owner, retailer, Publisher etc.

If people choose to stay on Playstation, they get 70% of the sale of the game and any digital content - Sony, as Platform Holder and retailer get 30%.

If they 'don't' push the fact its on Game Pass, then maybe more people will buy it instead. Those that wouldn't pay $70 just for the campaign, maybe buy it in a sale or used, never buy any 'extras', aren't really part of the 'community' and not a 'lost' sale if they choose to play via Game Pass because they can.

Wherever you choose to play CoD - whether that's on Playstation where the game is only available to purchase or Xbox, even if you 'choose' to play via Game Pass, that's still making MS money. They'll get 'more' if you choose to play on 'Xbox' because its their own Platform and you'll need at least Game Pass Core too. If you choose to pay more for GPU, then that's still money going to MS despite not having to pay $70 for the base game - but then maybe will buy Season Passes etc which MS gets 100% of - instead of 70% they get from Sony...

It may affect the sales - no more '30m' annual sales - but I don't think it will be 'bad' for Call of Duty. The last game had 70% sales on Playstation and I doubt that CoD fanboys will abandon PS5 to 'rent' the game for a year on Xbox.

Xbox may actually get more people playing BO6 - and a few of those will still buy - its their favourite Franchise and will play it for 100's of hours. There will be Season Passes, Cosmetic Bundles, CoD Points and of course all of that is also linked to Warzone too - so may actually sell a LOT more of these which offset the 'sales' losses - even though people will still be paying for Game Pass and 4m of GPU costs more than buying the game and playing it all year.

Its not like they won't make money from selling the game too - its not as if all 30m will suddenly jump to Xbox, subscribe to GPU and never buy again, never buy Season Passes, Bundles etc. If all you play is CoD too, it may not make sense to Subscribe. The 'majority' who will now access through Game Pass and choose not to spend ANY money on 'extras' are those that likely wouldn't buy CoD until its years old, in a sale for the Single Player so wouldn't really affect the 'sales' of BO6 and maybe might be tempted in to buying more 'content'

@RadioHedgeFund It's not just the Series S - which is outselling the Series X despite the fact that some may think its 'under-powered', but the fact that some people really don't 'need' to buy a Series S/X at all.

PC gamers during the 360 era for example may well of been tempted to buy an Xbox for games like Forza, Halo, Gears etc - now they don't need to buy an Xbox at all. Those PC gamers may choose to buy a Switch/Playstation instead as they have games they can't play Day 1 on their PC.

Last gen XB1 owners too don't really need to upgrade if they don't want to or have the budget to right now - even to a Series S - as the 'few' games released as 'next gen only' releases can be played with GPU via Streaming - maybe not the 'best', but certainly cheaper than having to buy 'new' hardware right now.

Xbox games release on Steam Deck too and with Handheld PC's now on the market, there are more and more affordable 'devices' (and by affordable, I mean around the Series Console prices) as alternatives to buying a Series console. If you are playing on a 720-1080p handheld screen, you don't need the powerful hardware to hit 4k.

Switch and Playstation will have more appeal - regardless of how you market it. If European gamers are more likely to play on PC and have a 'console' for exclusives, then spending 200m on Advertising isn't shifting the needle - its 200m they could have spent on making games to get them into Game Pass for PC or 'buying' games on whatever devices they want to play on. Xbox doesn't have 'Exclusives' from the PC gamers so you've lost that market' of buyers and there are more 'PC based' alternatives (inc Handhelds) without 'Subscriptions' for Online gaming - which also add up. At $75 a year, it adds to the overall cost. 4yrs is $300 on top of the $250 or $400 for the console.

If you want to play Spider-Man 2 or Wolverine the day they release, you need a PS5 regardless of whatever devices you own or prefer to play on. If you want to play Fable or Starfield, there is a whole range of devices you may already own you could play on, you don't 'need' a Series console at all. A PC gamer may prefer to play on their PC at 720p if it gives them much higher frame rates than the consoles so why buy a Console regardless of how its well its advertised?

reading that, it would seem that the Only IP they have actually 'let go' along with Tango Gameworks is Hi-Fi Rush.

Regardless of what some may have thought, Hi-Fi Rush didn't seem to sell well when it was released on other platforms and no doubt, Microsoft themselves would know how 'popular' it was on Game Pass, how many actually played and of those, how many actually played more than the first few levels.

Not only that, this was a Studio that had lost its head, its creator and visionary - that would be like buying Kojima's Studio (maybe to get Kojima himself in) only for Kojima to quit months after.

It was their only Studio in Japan - and that too would complicate Logistics and support. When everything else is North America or Europe, Tango was the other side of the world. I'm sure MS also now will get some 'funds' from selling Tango and/or its IP(s) to Krafton too

Xbox Game Pass isn't the ONLY Sub Service offering Day 1 titles.

EA Play (not Access) and Ubisoft+ both offer Day 1 games from their Studios via a Subscription service. EA Play may only be on PC but its still EA's own Sub service for their 'own' games and unlike Game Pass, these don't offer '3rd Party' published games.

However, it does show that some Publishers are able to substitute Sales for a Subscription fee instead - although this is still different from a 3rd Party Publisher putting their releases into another's subscription service Day 1 as is being discussed. You wouldn't expect GTA6 on EA Play or Ubisoft+ Day 1, wouldn't expect Take Two to want to discuss releasing that into their Sub service.

Maybe one day, we will see all the big Publishers having their own Sub Service too - whether that's the 'future' gamers want or not...

The last time 'Couch co-op' or 'Split-screen' gaming mattered to me, there was no 'online' option. Since the option to play online, its by far the best and most important way to play with others.

The only time it seems to matter is when people don't have a decent internet connection or refuse to pay for 'online' but in reality, I think its a dead option these days and gaming seems to be moving more towards individuals playing on ANY device - including mobiles and other small screen displays where 'couch co-op' would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible.

Instead of a 'family' owning a single console that's plugged into the only TV in the house and having to 'share' the hardware, nowadays everyone can have their own Console plugged into their own TV, their own Mobile or handheld device, their own handheld PC etc and can ALL play together regardless of whether they all live in the same house or not....

I'd hate to have a Switch, SteamDeck, Handheld PC or similar Small Screen device and then only have the option of Split Screen. I can't see 'streaming' working well with Split Screen either so I think that if people are likely to be playing on 'small' screens, then couch co-op is impossible for them whilst they can play with friends over the internet...

@PsBoxSwitchOwner I was merely trying to 'illustrate' a concept in a way that I thought was clear and obvious. The point I was making is that MS have enough coming in every month from just 'Game Pass' to pay for at least 1 AAA games entire development cycle. If a game like Spider-Man 2 (not necessarily SM2) cost 150m for example, then with 350m coming in that month alone from GP, that's paid for a game and another 200m left over for Admin and 'other' releases in GP that month. Next month may not have a 150m First party game yet still get 350m coming in and another 350m the next month...

Take Two could release GTA 6 and say it cost 200m to make. They haven't got 350m coming in every month to make games, they haven't got sales of third party software coming in, haven't got sales of hardware/peripherals coming in and even if you play GTAO on Console, that's a $10 a month Subscription to Sony/MS, not Take Two so they have far fewer 'revenue' streams to recoup that 200m cost and with a 'chunk' of each sale going to MS/Sony for using their platform, they need to sell a lot more copies of GTA to make back that 200m development cost.

All I tried to show was that MS has a big chunk of revenue coming in every month - in theory, more than enough to cover the cost of ANY massive game. MS stated they wanted 1 AAA game a quarter - now they 'could' pay for that in 1 month and the other 2 months are for admin and acquiring 3rd Party games. Over a quarter, 350m x 3 = 1.05bn so 200m pays for the 1st party game (no need for any sales) and the other 850m is Admin and 3rd Party releases. That's before they 'sell' any additional content, season passes, DLC, MTX etc let alone all the 'other' revenue streams a platform holder and Publisher has compared to 3rd Party Publishers...

That's also why Take Two or ABK wouldn't consider Sub Services - they need 'sales' to ensure they make enough money to cover costs when they have far fewer ways to make money and of course lose a chunk of their sales revenue to the Platform Holder/retailers too...

@Rog-X And those were the prices those Studios said that they'd 'want' to release their game on MS's platform - and why those games weren't on Game Pass day/date.

As I tried to point out, these are 3rd Party Publishers that don't have other revenue streams coming in to help pay for those games. MS/Sony get revenue from selling those games through their store, selling all the digital 'extras', selling Sub services to play those 'online' components, selling Hardware (inc Controllers) etc.

The only way they can make money is to sell their Games and that is their 'revenue' stream - although both Ubisoft and EA do have Sub services (EA Play, Play Pro or Access/Ubisoft+) and both offer a Day 1 tier too.

@PsBoxSwitchOwner I know it doesn't exactly work like that - but getting $350m a month in revenue from that Subscription service is a LOT of revenue.

Games are built over 5 or 6yrs that over that time can end up costing 200m - that's less than 4m a month so having 30 studios, maybe requiring between 2m-4m a 'month' to keep making games - that's 60-120m of that 350m a month - leaving 230m+ on overheads and payment of 3rd party games.

That's Not the only revenue as they get 30% from all 3rd Party games/content 'sold' through their store and of course sales of their own software, services etc. They get money from Game Pass Core Subscribers who 'ONLY' Subscribe to play games like GTA, Fifa or CoD online.

That's still money coming in that 3rd Party Publishers cannot rely on to 'fund' games in development. They only have 'sales' of their games and as I said, lose a chunk of that to the Console Platform holder. MS/Sony make a LOT of money on GTA for example so Take Two need to sell more to break even.

They don't have a 'steady' stream of income coming in from other sources - like Hardware sales, 3rd Party Software sales, Subscriptions etc .

You buy GoW: Ragnarok on Sony's PS5 - that $70 cost all goes to Sony as they own the IP/Studio, the Platform, the Store but Take Two only get 70% as they only own the IP/Studio so if both cost 200m to make, Take Two need to sell more to recoup the cost. That's why Sony made so much money from CoD alone despite not 'owning' it.

When MS sell CoD or its Season Passes, MTX bundles etc on their Platform, they get 100% but ABK only got '70%' before. They still get 70% from sales on Sony as Sony take 30% as 'payment' to use their Platform which First Party Sony games don't. Take Two is not a First Party Publisher so would need to sell more to make money as each 'sale' is also helping Sony or MS's revenue...

Licensing out their IP's may well be the better option for WB right now - much like say Disney licensing out Star Wars and Marvel IP's to various Studio's. EA and Ubisoft have Star Wars games and Sony/MS have Marvel games (Spider-Man, Wolverine and Blade).

It seems WB though haven't really handled their Studio's or IP's that well in recent times. Suicide Squad wasn't their first 'flop' but after Gotham Knights, didn't seem to learn from that or the failures of Marvels Avengers too.

WB has considered selling its Studio's before - but without IP's, they are perhaps not that 'enticing'. Publishers could recruit unhappy staff to improve their own Studios for example and buying Rocksteady wouldn't come with owning 'Batman' or DC IP's. So maybe licensing those IP's could work better for them...