BAMozzy

Apart from Hall Effect Thumbstick and trigger modules, I don't think this would be worth upgrading from my V2 Elite and that has a significantly higher (40hrs+) Rechargeable battery too.

10hrs would likely mean I'd have to put my controller on to Charge after every Gaming session. I hate running out of charge as it ALWAYS happens mid-way through an online Co-op Boss Fight, MP match etc where the game doesn't pause.

Its been a while since I spent 10hrs+ in a day Gaming, so this maybe would be OK. Its better than the DS5 Battery Life - and I've had some gaming sessions cut short because of DS5 battery life. I don't like the Dish style D-Pad, I prefer the Cross...

I'd be happy with them remastering the Campaigns and keeping the co-op options. I think they could do a Gears 'Online' package too with Horde, Beast and the MP modes - recreating all the Maps/modes etc from all previous Gears game specifically for Online.

Another option could be to make Gears 5 Online 'Free to Play' and add maps, modes etc from the Previous games - inc Judgement in as Seasonal content. Make it Multi-plat and sell Season Passes & Cosmetics. That way, you can keep the online separate, supported and not locked to a single Release/Campaign.

With 3 or 4 Campaigns, each with Co-op, I would rather see these have a full remake in UE5, maybe even expanded on and fleshed out a bit more than them just repackaging those games with all the Online content and I'd rather have them split Online into a separate release (if it releases at all) to save on storage space and/or enable more resources into the Campaigns

I wouldn't call Hellblade a Great 'Game' as its Game-play is more about assisting the Narrative, adding some 'interactivity' and context to the Experience.

Its much more about the 'experience' and Senuas battle with her Psychosis. The voices seem Dynamic in that if you are solving puzzles and not getting hit in fights, the voices are more positive. It's more about the voices, the Psychosis than 'game-play' so I don't think it deserves a nomination in that category.

I think it's a great 'experience' and the quality of the Audio, visuals, Acting and as an 'experience' is certainly one of, if not the 'best' of the year and deserved the nominations in those categories, but its not really a 'game' - more an interactive experience of Psychosis...

Not overly excited or hyped - Doesn't seem the kind of game I play and whilst I appreciate them trying to go for a Stop-motion art-style, it seems more stuttery/juddery than Wallace and Gromit and I find it very 'distracting'.

Game-play too doesn't seem the type of game-play I'd normally play, certainly wouldn't be a game I'd consider buying if I didn't have Game Pass Ultimate. At best, it seems like it would be a game I'd buy in a sale IF it reviewed well and/or was recommended by a trusted friend/family member. However, I do have GPU so I may 'try' it at some point in the future but unless something changes between now and release, its not on my 'play-list'.

I really liked the idea and concept - although the co-op aspect didn't appeal at all. The idea of having a Dragon Sidekick in an Action game appeals.

The XB1 wasn't a 'great' piece of Hardware with 'weak' CPU and GPU - even for that time which I think was more of an issue with realising the Ambition and Scale. It also didn't have the best Data Transfer so Open Worlds may have had too much pop-in and/or frame rate/visual quality issues that may have been part of the struggle in getting their ambition over the finishing line.

I do think that modern Hardware and game engines may be the Answer to finishing the project and it being of 'presentable' and 'Marketable' standards - its just whether or not MS trust and/or have faith in the studio to 'back' it again.

Not surprising really! They released BO3 on XB360/PS3 hardware without a Campaign, only one DLC map pack (although now 'everyone' gets free Maps, weapons etc but more 'Cosmetics' are sold) and was really stripped back to work.

With BO6, they introduced Omni-movement and that released on Last Gen hardware. That would tell me they can scale their latest game to last gen and the next release is likely to use the same engine/movement so why not scale it down for Last Gen and make it available for 'more' to play - not just those with High End PC's and Current gen consoles - there are still a LOT of gamers using older/weaker spec hardware inc Last gen consoles.

It's obviously not going to provide the quality visual or even frame rate performance as current gen Consoles that can offer 'up to' 120fps and VRR too along with hardware advances like SSDs for faster Data transfer. CoD also relies on streaming data too so maybe that 'helps' with running the game on Older hardware with HDD's...

VR is too restrictive, too expensive and won't be as accessible for everyone. I personally don't want to have my eyesight covered up by a screen not enabling me to see my surroundings and/or others in my environment.

Movement isn't exactly 'great' in VR and can lead to Motion Sickness or break any immersion as you don't move like the visuals you receive. VR doesn't provide the rest of the feedback you'd expect so it ends up being more like playing a game in 3D (remember the era of 3D TV's) - just strapped to your eyes instead and removing your peripheral vision and/or distractions of your room.

VR to me won't 'work' until you can get the feedback you expect to get in 'interacting' in that world. Go 'up' a step, you expect to feel that 'step'. Walking a tightrope may 'look' scary but no feedback from the rope or from your inner ear balance, feeling of 'floor' beneath your feet etc breaks the experience.

I'd be OK with watching VR experiences. For example, I'd use VR to watch a Live Concert or Sports event from the position of the best 'seat' in the stadium. I think they could make some more 'immersive' viewing experiences - especially for 'live' events. If you can't get to E3, Gamescom, World/European Cup Finals etc, being able to watch on a VR headset in '3D' from the best seat in the house would be more immersive than just the 'flatscreen' TV option...

Call of Duty is the 'obvious' release as that has annually released now for decades in Q4. Along with Avowed, Doom and South of Midnight, there is the 'minimum' 4 (or 1 a quarter) games for the year - not including any other releases from their partners.

Contraband, State of Decay 3 and Everwild were announced quite some time ago. Outer Wilds 2 or even Perfect Dark could be further along than we expect too but I don't think they need to 'rush' as it seems they not only have enough games to meet their quoted '1 a quarter', but will also release more games on Playstation than Sony that will bring in revenue - a lot of releases this year across all platforms!

Whilst I much prefer to play on a Console plugged into my big screen 4k HDR VRR enabled TV, I also appreciate the opportunity to play on ANY device to suit my budget and/or situation.

I can't play my Series X when I'm not in front of the TV, so if I want or have the opportunity to play elsewhere, this makes it possible. I do have a gaming Laptop and a Handheld PC too so I have 'portable' options without needing to rely on Streaming - but Streaming also allows me to play numerous games 'instantly' without waiting for hours to download/install.

I have far more ways to access my games than I would have with any other Console. Sony may release games on PC too but I don't get the PC version after buying the PS5 version. Cloud is definitely not the best way to play, but its better than 'nothing' and enables me to play games on Hardware it wouldn't run on and/or at much better visual quality and performance.

High Moon created a number of Games I'd love to see 'rebooted' - or at least upgraded for modern hardware and expectations. Games like Darkwatch, Deadpool and Transformers the Cybertron games!

I'd rather they got 'rebooted/remade' with out the restrictions that older hardware created. I'd love to see 'old' games remade without the limitations that old hardware restricted them too. How much had to be compromised or even cut from the project? How much was the Ambition curtailed by the realities of the hardware at the time?

@Fiendish-Beaver I am not surprised at all - MS have always had a much higher focus on Live Service/Online gaming and all their 'big' IP's - especially the 3 IP's they've relied on for decades (Halo, Forza and Gears) have ALL had online which has become more and more 'live' service as the technology and Social gaming has evolved as the Internet and Bandwidth has improved too.

Sea of Thieves and Minecraft - games from MS's other Studio's they owned before their 2018 Studio Acquisition growth, are also very much Live Service games. Yes Halo, Gears and Forza games may have Single Player options, but I'd argue that their 'online' is where the 'money' and therefore focus is - new Cosmetics, DLC, content, loot etc etc and where the majority of 'hours' in games are spent.

Gears or Halo campaigns can be beaten in 20hours (or less), yet some will have 1000's of hours. That 20hrs of Campaign can be the best 20hrs you spent in a Game, the reason you 'love' the IP, the Studio etc, but in terms of just 'time/engagement', Online can easily eclipse single player. Not saying that Live is therefore 'better', but as this is more about time spent, I am NOT surprised that Live Service games rack up more 'hours' of gamer time than Single Player. As I said, I can play 20+ Single Player games to completion and still not spend as much time in those than logging in to play a single Live Service game for 20mins a day to get my daily log in rewards/bonuses...

@themightyant I'd say that the actual game-play loops are relatively 'simple' and repetitive - not that it means they don't have a skill-gap - I wouldn't say Professional Call of Duty gamers aren't on a different Skill level to the majority, but it doesn't stop the most 'casual' from being able to play CoD and have fun with friends. Maybe there is some element of 'improving' that keeps bringing gamers back, but I'd say the new content, the next 'reward' for levelling up, the daily 'XP' bonus, the relative ease to which you can 'jump in and out' too etc all help. Even if you aren't great at playing, you still earn XP, still unlock loot, still level up and get rewards. A lot of Single Player games will send you back to a check point, not 'reward' you, not earn XP...

Live Service are 'accessible' and tend to have a simple Game-play loop. Yes they may have a skill gap, but the worst player can still have fun and a laugh with friends, still earn rewards and feel like they achieved 'something'. There is almost always something to do, daily/weekly missions/challenges, daily/weekly rewards to earn etc which encourages gamers to return and those hours add up over a year. Even if you just log in and play for 20mins a day, that's 120hrs a year - more hours than a LOT of Single player games.

@GamingFan4Lyf Some people prefer to play games 'Socially' - much like some may prefer Team Sports over Solo sport. Its more about interacting with other Humans, having a laugh and enjoying 'human' company in a shared hobby.

Games like Mario Kart, Goldeneye etc had me playing hundreds if not 1000's of hours 'Socially' compared to their 'single/solo' modes/campaigns. Its the 'live/social' aspect that kept me playing years later, racking up hours and hours and hours in 'Social' games - compared to maybe 10 hours on its Single Player, another 8-15hrs here and there on other 'Single' player games. Whilst I ended up playing 'more' Single player games/modes, I spent 'more' time in a few 'Multi-player' Live games.

For example, I could spend 1000 hrs playing with friends in 1 or 2 live service games over a year, but only have 300 hours in 20+ Single Player games - some of which may only be 2-3hrs worth. So whilst I prefer Single Player experiences, Stories etc and play a LOT more Single Player games in general, I accumulate more 'hours' in Social games.

I play quite a few 'more' single player games than Social/Live Service Games, but if I'm honest, I spend more 'hours' in those 'few' Social games than all the Single Player games combined - mostly because SP games don't keep me playing all year, often finished in less than 20hours so no reason to spend more time in that.

Live service games tend to be quite 'simple' games that don't require a lot of thought - more repetition and 'reward' for just playing. That makes these very easy to pick up and play and often have 'instant' reward from earning XP, Looting etc.

A lot of Single Player games are not so easy to pick up and play as they have story, plots, character development, maybe long periods of cut-scenes, lack of rewards/progression etc and when you've 'finished' have little reason to return the next day.

Even if you only play a Live Service for an hour - just to get your Daily 'rewards' etc, over a year, that adds up.You may have spent 100hrs in an RPG too - but ended up with 500hrs in a Live Service game.

Live Service are also 'social' games that many play with their friends/family. They are all playing 'live service' together which adds up too.

So not only do Live Service games generally have incentives to play regularly, they are Social games so 'groups' play together, have multiple seasons with new Content and are relatively 'simple' and 'repetitive' - like Comfort food/social dining

I was kind of expecting it to be a 2026 game with Avowed, Doom, South of Midnight and no doubt a 'new' Call of Duty coming this year - that's 4 games or the '1 a quarter' that MS want at a 'minimum'.

Of course they may have other games - not necessarily all 1st Party and with GTA6 coming out too, the opportunity to dedicate more time to Fable may prove beneficial in the long term. Of course some will be disappointed its delayed, but at least its not Cancelled and the Studio closed down - like Wonder Woman and Monolith Studio's!!

Considering these are just 'points' you can earn for doing very little - even just playing a game can 'reward' you with points - I don't really see an issue. Points don't have any 'real' monetary value and are more of a 'gift' for interacting so that people can exchange those for GPU, Gift vouchers and a whole host of other things to get them 'free' - at 'no' cost to you.

I personally save my points up so that I can exchange them for Gift Vouchers to buy Games or Content. I see it as a 'Reward' for interacting with MS/Xbox and a 'bonus' - not something to rely upon and expect to pay for my Gaming. If I thought I can't pay my Sub fee for GPU that month, I'd maybe consider using points, but I'd rather use them for Ad Hoc Game Sales that I hadn't budgetted for.

Great games will attract gamers and that means bringing in 'revenue' - either Subscription Fees, Hardware and/or Software sales. The more gamers you attract in, the more revenue and larger user base to sell additional content like DLC and MTX's too.

All these Games are guaranteed on Xbox - not all are guaranteed to release on Playstation/Switch (not Day 1) and therefore will give gamers a reason to buy an Xbox - that and the fact they are on Game Pass too making Xbox the better value hardware console to play Xbox games on.

As for the argument about games going to Playstation and therefore no reason to buy an Xbox. then the same can be said about Playstation - might as well buy a PC as Playstation games are all releasing there. Xbox release day 1 on PC and has Game Pass for PC and PC also has Exclusives and emulation of older Console games so has the most games of ANY hardware.

Games are what will attract gamers in and generate revenue and to me it makes sense to maximise revenue opportunities to invest in that Content Stream to keep players in their Sub Service, keep playing and spending money on their products etc...

I am not a fan of that style of Game - its not something I enjoy or want from my gaming experience - so wrapping a 'Gears' Skin (or whatever other IP's - inc Marvel for example) around that game-play won't entice me.

That being said, if they do decide to make a sequel, I won't complain about it - it just won't be something I'd even play for Free on Game Pass as I don't want to spend my gaming time on Gameplay Mechanics I dislike!

It's not as if those games are on Playstation/Switch 'first' or with any 'exclusive' content/perks so I really don't see the issue. For those that 'prefer' to play on an Xbox Console, they'll still offer 'advantages' (like Game Pass and 'Day 1' releases instead of waiting 6 months or more).

I see no reason to be annoyed that other gamers also get to play Games I enjoy playing too - just because they chose a different 'box'. Why should I be mad that maybe more people will get to enjoy games I enjoyed playing?

ALL Xbox games will release on Xbox/Game Pass/PC Day 1 and Xbox is the only Console to offer Game Pass too and Play Anywhere with Direct Storage to download the 'right' version for your Hardware - Xbox or PC (inc Handheld PC's) so I can buy on 'Xbox' and play on PC's too or use GPU to play on a range of Platforms inc Xbox consoles. Doom, Indy and FH5 will cost more than a years worth of GPU on PS5 so it will be more 'expensive' to play Xbox games on Playstation and limits you to just Playstation.

It never bothered me that others may now end up playing some of the Games I enjoy and if anything, I think its great that now others may get the opportunity to play great games they otherwise would have to miss out on. The more 'sales' on Sony/Nintendo hardware, the more revenue for Xbox and their Studio's to make more great games - maybe even help keep staff in Jobs and prices competitive. They could 'lose' money on Hardware (as usual) but offset that with 'more' Game sales on their rivals hardware - undercut Sony and get Sony customers buying Xbox games to offset that...

I have no interest in GTA6 - especially not GTAO and certainly wouldn't pay more just because its 'GTA'.

GTA no doubt will be 'big' but I don't think its competing with Fable. Its a different game, different world, different style etc and won't be on Game Pass Day 1. There will be many that may choose to play Fable for 'free' on Game Pass and may wait for Christmas or Sales for GTA - especially if they do charge more.

Personally, I prefer Fable to GTA. I also think that Game Pass does make a difference on Xbox and being able to play games like Fable Day 1 at 'no' extra cost means you don't have to 'budget' or try and decide which game(s) to buy (or budget for), which to wait for reviews/sales, which you can skip. You don't have to buy any game Day 1 when its at it's most expensive and often at its weakest (in terms of Content, polish etc) - you can 'wait' for sales, patches/fixes, additional content/features etc and still have 'new' games to play.

If Fable was purely competing for 'sales', then you'd imagine that some would have to choose between buying GTA or Fable and GTA is certainly much more popular today. Many probably never played Fable - certainly not when they were 'new' so would seem more unknown.

But like I said, Fable isn't costing Game Pass Subscribers to play and therefore many Subscribers could well choose to play Fable rather than spend $70+ to play GTA - its not 'competing' with GTA on Game Pass - which is a 'Platform' too of course!

Announced games only - but still waiting to actually see or hear updates and information about some of these. Contraband, State of Decay 3 and Everwild in particular seem no closer than when announced.

Of course there is more to come - no doubt CoD for 2025 for example. At least maybe the 'Xbox has no games' conversation can be dropped now - they'll release more on Playstation than Sony will in 2025...

All this talk about the 'end' of Xbox due to them choosing to release 'some' games on Playstation.

Right now, we only know of a couple of games that will/have released Day 1 on Sony - Doom, Minecraft, CoD and Outer Worlds 2 - none of which were ever 'exclusive' on Xbox anyway. All the rest are either full or at least timed Exclusives - games like Starfield, Redfall, Forza Motorsport, Halo, Gears of War, Perfect Dark, Fable, Indiana Jones, South of Midnight, Hellblade 2, Clockwork Revolution, State of Decay 3, Avowed etc are all 'exclusive' (or expected to be right now) on Xbox - regardless of whether they'll eventually release elsewhere or not. That is a LOT of Exclusive content on Xbox hardware and I would expect that MS will 'continue' to release games on other Platforms after they have released on Xbox hardware - much like Sony do with their PC ports - although 'some' may also end up Day 1 on PC too if it's advantageous to the games Success. MLB and Destiny continue to release on Xbox Day 1 too...

As soon as I saw Halo before the Xbox released, I knew I wanted an Xbox - and have owned every Xbox since.

@Ryu_Niiyama Tell me you aren't from the UK without telling me you aren't from the UK.

It's an apostrophe, not a quote. If I was to Quote you, I'd do it this way "Why do you use single quotes so much?" - Quotation marks, not apostrophes which are used more to indicate missing letters - for example It's (it is) There's (There is) What's (What is).

I would use italics, bold, or underlines to add emphasis on certain words or sentences - It maybe because I'm using a 'generalisation', maybe some phrase (like 'Game by Game' for example) or even a word that I wouldn't use (as in 'Slop' or eslop).

As I use so many different Forums, chats etc, many don't share the same 'formatting' and as such, I find it so much simpler to 'format' this way where words/phrases contained within those apostrophes would otherwise be italic, bold etc. It was more to do with typing on OLD typewriters/word processors etc long before there was 'codes' to format as you typed! I'd say it's probably an archaic typing format now.

I also don't criticise others for their Grammar, their spelling, their choice to 'format' how they want. That is 'respecting' their right to express themselves in their own way!!

@Ryu_Niiyama Whilst there maybe some that will not release on Xbox due to the install base, That is much less of a 'reason' for Shovelware when the objective is to sell as MANY as possible, wherever they can get away with releasing 'slop'.

Microsoft also have numerous rules in place for what can be 'released' on their Platform. They have rules about Achievements for example that many of these 'eslop' games would fail on. Sony has/had many games that were literally just to add to your trophy score, games you can beat in 5mins with 'little/minimal' interaction with. They can't release those on Xbox as they'd fail certification. That's what a lot of those 'sim' games are.

I have no doubt that if they could release on Xbox, bare in mind that the 'costs' are extremely 'low', risks are basically non-existent and therefore would be profitable, these would be on Xbox. Its not like some big AAA dev who has to consider investing 'Millions' in porting, in supporting (post launch updates, post launch content etc), in manufacturing and distributing 'Physical' media and may not sell enough to cover the costs and staffing required.

Personally, I would think that the rules and of course the verification on a 'Game-by-Game' basis is much more likely to prevent many of these from even trying to release on Xbox knowing they wouldn't get 'verification' than worrying about whether or not the 'minimal' work and therefore minimal cost to port/release on Xbox would actually bring enough revenue back in to justify that.

@Fiendish-Beaver Whilst I will agree that Steam may well be the most popular option for PC gamers, they still have a choice to buy from Microsoft and/or subscribe to Game Pass - Microsoft have their own Storefront and Service. They are still 'windows' games that are sold on Steam so its not like they have to 'port' it over to 'Steam OS'.

PC is an 'open' platform so has other 'sellers' - Epic is another for example. MS still has to 'compete' here too of course to get sales through their own store but also have Game Pass on PC too - something they won't have on Playstation. The fact PC may have competing retailer 'Platform' options doesn't mean its equatable to Xbox vs Playstation Console platform. They are all selling the exact same Software built for Windows PC - not a 'ported' to Steam OS, ported to Sony's or Nintendo's proprietary Hardware...

@Fiendish-Beaver They had released a few games on PC over the years - some of which were 'PC' only games too - but since 2016's Forza Horizon 3 (I believe), The majority have been Day 1 on both Xbox and PC - a few were also PC first (Gears Tactics, MSFS, AoE4 etc).

The difference between PC and Playstation though is that Microsoft own 'Windows' and of course considers Microsoft Windows customers as part of their Microsoft ecosystem, they are Microsoft customers too - on Playstation, they are NOT and Sony will take a percentage of the revenue as its their 'ecosystem'.

Even if games were to release Day 1 on PS5, That doesn't automatically mean EVERY Xbox owner will abandon Xbox and switch to Playstation. You'll lose access to all the Digital games you own - even if they were released on PS. On Xbox, those games would likely remain in your Library. Game Pass too is not likely to be available on Playstation so it will be costly. Just in the next few months we have games like Doom, Avowed, South of Midnight etc coming out so the 'best' value way to play is still going to be on Xbox.

Maybe eventually they will release Day/Date with everything on Sony's Platform, but I doubt that will be for quite some time - just like Sony with their 'PC' releases. PC though is a Microsoft 'powered' device, those gamers are MS customers too.

Wasn't it delisted due to licensing - these Racing games with real brands, real models etc need to 'pay' to use their trademarks, branding etc. Its illegal to 'profit' from anothers IP/branding so once a License expires, it means they cannot 'sell' anymore.

Most games have a 'shelf' life - they 'sell' well to begin with then drop off as newer games come out. The devs move on to 'sequels' and therefore its not worth paying for a licence on 'Old' games that are no longer 'selling', certainly not enough to recuperate the 'licensing' cost. Sequels too are generally offering the 'same' Game-play loop.

Physical games don't remain 'in print' forever. I bet they haven't printed FH3 for years now so you may not find the game 'new' anymore so relying on the used market for what is essentially 'delisted' (more 'discontinued' from a manufacturing perspective). Its already 'paid' for Licensing as retailers purchase 'stock' to sell to customers. Therefore the 'brands' have received money for using their trademarks.

Whilst it would be cool to still be able to purchase, I don't think it would be fair to sell without Ferrari, Porsche, Aston Martin etc getting ANYTHING or should I expect MS to keep paying for Licences when these games stop selling enough to cover those costs. That would seriously impact on them being able to make 'sequels' and invest in 'new' games.

From my perspective, apart from CoD, Doom and Minecraft, all other games have been 'exclusive' on Xbox. FH5 for example released in 2021 and will be nearly 4yrs old by the time it releases on PS5. Indiana Jones has been out 3 months already - quarter of a year.

There was a LOT of talk that Starfield would release on PS5 after a year - maybe with the release of the Shattered Space DLC.

It still seems like a very small percentage of games will be available 'Day 1' everywhere. But the vast majority are released 'exclusively' on Xbox Consoles - even if some will eventually be ported to Playstation. If you want to play these IP's 'first', or even 'Free' with a Sub service, the ONLY console worth buying is Xbox as you'll not know when (or even IF) MS will decide to release on Playstation.

I couldn't care less who else can play certain games - doesn't bother me that a Playstation gamer will soon be able to play AoE2, FH5, Indy, Doom etc. All that matters to me is where I can play the Games I want to and 'when'. I'd rather have the choice to play when its released 'first', not be kept hanging for months or even years for a port...

Again I think it's great for 'Xbox' and expanding their IP's. On Xbox, we've had the opportunity to buy and even 'play' with the Stagnating community that still 'play' those games as 'newer' games release. It's a great way to inject life into these Great IP's we've had the opportunity to play 'exclusively' for quite some time!

Also still remain 'free' on Game Pass and if that hasn't 'grown' the community with the market 'limited' by platform choice, as in anyone that really wanted to play these would likely have bought Xbox or just 'prefer' to play on Playstation regardless...

I'm still likely to buy the next Xbox because of Game Pass and my growing Digital Library - regardless of whether MS releases Some/All games on Playstation and I still expect 'some' games will be 'exclusive' for some time before release rather than have to wait months/years...

The money they can make from 'selling' on Playstation let alone Nintendo too (especially 'older' games) may mean they can take more of a hit on 'Hardware' price next gen...

In terms of FOMO - it seems the 'majority' of games so far have been on Xbox 'exclusively' and if people had FOMO over Forza Horizon 5, Sea of Thieves, Indiana Jones, Flight Sim etc etc, they'd have bought an Xbox to play.

By selling these months, if not years later, you are selling to those that weren't going to buy an Xbox and therefore wouldn't generate any revenue for Microsoft.

Also if games like CoD, Minecraft, Doom and all the other IP's are all on Xbox, all on Game Pass Day 1, regardless of whether they release on PS5, let alone Day 1 too, these will still be Associated with, marketed by and arguably better value on Xbox. Yes you may get to play on PS eventually, but maybe the IP you really want to play is not on PS5 or have to wait several years - FH5 released in 2001, nearly 4yrs ago!

A LOT of Xbox games are known for their Online modes - Halo, Forza & Gears have Online MP modes and the larger the Online Community, the better the matchmaking and experience - it makes more sense to release these as Multi-platform IP's to bring gamers together, playing online together.

It doesn't bother me that yet another 'old' game is releasing on another platform. As an Xbox Console owner, I was able to play it first 'exclusively' in the Console space on Xbox Hardware. I of course know it wasn't actually 'exclusive' to Xbox Hardware as it released on PC and could effectively be played on ANY hardware, except Nintendo/Sony Hardware.

Even if Xbox Hardware were to 'end', my Xbox Digital Library would likely be playable on PC as Microsoft games tend to be 'Play Anywhere'. It maybe a different story with 3rd Party Published games. I would expect more chance with Microsoft preserving my Digital Libraries than Sony who will likely want to resell remakes/remasters for each new Generation and their games are 'locked' to Playstation (you can't play Spider-Man 2 on PC with your PS5 'licence' but can play Starfield on PC if you bought on Xbox) and cloud saves too make it easy to jump between platforms with the Xbox ecosystem.

MS may well release every game on Playstation eventually - but you'll have to wait for it to be Ported, won't have the option to play on a Sub Service 'Day 1' and likely locked to Playstation Hardware ONLY. With Xbox, you may not 'need' to buy their Hardware, but if you do, you get the option of Game Pass, get to play games Day 1, not months or years later, can also play natively on PC or stream to any Cloud enabled devices as well as play on any Xbox. The fact that I 'own' the PC version too if I buy on Xbox means I likely have the best chance of preserving my Digital Library. Console Generations may affect the preservation, but that is far less an issue with PC.

Xbox still seems to be the best place to play Microsoft's Games - they'll likely release first, certainly be in Game Pass and give me more choice on how I wish to 'play'.

Makes sense to me - CoD was ONLY sold on Playstation so those gamers had no choice but to 'buy' to play making Microsoft a lot of money. On Xbox, gamers have a choice to 'Buy' or 'Sub' to Game Pass so don't have to spend ANY money at all on Call of Duty 'specifically'.

Xbox Hardware may NOT be the most popular - but it doesn't need to be as they aren't 'forcing' PC players to buy an Xbox or 'miss out' on Xbox games Day 1. Like Sony, MS may bring SOME games to PS5, but many won't be 'Day 1' releases - so you may not get to play Starfield, Fable, South of Midnight, Avowed, Redfall, MSFS, Perfect Dark etc until they have stopped bringing in revenue on Xbox.

6 months after release, that game is not selling Hardware and unlikely to be selling Subscriptions or Software as those that want to play, would likely have bought and its the 'next' exclusive release that will be selling for MS. When Indiana Jones finally releases on PS5, Xbox will be relying on Avowed, Doom, South of Midnight etc to sell Xbox Hardware/Game Pass Subscriptions. Therefore Indiana Jones isn't bringing in revenue from 'Xbox' so sell it on PS5 to maximise their revenue. Yes it 'stops' being Exclusive then, but it also brings revenue in.

MS doesn't need to sell 'Consoles' - their own 'ecosystem' is not 'locked' to their Console like Sony/Nintendo. They have their 'own' on PC (rival to Steam) and they have their Cloud which doesn't require Console ownership which is running on 'Virtual' Xbox Console hardware built into servers - its running on Xbox Hardware even if the Gamer isn't playing on Xbox Hardware.

Console isn't 'failing' as such, its just NOT as important when its 'optional'. Those that may prefer to game on Cloud or PC with Game Pass are not buying Xbox Hardware - even if you 'choose' to spend Series X money on a RoG Ally instead, you can still be in the 'Xbox' ecosystem where ALL the money you spend goes to Microsoft - not a 3rd Party (like Steam, Epic, Sony or Nintendo)

Most Hardware is built and sold at a 'Loss' and so are locked in to that 'platform' and have to pay to play online. Buy Spider-Man 2 on PS5, you won't be able to play on PC without buying the PC version, games cost more and you only have 1 'digital' store to buy from because the Platform holder wants to make back the Money they lost selling a Console. Sell 100m consoles and lose $50 on each, that's a LOT more money you need to make back...

Agai, it seems that people are assuming that releasing games on Playstation means Xbox has 'NOTHING' to offer.

Its clear that Xbox will offer 'advantages' to playing 'Xbox' games on Xbox Consoles over 'other' console like PS or Switch. For a start ALL Xbox games will release on Xbox hardware, built for DirectX enabled devices and offered in a Sub service Day/date. How much would it cost to play the games on PS5 versus Xbox over a year - maybe if you only play 2 or 3 games, it maybe the SAME cost to 'buy' the games you want, but with more games releasing each year, not just '1st Party' but all the Indies, AA and 3rd Party games too, it becomes by far the 'best' value way to play Xbox.

That's assuming EVERY Xbox game also releases Day 1 on Switch/PS5. However many Xbox games haven't released on rival platforms and most that have/will release on Playstation certainly weren't released Day 1. Sea of Thieves, Hifi Rush, Indiana Jones, South of Midnight, Avowed, MSFS, Starfield, Redfall, Forza, Gears, Halo etc were/are all 'Exclusive' to Xbox Consoles for 'months' before they release elsewhere - so even if you buy a Playstation thinking Xbox games will come, you could be waiting years for the chance.

How much would it cost to play the games coming just this year on Xbox on Game Pass versus on PS5, not only that, if you buy Indiana Jones on Xbox, you can play it on PC as well, but buy it on Playstation, its locked to Playstation.

I keep hearing the argument that people will buy Playstation despite having their Back Catalogue on Xbox or the fact they have Game Pass - just because MS is releasing some games on that platform. Why not buy a PC instead then as PC gets Playstation games and ALL Xbox games Day 1. You also have Emulation enabling you to play Nintendo, Sega, Xbox, Playstation etc games from the past - far more Games than Playstation, Xbox and Switch will offer 'combined' and hardware is 'less' than buying ALL consoles and also paying to play 'online' every month. Own an Xbox/Playstation for 5yrs paying for 'just' online access, that's paying out another 'Console' in fees - own both Xbox and a PS5 with Game Pass Core and PS+ essential, you could have bought a 'high end' PC that beats the console in terms of Game Library, in terms of graphics/performance etc. Games too are cheaper to buy/own on PC so you'd save money each year if you bought the same games you'd buy on Console...

People will still want to buy Xbox hardware because it 'suits' them better than the alternatives. That maybe just because they prefer the Controller or even aesthetics of the box itself - its not just about 'games' when the majority of the biggest IP's in terms of Player counts are 'Multi-platform'. CoD, Fifa, GTA etc release everywhere. As for 'Xbox' in particular, many are 'exclusive' or at least released Exclusively on Xbox before they are 'ported' and eventually release on Playstation. Those games also tend to be cheaper on Xbox by the time they do release on PS, often been on sale too. Not only that, you also have the option to sub to Game Pass to play all these games for 'free' The 'cost' to play Indiana Jones, Doom and Ninja Gaiden on PS5 costs more than a year of Game Pass and that will also let you play Avowed, Starfield, Halo, Gears, Fable, Perfect Dark, South of Midnight etc etc. There is 'perks' for being in the Xbox ecosystem over the 'competition' that 'SOME' gamers will want/appreciate so will want an Xbox console!

Whether Starfield does release on PS5 in the near future or not is totally irrelevant. I doubt very much that it would ANY impact on Xbox Console Sales, Game Pass Sub sales etc as everyone who would buy an Xbox or Sub to Game Pass to play Starfield already has.

Some games may make more sense to release simultaneously on the SAME Day/Date regardless of Platform - games like CoD, Minecraft and Doom for example with an established Fan Base on other Platforms. Others may well be kept from Playstation/Switch hardware for 'months' or even years - games like Indiana Jones, Sea of Thieves etc were/are 'exclusive' on Xbox and by the time these release(d) on PS5, aren't selling Game Pass or Xbox Consoles anymore - just like Sony waiting until they've maximised Sales ((Hardware/Software) in their 'ecosystem', waited until the Game isn't selling much anymore and 'new' Software is shifting Consoles, they release to those who wouldn't buy a Playstation. Microsoft is selling to those Switch/PS5 owners who won't buy an Xbox or Sub to Game Pass so wouldn't get 'revenue' at all unless they do release there.

I'd also argue that having 25m+ in your game, in your 'Store' that selling DLC, Season Passes etc is far better than limiting it to the 2-5m because its limited to just 1 Platform and that platform also has the lowest number of Gamers.

Xbox has 'exclusives' - Indiana Jones is still 'Exclusive' to Xbox in the Console space. Starfield is Still Exclusive, Avowed and South of Midnight are both Exclusive, games like MSFS, Gears, Halo, Forza etc are still exclusive. Yes some may 'eventually' release on Playstation - but Xbox gamers have been able to play them for months/years, finished with them, played it when it was 'Fresh' and 'unspoiled' by all the discussion etc. Its also likely to have been on sale on Xbox - if you prefer to buy and own over the Game Pass model and you won't have the choice to play via a sub or purchase, you have to spend £70+ to play on Day 365+ whilst its been on Game Pass and as low as £20 in a sale on Xbox...

In general, I have NO issues with the game being available a few days 'earlier' for those that are willing to pay a bit more - or would likely buy a 'Premium' edition. Its just a 'bonus' the Publisher/Dev can give to try and encourage more 'pre-orders'. Its not as if they are likely to make 'sweeping' changes in the 3-5days. It would likely be a more 'up to date' version of the Game Code they had to supply to their manufacturers of the 'Physical' edition that not only had to manufacture the discs, but distribute across the world in time to be 'sold' on Day 1.

After 'Day 1', that 'bonus' is completely worthless to offer or even consider, where as DLC, Cosmetics, Artbooks, Soundtracks etc have 'value'. You can't go back in time to make use of the 3-5 days 'early' access - so its a 'bonus/token' gesture to encourage 'pre-orders' and give something that costs 'nothing' to make it available a few days earlier, but for fans, enthusiasts etc, a 'chance' to play a bit sooner.

If its not a Game or 'Bonus' you are interested in, its purely optional - no different from deciding to buy a 'Standard' edition or the 'Premium' edition with Cosmetics, Steel Books, maybe some DLC/Season Pass etc. A few days early access is is just part of that 'premium' package.

Game Pass doesn't 'entitle' anyone to the 'optional' extras, you get access to the Standard edition. It was the same with CoD - they had a 'Vault Edition' and Standard Edition. You got the first Season Pass with the Vault Edition (and Cosmetics) but as you are 'entitled' to the Standard edition with Game Pass, they 'offered' a Vault Edition upgrade - similar to Starfield. That Cost exactly the same as the 'price' difference between the Standard and Premium content. Its not more, its no different from ANY other Publisher offering 'incentives' to 'pre-order' (CoD and other Online based games have often had 'exclusive' Beta testing months before scheduled release to those who pre-ordered), Ubisoft have released games for years with 'Premium' editions offering DLC, Cosmetics, bonuses for pre-ordering.

So many Games would have 'extra' stuff - whether its Posters, Postcards, Pin Badges or other 'physical' items if you 'pre-ordered' from certain Stores - like Game. Digital can't really 'offer' the same goods to encourage pre-ordering, hence 'digital' based Artbooks, Soundtracks and 'early access' bonuses.

As I said, this is purely to encourage you to 'Pre-order' and is purely 'optional'. Its just a 'few' days early - not a 'beta' test and likely more 'up to date' code than you'd get on Disc - if the shop sold their Stock a few days 'earlier' than they were allowed to do.

It seems some want to whinge and make mountains out of nothing!

I have ZERO issues with this!

It's not as if EVERY Xbox Game has or will be released Day/Date on Playstation and certainly unlikely to be offered Day 1 on Sony/Nintendo Sub Services.

Yes you may be able to play more and more Xbox games on Playstation/Switch in the future, but I still expect a number of them to be EXCLUSIVE for a period of time. If Starfield releases on PS5, so what? Xbox gamers have been able to play it for over a year, could play it 'Day 1' (even for 'free' with their Game Pass Subscription) so by the time it releases on PS5, its 'OLD' news.

Avowed, South of Midnight, Fable etc are likely to be Exclusive - even if only for a year or two. By which time, these games aren't 'selling' on Xbox, saren't even selling Xbox hardware or Game Pass Subscriptions.

So not only will you have the option to play via a Subscription on Day 1 for a lot lower cost with owning Xbox hardware, you'll also get to play the majority 'first' and not have to wait for months, if not years for those to be ported to Playstation/Switch and Sold at full price...

I have no issues with this decision - its not as if previous Doom Multi-player modes are suddenly going to be removed so those who enjoy playing MP can continue playing the MP. It's likely to be the 'experience' they expect and are accustomed to rather than being 'different/changed' to suit a new narrative and design ethos.

NO Nintendo/Playstation Console is a 'threat' to Xbox - Microsoft aren't 'building' their Games for these Platforms first and foremost, they are being Made for Game Pass and the Xbox Ecosystem and being 'ported' to those platforms to extract 'money' from those who choose to access Xbox games on another platform.

Yeah you might get some games 'Day 1' like CoD or Doom or Minecraft, but you'll have to 'pay' the Price upfront before you know if it's good or not. Most other games, if they ever come to 'other' platforms though are or will have been 'exclusive' for some time. Xbox 'Console' owners will have had the opportunity to play those month's, if not years earlier, played, finished with and moved on from it. It's no longer 'selling' Consoles or Game Pass Subscriptions so why not 'sell' elsewhere to extract as much revenue from 'their' IP's - It's money coming 'in' to Xbox and being 'reinvested' into Xbox which is the entire Microsoft Gaming Brand/ecosystem - its not 'just' the Console!! They don't 'need' to be the biggest selling Console platform as their playerbase, their revenue stream etc is NOT solely reliant on their Console sales - unlike both Nintendo and Sony - hence Sony is also releasing games on PC to extract 'extra' income from outside their own ecosystem!! Why Consoles also ONLY have 1 Digital Store - their 'own'!!

I have no issue with Microsoft continuing to release their games on other platforms - even if a few IP's (like Minecraft, Call of Duty and Doom for example) have NO exclusivity - timed or otherwise. We on 'Xbox' have the option to try or play the entire game without having to spend any 'extra' money if subscribed to Game Pass.

Whilst I know there is a cost to Subscribe, that is quite different to having to find £70 to play 'day 1'. I do find it funny that when 3rd Party comes to Game Pass (like Plague Tale or Back4Blood), its considered 'free' on Game Pass/Xbox whilst Playstation gamers have to pay but when it comes to first party, they are not 'free' because Game Pass costs and no reason to 'buy' an Xbox for because they'll come to 'Playstation' at some point forgetting that by the time it releases on PS5, its been 'exclusive' for quite a while and could even be on sale on Xbox but 'new' release and £70 on PS.

As for 'handhelds', I don't really know enough about the Switch 2 and its specs. I don't know that I'd rather buy a Switch 2 for example or a Surface Pro/RoG Ally 2 PC handheld with maybe some MS Windows 'update' that gives a more 'optimised' Console style User Interface. I think that a Handheld PC would still have the Advantage in Specs, in Game Library and of course work better with my Game Pass Subscription and existing 'Xbox' Library. I can't imagine Nintendo letting me play CoD, Doom or Indiana Jones for 'free' because I bought those games on Xbox/Windows and/or have Game Pass - but I could on a Handheld PC. I couldn't start playing Indiana on my Xbox and then carry on playing from my last checkpoint on Switch, but I could with a Handheld PC.

What it means is that 'Gamers' have the choice of where they want to play and/or become fans of an Xbox owned IP. They can have 25m in their Console but have billions in their IP's, using their Software and using their Servers, making MONEY for their 'Gaming' division and investing that money earned from 'other' platforms into their own...

I don't know whether that is a 'good' thing or not. I know that it can be almost impossible to get a match in some game modes if you don't enable cross-play because there isn't enough gamers to make it possible for match-making.

Also if you look at Call of Duty with 'Ghosts' - a Cross generational release with NO cross-play - that splits the community of CoD Multi-player gamers between too many different Platforms - it wasn't just split Xbox vs Playstation vs PC, it was 360 vs XB1 vs PS3 vs PS4 vs PC.

If you only have 1m 'active' players, then should you also split those between Platforms? With Xbox/Game Pass as well as Smart delivery enabling you to play 'anywhere' - from Cloud streaming to PC and Console with the 'SAME' account and SAME game Purchase. In other words, if you buy on Console, you get the Console, PC and likely can stream it from the cloud too.

Therefore you could play on Xbox, PC or Cloud with your Xbox purchase/Game Pass Subscription and want to play with your Xbox Console friends, some you may not be able to if they could turn off Cross-play. It would be like Steam having the option to turn 'Cross-play' off and not being able to play with those on Battlenet or Windows/Game Pass despite ALL being on 'PC'

Its not as if Console players are limited to Controller only these days with Both Sony and Microsoft supporting MnK - I could understand if some would prefer the 'option' to only matchmake with others using the SAME input method for 'equality'.

Sony WANT to control their 'ecosystem' and they cannot have the same Control over gamers from other Platforms - hence 'stipulate' that Cross-play has to be 'optional' and that Playstation gamers have cross-play enabled at their 'own' risk because Sony can't 'protect/shield/censor' etc other platforms/gamers.

Personally, I see a 'Game' as having its own Community of gamers that should ALL be able to play together instead of splitting them between whatever 'Platform' they play on. If you are a Battlefield, CoD or Fortnite fan, you should be able to play with ALL the other Community members - not kept away/split apart because of some 'hardware' choice...

@MinervaX76 Avowed was supposedly delayed because Microsoft had a LOT of other releases due in the last quarter 2024 and so delayed Avowed so they have games in Q1 too.

Black Ops 6, Indiana Jones, Stalker 2 and the Starfield Expansion for example all came out. Avowed would likely have been competing with their own IP's for your 'time' (not just money).

Game Pass too factors in - every 'month' there is usually at least 1 'big' new game and MS themselves want at least 1 MS made game every Quarter. That gives each title a chance to build up a player base and retain it before the next 'big' release - they aren't competing against each other for your 'time'. It also means that every month there is something 'big' to attract subscribers.

AC Shadows isn't competing with Avowed on Xbox - its got a barrier to entry and those with Game Pass may opt to play Avowed for 'free' and wait for AC Shadows to be available in a sale for example because of that $70 'entry' price.

Also very different games too - They are both very different and likely appeal to different people (although I know there will be a subset of those that both games appeal to). You wouldn't expect Avowed to 'outsell' AC Shadows regardless due to its availability on Game Pass and not releasing on PS5 Day 1.

Anyway, the point is that Avowed was delayed so MS had games in Q1 to release and not compete with their Q4 24 releases. It had nothing to do with AC Shadows....

I wouldn't jump back to BO2 if it came to Game Pass. I played and finished the Campaign and have ALL the DLC Maps and a few 'Cosmetic' bundles too for BO2 but wouldn't play on my Series X if it came to Back Compat - let alone Game Pass.

I loved the MP and, if I remember Correctly, reached max Prestige, max level so not much reason to jump back for its MP - that's assuming there would be enough people to fill the Lobbies to make every game mode and map playable - but unless they also give Everyone the DLC Maps, I can see some modes and maps never working. It never had Cross Play so was 'locked' to the 360 player base, so unless they bring the PC version to Xbox, or maybe update the Original, the player numbers could be 'limited' and impact the matchmaking. Let alone the fact these games don't have 'modern' anti-cheats, I think the memories will be better if I don't revisit it...

Zombies and the DLC Zombies Maps would perhaps give me a reason to play BO2 specifically, But I have Zombies Chronicles DLC with BO3 and haven't played that in at least 5yrs.

I stated when this ad first came out that I thought it was strengthening the 'Xbox' brand - which is Microsoft's 'Brand' for the whole of their Gaming side - not 'just' the Console. It's reiterating that Xbox is everywhere, everything is (or has the potential) to be 'Xbox'.

The fact that 'everything' is XBOX is reinforcing that Brand. If you 'want' to game on Console, then yes Microsoft has an 'Xbox' Hardware and is still releasing games 'exclusively' on their own Console - even if they 'choose' to release some games later on PS. Some may also release Day 1 on PS too, but you can't play them 'free' on Game Pass, can't Stream them to ANY device etc. Also won't be sold as 'Play Anywhere' so you get the PC version as well.

Xbox is not just the Console - it maybe your primary hardware choice for gaming, but if you also game on PC (inc Handhelds like the RoG Ally), Mobiles, tablets etc, then your options to play your Xbox games is expanded. If you Prefer to game on PC, you don't need an Xbox console - why spend money on hardware to play Xbox games when they already have Hardware to play those games.

Xbox Hardware has been more of a Consumer choice - its not 'necessary' - but it is still the only Console Hardware to offer Certain games and Game Pass. Indy may release on PS, but Xbox is the ONLY console this Christmas you can play it on - and its a lot cheaper to buy a Console than an equivalent spec PC.

Streaming isn't 'great', but it maybe good enough for the mobile/tablet gamers that maybe wouldn't or can't justify buying Consoles. Just because they didn't buy/upgrade to a Series S/X doesn't mean they aren't playing on 'virtual' Xbox hardware in the Cloud and therefore are part of the Xbox ecosystem...

@Tasuki That too - World at War was notoriously broken with hackers even on Console and I doubt that was ever fixed.

I doubt that some Game Modes will have enough players in the Lobbies to actually 'matchmake' in any case. Also with those games, they sold the extra Maps and that affected Matchmaking too. In W@W, if you didn't own the map, it would just boot you from the Lobby.

People complain that CoD's 'Anti-Cheat' isn't 100% guaranteed to stop ANY cheater from playing, but compared to the early days, its certainly better and I doubt any can be 100%.

These '4' that are mentioned though also happen to be from the XB1/PS4 era. I know Ghosts launched on the 360/PS3, but the XB1/PS4 consoles launched weeks after and were launch titles on the new Hardware - something that 'split' the Community even more as there was NO crossplay - not even between last and new gen consoles in the same family. Therefore, you had the community split between PS3, PS4, 360, XB1 and PC hardware. I enjoyed it though and thought the Campaign was fun.

Strange Infinite Warfare, the last of the 'Advanced' Exo-Movement Games isn't mentioned, otherwise this would be the first 5 years of CoD on the XB1/PS4. Black Ops 3 out of these was my Favourite, but that also had a LOT to do with Zombies Chronicles and Treyarch's Zombies in general....

The difference with Call of Duty vs the rest of ABK's IP's is that CoD has an Active and relatively new game out - BO6. Releasing 'old' games into Game Pass could 'hurt' BO6 player numbers on PC/Xbox and/or impact on their 'revenue' - fewer people in BO6, fewer sales of Bundles, CoD Points and/or Battle Passes.

It would be cool to have the Old Games, Old Maps etc all available and playable but I think that some games/modes would likely be unplayable due to lack of enough players. I think it would more likely split the Community and impact on the Matchmaking...

Perfect Dark would make sense as the reporter also stated that the game had not been OFFICIALLY given a 2025 date but all those so far stated for 2025 (in public) are still on track for 2025.

They may have hoped PD for example would be ready in 2025 - after all, the initiative were formed in 2018 and have yet to produce a game. It could be State of Decay 3 too - although we have seen less of that than PD.

@StonyKL The voices are 'dynamic' which may not be so apparent on one playthrough. If you are 'struggling' in game, the voices are more negative in general for example but unless you play it a second time, you may not notice how dynamic it is.

As a 'game', I wouldn't say its great at all. It's not something I'd recommend if someone was focused purely on the Game-play. Other games certainly have better Combat and Puzzles, but this isn't about Challenging the 'player' to beat these - its more about how those situations impact Senua and her Psychosis.

I'm sure that the Puzzle sections and Enemy encounters of the first Hellblade stopped some gamers from progressing, and therefore stopped them from 'experiencing' the impact of Psychosis on Senua - which was the main purpose of both games in a 'more' immersive way than film/TV can deliver.

The Audio is the most important part of Hellblade to deliver the experience of Psychosis and how that affects Senua. The performance of Melina was also very important to that too - more so than the Game-play which was more to add 'interactivity' and situational context to the Audio (especially the voices in Senuas head). To me, the Game-play is 'functional' at best, but also to be accessible to more people, not be too complex/difficult/challenging that people get stuck and never 'progress' through to the end. However it seems some still don't get that the 'purpose' is more to 'experience' what living with Psychosis is like and couldn't care less about the audio, maybe find the voices annoying or don't play on a headset, and expect it to be 'Dark Souls' instead...

How I read this was that there are two big game announcements that are YEARS away as well as a couple of games that maybe releasing a LOT sooner than people think leading to 'Holy Sh.., I can't believe its 'releasing' that soon.

@Millionski I bet Avowed and Fable will be Exclusive to Xbox in the Console space - whether they remain 'exclusive' or at some point do get released on Playstation, that's irrelevant as by then, these will not be 'selling' much, likely been on sale several times and certainly people aren't likely to be buying a Console or joining Game Pass for an 'old' game. Its more about getting 'money' from the Gamers who aren't going to buy an Xbox or Subscribe to Game Pass than taking 'exclusivity' away.

If you want to play games like Flight Sim, Starfield, Fable, Perfect Dark, Gears: E-Day, Forza etc etc - the ONLY console these are guaranteed to release on will be Xbox - and the ONLY Subscription you can play them on Day 1 is Game Pass, also ONLY available on Xbox.

Therefore the ONLY hardware you can guarantee to play those games Day 1, as well as play games like CoD, Doom, Minecraft etc Day 1 or play 'free' with Subscription is Xbox. If you buy a PS5, some games maybe released with very few actually 'Day 1' and the ONLY choice is to buy. That makes Xbox and/or Game Pass the 'better' value option as well as the fact that most, if not all will be playable Day 1 - before everything is spoiled, whilst the hype is at its peak and everyone is talking about it.

Its no different to Sony paying 3rd Parties for timed Exclusivity - a year later and that game doesn't have the impact, its not selling 'Xbox' hardware a year later as everyone that wanted to play would want/buy a Playstation. Deathloop, despite being an 'Xbox' owned IP at release, made by an Xbox owned Studio didn't sell Xbox hardware as anybody needing to buy hardware to play would have bought a Playstation. Its only being Sold to those who refused to or couldn't justify buying another Console when they know its coming to their hardware at some point.

Playstation owners aren't buying an Xbox to play Indy this Christmas and Xbox owners already have the Hardware so Exclusives are only there to sell Hardware. The fact that they are 'exclusives' at launch will sell Hardware and could make a difference 'next' gen when gamers decide on their 'next' hardware. CoD gamers may 'choose' Xbox because Game Pass even if it has 'no' exclusivity as well as ALL those IP's in Game Pass and games increasing in price.

Exclusives are NOT really for their die-hard fans who would buy their hardware regardless. They are their to SELL hardware, get you 'into' their ecosystem at or near release. The ONLY console with Indiana Jones on it this Christmas is Xbox so the ONLY console to buy if you want to play is Xbox. Buying a PS5 won't get you Indiana Jones until maybe April/May time at the earliest - by which time Xbox owners have 'finished' with that and moved on to Avowed or whatever other big 'new' releases are out...