BAMozzy

Chances are that doesn't necessarily mean that they would totally give up the Console market. Being able to play games like Starfield or Forza on Playstation via 'Game Pass' would more likely be a 'streamed' version (much like to a TV) but games like CoD & Minecraft with a 'Native' PS version, could be 'downloadable' and of course 'sold' too through PS store so Sony benefit too...

If they did it this way for example, then you'd still have a 'reason' for Xbox Consoles to exist as Gamers may want to play Xbox games natively on Hardware rather than stream to another platform/device.

Long term, who knows if making Consoles is 'Sustainable' with all the costs, raw materials/plastics, shipping/distribution and of course manufacturing in 'millions' of units. 10m Consoles, each with 1TB SSDs, is 10m TB's of storage required - enough to store EVERY game ever built (probably) and be accessible on a server instead. Same with all the CPU/GPU/RAM that could be built into 'super-servers' to run games at much higher quality & performance than they could on 'console' hardware.

At the moment, Streaming is somewhat in its infancy and only slightly 'better' than Last gen (from a Console gamers perspective). XB1 users can play Starfield or Forza for example at better visual/performance metrics than 'native' would allow and nvidia's streaming is on a 4090 GPU which is better than a lot of PC's can offer natively.

Judging by the 'new' games release schedule, it was clear that if Game Pass were to offer a 'AAA' game, it wouldn't be a brand new Day 1 release this month.

Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if we do get FC6 and RotTR. I know that some seem to only focus on the Day 1 AAA releases into Game Pass, but when few, if any release, its not possible to offer them.

@PsBoxSwitchOwner I am well aware that it means nothing - its an arbitrary stat that is being cherry picked because its likely the only positive they can Spin. Of course they aren't going to brag about Sales for example if they aren't the best and maybe 'engagement' is higher on average because only the most 'dedicated' CoD Fan was willing to buy and therefore will 'engage' more than those more casual or less dedicated players that would buy, but decided not to yet...

Its little different from MS maybe opting to quote unique Player numbers rather than 'sales' figures or 'engagement' because Game Pass will affect both - people choosing not to buy or only playing/trying it because it was 'free' but would never 'engage' otherwise and never going to engage for 'long' anyway.

Its cherry picking 'metrics' to try and spin it round to positively promote their game. If sales are great, but people aren't playing for whatever reason, they'll pick that metric. If player numbers are 'high' or even if the 'few' that are playing are helping their average engagement, they'll cherry pick those metrics.

Any game over £50 at launch certainly affects my chances of day 1 purchasing. In fact it probably reduces my chance of playing Day 1, even month 1 to Zero.

The fact is that Games will drop in price and 'day 1' is when they cost the most - just because they are 'new' and relying on FOMO and Hype to maximise profit margins. Games may 'look' prettier on 'newer' hardware, but aren't offering 'better' stories, game-play etc than we had 10yrs+ ago - games like Dead Space, BioShock or Mass Effect for example.

As such, I can wait for games like Dragon's Dogma 2 to drop in price as I have thousands of other games I can play - all those in my Backlog, all those offered in Sales/Subscription services etc. I'd rather play games I have or can pick up in a sale than buy a Game day 1 these days - especially as the 'Day 1' experience is also when the game is often at its weakest/worst and/or missing features/content that will get patched and/or finished post launch...

Maybe it is just celebrating the fact that the 360 and its Logo is now 18yrs old - an 'Adult' now LOL

I really don't understand why people get so worked up over her posts. If people over react, assume and/or read stuff into posts that isn't there, then who's fault is that?

Of course we 'expect' ABK games, some of which will likely be 360 era, to come to Xbox sooner or later due to MS acquiring all the Publishing rights and many of the IP's/Licences too.

It's no different from people making assumptions and reading too much into what may/may not be on Phil's shelf in the background.

so is it better to sell less, with only dedicated players buying to increase the avg player hours count or better to sell more copies, even to casuals etc who bring that avg game hours down?

If they only sold 1m copies, but those are to the hardcore CoD players, and each spends on avg 50hrs+, does that make it 'better' than games that sold 20m+ but the avg playtime is lower? Of course that hardcore 1m may weill of still played 50+ hrs, but the fact that the majority played less brings that avg down...

So of course companies are going to try and find positives - if units sold isn't performing well, its player numbers, player engagement etc - some 'metric' they can positively spin...

Another aspect of course is that what's 'fun' for someone can be tedious/boring for another. Some may want to go to the moon knowing its a desolate empty space because its there whilst others would rather go on an Activity holiday to be 'entertained' the entire time...

Starfield, like Elder Scrolls or Fallout, are exactly the same - albeit on a 'smaller' single map. Areas of 'nothing', but may stumble on 'something'. The only difference is that this is on a much larger scale and 'some' of the exploration aspect is 'ruined' by constantly having to change planets. Much easier to explore/stumble on things in one map than be constantly jumping from planet to planet to planet...

A detachable disc-drive peripheral would NOT help really. It would most likely annoy people who bought this bundle as a christmas present to find out they need to also go out and buy an additional disc drive too to get the bundled game at least to be 'playable'...

With layoffs, that either 'limits' the ambition, 'extends' the time needed or a combination of both. What signs are there that the relatively short delay will help them suddenly realise their ambition for this big finale they had planned when they have lost a lot of the fanbase limiting the budget, lost a chunk of their staff as well and given the timescape, Putting 'something' together to conclude their game to the 'few' that will play it compared to Destiny's heights.

And move on quickly to Marathon....

I usually convert mine to Xbox credit to buy game/s in sales if something catches my eye. I last used some to buy enough credit to get the Starfield early access on Game Pass add-on. I still have nearly 200k left...

I wouldn't be surprised if we do get another Developer Direct this coming year to highlight the games coming in the next 6 months or so before the 'E3' time that kicks off the run to the Holiday season...

The last one went down really well and MS has not really given us any release dates yet for 2024. Therefore it makes sense that 'maybe' they'll use the Game Awards for any 'new' trailers/reveals etc, but then give us a Dev Direct show to let the Devs themselves to tell you about their game.

Whether we get a 'stealth' drop like Hifi Rush, I don't know (or think so - other than maybe an ABK drop? Diablo 4 maybe...) but I'm sure they'll do 'something' to kickstart the year and let people know what they've got in store for the first half of 2024...

As they opened another studio a few years back and also creating SoD3 in UE5 which only left early access in April last year, it perhaps isn't surprising they haven't released something and maybe have multiple projects ongoing...

Based on the listing, it doesn't seem to indicate anything about Everwilds Status. For all we know, they could have the majority of the game built but maybe the 'engine' itself is not enabling them to put the pieces together in the way they want and/or track bugs etc as well as they'd like to fully realise the game they want to make.

If its more down to optimising and bug fixing rather story writing, character design, environmental artist etc, that's more indicative of late stage development to me but who knows...

I quite enjoyed GTA when it was a top down view and reminded me of APB - except that was from the perspective of the Police. I enjoyed GTA3 and its spinoffs, but GTA 4 really bored me and I never liked GTA Online. GTA5 never appealed either enough to buy so I doubt GTA6 will bring me back - but I'll watch the trailer...

Well it's certainly not looking like an inspiring month in terms of Day 1 new games - let alone those coming to Game Pass, but at least there are still hundreds of games to keep me entertained and/or finish off playing if these don't appeal to me...

No reason to cancel with what's likely to come in 2024 - Not just 'day1' releases, but ABK games too - so it's proving its value to me to keep my Subscription going - not only to 'finish' games I started, but also to try 'new' games before they 'leave' the service - not necessarily play them the day the enter the service either - sometimes its better to wait for fixes/patches and/or additional content/features to be added rather than get the 'Day 1' Disappointment edition...

The difference is that Sony and Nintendo need you to buy their console to get you into their 'ecosystem'. MS does not need to sell you a Console at all to get you into their Ecosystem.

Yes Sony do eventually sell their games on PC - once they have 'exhausted' that titles Console selling power as their 'new' exclusives are used to shift Consoles so they can sell it on another platform to maximise its sales revenue from those gamers that refused to buy a Playstation to play it. Its still a separate ecosystem though.

Microsoft decided to merge their Windows based Console gaming customers with their Windows based PC gaming customers - all Microsoft customers - into one Ecosystem and invest in Cloud Streaming to reach more Customers on whatever Hardware they have or 'prefer' to play on.

If Sony have 100m PS5's sold, that's 100m in their Ecosystem and only 'grows' with each new Hardware sold. MS's ecosystem can 'grow' without selling a single Console - everyone has some device they 'could' join the Ecosystem with. With Millions of gamers on Mobile/tablet, PC etc more than on Playstation, Switch and Xbox consoles combined, they have the potential to reach EVERY gamer without selling a single Console, get them into their 'ecosystem'. So whilst Xbox Consoles may not be as 'popular' as they are purely optional, it doesn't mean that MS has much less reach or even a smaller Ecosystem. Its a fraction of the ecosystem compared to Sony/Nintendo'ss whole...

Companies like Asus, Lenovo etc maybe will make 'living room' PC's in the future to connect to TV's and give a 'Console-like' gaming experience - no need for MS to compete with a much more 'limited' console, locked to just MS etc - much like they don't need an Xbox handheld console with SteamDeck, Asus RoG Ally and many other options all offering Game Pass/Xbox games to play day 1. So even if MS don't make their own Hardware, plenty of third party PC hardware specialists can offer and 'compete' on price/specs too...

The difference is clear - when MS opted to merge 'Xbox' as a separate side project catering ONLY to the Console gamers into Microsoft and become their Gaming Brand, the Console sales was always going to suffer.

If you want to play Mario, Zelda, God of War, Spider-Man etc when they launch, you have NO option but to buy a Switch or Playstation console. If you want to play Forza, Halo, Gears etc the day they launch, if you don't have a Series S/X console, you can still play on PC, SteamDeck and numerous other devices - inc Last gen Xbox consoles (no need to even upgrade) - so why buy something that isn't needed or necessary to enjoy those games?

Hardcore, Dedicated and/or affluent gamers may well choose to buy or upgrade PC's instead of buying a Console that is already 'dated' and with DLSS, becoming easier/cheaper to hit higher visual quality and much higher frame rates too. Others may choose to play on what they have - their XB1S, their SteamDeck, their mobile/tablet/TV, their laptop etc instead of spend money on a Console to play games they can play anyway and buy a Playstation to play the games they can't elsewhere instead.

Of course the Xbox consoles still exist for those that prefer the 'Console' experience - the bang for buck they provide, the ease of use and less hassle, the convenience of them - but its still just an option. Anyone who 'prefers' to play on Cloud or PC aren't buying an Xbox and even if they 'prefer' PC, still may buy Playstation/Switch to play games that are ONLY on those Consoles.

I don't care if MS owned even more Publishers, I doubt it would suddenly make their completely optional Console be the best selling 'Console' with absolutely NO reason to own it other than its your 'choice', the way you 'prefer' to play games. But not 'everyone' prefers or 'needs' to buy an Xbox...

What came across as clear from DF's video is that the Series S wasn't really 'optimised' having the vast majority of settings actually the same as the Series X/PS5 and only reducing the target resolution down to 1440p.

As we already know, the Series S ia 1/3rd the GPU yet 1440p is just under 1/2 the pixel count of 4k. 1296p (or thereabouts) would represent about 1/3rd the Pixel count so if GPU scaled directly with Resolution for example, then 1440p is a bit ambitious without reducing other settings to reduce the GPU load for a system with about a third of the GPU processing power.

It probably makes sense that Xbox wouldn't have had the same time/resources spent on porting/optimising in general with Sony having deals with ABK and earlier access to prioritise for...

@themightyant Well it certainly can't be worse. Most of the 360 games - inc Gears of War trilogy and Forza Horizon, as well as games like Mass Effect, BioShock etc were not made by a Microsoft Studio.

By the time the XB1 launched - Bungie had left and MS acquired the rights to Gears - created Studios to handle those IP's but only had a 'few' Studio's themselves - 343, Coalition, Lionhead and Rare. They acquired Mojang in 2014 (but all their games are multi-platform anyway) and closed Lionhead. Then merged into MS and acquired Playground, Undead Labs, the Coalition, Ninja Theory as well as created the Initiative. Then added Obsidian, InXile and Double Fine later that year in 2018. They added Zenimax group in March 2021 and in October 2023, added ABK - most, if not all games made by ABK Studio's are also likely to be Multi-platform for the foreseeable future too.

So even if MS are 'extremely' successful, chances are people will not count CoD, Minecraft, Diablo etc as 'reasons' to buy an Xbox console and as I said, may not actually 'want/need' a Console to play the Xbox Exclusives they want - so I can't see Xbox ever closing the Gap unless Sony/Nintendo really screw up.

If I have a PC or someway to play ANY Xbox release, then I'm more likely to buy a Playstation 6 to play games day/date I can't play without a Playstation. Even if its not the 'best' way to play, it still allows me to experience these games when/where I want to play. I really don't think MS will sell more Consoles and I don't think that matters. For Sony/Nintendo, it does because that is the ONLY way into their ecosystem so there is more emphasis on Exclusives only on that hardware but MS has other ways into their ecosystem that the Console is just 1 option - like their Surface line Laptops aren't the only way to get you into their Windows ecosystem...

As much as I agree that MS have turned their Gaming business on its head - considering the state it was in after the Launch of the XB1 to where we are today - but some of that Change is also 'detrimental' to their Console sales.

Around 2016, MS decided to merge the 'Xbox' Gaming, a separate side project from Microsoft, into their main business. Xbox stopped being the just the Console and became Microsoft's gaming Brand. That means that Xbox Consoles no longer have 'Xbox' games exclusive to just the Console, even if they are not on Playstation/Nintendo Consoles. That means that gamers have far more 'choice' - already have a decent PC, no need to buy an Xbox - maybe a Steam Deck or Handheld PC is better suited for some gamers who maybe don't game often in front of a TV so again won't buy a Console...

Point is, that whilst Microsoft have turned things completely around in many ways, even likely to overtake Sony in terms of Gaming revenue and become one of the biggest Gaming companies in the world, they'll be people complaining that they have 'lost' because Sony/Nintendo sold more consoles and not closing the gap...

Zombies is a time sync of grinding - especially as Multi-player players are using it to rank up weapons to unlock attachments, camo's etc so I would expect that 'each' player who bought MW3 is Grinding out the unlockable camo's, attachments etc.

I'd also wager that the most 'dedicated' CoD players bought MW3 so the engagement per player is likely higher. If they only have 100m hours across 1m players, that's better 'engagement' than 500m hours across 10m players but far weaker 'Sales' and 'Retention'.

That being said, Companies will try and find 'Positives' to promote their game when other aspects maybe not as 'positive'. You can bet if Sales were Amazing, that would be the 'positive' even if Players were not actually playing for long at all...

@GuyinPA75 Don't forget Cloud also enables many people to play on various Platforms too and not everyone is running a PC with Windows 11 either.

Whilst Starfield may only be 'released' to play on Series Xbox consoles and 'PC', that also includes Consoles like Steam Deck or RoG Ally for example as well. It may not be on Switch/PS5, but that's about the only devices its not playable on...

Considering ID@Xbox is designed to allow Indie Developers to 'self-publish' their games with help/support from MS. Of course it benefits MS too as they have more games, more diversity etc and as we know, are more than happy to support their OWN studio's too making their own 'passion project' - instead of leaving a big Studio to set up their own independent Studio to create the game they really want to make - Hence Pentiment for example.

The whole point of ID@Xbox is to give Indies a Platform to 'self Publish' on and more games for Xbox - even if they aren't 'system sellers to many.

TenCent are the biggest gaming Company in the world based on Revenue despite not being one of the '3' Console Platform holders. MS could/should overtake Sony with ABK now part of MS and be above both Sony and Nintendo - despite having the 'lowest' Console sales of the 3.

At what point will some be 'happy'? When MS sells more Consoles than Sony or Nintendo despite the fact their 'ecosystem' reaches far beyond the Console Hardware (unlike Sony/Nintendo Hardware) or when they overtake Sony in terms of users/revenue that they can 'reinvest' into making more games that 'more' people will enjoy on whatever Platform they choose to play on - have MANY more players in their ecosystem and reaching far more gamers than they could had they stuck to just consoles?

@OldGamer999 Attachment rates on Console should be higher for Game Pass - purely because these devices are bought purely for gaming - PC's and 'Mobile' tech is often bought for multiple tasks.

If Xbox sells 20m Series X consoles but 50% also buy GP, that's 10m Subs and quite a high attachment compared to the Billions of PC/Mobiles out there. 500m PC's on the market and just 2% buy Game Pass - that's as many subs as Xbox brings in but a MUCH lower attachment rate - which has more scope for growth? Streaming is still very much in its infancy and certainly not the 'best' option, so attachment rates for GP to 'cloud' only is going to be very LOW considering the amount of people with Smart Phones or some other way to stream games to play.

Also not all those Game Pass customers on 'Xbox' Consoles are buying or own a Series Xbox either. They don't have to buy a Series S to play Starfield, Forza etc and can play games better than their XB1S hardware would allow them to play.

XB1S owners may prefer to buy a PS5 to play games they 'can't' play on XB1S via Game Pass Cloud for example or maybe choose to upgrade to a PC at some point because all the games are on PC and a whole lot more too, can do more on a PC etc - but they are still Xbox customers as Xbox is not just the Console anymore.

Whilst Consoles remain a 'popular' option or 'some' gamers who prefer the 'Console' for ease of use, for that living room experience, the Xbox Console is still a viable option, but if you spend more time gaming on the go, a steam deck or RoG Ally for example makes more sense to buy than a Series S/X. Point is, you NEVER need an Xbox again - its your 'choice' because it suits the way you 'prefer' to access games. You could play Stafield on your Mobile, on last gen hardware etc - but you prefer to play on a Series console. Others may prefer to play on their PC rather than spend money on a Console to play games they'd 'prefer' to play on PC anyway.

Sell 100m PS5's and only 100m can play Spider-Man 2, sell 50m Series Consoles, but more than 100m can play Starfield if they wanted...

@OldGamer999 Its a bit saying Ford really need to do more to make their Ford GT more popular because Ferrari sell more cars than Ford sells that one specific model - forgetting that Ford has many other models and ways to be a Ford owner/driver.

Back in the 360 days, the PC was a very separate platform and MS were neglecting their Windows based customers on that hardware and only catering to their Windows based Console customers. Now they cater to ALL their Windows based customers as well as have options for Android/iOS platforms - streaming on Xbox servers so technically 'playing' on an Xbox even though they didn't buy it...

@OldGamer999 The purpose of a Console is to get people in to your ecosystem. Sony and Nintendo only have their Consoles as an access point and Sony only sell games on PC once they are sure that game isn't selling consoles to extract more Sales revenue from it. MS don't need to copy Sony in that regard because 'PC' is part of the MS ecosystem anyway so sell them the games on the same day/date.

Console sales are irrelevant. Even if Sony sells more Consoles, doesn't mean they have 'more' gamers in their 'ecosystem' or that Xbox is floundering way behind, because they have many others in their ecosystem who 'choose' to play on other devices and/or access games via sub services instead. XB1S/X gamers for example don't have to upgrade at all to a Series S/X and can play Starfield, Forza, Flight Sim etc - all part of the Xbox Community even if they 'choose' to remain on Last gen hardware. Those who choose to play on PC too, even if its not as well specced as a Series X, may not choose to buy a Console because ALL the games are playable on their PC and still part of the Xbox ecosystem.

That's why cross-buy, cross-progression etc works between Xbox and Windows 'PC' because its all part of the 'Xbox' family, the Xbox ecosystem. That's why I can buy or play Starfield on PC/Xbox locally with my progression carrying across, why I don't 'need' to buy it again (if bought Digitally) because its part of the same ecosystem. If you want to play Spider-Man/GoW etc on PC because its a separate ecosystem.

If Sony sell 100m PS5's, that's 100m in their ecosystem. If MS sell 50m consoles, they could have a much larger Ecosystem than Sony, a much bigger market to sell their games to and much higher numbers of players spending time in their games etc.

Yes, Xbox Consoles may not be 'as' popular as Playstation, but 'Xbox' can reach far more gamers with their Reach, their 'ecosystem'. The Console 'isn't' as important when its NOT the entire Ecosystem, its just one of the MANY options to get players into your Ecosystem. Its not just the rich or dedicated hardcore gamers that can play Starfield, just the ones willing to pay $500 for Hardware and $70 for the game, but anyone with as little as $10 and a device capable of streaming it can play, bringing them into the ecosystem, those with PC's and last gen Consoles are part of the 'next-gen' Xbox ecosystem too and all that 'extra' revenue from 'outside' the Console hardware is benefitting those on Console too.

MS would NEVER have bought Bethesda or ABK if they kept the Console as a Separate entity - the fact that Xbox merged into MS is why MS started buying Studio's and growing Xbox to compete. They'd never recuperate those costs if they had to rely on 'just' their Console ecosystem to buy games/Sub services etc...

The fact that its NOW not about Console sales and now more about getting people into the MS ecosystem (Xbox Consoles, PC and Cloud specifically), that has enabled MS to grow to 'target' gamers from casual mobile only gamers all the way up to the most hardcore dedicated gamer on the best Gaming PC's you can own...

@OldGamer999 The difference between the 360 days and today is that MS were running Xbox as a separate 'side project' - not really integrated into the 'full' Microsoft ecosystem. MS had a LOT of PC customers who weren't being catered for at all. That all changed during the XB1 era when MS was deciding whether to pull out of the gaming industry or merge Xbox into Microsoft and cater to a 'much larger' demographic of gamers.

That really started when MS also started to release their Games to PC day/date - I think Forza 7 was the 'first' game but every game since has released simultaneously on PC too.

By not focussing purely on Consoles and a much 'larger' demographic, incorporating 'Xbox' into Microsoft and Windows, even Cloud streaming to reach more Gamers on whatever 'hardware' they have, They can reach 'more' gamers than ever. Yes the 'Console' isn't necessary - its optional.

The OG Xbox was meant to bridge the gap between 'traditional' consoles and PC's to bring PC games (like Morrowind, Halo etc) to more people, to get more PC games into gamers hands, to bring their DirectX to more gamers.

At one point, MS wanted MS Office in every household, now with Xbox as part of Windows and their Cloud streaming option, they have found a way to get Xbox into the hands of 'Every' gamer as every gamer will likely have some hardware they could play on, inc a cheap and Premium Console option if they 'prefer' that tier of gaming.

They don't 'need' to make Handhelds to compete with Steam Deck or a higher spec, much higher price Console to 'compete' with PC's because their games are already on Handhelds and higher end PC's - all part of the XBOX Ecosystem.

People don't 'need' to buy an Xbox or miss out on ANY first Party game. Wherever you 'want' or 'can' play Starfield, there is an option. Obviously not on Playstation/Switch, but on EVERY other gaming devices that billions play on, you can play. Those who may only play via cloud on their Mobile/tablet are as important to MS as you who play on Series S/X or those that choose to play on PC - you are still part of the Xbox ecosystem

@themightyant I'd argue that Nintendo focus much more on Game-play than state of the art cutting edge Graphical presentations. Yes games like Zelda may look great in a cartoony like way that works for them and 'ageless' quality compared to going for a more realistic look with realistic materials, lighting, textures, physics etc etc.

A lot of games these days feel more like Style over Substance - that they have to LOOK great to attract gamers in, but the stories, the game-play etc is rather 'generic' - built on the 'template' of that studio's previous game with more work put into the Graphical presentation and evolving that than the game-play.

Go back and play some of the games we got back in the 360/PS3 generation and a lot still hold up today - albeit not graphically. But Dead Space, Mass Effect, GTA5, BioShock etc still hold up today in terms of Game-play/Story.

It seems that as long as you have Great visuals, the rest doesn't matter so much. Switch proves that game 'visuals' aren't as important as Game-play - especially if it allows gamers to play 'where' and 'when' they want. Who would buy Doom, the Witcher 3 or even Hogwarts when the game is 'significantly' better on a Series X for example? But they sell on Switch to make it 'worthwhile' for Publishers to consider porting too, consider scaling the game down to that hardware level.

It's not about making games that ONLY the Elite Gamers with enough disposable income to buy 'Premium' Hardware and/or pay 'Premium' prices for games just because they are 'new', but making games that more people can enjoy - even if its not the 'best' way to enjoy, they can still play the game, experience the stories etc. Cloud might not be the 'best' way to play games, but it maybe the ONLY way some people can play...

I think its a case of Expectation as a First Party studio and what Bethesda Games have always offered. I think expectations were much higher for Starfield - not only because its their first 'next gen' only game, but also because now they are owned by MS.

They expected a 'generational' leap in Graphical presentation and something that felt modern, cutting edge - not something that felt more like Fallout from the 360 era in Space with all the antiquated NPC interactions and lifeless characters. The engine too seems to be creaking and showing its age too...

It hasn't really evolved much from the days of Morrorwind...

@GamingFan4Lyf Whether those games are fully using the Hardware feature set or even just a part of them, I was primarily talking about first party, the expectations etc - especially when 'others' are using more modern engines and/or more of the hardware feature set.

When MS took over Zenimax, they suddenly expected Starfield to use all the features of DX12 and series hardware promised at launch of the Hardware, they expected at least 'Death Stranding/Last of Us 2/RDR2' type characters and 'realism' of the environments etc - not the 'typical' Bethesda look, style and feel of a game - something they have been doing for decades.

Then Starfield releases and its not a '9+', its not a graphical showcase for the hardware, its not really evolved much from Fallout 3. Fallout 4 added colour and base building, Starfield added more 'maps' and ship building - but the 'core' of these is the 'engine' and the template they consistently use for basically everything. Talking to NPC's is as 'lifeless' and static as it was in Morrowind - albeit with more pixels and detail these days.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that much of what MS has released haven't been the 'Graphical' showcase to compete with Spider-Man or R&C and most have been Legacy builds that were 'expected' to launch on Last gen too (and we know how weak the XB1S is comparatively) and not built purely for Series Hardware to utilise the CPU, Velocity Engine and all the other Hardware features they built in.

Expectation changed with Starfield because they stopped being owned by Zenimax and are now owned by MS so they 'expected' MS to suddenly change Bethesda so that their games now are Graphical Showcases for the Hardware, that sell gamers on the 'power of Xbox' etc and then disappointed that its a 'typical' Bethesda game that looks 'dated' and doesn't exactly 'feel' like a modern game.

@OldGamer999 I don't think any of us have yet - at least not in what you'd probably consider as a game with mass appeal - because I do think that Flight Sim too should be considered as a truly 'next-gen' game.

I can understand perhaps why some games are still not here - Hellblade 2, State of Decay 3, Gears 6 for example as these are expected to release on UE5 and UE5 wasn't actually 'production' ready until April 2022, and was in 'early access' from May 2021 - and certain aspects weren't working on release - like Nanite for Vegetation for example.

Whilst they could have created stuff in UE4 in preparation, there are certain things they may have had to wait or try to find a work-around, a plug-in or some other way to get what they want in UE5 and being 'new' too, maybe taking longer as they 'learn' the new engine/tools.

I don't think I've seen a game yet that is really using the CPU to its fullest. This gen has multi-threaded CPU cores for example but games are still built for single thread CPU's and not that well optimised so 1 or 2 cores get bottlenecked whilst the rest are underutilised, not really working efficiently. I don't think any game is using Mesh Shaders either .

With games taking 5yrs+ to make - not like the 360 gen when sequels to games would take a few years, its not surprising that they haven't really built and released games for this gen. Games releasing were likely started during the last gen, on engines they had back then, even using their 'previous' games as the template to build on - maybe with some 'next' gen feature bolted on (RT reflections for example) but still have the old methods as back-up/lower tier settings - Highest quality adds RT to Screen Space, same with Shadows too so they are running 'several' methods simultaneously because of extra resources available and so they can 'scale' games down to much lower spec hardware. Even Hogwarts has been scaled down for Switch now.

So why we are all still really looking forward to these truly next gen games to come, we are still getting 'legacy' releases that were clearly built for Last gen Hardware initially, even if they decided at some point not to port to last gen hardware. Gotham Knights for example. Then you see some wonderful looking graphics of games to come and get Starfield that 'looks' last gen with 360 gen NPC interactions and the engine is clearly showing its age. That doesn't help but in reality, its probably a 'better' game than Zenimax would release - we all know Redfall was a Zenimax demand of Arkane, not what Arkane wanted (or were set-up) to make but MS take the hit on that.

Game Pass currently has 11 Games nominated for Awards at this years GotY Awards like Starfield, Sea of Stars, Forza Motorsport, Party Animals, Hi-Fi Rush, Lies of P, Cocoon, Dead Space etc - let alone all the 'other' games you can play for much less cost than buying a game like Starfield or Forza individually.

As far as 'day 1' releases go, its also very dependent on what is releasing and December is not exactly full of 'big' releases. Avatar is probably the biggest but very unlikely to be on Game Pass day/date when its on Ubisoft+ and don't want to hurt sales revenue too much. Therefore I wouldn't expect a 'big' day 1 AAA release in GP this month but maybe an 'older' AAA release may come instead.

I don't think the 'Quality' has been that bad either - apart from Redfall of course. But Starfield was perhaps better than 'expected' although I think some had very unrealistic expectations just because of MS ownership. Its still a very 'typical' Bethesda game with all the things 'typical' of a Bethesda game in aesthetics, game structure etc. It, like Fallout 4 or 76 before, weren't exactly cutting edge graphically - yet somehow they expected MS to come in and transform Bethesda into something they have never been - at least it wasn't as 'bad' to play as their previous releases on Console - something MS certainly 'helped'.

I expected Starfield to be Fallout in Space and it basically is - albeit with much more granular detail, better combat and much 'better performance/fewer bugs' than you'd have expected from a Bethesda game under Zenimax. Forza is Forza and racing games haven't really changed in decades - its more 'refinement' than evolving. I also don't think it helped with 'numerous' games still absent despite being announced years ago - Hellblade, Indiana, Contraband, Fable, Perfect Dark etc that makes it feel 'more' disappointing when you get games that don't appeal as much or were clearly developed with last gen in mind on aging game engines as others are now releasing games on newer engines that make those games look more dated...

@Pimpernel And those games came to gamers! They are on basically EVERY Platform, far more than just '3' under Bethesda - and unfortunately for PS Fanboys, not their Platform - but then these games were NEVER announced for or even confirmed for release on ANY platform before MS acquired them!

They haven't taken those games away, those games as a 'Fully realised' projects that 'gamers' will be playing, already confirmed for 'platform' release games. Everything Bethesda 'Promised' would release on Playstation, released on Playstation and now EVERYTHING post that is MS's decision entirely. They bought those Studio's to make Games for Xbox - NO Different from Sony buying Insomniac or Naughty Dog or Psychgnosis....

They 'would have' come had Bethesda still been independent, but whether it would have been the game we got at launch after heavy investment and help from Microsoft to fully realise a Project in 'early' development, who knows. It's certainly a MS owned IP regardless, made by an MS owned Studio and a First Party release - as was this years CoD too by the way and Minecraft.

People criticise timed exclusives and paying others to make games 'exclusively' is not great long term - as MS found out last gen, so now they are buying up Studio's to make sure they have enough Great First Party games coming every year to compete with the likes of Sony, TenCent, Embracer, Apple/Google too maybe long term.

Its not about Consoles anymore, its about IP's and the Studio's to make games because games aren't going to be limited to 'hardware' soon whether you like it or not. All the big AAA experiences will be online stream - whether VR headset or TV because you can't physically build the hardware to run it, ship it out with the storage required to give a 'good enough' local experience when everyone else is streaming for the 'best' experience — MS can't compete in that world without having its own large IP's and Studio's to build games...

@Pimpernel Games are generally NOT built as Multi-platform games - they are built first in one format and then 'ported' to various platforms depending on their Publisher and/or prior agreements.

The difference is that Bethesda and ABK 'used' to be independent publishers and so would push their Studio's to port, optimise etc for every platform they can to maximise sales - as they don't have a Platform of their OWN and PAY licence fees etc to release on 'Consoles'. They also don't get the 'money' per sale that first party does so are 'forced' to release on as many platforms as possible to maximise profitability.

Sony do far worse in my opinion - pay third Party independent Publishers to stop them porting and/or releasing games on Xbox. At least MS OWN the IP, the Studio, the Publishing rights etc. Starfield never was a 'multi-platform' IP - its a First Party IP, like Redfall is. These IP's have NEVER released on another Platform, never announced for and certainly weren't built when MS took over. Bethesda Publishing and the Studio may have been 'expected' to port to PS when nearly finished building the game, but it 'never' existed on a Playstation.

@Carck And games like Persona, Yakuza, Bayonetta etc are not usually 'big' sellers with 'mass' appeal. You never see these games as being in the best selling games list.

As critically well received as they maybe, as popular amongst the 'niche' market they occupy they are, they are not going to sell 20m+ games across all platforms. Games like Sonic, Virtual Fighter, Crazy Taxi, JSR and many others was that they had more mass market appeal. Not saying those other games aren't extremely popular in Japan but not as popular in the rest of the world.

Sega also has many other businesses outside of just Game development - hotels, golf courses etc too which also impacts on SEGA as a 'strong' company. If they aren't making as much 'money' across all their business interests, It does affect their Market position and others will come sniffing. They may sell off their Hospitality section to focus more on Gaming if they believe that is the 'most' profitable way to go for example.

Its not just about their Gaming - but SEGA as a whole company and not all parts being as 'successful' as they could be to be in a position of Strength. If a Company is strong and high profitability, it is unlikely to want to sell or would take a massive offer to tempt, if its struggling and doesn't have the money coming in they 'need' to grow, you'll see them make cut-backs or 'sell' parts of their business - SEGA have sold off some parts before - as have Sony (like their PC Vaio business) to keep their other more profitable businesses going...

Looked and sounded like a very generic shooter with a bland, generic story and relying on its aesthetics to sell more than Game-play/story - style over substance.

I won't buy 'new' games costing over £50 regardless - especially as within 'months' they are often half price, patched and/or added more content/features too - more and potentially 'better' game for less money by waiting.

Therefore I was always going to 'wait' on this - even if that meant wait until its on EA Play to play it 'free' if it doesn't appeal at the Price point...

Sega does have some very strong IP's with a LOT of potential. However, if they don't do much with them and the games they do release 'disappoint' (especially from a Sales perspective), that puts more and more pressure on so the wolves come sniffing around.

If you consistently fail to realise the potential of those IP's, you can actually harm that 'potential' - those IP's become less appealing.

If Sega were in a very strong position, wolves wouldn't be sniffing around the door. If ABK had been in a Strong position, then MS wouldn't have been able to buy them with their 'massive' potential in their IP's too. They may have paid $70bn for a company 'worth' around $55bn at the time, but they had been worth more than $70bn based on 'share' prices. They offered above market value per share as share prices were falling, it meant shareholders could sell for more than they were currently worth...

Point is, if SEGA isn't as strong as it once was, with unrealised potential and failing to overturn downward trends, more wolves will come knocking and their 'value' drops. The key is to focus on realising the potential of their beloved IP's so they 'sell' in big numbers to put SEGA in a strong position and keep 'wolves' from the door...

An easy C - Some big hitters like Starfield and Forza may have been good, just not 'Amazing', Hi-fi Rush was a surprise and critically the best of the bunch with Redfall probably the biggest disappointment.

Obviously mistakes were made and they can do better - especially with their OWN content. We know a few more games in production, but haven't really seen games they told us were in development a while back (Contraband and even Hellblade hasn't 'sold' gamers yet with little/no real Game-play shown off.

Yes the thing with ABK dragged on and really should have been resolved sooner, but now that has become part of the Xbox Family, there is a LOT of potential but also more 'years' of potentially waiting for the Games these Studio's will bring...

I doubt I'll look back on 2023 as being the year that I'll remember best from Xbox and considering how many games and Studio's they own, we are still waiting for news on games like State of Decay 3, Perfect Dark etc and still waiting for actual game-play and release windows for Fable, Avowed and Hellblade 2 - one of the First major games revealed for Series X.

I know games will take as long as they take to make and I'd rather they ensured they are 'ready' for release before they do, but the 'promise' of Great Quality Games hasn't really met expectations when the games we did get weren't 'Amazing' and still 'waiting' for the next gen to really start.

60fps with VRR enabled TV's recommended but an 'unlocked' mode capped to say 60fps for consistency would be a more accurate description - unless they 'tweak' something to reduce the CPU load further, 60fps doesn't look like a 'consistent' reality regardless of how BAD the graphic settings may be.

They 'test' CPU by making sure the Graphic settings are LOW so its never a GPU bottleneck - so run the game at 540p to test 'Series S/X' equivalent CPU's to see if they can 'consistently' deliver 60fps - they can't but its much closer to being 'possible', but at what 'visual' sacrifice? Would you play a '720p' upscaled to 4k with some lower quality settings just to play at 60fps with VRR enabled?

Anyway, time will tell as they say but its going to help it run 'better' in the future too regardless of platform...

People forget how 'revolutionary' the Xbox was and the purpose was to bring 'PC' games to the 'masses'. The DirectX Box they built was meant to be very 'PC' styled - which at the time made it big and bulky but enabled Companies like Bethesda who had been very PC focussed to release their games for Console.

I still have an OG Xbox Crystal, not my OG Xbox I traded in to get the crystal. I remember it well as I was impressed by and eager to play this epic new game unlike anything I'd seen a console do at that time called Halo: Combat Evolved and the Xbox became a 'must' buy for me...

It really doesn't seem like that long ago...

@LoquaciousB Whilst I do agree that MS had no impact on Diablo IV (or Call of Duty MW3 too) this year, they are technically NOW 1st Party IP's and made by Studio's owned by MS.

If D4 'winss' in any category, that goes to the Studio, which is NOW owned by MS. When Deathloop 'won' 2 Awards, that was also a game at the time not on Xbox consoles, yet was still an award for a MS owned IP and MS owned Studio too...

At the end of the day, these award shows are nothing more than opinions - like the Oscars are for Films. Last year, Vampire Survivors was BAFTA's Game of the Year - beating the Game Awards Winner, Elden Ring and God of War Ragnarok to that accolade. Point is, some people won't agree as they 'prefer' other games, other genres etc or have certain expectations - how can an indie game with dated visuals beat off the story telling and graphical showcase of GoW:R or the massive hype of Elden Ring. Oscars rarely go to the 'best' film that most people would watch too...

Probably the newer ones in reality because I stopped buying a few years ago and own all the ones from WW2 backwards and all the DLC too. I'd go back to play Zombies on BO3 and older games. But I'd play the newer games potentially for their campaign as I haven't played these either.

When I can play CoD 4 on my 360 or the original Black Ops (great Campaign - the numbers Mason...) and its Zombies anyway, them on Game Pass doesn't matter to me...

Not surprised - Starfield is by far the biggest and most ambitious, as well as probably the most 'bug free' launch of any Bethesda game - but its still a 'Bethesda' game with some typical Bethesda Jank.

Visually its 'impressive' when compared to Fallout 76 or 4 for example, but it still looks 'dated' - not modern with much better lighting/character models/animations etc. Yes its a good 'Bethesda' game, but its not Game of the Year worthy in my opinion.

Not that there is anything wrong with iterative advancements that enabled them to make what feels more like Fallout on a different scale - but nothing that feels 'new' or fresh...

Its a good game but not GotY Awesome...

It's unfair to judge this Generation yet when it feels like its yet to really get started.

Therefore my vote has to go to the 360 - especially with the great perspective of living through it and all the others thus far, and seeing that 'whole' generation and its impact - there is no Rival.... Yet!!

Although this Generation could be a 'Great' Generation too - this time with a LOT more memorable 1st Party Exclusives than 3rd Party...

@Tomato_Goose I can only speak from my own perspective, but I want to play games where I am fully in Control of my character in a combat situation and not have ANY element of 'luck' involved at all.

Nothing ruins a game for me more than stopping to take turns at hitting each other whilst everyone stands around watching. I absolutely hate it and nothing you can say would change my opinion. The more games have given me 'control' over much more of the action than ever, I certainly don't want to go back.

from the 'left/right' and fire of space invaders (no luck, just timing) to Super Mario Bros to SM64, to modern day games, interacting with enemies has significantly improved. I know why it was used (because hardware couldn't do it and all the 'rest' of the game) - So I stayed away from games with 'luck' involved and kept too games where I am in full control - at least in 'combat'. If I get hit, it's because I wasn't moving or blocking - not because its the enemies turn and never will be - I want to be in full control of my health bar at all times in game!

Unless it's a tiny part, like orlog in AC:Valhalla for Quests that I had to do, I don't play any game of chance even as 'mini-games' either, I don't Gamble and never played D&D/Role playing board games on which this is based too so I get that it makes 'sense' in context of the 'origins' of this genre but it's not what I want, or will play - certainly not whilst many other games offer 'real time' combat. Even 2d Mario has more control, timing the jumps or fire options when you can - none of this take it turns charade before giving control back to the player to 'move' again...

Its a design choice for the studio's and they will have some who love they still do TBC and build a game so great with it in, but its a game-play feature I loathe and will never play a game with it.

So you see, there is absolutely nothing you can say that will convince to give it a 'go' - even for Free on Game Pass if it were to come to it. I say the same about Suns of Midnight too btw and I wanted that story and much more a Marvel fan, but won't ever play that either so this has NO chance.

As I said, it's my 'personal' reason and opinion - as others have expressed their reasons for perhaps not being interested - however you seem to want to tell people why their opinions maybe 'wrong' I thought I'd give you more info on why your post doesn't matter...

No interest from my perspective - I don't play any game with Turn based combat regardless...

Each to their own of course but its not for me...

All games do (or at least should) matter - regardless of their development scale. Vampire Survivors, Minecraft or Ori for example weren't AAA games yet are adored by gamers and Minecraft is the biggest selling game ever.

Xbox Live Arcade 0n the 360 was full of smaller budget/smaller team games - Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon, Assassins Creed 2.5D trilogy or Child of Light by Ubisoft for example. Let alone all the other games that people enjoyed that 'mattered' to them too.

MS isn't focussed on 'just' Consoles and selling Console Hardware - they want to attract people across the world on whatever Platforms people play on - inc Mobiles. Some games may well be more successful on Mobile for example with MANY more gamers playing - yet some may consider that game not worth their time, money etc because its not AAA. Its still 'matters' to MS and ALL those that love the game.

People may hate Candy Crush for example, but its 'success' can help subsidise those big AAA games that take 'years' to make with a large team - so not 'producing' Games for Gamers frequently.

I don't enjoy 'every' AAA game - regardless of whether its polished or not. There are smaller games I prefer - even if they aren't 'system sellers' - they matter more to me than yet another AAA 'sequel'.

As long as they release games - regardless of 'budget/scale' of the project - in the best state possible with consistent performance, that's all that should 'matter' in my opinion. Smaller budget shouldn't mean any less focus on 'quality' performance...

I couldn't care less if AI has been used to create a game - whether that's writing, voice acting or even helping build games. I don't think the world is 'worse' for replacing 'people' in many areas of 'work'. There was fewer roles in the 'leisure/entertainment' business 150yrs ago because there was so much 'manual labour' required that got replaced by Machinery/automation.

AI can cut costs and significant time - creating the world, the 'life' and the dialogue/noise of a game. Walk through a 'market' and hear the AI chatter that makes it feel more 'alive' than hearing the same few Dialogue lines they recorded. More believable NPC's instead of 'scripted' but limited Behaviours etc etc.

at the end of the day, I care more about the final game I play and if AI 'improves' both the quality and quantity, helping to speed up the development cycle without sacrificing the 'Quality', I couldn't care less if the characters are voiced by Actors or AI, couldn't care less if the environment was constructed by Humans or Procedurally generated etc.

UE5 uses AI, DLSS uses AI and Procedural Generation is a form of AI too to - not 'hand crafted' where every bush, tree, object was 'placed' by humans in the game....