BAMozzy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's be honest here, third party publishers don't get all the money from a Game sale as they have to pay to release on Console, pay to use Sony/MS hardware/trademarks etc to put games out.

If you buy GTA through the Consoles Digital store, 30% goes to the platform holder as they are the 'retailer' and of course Sony/MS also make money from selling Peripherals and Subscription services too - you can't play GTA Online without a PS+/Game Pass Core subscription. Even without MS/Sony's own games, they are still 'making' money on sales of 3rd Party releases.

An MS 'exclusive' doesn't need to sell as many to make their costs back - they own their own hardware and storefront - so that 30% lost to 'MS' as the Store owner, all the money coming in on Subs, and sales of 3rd party games through their store all help to contribute to their own game development costs and revenue.

Assuming a game costs say 200m to make and market, how many $70 games need to be sold when 30% of that is given to MS for owning the store and platform. With 35m paying $10 (minimum) a month on Subscriptions, that's 350m a month - or almost enough to cover the 'cost' of 2 x 200m games a month without needing to 'sell' a single copy to recoup costs.

Just because MS can do it, as can Ubisoft who offer 'Day 1' with Ubisoft+, it doesn't mean 'everyone' can or would want to - for some, Sales may still be their preferred option - especially if they don't have their own Platform/Store front to make money too...

ODST and Reach didn't really excite me or interest me as much as the mainline 'Halo' series and at the time, I felt like these weren't what I really wanted from Halo. That was only reinforced later when it transpired that ODST/Reach were made so Bungie could 'buy' their freedom and made because they didn't really want to make more Halo - Destiny's first Easter Egg is in ODST...

I never liked Halo as a MP game so I only consider the Single Player and to me, I didn't enjoy these as much as Halo 3 and felt like the series was trying to keep up with the likes of CoD and Battlefield, the 'everyday' soldiers, not the one man super soldiers of Doom, Halo, etc. Play as the 'grunt' instead...

I do think that there is still the 'need' for an Xbox Console despite the lack of sales (relative to competition) and the fact a Console isn't necessary or required to play MS games.

Not everyone wants to choose between streaming and a 'PC' to play games and some will prefer to play on a Console because it suits their budget and/or ease of use. Even 4yrs on, you'd find it tricky to build a PC for the cost of a Series X and/or maybe wouldn't know how to or even want to assemble one.

I know I have said that the console is not necessary as its not required to bring people into Game Pass or the 'Xbox' Ecosystem, that people with PC's or even a mobile phone can choose not to 'buy' a Console and still play 'Xbox', but that is quite different.

There is quite a difference between having to make a 'Console' in order to get people into your ecosystem and/or 'forcing' gamers to play on Console as that is the 'ONLY' option for playing your games and choosing to make one because enough of those Gamers would prefer to play on a 'Console' even though other options exist (PC/Cloud) as it caters to 'consumer' choice.

I may not need to buy the 'next' Xbox because I choose to play on my PC for example, but despite owning a PC, I may choose to buy it because of the ease of use for example...

Considering you can buy a Handheld PC with all the games and emulation PC offers for around the cost of a Series X, a Handheld Xbox with far fewer games and potentially, a $75 a year 'Online' fee on top, maybe would be a difficult sell. They could make a Surface Handheld PC with an 'Xbox' style UI to compete with other handheld devices...

Xbox Game Pass Ultimate is 12,000 points a month and buying 1 month of Game Pass Ultimate just awarded me with 216 points.

I also am an Xbox Ambassador earning 1 month of GPU every 3 months - effectively buying 2 months, get third month free - pay for 8m and get 4m Free - so between earning Rewards (inc spending 'money' on games/content etc) and doing the Ambassadors activities too could make Game Pass Ultimate Free if you can earn 24k points every Quarter....

Nearly 4yrs since they announced their intention to take over Zenimax although that deal wasn't actually completed until March the following year. So in reality it's only been '3 and half years' at Microsoft.

In that time, though they have released Deathloop, Ghostwire, Hifi Rush, Redfall and Starfield. Machine Games announced Indiana Jones just before the take over and id Software were finishing off and releasing Doom Eternals last DLC so its been an interesting 3.5yrs so far...

Personally, I couldn't care less if CoD was the only 'Big' release of the Holidays or not. I would wonder what has happened that so many games failed to materalise and what MS intend to do about that.

Its not as if there isn't games to play and games to look forward to as well, but for a year that looked to build on 2023, after 2022's incredible lacklustre year and 2021's 'best Publisher by Metacritic' year.

If ALL we got was CoD, then it would seem that 'even' years (2022, 2024) were weak years for Xbox games to release...

For many of these type of games, they are NOT generally as popular in the west with the BULK of their sales coming from the Asian Markets. So not only will they sell far fewer copies in their strongest market, globally it would seem to be 'pointless' for the amount of work, therefore 'cost' to port and 'support' the Xbox Console.

If it proves popular enough on PC/PS5 in the west, they'll likely want to release on Xbox too but unless they think enough Xbox gamers would 'buy' it to justify the Cost of doing the work to not only get it running on Xbox, but supporting it too.

I'd say Backwards Compatibility has more to do with this 'failing' than Game Pass. Even without Game Pass offering hundreds of games to play, all competing for my gaming time, I'd see little/no reason investing in an 'old' game I have and can play on my hardware. I won't pay £10 to upgrade my PS4 version of a Game to unlock the PS5 port - it's just greed!!

Braid shook up the industry itself in many ways just because of its success as a Digital Only, Indie/Arcade game and now most people buy everything Digitally in their Console Store. But 15-20yrs later, its not as unique, not 'new' and now competing with 1000's more games than it had to compete with on the 360. You have ALL the XB1 and Series games that can be bought and played - many much cheaper too...

The 'third' new Studio that I know of since MS took over in Oct 2023.

First, Infinity Ward announced they opened a New Studio in Austin, Tx, to create new and innovative CoD games and the technology powering them...

Second, Activision announced they opened a New Studio in Poland, Elsewhere Studios, to create a new Narrative Driven AAA game (not CoD).

And now Blizzard has new team to work on smaller budget games - just hope we don't have to wait another 5-6yrs though until we see what these Studio's have been working on...

Considering its points for just turning on your console 5days out of 7, not exactly a 'chore' for gamers, I can't really complain - same with all the other activities for 'points'.

Obviously, the reduction in the amount of points overall is not great for those of us who had become accustomed to accumulating enough points/rewards a month to pay for GPU for example but paying for one in every 2 months (50%) to me would still be worth doing. That would still save me £90 a year on GPU alone, let alone any additional points I can use for Xbox credit to buy games/content too...

@Elbow Whilst I will say Game Pass may not suit everyone, I do think some of your rationale is 'wrong'. Game Pass doesn't stop you from buying any game so its not preventing you from playing in 5yrs time for example. It doesn't stop you from waiting for those sales etc.

What it can do is stop you having to miss out on games when they are 'current'. If you wanted to play Assassins Creed, CoD and Indiana Jones but can't afford all, you can buy AC and play the others on GP.

Another way to use it is to play the games Game Pass offers until they are cheap or leave Game Pass and get the extra 20% discount being on Game Pass offers. Use it to try games too, maybe games you are unsure of or wouldn't buy. I wouldn't buy 'Indies' myself as I can often find AAA games for the same price or less I'd rather 'try' for the money.

Another way to look at the 'cost' is that its costing $10 a month just to play 'online' with 30ish games in 'Core' you can play, an extra $5 adds 100's of games and another $5 adds Streaming, EA Access, PC gaming and Day 1 access. In other words, its costing over the price of 1 new release AAA game just to play online so paying for 100's (inc some Day 1 releases), play anywhere etc is costing me '1 game' a year as I'd still need Game Pass Core to play everything I want.

As I said, it doesn't stop you 'owning' games either, it just means I can decide whether I think its 'worth' owning long term, whether or not I'm likely to return to a game or completely finished with it and moved on. I've 'finished' several games that I wouldn't return to, so didn't buy - but still enjoyed. Other games I've tried that I thought would be worth checking out at some point in a sale and glad I didn't drop money on, other games that I wouldn't have bought but really enjoyed and others I enjoyed and have gone on to buy too so I can play 'whenever'.

It's not just 'Xbox' 1st Party ether - but all the Indies and 3rd Party games too. Lies of P, Guardians of the Galaxy or even Hellblade (both) are games I wouldn't have bought - even in a 'Sale' but played because of GP and I own GotG now...

I can understand 'Avowed' - a brand new IP and an RPG too - would be delayed to give it the 'best chance' of success. Its not just the other MS games coming this year but also other Single Player games like Star Wars Outlaws and Assassins Creed Shadows.

Forgetting about 'Game Pass' for a moment, a game like Avowed would likely struggle as Star Wars and Assassins Creed are much bigger IP's and more recognisable too. Those games are likely to sell more just on the IP alone and having an established large fan base for Star Wars or AC will help these succeed in a 'busy' window.

February could be a much better window for Avowed as there is generally far fewer releases and so isn't competing against recognisable IP's and may feel they have a bit more time to dedicate to an RPG too instead of spreading their gaming over multiple games.

Even when they do have 'games' releasing, I still see people whinging about a lack of games/content - not AAA enough, doesn't interest them or not 'exclusive' to Xbox to 'justify' why they have an Xbox. Game Pass too isn't 'just' for the AAA 1st Party releases, but also their Partners and/or Published 3rd Party games - Stalker 2 & Contraband for example - as well as games like Flintlock, B4B, Lies of P, Tunic etc etc and whilst Shattered Space maybe DLC, its still additional content that had to be made and some DLC can be bigger/better than some complete games. Blood & Wine (Witcher 3) is a great example of additional content that is better than many AAA games even if it is just 'DLC'. Just because it isn't on Game Pass either doesn't mean that its not 'content' that people could well be playing this 'Holiday', filling their 'gaming' time playing - especially as Some will have 'pre-ordered' this to get Starfield earlier too.

It probably makes sense to move 'Avowed' out of the Busy window for gaming when it could be overlooked as people would rather play Star Wars, Assassins Creed or any of the other 'big' IP's releasing over the Holiday season.

It's not 'just' Microsoft and their other games that may have pushed this back a few months, its also about the industry as a whole and what games are releasing. Avowed is a brand new IP and for many, a complete unknown and will be too busy in the busiest time to check out an RPG with '100's' of hours worth of game time.

Its not necessarily going up against Flight Sim, Towerborne, CoD BO6, Indiana Jones and Starfield: Shattered Space, but games like Star Wars Outlaws and Assassins Creed Shadows too. Those two are well known IP's - that's like putting Titanfall up against Battlefield and CoD. Whilst those 2 might not be on Game Pass, they are still competing for your time.

It perhaps makes more sense to move it outside the Busy window into a quieter window when they can release it with less Competition. More maybe willing and able to spend more 'time' in the game.

Other games have been 'moved' to avoid other big releases, give them their own 'space' to succeed. It seems that whatever MS does, its doom & gloom. Games are extremely Complex to 'build' and can take longer than anticipated - Ghost of Tsushima released 6yrs after Infamous 2nd Son and yet can't give MS any time at all to make 'Quality' games...

Games are 'ready' when they are - Rush them and they aren't great at all, give them time and its a 'disaster' and in both cases, its 'poor management'. Arguably the latter of these, giving the Studio the time and 'best' release window for their game may well be a case of 'great' management instead of putting out a game to 'die' and/or get lost amongst the other 'big' IP's...

@Fishmasterflex96 1st point - Why to announce at a 3rd Party Event?
The answer to that should be obvious - the same reason they revealed the Series X or HB2 at a 3rd Party event is to have ALL Gamers eyes on their 'Product' as a 'teaser' to entice them to watch the Xbox event. FH5, whether it was 'Successful' or not, has traditionally been revealed a few 'months' before release. If they tease some new Hardware too, those can entice some viewers to watch the 'Xbox' show to find out more.

If Avowed is delayed due to Congestion, that doesn't mean a completely different game in a completely different Genre may not replace it. It could be delayed because they have too many 'RPG' like games around (not just Xbox with their Starfield Expansion) and may feel 'Avowed' stands a better chance if its delayed into early 2025. Forza Horizon can release in that 'window' because its the 'normal' Forza Window for Forza Fans, its an established IP too so has a Fanbase who will play and as you said, has a track record of success in that window so may make more sense to push an unknown IP and one that many may feel they don't have time for (in a busy Window) until a quieter time.

As for Playground, they opened a second Studio specifically to work on an Open World game. Its not '1' studio with everyone working on Fable until they return to Forza. They have 3 Studios now and have this to say:-

In our original HQ, we continue to support and grow the huge, vibrant Horizon community. In our new studios on the other side of town, we are excited to be developing Fable

So I don't think that was particularly dumb to say, certainly not as dumb or as ill conceived as the response was. It makes sense to 'tease' something in the Opening night show when Gamers regardless of Platform will tune in to try and get them to tune into the Xbox show which is mostly only the Xbox gamers that will watch. They want to get 'ALL' gamers to watch to try and get them into 'Xbox'.

It works - You put the cinematic trailer for a Game out on 'opening' night saying that Game-play and more details will be given at the Xbox Show, those interested will tune into the Xbox show - even Playstation gamers will tune in because they want to see Game-play. They want them to sit through the show, see what 'few' games they will get on PS too but more importantly, the games they get on 'Xbox' and/or Game Pass to get them into 'Xbox' too even if they don't buy/own even the cheap Series S...

It could be something specifically Microsoft related - some new teaser for a game or some hardware (maybe a handheld Xbox or PC), maybe even a drop of some Activision games into Game Pass for example. However it could also be something from their '3rd Party' partnerships that will also release on PS, but MS may have some deal in place. It wouldn't be the first time they've had a 'trailer' for the next Assassin's Creed trailer on Opening night with showing of Game-play scheduled for the Xbox show...

They could have some 'surprise' announcement - like FH6 as its been nearly 3yrs - FH5 was 3yrs after FH4, which was 2yrs after FH3 for example.

@EVIL-C And as for games like Deadpool - that again has nothing to do with 'Microsoft' or their stance on 'Game Preservation' - same with Forza games too - you can't get an indefinite licence to SELL these games, make money from ALL those car brands....

Those games are out of 'print' to, haven't been made for years on Disc. The Only ones you might find are old stock 'big' bulk buyers (like Amazon Game etc) bought and still haven't sold ALL the copies. They don't keep manufacturing games physically either.

Just like you can't buy Games for your N64 or OG Xbox new anymore, they stopped making them too and some games you'll never see again unless you 'own' both the game and hardware to run it on...

MS can ONLY preserve their OWN software or Make their Hardware 'iterative' upgrades so the 'old' games run on the Hardware - like a PC. The 'Xbox' is a 'fixed spec, OS locked, Console style gaming Box - both Windows, both DX12. Just Windows is a open OS, their Console version is 'locked'

If games get delisted or become so rare if not impossible to find on Physical, then buy Licence games in sales because they'll be 'delisted' or unavailable if 'things' change or in the case of 'car' games, the Licence has run out and they have a 'new' licence for the latest game, then another renew short term licence for the 'next'...

Whether you like the fact MS acquired two big Publishers in a relative short time, as we see from all Bethesda Published games are 'preserved' in Backwards Compatibility and no Doubt, we will see more ABK games now 'preserved' unless Licences make that difficult - Treyarch's Spider-Man for example. But that's 'ownership' of those IP's and Publishing Rights to 'Preserve' their games how they want - bring them 'forward' or 'keep' the old version playable - maybe 'both' - but its up to 'other' publishers/owners to 'preserve' their games (or not)

@MrMagic And of those that aren't that is NOT the responsibility of MS to 'preserve' - and they are 'preserved' if you want to play on a 360 and you OWN them just like any Game you bought on Cartridge too.

The fact is that MS can't 'preserve' them any more than Sega can preserve ALL the games on Dreamcast or Megadrive. All those 'hundreds' of games I bought on Tape for a Commodore Computer that are not 'preserved'...

Those games ONLY ran on a 360 so you'd need an Xbox 360 to play them which hasn't been made now for a decade. No-one is going to buy a 360 to play games so they are 'preserved' for the 'owners' of those games, even though you'd struggle to buy ALL the discs today as they are ALL out of Print as in 'no longer' made.

If you bought, you can STILL play on your 360 - the Console those games were designed, built and ONLY sold for Xbox 360 hardware. They are 'preserved' in your 360 Library and will remain 'playable' on your 360 (unless they require online servers that are turned off) Again not something MS has control over as EA control Battlefield Servers for example.

Things CHANGE too - and until MS decided they wanted to 'preserve' games, the XB1 for example launched as a completely 'new' next gen hardware. They can 'preserve' their 'own' software, but they have no 'control' over ALL the other Games that are owned by Publishers/Devs etc.

The closure is on OBSOLETE Hardware and the only store still stocking games 'exclusive' to that Hardware has now closed a DECADE after the Hardware stopped being made...

The ONLY people that 'cares' are the tiny 'few' that are 'retro' hobbyists. No-one else is spending money to buy 'new' games on Obsolete Hardware - everyone else is buying games for Current Hardware and that has 'enough' retro Games and of course ALL MS games (bar any that have Licences like Car brands or music) Obviously the makers don't 'care' now otherwise they'd agree to BC...

Physical Discs are NO more preserving Games than Digital. Those 360 games that were available to buy on Disc went out of print years ago - far longer than the Digital versions were still available to buy. If you bought on Disc or Digitally at the time - both are still accessible.

The ONLY advantage that Physical holds is the fact that you can 'sell' them on to another person. If you can't find a 'new' copy of the game, you maybe able to hunt down a 'used' copy somewhere but you couldn't buy many of the 360 games brand new on Disc unless they were 'overstocked' and didn't sell well - but you can buy a lot today 'new' Digitally in the BC Store.

Take Gears of War, the 1st game. You'd be hard pressed to find a brand new copy of the 360 version today on Disc - not that you'd probably try with the Digital BC version or XB1 remastered version - same with games like Halo 3 or Fable 2 because they stopped making these on Disc years ago - they were 'discontinued' from manufacturing and unless some Stores still have 'old' stock, you can't buy it 'Physically' anymore - unless 'used' which doesn't count to Publishers/Devs/Platform holders etc as they get 'nothing'...

I'm not Anti Physical or Anti Digital, but Physical doesn't 'preserve' games any more than Digital does. Without a '360' a LOT of the games are useless anyway so if your 360 breaks and you can't find a 'decent' used replacement, the Disc is useless. It's not preserved your ability to play it anymore than buying Digital would.

@PsBoxSwitchOwner To me, that's very little different to a Gamer that only buys used or heavily discounted hardware/games - maybe doesn't even have Game Pass Core/PS+ Essential. That user isn't 'contributing' to growth and may have 'lost' the Platform holder money getting them in to that ecosystem that won't be recuperated for years (if ever).

There will be some that may only Sub to Game Pass for 1-2m a year, play everything they want for $20 or so, then quit. They'll not contribute to growth either but they are like those Console owners that only buy used or heavily discounted releases, maybe didn't even buy their Hardware new.

The difference though is that if you only ever Sell 5-10m copies of a Game, the most 'additional' content you can sell is 5-10m. You get 30m playing, you can sell 3-6x more. If only 25% buy Season Passes, that's upto 2.5m vs 7.5m - all through 'your' store. If they lose 5m sales on PS5 as they choose to play on Xbox, that's 5m more in their Store front where 100% of revenue goes to Microsoft compared to just 70% from Sony (as Sony take 30%) - effectively getting 'more' per player per 'purchase'.

Of course its all about getting people to 'spend' money - not just on Subs, but you also need to get them into the 'storefront' before you can sell them ANYTHING. No-one will buy Season Passes, MTX's etc if they aren't playing the game and MANY games these days have their own storefront too.

CoD doesn't sell as well on Xbox, so MS wasn't making anywhere near the same money as Playstation - now they'll get 70% from all those who buy on Playstation, 100% from all those that buy on Xbox and their PC store, as well as those that 'buy' any content through accessing on Game Pass. instead of maybe selling just 2-3m season passes, they could sell more now as Steam/Battlenet users as well as some Playstation users 'choose' to switch to Game Pass thus making 'more' overall for MS instead of some of that money going to Valve and Sony...

What is telling is that 500m across ALL Platforms/devices. Xbox Consoles, particularly Series S/X looking forward (as XB1 is getting fewer releases) obviously can't 'reach' 500m Gamers so double down on 'reach' as the vast majority your 'Monthly Active Users' are not on their own Consoles anyway....

From my perspective, Series X is still my prefered way to play Xbox games. I do sometimes stream but often just to try something I'm not sure I'll play enough to warrant downloading first. II do have a RoG Ally and Gaming Laptop too so could choose not to buy or play on Xbox Console but still be an 'Xbox' Customer...

With CoD making Millions per day - not just in sales of the latest game, but sales of Season Passes, Cosmetic Bundles, CoD points etc - and that includes to users of 'F2P' games like CoD Mobile and Warzone too. All those who will 'play' via Game Pass too, many of whom will spend money on those 'extras', jump in to Events etc.

I think MS will make at least another Console as it still offers consumers something no other options do for the 'Price'.Streaming isn't as good and PC's can be too complicated or expensive for everyone so a Console is the 'perfect' option for some. Not everyone wants to buy or game on PC and Streaming isn't good enough for them either.

But they are chasing MAU's and their Console alone would never reach 500m - not even Playstation or Switch can reach those figures. Sell to 50-100m where maybe 5-10% at most buy any game, or get 30m+ in your game across various devices and selling 5-10x more Season Passes, MTX's etc, you make 'more' money...

@OldGamer999 Nobody really wanted to access their Music or their TV/Movies via the Internet either but now that is the most popular way people do access those media today.

The most 'popular' device for gaming is the Mobile Phone - whether you consider the 'games' it offers as 'worthwhile' games that compete with the best Console/PC games or not, they are still games.

Part of the 'success' of Netflix, Spotify etc is the fact that you don't need 'specific' hardware, that you can access your content on any device. You don't need a walkman, a stereo Hi-fi system, a TV, a VHS/DVD/Bluray player etc - your 'Phone' can be all of those. Now imagine if you can take your gaming Library with you, play on 'any' device...

The 'infrastructure' for Streaming movies via Netflix for example wasn't in place when Netflix first launched 'streaming'. Many places were still on Dial-up with not enough download speed to watch without buffering. You may not 'enjoy' watching movies on your Phone because its too small a screen size for example, but its that flexibility to watch 'anywhere', not just in your Living Room on a TV that has transformed other Media. First it was Music, with MP3's, then TV/Movies as the infrastructure improved - and that includes Mobile internet - 3G, 4G, 5G...

Today, there is still some that prefer to buy Music on CD or Vinyl, some that still buy DVD's/Blurays too, so I don't think dedicated Gaming hardware will 'disappear', but I do think that Streaming will be where 'most' will access their games in the near future. MS want to target Mobiles/mobile devices because 'everyone' has one and its the most popular device for the 'majority' of Gamers - even if most play CandyCrush style games on it...

Us 'old' gamers are not the 'future' and whilst we maybe reluctant to change from 'Hardware' to a more flexible and versatile streaming solution, which, like the early days of 'streaming' TV/Movies with buffering issues, streaming compression etc that TV/Film buffs would use as reasons not to 'stream' or 'infrastructure' not there yet in their 'village' to consider Streaming TV/Movies, it will likely be more popular than 'hardware' based Gaming - although I still expect Hardware to be an option too.

For me, the Xbox 360 'died' when the Xbox One released as I moved on. My 360 was plugged into my Bedroom TV for a while but rarely (if ever) turned on. Then when BC came to XB1, I did play a few '360' games on my XB1 but haven't played any 360 era games despite having the option too on my Series X.

I loved my N64 too for example but when I bought my Xbox (OG), I gave my N64 to my Kids to play in their bedroom. I'm a hoarder and always think I'll keep it just in case I want to play/finish something, but the reality is that 'new' games on 'new' hardware scratch that itch and then when you go back, the old Games are not as 'great' as they seemed.

I can't play 'Goldeneye' or 'Perfect Dark' today because they feel awful look really rough and despite playing better than they did on N64, really don't play as well as modern games.

At most, I'll go back 1 gen - especially now as Series X feels more like an iterative upgrade as most releases are cross-gen and those that aren't, aren't developing entirely new Genres or experiences - its more about better lighting (RT), loading times and graphical fidelity than creating games that were impossible to make on older Gen.

@themightyant And I agree - for the 'Single Player' story and for those that only play story - but that is unlikely to see a 'big' increase in Subs for 'the Single Player' who also won't spend 'money'

If they can drop the Latest game where pretty much all the attention is. MW2 is a 'horrible' grind to unlock attachments, weapons etc without getting them from 'season pass' or paid money for a bundle - Some are almost impossible to 'find' by other means to unlock them.

All the 'Warzone' Gamers will want MW3 because all the new 'Warzone' and Season Pass will benefit them in MW3 - some unlocks are for Zombies which is in MW3.

So my point still stands, from MS's perspective, they want to get people into the 'CoD' community - that Online Player base. Those that 'only' play the Story are unlikely to buy the game 'Day 1, they'll likely pick it up in a sale years later and not 'spend' money on Extras...

They want you to play 'CoD' beyond the Single Player - if you don't enjoy PvP, they also offer a PvE mode too, something you do with 'friends', become part of that 'online' Community and spending money on Season Passes, Cosmetic Bundles and CoD Points...

It would have been nice to have the full suite of CoD now MS owns ABK - but launching into Game Pass the day the new Season Pass starts - Day 1 - you can see what the purpose of ONLY MW3 was. If you are looking forward to BO6 dropping, this may get you hyped to also 'pre-order' the Vault edition which comes with the 1st Season Pass in that and some extras you can use in MW3...

They want you in for Online and where they can also make money from those who choose to play on Game Pass - extra Season Pass, cosmetic Bundle Sales etc to 'prove' that CoD can still make money despite all the 'lost' sales - its the 'boost' in that revenue to offset the loss in sales revenue...

@themightyant Whilst I do agree that it makes sense from a Single Player perspective, that 8hr or so Campaign maybe all they'll play.

But for CoD and it's growth as a 'Social' game, it makes sense to offer the latest and the one that can still make them money. You may not play the MP, but others likely will 'try' Zombies or MP, maybe even buy the Season Pass to enjoy unlocking all the extras that come with it, buy cosmetics etc...

They want to make money too - not just from Subscriptions and the 'latest' is more likely to bring people in that way too. Game Pass too is 'social' as well -play games with Friends/Family 'together' without that barrier to entry. If you all have 'Game Pass', you can all play together, not wait for everyone to buy the game and spend money on 'extras' whilst they are still relevant...

It's rare - unless its an MS or Indie made game for Single Player games 'Day 1'. It maybe because Online games generate income as well...

@themightyant It's probably not 300GB but when you have MW, MW2 and MW3, all the campaigns, MP, Warzone and whatever other modes all downloaded and available in 'CoD HQ', it probably is.

It makes sense to add MW3 first and 'now' too. MW and MW2 are not really 'supported' right now and MW3 is the one with a Season Pass and Season 5 has 'just started' too. Therefore, this is the one that is most likely to bring in the money as they sell the Season Pass for MP, Zombies and of course Warzone too.

If you go back to MW2 today, some of the content is now gone forever as it was tied to Season Passes - some Cosmetics and even weapons (at least the blueprint) maybe gone for good too.

MW3 and Warzone are in Synergy at the moment. In other words, the weapons and season pass are all linked. You can earn XP in MW3 & Warzone 3.0 to unlock Season Pass rewards, share the same weapons, movement etc.

The only reason to bring older games is because they can, but it makes sense to bring MW3 'first' as that is where the bulk are playing, has support from Season Passes and developers and the only one linked to the 'current' Warzone mode too.

Even if you don't play Warzone, MW3 the only one that is being supported by Season Passes, has 'events' etc which may bring in more revenue and get people interested in BO6 too...

@Titntin And to a certain degree, all those Samsung TV's and Firesticks are. The fact is you don't need a Console these days to play Xbox just like you don't need a music system or TV these days to listen to music or watch TV on.

As for streaming, that is the 'closest' to being on an Xbox console without owning one as those games are running on 'Xbox' built into servers. Whilst you may not 'own' an Xbox yourself, those games are 'Xbox' games running on Xbox in the cloud...

The Purpose of a Console was to make Gaming affordable and for Nintendo, the longest running of the Consoles, it was a transition from Card games into digital games - first the Game & Watch handhelds. MS made the Xbox to make PC based games more accessible and help them 'reach' more people by making a DirectX Box. They had a history of releasing only on PC before they decided to make a console to 'reach' more people - MSFS for example is a LOT older than their Console and that wasn't their only game.

Now with Handheld PC's coming in at Console Prices and Streaming enabling anyone with 'internet' to play 'Xbox' without needing to buy Hardware, you can argue that the 'need' for a 'low cost Console' is becoming less and less important. Its no longer 'needed' to bring 'PC games' to a wider audience, to be that 'DirectX' box that was affordable enough yet also built to make PC ports easier as Gaming PC's were expensive.

The latest PC Hardware is still expensive but you can still play on 'older' hardware, cheaper hardware. With things like DLSS too, you can get 'better' performance and/or visual quality too and you don't need the latest RTX graphics card for those.

Obviously there are differences between 'each' - Streaming is limited on its library and limited by its infrastructure, PC's too can be somewhat 'complicated' compared to Consoles and Devs don't bother 'optimising' as well for, so of course they are not the same as the Console. But the reality is that the Console itself is not required - unless it suits the Gamer.

The Console is just a 'part' of the Xbox ecosystem - just like Steamdeck is part of the Valve 'ecosystem' - you don't need a SteamDeck to be part of the whole Steam community and you don't need an Xbox anymore. Not to say that the Console doesn't need to exist, just that its not the 'only' option these days - unlike Switch or Playstation, which is the 'only' way to play Nintendo or Sony's own games.

MS jumped into the Console business perhaps because PC's were too expensive to compete with Consoles, couldn't reach as many people with their 'few' games and so devised a low cost 'gaming PC' in a Console format - inc staples of PC's like Hard Drives and internet ports and now its 'part' of a bigger ecosystem, a choice for consumers who 'prefer' the ease and/or cost of Consoles - but you can still play Xbox on PC or via the Cloud if you 'prefer'...

@Titntin That is a 'stretch' but I can also understand why too. Both Xbox and PC are 'Windows' based. MS too release everything on PC as they see 'windows' users as their Customer base and most, if not all their games are 'Play Anywhere' so if you 'buy' on Xbox, you get the 'PC' version too.

Game Pass Ultimate also lets you play across PC and Xbox as well. All saves and progression is carried over and with Direct Storage, you get the version for your hardware.

So in the 'absence' of a 'dedicated Xbox handheld console', these devices are the best and closest you can buy right now. MS too could make a Surface handheld PC instead of a handheld 'Xbox' - even brand it with 'Xbox' too.

Arguably a PC is an Xbox, but its also a LOT more as well - its a SteamDeck, a Media device to watch your favourite TV/Movies, a business machine etc etc. You just 'choose' to play on console because it suits the way you prefer to play games or your budget but if you have a PC, you don't need an Xbox console and haven't now for almost a decade.

The difference now is that ABK is owned by Microsoft so now don't lose '30%' to a 3rd Party as the Retailer. Despite selling for 'less' on Xbox, that's still more money than they get from Sony where 30% will go to Sony.

Before 70% would go to ABK whilst MS & Sony would get 30% for selling it in their Store. Now MS/ABK gets '90%' on Xbox, but only 70% on Sony. MS can choose to take 'less' from the store sale as they own the Product and will make money from that 'Product' sale too - unlike Sony who makes no money from the Product itself, just from having the Only store selling it on their System. They still have to give MS their cut for the Product.

MS can say that they aren't actually reducing the basse cost - in other words, the '70%' that ABK would expect from both Sony & MS if they were still 'independent' but as MS own them, are willing to reduce the amount they take 'in store', that '30%' and reduced that down to 20% for a 'sale'.

In a Physical world, Amazon, Game and all those others may have to buy in 'stock' at say $50 each to sell at $70 but because of Competition with each other 'choose' to reduce their profit margin - that $20 per game to maybe $10. Would rather sell 100's making $10, than few/none making far less profit.. Digitally, its still $50 to MS/Sony, but as they have 'no' Competition, don't reduce costs and want the 'full' profit knowing Customers can't shop around for better Digital prices.

Point is, MS can easily justify this as saying they reduced their 'store' mark-up and Sony is well within their right to reduce their 'store' prices too and take only 20% instead of the full 30%. The 'Content' is still the same 'stock' price therefore has 'Parity', its just that Sony have chosen not to have a Sale in store, where as MS have..

It seems the 'S' and 'X' is the confusing part because its not that hard to know Xbox One was last gen hardware and Xbox Series is the new Generation hardware.

That being said, the 'S/X' aspect from Last gen though was used to denote the 'entry' tier that may not offer Performance modes and run at a lower resolution with the 'X' being the one built for 4k. That has carried through to this gen.

Xbox Series S/X is also Compatible with Xbox One S/X games too. However, Series S is all digital meaning its not compatible with Physical media. So if you bought a XB1 game it will work on the new consoles with the Series S getting One S modes/performance and the Series X getting any One X enhancements.

The 'S' and the 'X' in this denote the 'status' of the hardware - the lower Spec S versus higher spec X. That also relates back to the 'prior' Gen too and the Series S is back Compat with the One S - it doesn't get any of the 'One X' enhanced features.

We are nearly 4yrs into this Generation and if people with 'Xbox One' consoles are confused by 'Xbox Series' ONLY releases, then maybe they should consider upgrading as more and more games will not release on that hardware. The S/X isn't really the important part of the Name, its the 'generation' name that is - Xbox One or Xbox Series - S/X just determines the Spec and how 'back compatible' games will function - Series S gets XB1S versions, whilst Series X gets XB1X versions...

I don't think 'Series' is the best name for a Console but Xbox One (the 3rd Xbox Gen) wasn't any better.

On the one hand, of course it would be great to have more Fallout and especially one set outside the US. But its also not official or necessarily canon either so II doubt I'd bother if it did come to Xbox.

I personally don't agree with 'mods' in general anyway. I don't like Picasso's artstyle but I wouldn't 'Mod' it. My thought on 'mods' is that if they are good enough - then maybe Bethesda could employ them to make 'official' content.

MW3 is the 'latest' CoD and so it has the most support right now in terms of 'Online'. Season 5 is just about to launch with its new Season Pass and new Seasonal Content dropping, new events etc. If they dropped 'MW2' for example, that wouldn't be supported with the new Season Pass or 'events'...

As far as its Single Player, its arguably the worst in a while. Its clearly intended as DLC to MW2 but at some point was decided to release as a 'full' game and so this is 'weak'.

Each to their own of course, but I think its the weakest CoD for a while, but its also the most supported right now. Without Season Pass Support and all the 'timed' events, there is something lacking from even MW2 now.

It makes sense to offer MW3 as the 'new' season starts so can possibly sell more season passes etc before BO6 launches.

There are many ways to get 'free' months - Microsoft Rewards is one example.

As for the Price Rise, its not as if People will suddenly jump to Playstation because their Sub service is cheaper - just like you didn't jump to Playstation when MS announced their games were now $70

I know its disappointing to see Price increases but I also think that 'Standard' could also become far more appealing to those who just Subscribe to Game Pass Core. Before, they had to add a 2nd Subscription (Game Pass Console) or opt for Ultimate for 'Convenience' of 1 single Subscription. If they 'upgraded' to Console, half the content (inc the games in Game Pass Core) could become unplayable due to requiring Game Pass Core for 'online'.

Some of the 'Ultimate' Subscribers may choose to drop to Standard as they aren't bothered about playing 'Day 1' when the games are generally at their worst - requiring Patches and/or additional content/modes before they will play. After all, history shows us that many games (Redfall, Starfield etc) didn't launch with 60fps modes for example so people 'chose' to wait for patches before playing anyway. A year later, some were still asking if Redfall was worth playing now for example.

No-one likes Price increases, me included, but considering Ubisoft+ is $15pm and requires GPC for 'online' for many games, and Sony's 'Premium' tier with Streaming and 'old' PS1-PS3 (no Day 1 either) is $18pm, Ultimate doesn't seem that bad. However after promising not to raise prices - it does sting!!

That's the thing about Game Pass is that you can try any of them for FREE (as your Subscription allows - and yes I know the Subscription has a 'cost' to it) and if you enjoy, can tell your Friends/Family to 'try' it as well.

I think Word of Mouth is more powerful than big budget Advertising - especially as more Gamers distrust Publishers and the 'quality' at launch, distrust their marketing etc. It seems more are relying on reviews and word of mouth now...

With smaller games that really don't havre marketing budgets, they rely heavily on word of mouth and maybe get 'bonuses' from Sub Services (like Game Pass) if they get more people in - get 5m people to play, they get a 'bonus' from MS for example - similar to how some Publishers may set Sales targets - sell 6m, you'll get a bonus, get at least 85% metacritic review, you'll get a bonus - ask Obsidian about bonuses based on review score who 'missed' out with Fallout: New Vegas as it scored 84% so didn't get their 'bonus'.

@Drnsnsr I said the exact same when Sony changed PSNow because that obviously wasn't working for them either - perhaps because you still needed '2' Subscriptions to 'benefit' from everything offered in the one with Games.

It makes sense to offer a 'single' Subscription plan that allows you to access ALL the content offered. Its no point saying you can play MLB, Back 4 Blood, ESO, F76 or whatever other 'online' game is being 'offered' in a Subscription service (regardless of whether the game is Day 1 or years old) when that game is NOT playable without the 'Online' Subscription.

I think its far worse to Promise you can play Games on PSNow or Game Pass Console but in reality, half of the Content is locked behind another Subscription. If they said you can play BO6 or Sea of Thieves 'Day 1' on Game Pass/PSNow, but then find out you can't play because it requires another Subscription, its far worse to me.

Both Sony and MS now only require a Single Subscription and both are Similarly priced with a 'similar' service that only 'differs' in the 'premium/ultimate' tier. Both Tier 1 services are $10per month and both are for Online access with a 'handful' of games you can play. Both Tier 2 services inc everything from Tier 1 and add a much larger range of games that have been out for 6m+. It's only Tier 3 that has changed.

No-one subbed to Game Pass Console because it made no sense. Half the games or content wasn't accessible anyway and the cost to make that content playable (i.e. Subbing to both Gold/Game Pass Core and Game Pass Console cost more than Game Pass Ultimate yet Ultimate also has EA Access and other 'Perks'.

As I have said, the only thing people should be angry at is the 'price' increase as we had one recently even after no price increase. I wasn't happy either when MS raised Game Prices to $70 either, but in both cases, they are one of the 'last' to price their Games/Services this way. It was a LOT cheaper than Sony's equivalent Sub Services and Game Prices - now its about the same on both.

That's not 'shilling' for MS because its 'Fact'. That's being 'objective' and looking at the changes in context, in comparison to the rest of the Gaming market. I still think that 'mid' tier SHOULD still offer 'Day 1' but should also include Game Pass Core. Ultimate still has Game Pass Cloud, Game Pass PC, EA Access and 'Perks' as 'extras' - but maybe Day 1 isn't important for everyone, maybe some will rather wait for the inevitable patches/fixes etc so their 'first' experience is a better experience.

Point is, I do think the FTC is being 'Pathetic' and 'Misleading' because whilst Day 1 is now no longer 'offered' in that Mid-tier, unless you also had Game Pass Core, most Day 1 games were 'unplayable', most 'content' too wasn't accessible either so having content hidden behind another 'Paywall' before you can Play Day 1 was far worse!!

I don't get 'excited' or hyped anymore for games having been disappointed too many times as the game fails to live up to the expectation. That being said, it is one of the Games I'm looking forward to this year - more so than Avowed or MSFS 2024 for example.

The difference with Games is that even if the Graphics look amazing in trailers, the Game-play loop or something else can really impact the experience. You have no idea how it 'feels' to play, how responsive it is. So even if it 'looks' amazing, it can still 'disappoint' in so many ways...

Therefore I dont get overly excited or hyped for any game these days. I'm happy to wait until its released for reviews, even wait for months until patches and/or additional content is available etc. I don't need to play Day 1 as I have 100's of games I could play instead. GPU may let me Play day 1, but it may not be the 'best' time to try it...

I could be too busy enjoying something else at the time, something else that is occupying all my gaming time that I want to finish before I start something else...

This looks OK - although I do think something looks 'off' too with the lighting. Some things look quite realistically lit but that makes some of the Character lighting look even worse, but there is time to 'polish'. Like I said, none of us know what it 'feels' like to play yet either...

@smoreon Of course you aren't seeing the 'leaps' you used to with a new generation - going from 8 colours to a palette of 32 makes a bigger difference than going from 16m to 1bn colours - even though its a much 'bigger' increase.

You can only 'invent' 3D or Proper Audio once so going from 2D to 3D or hearing proper speech and CD quality Audio is a big leap from Beeps and/or digitised Speech. Instead of having to read text, now we get their vocal performance, instead of some digitised Soundtrack, we now get the highest quality Audio possible. Going from 5.1 to 7.1 to Atmos is 'iterative' at best.

There is 'NO' game in reality that cannot be made with the Current Hardware. We already have big Open Worlds in full 3D to explore and Car games have looked 'realistic' for generations even if not 'Photorealistic'. You can tell exactly what make, model etc

However, Current Consoles can't really offer the Ray Tracing - often just an aspect (shadows or reflections - often compromised) and Frame Rates. So it is limiting compared to the Full RT in CyberPunk. Doesn't have the AI that even a mobile (Apple for example) will offer and as such are left with FSR upscaling - the worst on offer.

Its one of those Catch 22 - no-one thought games like Gears of War on the 360 looked 'bad' and 2 in particular was incredible at the time, but compared to Space Marine 2 or E-Day cinematic, its miles away.

There has often been talk about the Series S too and its 'limited' RAM - even a RoG Ally has more, and still had a upgrade on the RoG Ally X. Its been a 'problem' for some devs BG3 and Black Myth Wukong for example. We have some games having to run at '720p' just to try and get 'closer' to 60fps. and Some games (Star Wars Jedi Survivor and Starfield that probably won't run at '60fps' because of CPU bottlenecks and Starfield 'Looks' dated too.

I do know what you mean, I can't believe its been nearly 4 yrs already and as I tried to say, 4yrs or 'less' to me would be a 'short' Generation as historically 5yrs would likely be the longest most would last before another Gen release. As its been nearly 4yrs and no sign of a new gen coming 'soon', it can't be a 'Short' gen. If they replace in 2025, I'd think that was 'average' with 6yrs or more I'd consider as 'long'.

With MS 'unlikely' to make a 'clean' break, everything carried Forward, it will feel iterative too because most (if not all) could release on the previous gen for another 3-4 yrs. Those games may not run at '4k' or 60fps, may not be 'Path Traced' or have the density.

The difference 'AI' and 'RT' can bring to gaming could feel 'iterative', but also make 'open worlds' feel more alive and have more interactions with NPC's that don't have the same 'scripted' response or ignore you completely. RT could help in Horror games, real-time shadows, reflections etc could help with the 'horror'. A shadow moving could alert you to an enemy behind you or maybe use mirrors to see round corners for example but its still an 'iterative' step up from what came before - for some maybe transformative, game changing but others may feel they've played the 'Game-play' loop or the 'Story' before...

@PsBoxSwitchOwner Why Change it? Well it clearly wasn't working for them as people would either Sub to Core or Sub to Ultimate - so they opted to change it to see if that format works. The allure of Day 1 wasn't working so maybe the allure of a convenient Sub that still offers 100's of games - much like Sony's PS Extra - and the SAME monthly price too.

The 'new' version has 'online' access which makes ALL the content playable, which before the majority was behind a Paywall requiring another Subscription to access. Therefore arguably this has far more Content despite losing a 'handful' of Day 1 games a year.

I can't answer about the Price increases - but NO-ONE likes them. However, it does bring the prices inline with Sony's Subscription service. PS+ Essential/Core - both $10 a month - although Sony's is more expensive for a year ($80 vs $75), PS+ Extra/Standard - both $15 and neither offer Day 1 as standard. Ultimate is $2 more than 'Premium' but Premium only offers 'OLD@ games, Ultimate offers Day 1, as well as Play on PC.

Sony were one of the first to raise Game Prices too and now MS has followed suit - like the rest of the industry. As I said, NO customer wants Price increases so its always going to annoy, even if the reality is that you aren't going to switch to Playstation for their 'sub service' instead because its 'cheaper'. Even Ubisoft charge £15 for Ubisoft+ on Xbox (which also requires a $10 a month GP Core to play 'online' aspects) so isn't an unreasonable price after the increase when compared to others in the market.

I know nobody is 'happy' to pay more than they were. Were you happy that some games went up to $70 at the start of the gen? Now it's the standard price after all the 'big' Publishers have raised their prices to match.

No one Subscribed to Console so why not 'change' it to see if it encourages 'more' Game Pass Core Subscribers to pay a bit more a month for a much larger collection of games to play.

Those on Core or Ultimate, 99.9999% of Console Game Pass Subscribers are NOT affected - other than a slight price increase (which no-one is going to be happy about regardless).

I am not defending MS btw, I just don't get the Anger over something no-one was Subscribing to. The Tiers everyone on Console subbed to haven't changed - Core is still $10 a month - although did go up to $75 a year, still less than Sony's $80 and Ultimate went up too - now around the Same Price as PS+ Premium with Day 1 games. Now MS have a proper Competitor to Sony's 'mid-tier' Extra for the 'same' Price...

I'd love it if the Prices had remained static - especially after going up relatively recently and after saying they wouldn't after buying ABK, yet within a year of that deal, it has/will be. That I can understand, but being 'angry' over something that clearly wasn't working as it was, being 'changed' to potentially offer a 'better' option (as ALL the content in that service is now accessible, not hidden behind a 2nd Subscription paywall) makes sense. If it's still not for you, don't Subscribe. I still think it should offer Day 1 on Console with Tier 3 (Ultimate) adding Game Pass for PC/Cloud and EA Access as the extras and if no-one does sub to 'Standard', maybe they will reconsider 'Day 1' but I can see why they changed it and its now much similar to Sony's Subscription structure and pricing for a very similar product...

@NEStalgia Of course I don't expect Consoles to be 'replaced' as often as PC components or new Mobile Phones come out. AMD or nVidia may bring out new GPU's annually - same with Samsung or Apple in the Phone market.

However, if you go back to the 80's and 90's, even 2000's, most Consoles were replaced after 5yrs and even the 360/PS3 gen, there were talks about those being around too long, maybe Consoles were going to die etc. 4-5yrs was considered a good run. Even the OG Xbox was only around about 4-5yrs.

All I was saying is that technology is advancing quickly with AI and RT processing cores and it won't be long before Mobile devices can play the latest games with RT maybe with AI upscaling/frame gen etc.

As this generation is already 4yrs old, even if it 'ended' next year, which it very clearly isn't, I wouldn't necessarily think that was a 'Short' generation as I'd think that was about 'average' overall. I can see this maybe going on to 2026 before a 'new' console is out from MS and maybe Sony will release a Pro to push their new gen until 2027 and 6yrs is above 'average' so would be one of the longer generations in my opinion.

The point I was trying to make is that unless they choose to end the Generation this year, which shows absolutely NO sign of happening, then I can't see how you can consider it a 'Short' generation. If it reaches 5yrs+, Id say it was a 'normal' Generation (especially considering you'll get a few years of Cross-Gen) and anything more than 5yrs I would consider a 'long' (even if not as long as the longest) generation. 5yrs+ is Average, not 'short' - so I can't see this being a 'Short' gen when its already 4yrs in and no indication its 'ending' in the next year to be a 'short' gen...

And I bet all those coming out of the woodwork to side with the FTC never bought Game Pass - certainly Never bought Game Pass for Console - that 'mid-tier' offering because it made MORE sense to go for Ultimate because it combined both Game Pass Console and Gold/Game Pass Core in one 'convenient' Subscription and had other benefits (like Perks or EA Access) as well.

Tier 1 and Tier 3 haven't changed - other than pricing. The ONLY thing to change was Tier 2 which may have offered 'Day 1', but if you Subscribed to JUST that Tier, then all that online content is behind another 'Subscription', behind yet another 'Paywall'. You couldn't play games like ESO, F76 or BO6 online whether Day 1 or Not because you also needed a 'Tier1' Subscription which combined was more expensive than Ultimate...

Now Tier 2 doesn't offer Day 1 - certainly NOT their Biggest Day 1 releases, although nothing has been said about 'smaller' projects and/or 3rd Party deals - but instead now offers all the benefits of Tier 1 + 100's of Games you can play, nothing hidden behind another Subscription/paywall. It's also the SAME monthly price as Sonys 'mid' tier at $15 a month (PS+ Extra that also includes 'online access' from Tier 1, PS+ Essential + 100's of games but no Day 1)

Like Sony's (and basically any tiered Sub service), the basic structure is the same now and far more logical. Tier 1 is the basic service, Tier 2 is Tier 1 + 'extras' and Tier 3 is Tier 2 + even more. That makes 'every' tier functional as you aren't selling a 'tier' promising hundreds of games but the 'bulk' of that content is hidden behind another Subscription, behind another Paywall. yes you may have got Day 1 with the 'old' Console Tier, but unless you ALSO subscribed to Gold/Game Pass Core, all Online MP/Co-op content was unavailable - you couldn't play BO6, Forza with Friends, couldn't play '3rd party' game like Back4Blood or MLB...

As the rest of the world accurately assessed, this deal - even if they never released another 'ABK' game on Playstation, wouldn't change Sony's Dominant position in the Console market, wouldn't suddenly impact Sony to the degree they'd have to quit!

The redesign of Game Pass 'Console' tier makes total sense and probably doesn't affect ANYONE as I doubt anyone Subscribed to it - they were either Core or Ultimate Subscribers. It made sense to adjust it so it actually has utility - you aren't selling a Subscription now that promises Day 1, but the 'bulk' of Day 1 content was hidden behind another Subscription. Now they sell Game Pass 'Standard' which may not include 'Day 1', but at least every game and all its content is playable, no paywall blocking access.

What is 'short', its been 4yrs already and it doesn't look like a 'new' generation is coming next year - which would have been a Generation back in the Nintendo/Sega days and even with the OG Xbox and N64 & Game Cube...

It's only 'recent generations that have pushed beyond 5 yrs - the 360/PS3 gen went on 'longer' than any before and changed expectations. Even last gen had 'mid' gen releases to 'prolong that gen a few more years - now they expect a 'decade' of releases and eternal Online support...

So even if they were to release a new Gen next November, 5yrs after the Series X, then NO, I wouldn't consider that a 'Short' gen, more a 'normal' gen instead of an extended one.

The problem is Technology advances so quickly and PC's, AI etc is advancing so quickly - even in the Mobile sector.And now Consoles are expected to last a LONG time, deliver 60fps and compete with PC's that have AI and a LOT more power/performance to deliver the game with RT and everything on Ultra at 60fps...

In the case of MS, I doubt it will be the 'end' or 'start' of a new Generation, more a iterative step up offering better graphics/performance etc as I doubt many games will be 'new' Xbox only either for many years as they'll want the Series SX/PS5 gen money too

All the talk about MS not 'focussing' on Consoles specifically maybe are forgetting that isn't the ONLY 'Microsoft' Platform. With Sony, they ONLY have their Playstation as their Platform and whilst PC maybe an 'Open' Platform, its still a Microsoft Platform too, just like their Cloud platform is theirs too.

PC gamers are also MS customers and probably aren't interested in selling a Console to their 'PC' Customers but Sony want PC gamers buying a Console instead of waiting for games to come to PC. If you'd rather play on Cloud or a Handheld PC, then they aren't bothered whether you buy a 'console', you are already in the 'ecosystem'.

The big difference between Sony/Nintendo and Microsoft is that for Sony/Nintendo, their platform is 'just' the Console so it is their ONLY focus, but MS have multiple Platforms where the console is just an option that might not be the 'best' option for every gamer. With Sony, the PS5 is the 'only' option if you want to play Wolverine when it launches but if you don't 'need' a Series S/X to play Indiana Jones - its an option!

@Sol4ris Again though, their Gaming division has to be 'Profitable' too. It will have an 'operating' budget based on revenue and if they are still selling some hardware at a 'Loss' (or at least not making money), they aren't going to eat into that 'operational' budget with Marketing too.

If gaming is losing 100m every year for example, then how can they justify spending 100m on advertising. Instead of spending money on TV or billboard Adverts, they are likely spending their 'budget' on Shows (like SGS, Gamescom etc) with games like CoD now as a 'Xbox' game and will be revealed by 'Xbox', along with games like Indiana Jones, Blade and the rest of their Games

Even if you 'don't' need an Xbox, those games will be associated with Xbox and will get 'gamers' eyes on 'Xbox' shows etc. Even if CoD s coming to their PS5's, those gamers may also be 'tempted' to buy a Subscription or even a Series S to play the games not coming to their platform...

Sony's Gaming division is also run differently - they aren't giving away their games Day 1 on a Sub service and have a much larger 'console' base to sell games to. If you have 100m consoles on the market, that's 100m possible $70 sales, so 100m more on Advertising may make sense for Sony but for MS with far fewer and many of those won't be spending $70 on the game, it doesn't make sense.

It could be the difference between why Sony won't offer Day 1 - because with their Advertising budgets, its NOT sustainable. If MS have to cut back on their Advertising to ensure that their gaming division is Sustainable, then I'd rather that than get fed up pouring money into Gaming only to decide its not 'profitable' to continue losing money on...

@Sol4ris being a Multi-trillion dollar company doesn't mean they should or will be throwing 'money' at something if it doesn't see 'returns/benefits' from that.

You also have to consider the Revenue stream of a Project and returns. If you can spend 100m on Advertising because you may sell another couple of million games to your 'Massive' user base that will result in a 'net' gain, that's very different from not having a '100m' budget to spend on Advertising because the 'bulk' of your audience will be playing on a Subscription Service, that spending 100m won't see a 'significant' increase in Game Sales to cover those costs.

As for Hardware, its already clear you don't 'need' to buy a Xbox Console to play Xbox games. Cloud may not have the infrastructure or 'quality' to match the Hardware experience - but it is 'cheap' and maybe good enough for the MANY casuals or budget strapped gamers. Its still better than MANY games were on an N64 or OG Xbox, more consistent and higher res. Also likely to have just as much input lag as playing on 'Old' TV's with 40ms+ input lag in 'Game Mode' - likely a LOT more Lag in 'movie' mode.

Of course compared to a Series S, its not great - but if you have a Gaming PC, even an older RTX 2080 PC, you don't need to buy an Xbox either as that can out-perform a Series S - so why buy an Xbox. If the 'majority' are either choosing to play on Cloud and/or PC, then why keep trying to push them to buy a Console? Those on 'Cloud' may well choose to buy a Console as an upgrade but may also choose a PC (inc Handhelds) instead...

Degraded - yet arguably getting 'more' games...

The argument that Game Pass on Console (Standard) now not offering 'Day 1' I guess could be considered a 'Downgrade', but on the other hand, the addition of Game Pass Core is perhaps an upgrade as that alone allows gamers to play far more content.

I'd argue that situation was far worse before - If you bought Game Pass Console to play games 'Day 1', you'd still not get to play a LOT of Content unless you also added Game Pass Core. Get sold on the 'promise' of playing CoD BO6 'Day 1', yet find out you need to also add another Subscription just to play 'online'

Now it's Simple - a standard and regular structure that is understood - Tier 1, Tier 2 (Tier 1+ Extras) and Tier 3 (tier 2 + extras), where the tier above includes 'everything' from the tier Below. So instead of getting Day 1 from the tier 'above' as Game Pass Console was, its now effectively getting Gold, now Game Pass Core from below.

When MS had 'Gold', for 'online' gaming, that was NOT included in the Game Pass Console tier,, which arguably 'pushed' Console gamers to buy 'Ultimate' instead as it combined Game Pass & Gold into one 'convenient' package. When it was 'renamed', no-one complained about 'Game Pass Core' not getting Day 1 after MS 'promised' Day 1 on 'Game Pass'. No one complained that Game Pass Console required another Subscription (Gold - then Game Pass Core) which could be confusing and misleading - how can a 'mid' tier Sub service require a 2nd sub service just to play the content you should be able to play offered in that tier - but instead it was hidden behind another paywell - Subscribe to play games with Friends/family only to find out you'll need another Subscription for that...

I like the top design and it looks really grippy too - not sure about the backside... LOL

@Fiendish-Beaver No I have to physically unplug one and plug another in. It's not the 'most' convenient the way I have mine set up (horizontal and slotted in to an AV unit), but I have enough room to slide it out to switch.

Obviously If I had it set up on the top of the AV unit with it in the Vertical alignment it would be easier to access. That being said, I can still swap the card in less than 30s, probably the same time it takes to swap a disc.

It would be great to have the ability to connect two at once for easier management of my Library. To transfer from one SSD card to another, I have to move it to internal SSD first, then switch cards to move to another. Sometimes its easier just to re-Download in the Background and then 'delete' from the other card.

Regardless of the 'aggro' involved in swapping Expansion Cards, its still a LOT easier than doing the same on Sony's system. You may only have been able to afford a 1TB card/SSD, and then want another 1 or 2 TB to 'boost' your storage. Or maybe you want/need 10TB's+ and have everything 'available' within the time it takes to swap a disc - don't have time to unplug your Console completely, take it apart to replace SSD's.

With the Xbox Solution - you can easily add another Expansion card. Maybe bought a 1TB that's now full and can add another 1/2TB's without 'replacing' the 1TB. Over time build up to 10+ TB's if you really want. With Sony, if you bought a 1TB, whilst you could switch it back, its a lot more hassle so you'd more likely buy a 2 (or more) TB SSD as a 'replacement'.

Anyway, no I haven't seen or found a way to connect two (not that I have looked) expansion cards. I would 'assume' that its not a good idea as MS built the 'cooling' to ensure that Heatsinks or overheating wouldn't be an issue but if its not plugged directly in the back, cooling could be more of an issue. Therefore I do swap mine out - but as one maybe has mostly 'old' games that I'm not playing regularly, but still want access without the hassle of moving/redownloading, It's not like I'm jumping up to swap Expansions.

You could use Expansions like Compilations (all Racing games or all Xbox Studio games). If bought Digitally, swapping an Expansion is like plugging in a Cart with 10+ games included on it. Have all of Gears of War or Forza games on an Expansion so you just plug that in - like you would a Cartridge in the 'old' days and you can immediately play all those games....

@kuu_nousee Price per TB maybe 'higher' on Xbox, but its also a very simple and quick solution that Sony's PS5 or PC can't offer. Not saying it's better/worse, just that it has its advantages over Sony's solution.

Yes you can find a SSD for less that you can use in your PS5 (not helpful though if all you have is an Xbox) but that may not be 'ideal' on its own as it may need a Heatsink for long term safety/usage. Add on the Heatsink or buy a SSD with a Heatsink built in (as recommended by Sony), the cost tends to be closer.

Also with Sony, you are really limited in that you can't easily swap these out - like Memory Cards back in the day. You could have 3 or 4 2TB cards - maybe one for RPGs, another for FPS's and just swap them around as and when you want. You don't 'need' to buy multiples at once and can just buy a new Card if/when you want need - I have a 1TB and 2TB expansion card for example.

As I said, these are extremely 'simple and easy' to use, just plug them in and you can use, don't need to turn the console off to increase the storage or swap between Storage cards, no need to dismantle your console to install - just plug it in.

Again not saying one solution is better/worse, but there are advantages to the Xbox Solution whilst Sony maybe the cheapest per TB.

@themightyant Maybe biggest in scale but in reality, it was little different to Fallout but the bar had seriously been raised by games like BG3 or even The Witcher 3 too. Also maybe MS's biggest release, but in reality, it was a pretty average 'release' overall. Just 1 of many big AAA games released and not even amongst the 'best' based on Reviews. In terms of the 'year' of releases, I doubt Starfield was the 'biggest' in terms of critical reception.

It's also a new IP - so won't have a big fanbase eager to jump in for 'more'. It was limited to just Series S/X and PC too, and we know Xbox has the worst 'install' base of gamers to buy/play.

In less than a year, it has amassed over 14m Players - regardless of whether they tried it for an hour or played it for 100's of hours. It has been able to reach 14m despite its 'limited' release and being a Single Player game - not a Social game that people will play 'casually' with friends/family...

@OldGamer999 I expect that many would take much longer in the opening Character creation and then at least maybe complete the 'opening' section before the game really starts - the tutorial area before you even get to 'fly' or begin the 'open' RPG side. That can take an hour...

I'd imagine that its those that at least completed the tutorial section...