@Chaotic_Goat The Original concept of the 'Xbox' was to bring the PC Games to a much wider audience by making an affordable 'Console'. Nowadays, most consoles are built more like 'PC's' anyway but back then, it was built to be an 'affordable' way to bring PC games to a wider audience.
MS weren't a 'Hardware' company - they were always a Software and Services based. You don't really need an Xbox Console to play 'Xbox' games as you can play them day/date on PC and often on Cloud too. Series S/X only provide a certain 'tier' experience.
Cloud is 'entry' tier - 1080/60, limited Library and reliant on internet Series S is Entry Hardware tier - 1440/120, larger Library but no Physical media player Series X is 'premium' Console Tier - 4k/120, Physical Media player and often more customer choice (Performance or Graphics modes) PC is the 'open' and variable spec tier to suit whatever budget and/or spec an individual wants with the largest Library and most Consumer choice...
Game Pass 'works' across all those options too. With GPU, I can play Forza, Starfield etc on my Mobile, my Xbox Consoles (inc last gen with Cloud), my PC, my RoG Ally etc at no 'extra' cost. My saves carry across all too so its all one 'ecosystem' of which the 'Xbox' Console is just one option for Consumers to play those games - based on their preferences and/or budgets...
@Vaako007 The name change is just a 'technicality' but the reality is that you were and continue to be a Subscriber to an Xbox service. Whether its called 'Gold' or 'Game Pass Core', its still around the same cost.
As I said, it's a mere 'technicality' as the Subscriber numbers don't really change. If they had 10m just on Gold, those 10m are now Game Pass Core. If they had 35m Subscribers before, they still have 35m Subscribers.
Sony have gone from a '2' separate Subscriptions (PS+ & PS Now) into a '3' tier single name Subscription ( PS+ - Essential, Extra and Premium tiers).
Whether you 'care' about Game Pass or the 'games' you get to play on the 'Core' tier, it still costs the same as 'Gold' and just like Gold, gave you discounts on Digital purchases and access to Digital games. Since they 'stopped' giving 360 games on Gold, you never got ANY games to keep and rarely any AAA or well known Games to play.
Core at least offers 30+ games you 'can' play for FREE as well as keep buying Physical discs, keep playing 'online' etc.
Then you find out that 3rd Party Publisher released a broken mess of a game that didn't sell on Xbox because Xbox customers aren't wasting their money on broken, unfinished games when they have 100's of games on Game Pass and 'new' games coming every week.
There is a lot of competition for Publishers and on Xbox, you'd imagine that the majority have GPU with 'few' Console owners actually buying games on release unless they live up to expectations at launch. WB for example have had two 'terrible' launches (Gotham Knights and Suicide Squad) so maybe had very few sales due to competing with Game Pass and all those 'free' games Xbox customers can play instead of spending $70 on a broken mess - not justifying the 'cost' of porting to Xbox for so few Sales and/or tiny player base to buy MTX/DLC etc...
Make games that people want to play and they'll 'buy' on Xbox too. I know Sony have PS+ but that offers 'old' games and not really competing with 'new' releases in the same way. Having brand new games day 1 in game pass that week/month some 3rd Party 'mess' releases isn't going to help them sell their terrible games...
Morrowind and Oblivion were both Xbox Exclusives, at least until Oblivion was ported to PS3 with only Skyrim enjoying a 'multi-platform' console release. Of course since them, Skyrim has released 'everywhere' but arguably this IP has a longer history with MS and Xbox.
That being said, I am not overly excited by ES6. I wasn't the biggest fan of the IP to begin with but in the past decade or so, I don't really feel that Bethesda have advanced. They have used the same 'template' with the same dated interactions, animations, missions etc. I feel they really need to 'evolve'.
A concept and premise that appeals but certainly not enough to buy - It's a title that I'd play on a Sub service, not something I'd risk spending money on.
Most games tend to fall in to 'not interested' or 'wait for sales/sub services' with very 'few' actually worth buying at or near launch when they cost the most and generally need the most fixes with the least 'content/features' as these come post-launch as the price drops.
Therefore, whilst this may not have been 'worth' paying the asking price at launch, I think it will be worth trying on Game Pass
@Kevw2006 A 'few' isolated games are not on PC but by comparison PC has a LOT more games available that aren't on 'current' Consoles at all. Not only do you have all those Steam games, but also thousands of games from old Consoles too.
Consoles were 'affordable' gaming systems and in fact, the OG Xbox was 'designed' and 'Built' to bring PC games to the more affordable Console masses. It even gets its name from its 'concept' as being a DirectX in living room 'Box.
Keeping that mantra in mind - MS still offer the more affordable Console at the more 'traditional' Console price point - that £200-£300. £4/500 is Premium' tier Console price already. Therefore, MS still have 2 Consoles on the market for those that 'prefer' the Console experience - but do they really need to 'compete' with PC's on higher tier 'visuals' and/or performance - who are they making it for? The PC gamer to play the 'few' games they can't play on their PC at visuals/performance they are accustomed to? The Series X isn't more 'popular' than the Series S, which to me indicates that most aren't bothered about having higher resolution/frame rate and content with 'Series S' despite the Series X offering 'enhanced' versions. A Series 'XL' (or whatever they called it) is only likely to enhance games so they 'compete' more in terms of visuals/performance to the higher end PC's...
Cost again may factor in - a locked device limiting what games you can play and even where you can buy from (digital purchases are only available from the Platform holder), having to buy a Subscription (even if its the most basic) to play all content you own/buy - just for a 'boost' in visual/performance may be harder to justify. During the PS4 Pro/XB1X life, they were both outsold by PS4/XB1S hardware despite offering 'enhancements' because the 'majority' are content to play on the 'cheapest' hardware.
MLB26 (for example) may look better and/or run at higher FPS on a PS5 Pro, may not be on PC, but will people spend £600+ on a Series XL just to play this on GPU at similar to PS5 Pro settings? Or just be happy to play on Series S/X and save money?
@Grumblevolcano What if they replaced the Series S with a 'hand-held'? Its already an 'all-digital' platform and potentially within the realms of possibility spec wise. Games are already 'optimised' to Series S and of course, you have BC with older gen hardware. Its not as if they'd have to expect devs to 'port' to their Hand-held.
Games then that maybe too much for Series S may not get a 'Local' release for that Hardware - instead may only offer Streaming options.
I don't know that MS would sever that 'parity' clause with releases, as in allowing devs not to release a 'local' Series S version and raising the 'base' tier to the Series X...
Anyway, I do think its possible they could replace the Series S with a Handheld but I would think they'd need to sever the Parity clause if they released a 'higher' end Xbox so the Series X essentially becomes the 'base' tier so Devs can choose to scale down to Series S or not...
Its a difficult situation to comment on as 'both' MS and Sony, whilst they maybe have a Console on the market in competition with each other, their situation is very different.
MS has a much higher tier option than a Series X in its 'ecosystem' already and already offers their games with 4k, 60/120+ fps and DLSS etc on PC day and date on PC. The point being that if you want better 'visuals' and/or 'performance', you have options. So many options from Streaming to any compatible device to playing on various hardware specs Consoles, handheld PC's up to the highest spec gaming PC's.
Sony on the other hand don't. The 'best' visuals/performance on their games is limited to just PS5 - at least until they release on PC. At the moment, they only have 1 'option' for gamers, that's whatever the PS5 hardware can deliver.
Take Starfield - you can play via Streaming - ok its not the 'best' way to play for the 'best' visuals/performance, but it is a low cost option. You can play on Handhelds (Steamdeck, RoG Ally etc) and Series S as well as Series X or PC's - all day/date. Spider-Man 2 was only available on PS5 and people have to wait to play it on PC if they want 'Quality' visuals but 'Performance' frame rates.
Cost is another factor - PS5/Series X are still around £400 - so what cost would a mid gen 'Pro/elite' cost. One X and PS4 Pro were 'double' their base hardware cost on launch. Also MS already have multiple SKU's to 'build and Optimise' for with Series S, Series X and/or PC's...
Would people be willing to pay £600+ for a 'Console' that's likely to be tied to 'weaker' hardware and be surpassed in a few years when 'next-gen' Hardware comes out?
Played it on PS5 but only got so far before I'd had enough and moved on. I've not wanted to return either so I guess I'll pass on this.
It was Highly Rated but I guess its just not a game or game-play loop I felt compelling enough to keep persevering with from my own personal perspective and does add to the Game Pass content hype...
I still have a feeling this will be the modern day equivalent of Dragons Lair - a game that looks far beyond its peers but ultimately has a disappointing game-play loop.
From what we have seen, It could also be more an interactive 'movie' too - we haven't exactly seen much 'action' yet either. and the 'making of' video's have had more in common with Making movies. I didn't enjoy the puzzle elements of the first, trying to find that perfect spot to line up the shapes to create the Rune and the Combat was 'functional', but nothing amazing.
If it wasn't for the way they tackled the Mental Health and the Audio landscape, the first would likely have been a pretty mediocre 'Game'. It's still praised for that today.
I fear that Game-play will be secondary, that its more a 'Movie' with some interactivity along the way. At least I can decide if its 'worth' my time when it releases, not spend money on pre-ordering/buying only to find my fears were realised...
Makes sense, get people playing for free, buying add-ons, DLC, MTX. in-game Currency, Season Passes etc and then have to buy the game in 6 months to keep playing, 6 months before the 'next' years entry, '2K25', releases...
Many games were made by 3rd Party Developers - Gears of War was made by Epic for example and sold the IP to MS after they didn't want to carry on after the Trilogy. Games like Mass Effect, Bioshock, Oblivion etc also helped bolster the 360s 'Exclusives' at the start of the generation, even if by the end, those developers were now releasing games simultaneously on PS3 too and those games stopped being 'exclusive' to Xbox.
That's why by the XB1 era, they had 'few' Studio's of their OWN making games and owning 'few' of their own IP's. They had to create studios to take on Halo (after Bungie left) and Gears (after buying the IP) with Turn 10 making Forza. Rare and Lionhead were 'struggling' too. Hence most of XB1 exclusives made by 1st Party Studios were Halo, Gears or Forza.
That success of the 360 era came because MS was relying on 3rd Party Studios, 3rd Party IP's (inc Call of Duty which became the Juggernaut thanks to MS and their 'Partnership' with Activision). By the XB1 era, those 3rd Party IP's were not 'exclusive' (timed or otherwise) and MS had 'few' studios and IP's of their own. Now of course, they own IP's and Studio's having been building up both in the past 5-6yrs to be 'competitive' with Sony/Nintendo who both own a LOT of IP's.
If they move there entirely, it will be because the vast majority of Customers are there and paying the 'bills' and 'not enough' consumers for 'Consoles' at a certain price point that 'limits' whatever scope/scale/vision of the developer had....
Its no secret that these Platform holders sell their Consoles at a Loss with the 'intention' of locking you in to their 'ecosystem' and spending time and money (Subs - even if just a basic Sub for Online, No competition digital store front, Peripherals etc) to offset those 'loses'.
Even if they are 'breaking' even on the Cost of manufacturing, there is all the research, development, Software Development Kits etc that also add to the 'cost'
with say 50m 'Consoles', that's 50m SSD's, 50m APU Chips etc. If every console has 1TB SSD's that get full 'quickly', 50m TB's of Storage in the Cloud for example could hold EVERY game ever made and 'load' it to servers.
Investing in those servers, putting the 'money' into Servers instead of all those separate 'units' - each with its own Raw materials, manufacturing, Shipping/distribution, 3rd party overheads (Retailers, Distributors, Printers etc) etc etc Costs also as well as the environmental impact (carbon footprint, waste etc) - I can see Consoles disappearing - at least the 'high end hardware' console.
I can still see Digital consoles - I could see MS for example replace the Series S with a Series S 'handheld' for example with High End Hardware being the PC - systems you 'build' yourself. Much like you don't really see 'Hifi systems' to play music now - its all 'Digital or 'low-ish' tier Hardware or expensive Audiophile Separates to build your own Hifi system...
@HotGoomba The fact is that this is NOT going to be a 'stable' 30fps. It may run around say 30fps but could be 28-37fps with uneven frame pacing. That could be an average of 'around' 30fps for large chunks of the game but could even jump up to 60fps if you look at the sky creating a much bigger change in Frame Rates, making it feel even more inconsistent/worse.
There is NO such thing as an uncapped 30fps as such. It's just an uncapped frame rate. It may well be 'capped' to 60fps for example, meaning the frame rate can't go above 60fps, but is often running closer to 30fps...
@GuyinPA75 Whilst I would agree that there wasn't much of interest to me either - other than maybe Stalker on Console, but the LAST game I'd expect at a Partner Showcase - as this was, then 1st Party Games as 'State of Decay 3' is (made by Undead Labs - an Xbox Studio since 2018)
Its the same reason I don't expect to see any of the ABK or Bethesda games, updates etc here either.
Stalker Trilogy is a great Shadow Drop in my opinion and overall I think it was 'Solid', nothing that made me 'excited', but overall for the Xbox Community, a good show and I liked the format so a C
I didn't really expect anything 'stellar' from the partners - and I know that some will love FF or Persona or whatever other games Xbox doesn't have much of coming to Xbox - even if others can and have played them already.
Along with all the 'Big' Multiplatform releases, the Exclusives and all the other 'new' releases coming, certainly not short on variety...
At the end of the day, games like this may 'benefit' gamers who can play the SAME game with their friends/family etc on whatever Platform they would rather game on. Having that 'Community' that grows and continues investing in that IP is better off not limited to one 'brand' of console - unless that IP really is a System Seller, an 'important' IP in your history.
I would 'expect' Killzone or Resistance to remain on Playstation (maybe PC too eventually) despite its 'massive' online potential because its an historic and important IP in Sony's History, like Halo is for MS.
Butt some 3rd party made game you've paid for 'exclusivity' and//or publishing rights may think its not really a System seller and see the financial benefit of bringing a 'successful' online game to a wider audience to expand its 'diminishing' or 'reinvigorate' in their terms playerbase...
Overall, of the many that have been released, I have bought/own very few and I doubt I spent anywhere near as much time playing them a '2nd' time.
Of course there maybe an exception, but overall if I played it and all its had is a visual/performance upgrade, I'm not going to bother finishing it knowing what's coming next and how it ends.
I certainly am not buying games that may have a higher res count or even higher. more consistent frame rates if the polygon count is still 'low' (Turok, Tomb Raider etc). I wouldn't mind these 'existing' for people that missed out on them first time round, but I do feel they are beginning to rely on something quick and relatively cheap/easy to release to make 'money' as their incessant need to find those long time Live Service game that only require 'minimal staffing' to keep supplying Cosmetics to purchase and get Maximum profit from minimal content.
To me, these 'ports' (hardly 'remakes' are minimal effort for maximum Profit games - no need to 'create' anything, design anything, write anything etc...
I don't think gaming is going through a Crisis because these 'big' publishers with 'bloated' expectations and 'easy money making' ideas haven't exactly panned out for them.
MS I can understand some 'consolidation' with their Acquisitions -you don't need 3 different Publishing departments (MS, Bethesda and ABK) each with its own Marketing teams etc - that can be 'consolidated' into one.
I look at EA for example who over promised, under delivered. Look at BF2042 as an example - a game very light on content so probably didn't sell well at $70 yet they still had to keep ploughing money into it to get it to a playable state but now the game is basically free.
When I look at Sony for example, they seemed to put their 'eggs' into Live Service games - much to their Gamers dismay. Of those '10 or so they had in active development, several are not going to see the light of day (it seems) - Last of Us Factions, Twisted Metal and some Fantasy co-op game cancelled.
When I look around at AAA publishers, Many of them have put prices up, going for 'Live Service' based games or generic sequels, remakes/remasters and often releasing broken messes of games at release - Gotham Knights, Suicide Squad, Skull n Bones etc
All while Indies and Sub Services are offering a 'plethora' of options that many gamers would prefer to play than waste $70 on a broken AAA game that demands you spend more money on Cosmetics, on in game currency, on season passes etc etc. Why would I buy some generic bland game when I can play many others for FREE on PS+/Game Pass and with modern Consoles supporting BC, we have thousands of games on sale. I'd rather buy 4+ older (XB1 era) games in sale than just 1 new $70 game I can't really enjoy until its patched and/or complete on content...
I think its a shame that people are losing jobs, but I also think some Publishers have created their own problems by pushing Devs to make 'generic' Live Service games wrapped in their IP skin designed for selling cosmetic outfits for $10+ each, but the game-play is dull, repetitive and very generic - instead of letting them create 'great' games people want to play so will 'sell' if they are given time to ensure they aren't broken at launch.
I see so many games releasing and many studio's really making a name for themselves. Plague Tale by Asobo for example or PalWorld is blowing up right now.
@NoLifeDGenerate 20 years ago, if you bought CoD or Battlefield on 'Xbox' you could only play ONLINE with those on the same Platform as you. CoD Ghosts for example had Xbox 360, XB1, PS3, PS4 and PC versions but each had their 'own' player base.
Now if you buy MW3 or BF2042, you can play with everyone else who has MW3 or BF2042 regardless of what platform they are on. Not only that, you can also chat, add friends from other platforms. You don't 'need' them in your Xbox friends, don't need an Xbox party to chat etc.
Its a 'change' that's happened because the Circumstances and what most of the players want. If you could only play with other 'Xbox Series' owners, then your games would generally dire sooner, would be a 'worse' experience as fewest players online to fill lobbies, to minimise 'ping' and or facilitate faster match-making.
By 'refusing', that's literally like 'cutting your nose off to spite your face' type attitude. You want games filled with players, cross-play/cross-progression and all those other 'benefits' that come from this 'change' in requirements. If you only want to play with 'Xbox' gamers, or the game is only on Xbox, then Xbox online is sufficient but you can't play with PS in cod, have party/game chat with them without signing up to an Activision account...
Just like you need an Activision account to play CoD for example and all that cross-play, cross-progression, voice chat etc...
Its a Microsoft game, using Microsoft servers so why is this a surprise? its not different to Minecraft or signing up to EA or Activision for their 'online' games.
The only thing that makes this 'news' is really the fact that Sony and Microsoft have been reluctant to release their games on each others platform. However , its no different from Sony requiring a PSN account for Helldivers 2 on PC or requiring an Activision account to play online in CoD enabling you to add friends on other platforms - I have some PS/PC players in my CoD friends list and can chat with them in 'game' without requiring EVERYONE to be in an Xbox Party for example...
@Markatron84 I disagree - that's more a 'you' problem who won't accept a different metric than Sales because maybe Sales were the 'only' metric - despite not really saying whether the game was actually played or enjoyed. Bundle games, like Kinect Sports, outsold many games simply because it was 'bundled' in.
A game like Returnal - an award winning game only reached around 560k 'gamers' in its first 3 months on SALE. Yet Halo Infinite had Millions of players in its first day! Is it better to have half a million pay $70 in revenue or for 35million paying $10-15 every month as well as selling games at $70 and counting 'players' that actually played 'some' of the game. Of the 560k that bought Returnal, you have no idea if they even bothered playing more than the opening level/mission - its just 'units' sold.
Sales help boost sales figures but if a $70 game is only $20 in a sale, that's not bringing in the same revenue. It also doesn't indicate if that person even bothered installing or how much they enjoyed and played the game either... its just an additional number on the sales figures that tells you nothing. A game could go on to sell 10m but again doesn't say if that was due to hype, a decent game or so cheap that it was worth 'trying'....
Will Sony/Nintendo be happy to help their Competitor in revenue?
A first party game is made, published and sold through their store so 100% of the revenue comes back to them. If they 'sold' to their competitors through their Competitors store, they get 70% revenue with 30% going to their Competitor.
With MS climbing above them in Gaming Revenue terms, I do wonder if they will - after all, Exclusives bring players to their Ecosystem and buying 'other' content too. It seems MS is happier to take 70% and get their games to more players, build up bigger Communities around IP's etc.
@Markatron84 Sales don't tell the whole story and revenue is difficult too when you have 30+ million paying into a Subscription service every month regardless of whether they play these games or not on a 'regular' basis.
Sales don't indicate player engagement - it's just 'units' sold - not whether they were installed, played for 20mins' or finished, and counts whether you bought at Full price or picked up in a sale...
No 'metric' is perfect, but at least you can say 35+ have at least 'tried' Sea of Thieves - a game that would probably of sold a few million and likely died without Game Pass letting people try it for free, Game Pass Subs contributing to its growth and Seasonal content...
A limited run Physical release for the 'minority' of Xbox Series X gamers who wanted to buy it Physically instead of playing it on Game Pass or buying it Digitally.
PC and Xbox Series S are pretty much Digital only platforms anyway...
I have no reason to 'buy' these games on Playstation 5 and I don't own a Switch anyway as I have a RoG Ally. As I have Game Pass Ultimate, I see no reason to play elsewhere.
It's the same with games like High on Life, Plague Tale: Requiem, Back4Blood or Lies of P for example - even though these were 3rd Party developed games, I see no reason to buy on PS5 when I can play as part of my GPU Subscription on my Console, Gaming Laptop and RoG Ally for 'free'.
I don't begrudge these games coming to other Platforms at all, it makes NO difference to me at all that 'others' can now play these - if anything, I actually think it could be great for the Grounded/SoT communities to grow and for games like Pentiment and Hi-Fi Rush to reach more gamers....
These games - of ALL the games in MS's catalogue, make the most sense to me. Grounded and Sea of Thieves are probably 'saturated' in the Xbox ecosystem and cannot 'grow' without increasing their Population - more people, more revenue, more 'growth'.
Pentiment & Hi-Fi Rush may not have recuperated a great deal of their development costs - releasing on Game Pass and perhaps not seeing enough 'sales' or bringing more people into Game Pass.
Grounded/Sea of Thieves are a bit like Helldivers 2 - games where the 'community' that are built up around playing socially is limiting the potential. Yes you can argue that maybe its better used to bring players into your 'ecosystem', but is it better for the gamers, the game itself and its long term support?
That's why we aren't seeing games like Starfield or Indiana Jones coming to PS5 - at least not whilst they are potential System/subscription sellers and as they don't/won't have an active 'online' community to 'grow', serve better as Exclusives.
As the ABK deal concluded that MS would 'lose' so much more revenue by taking CoD away from PS, which has a massive online community and would split 'friends/family' from playing together, same with Minecraft, I can totally understand why some games may not be 'exclusive'.
Sometimes it may well be better to have more people as Fans of a Microsoft IP than being 'exclusive' to a MS console...
Considering that Minecraft (Mojang) has remained and in fact been expanded upon on all Platforms as well as ALL Xbox releases also releasing on PC since Sea of Thieves, inc Steam and 'Steam Deck' (which is a Console), then they have been doing 'Multi-platform'' for years.
Gone are the days of 'Xbox Console Only' exclusives - timed or otherwise. But also gone are the days of Paying Devs to keep their IP's/Games exclusive. Epic made Gears of War for example yet were NOT a 1st Party Studio, same with games like Oblivion, Mass Effect, BioShock etc - many of the games that were 'exclusive' in the 360 era.
Now of course they OWN a LOT of Studio's and IP's and many of them have a History of Multi-platform success - CoD, Doom, Wolfenstein, Diablo etc. Many of which had MP so would 'benefit' from being on as many platforms as possible for both Gamers (more players mean better ping, better experience etc) and Devs (more revenue to keep the Players in content etc).
That's why I still think Social games will continue to be 'Multi-platform'. Its about growing the Active Online Communities that are built up around these IP's. Sea of Thieves can't 'grow' its community beyond PC/Xbox if its not available elsewhere...
I'd say 2026. That's 6yrs after they launched the Series S/X hardware and a 'good' innings for any generation. I have to wonder whether the Series S would still be able to scale games to its more 'limited' spec.
It seems MS aren't going to do a 'Pro' console with already 2 SKU's for developers to optimise for and maybe getting a 'head start' on the next Gen could be beneficial to MS (like they did with the 360).
Its just a guess as to when I think they will bring new Hardware to Market - but I know some will want MS to offer something more powerful sooner and others would prefer not to feel like they have to replace their 'Series' hardware for years to come...
I do think this makes sense. Sea of Thieves or Grounded for example have built up a great community that enjoy playing. The ONLY way to expand that Community and grow those IP's, keep bringing in 'Revenue' to keep building upon the content already provided is to open these to more players. Look at CoD that grew and grew or Minecraft.
Games like Starfield or Indiana Jones are 'Single Player' focussed games - the games that you'll buy an Xbox for to play. These are the type of game that it really doesn't make sense to 'sell' on Playstation. If you have a LOT of extra MTX, expansions, seasonal content etc, it makes sense to have as many people invested in that 'IP' to buy that extra content that in turn helps fund the next seasons content or sequel.
Halo FTP Multiplayer would probably have benefited if it was available across more platforms, more Season passes sold, more people playing and more money coming in to invest in more Halo content. Even keeping 'staff' on that IP costs money so the more coming in, the better. It also benefits 'Xbox' gamers as they have more 'players' in lobbies for a 'better' online experience (lower ping, more filled games etc)
@RetroMan71 I never said anything about 'Game Pass' having a Dwindling player base!!!
What I was referring to was Diablo 4's dwindling player base that is no longer playing the game to 'buy' any of the 'extras' that keeps games supported and supplied with 'new' content.
It makes sense to put Diablo 4 on Game Pass as soon as possible to inject Players into this game which in turn also brings back players who purchased. That then gives them a 'larger' player base to 'buy' extras etc - thus increasing the Games longevity and support instead of it dwindling away to die...
If they put Diablo 3 or Prototype into Game Pass, it doesn't really bring 'revenue' in that will help those games continue to be supported with expansions, micro-transactions etc...
Diablo 4 needs Game Pass more than Game Pass needs D4 to reach more people and bring funds in so the Devs can keep making their 'planned' content for it...
Its got to be the games that benefit from a social aspect and the 'growth' of those communities is 'limited' if only available o certain platforms - So Sea of Thieves is almost certain, Maybe Towerbourne too as that is coming out soon...
But 'single-player' games that bring people to you 'ecosystem' to play, well I'm not so sure - unless it 'suits' their business to give games that maybe didn't 'sell' well an added income 'boost' - especially some that could easily find an audience if available on more devices.
Well its dwindling player base to sell more stuff to is drastically in need of a boost - so Game Pass makes ultimate sense to get it on as soon as 'legally' as possible so that all the 'new' players boost the dwindling economy to keep it going...
Well she perhaps maybe perfect to turn the brand of Blizzard around and re-energise the studios and staff into a positive as her track record would suggest she can do....
@NeoRatt Exactly - and don't forget both Blizzard and ABK had there own 'Publishing' and 'Marketing' side - people who'd organise releases, physical printing, distribution etc etc so a lot of those jobs are doing the same role but now under MS and Microsoft 'Publishing' - those are in name only - sub divisions of at most.
I bet most actually 'developing' games will be retained and a lot of the 'streamlining' is part of that integration - one team handling Marketing instead of 3 or more for example.
Of course no one likes to hear of job losses and I hope they all find successful employment elsewhere quickly. However it was inevitable....
@CharlieChooChoo As @Kaloudz states, its not about 'appeasing' the few that maybe purchased it at/around launch to try and tempt them back, its about the long term, the 'value' of Game Pass etc.
Every year, there are new 'gamers' joining the Xbox ecosystem and/or gaming for the first time. The fact that they can play 'Redfall' as part of a Subscription service means that its 'important' to MS to have 'playable' and 'enjoyable' games across a wide spectrum of genres etc to 'appeal'. Maybe the game, its 'story' and/or style isn't 'your' prefered taste, expecting Arkane to do something more Single Player and more like Dishonoured or Prey - but others may 'prefer' the co-op nature and/or setting/story - especially if they had no expectations or 'preconceptions'. If they read the review, the game is likely to exceed expectations today...
Who knows whether physical will still be relevant enough to justify or not. The vast majority of gamers don't buy Physical and that market is in decline.
Its not as if every 'hardware' comes with a physical media player today and since the XB1/PS4 era, discs themselves are nothing but a 'key' to opening access to the Software that has to be installed on your HDD/SDD to run - the disc 'delivered' the Software too but often its not playable without additional Downloading (missing content, patches, updates etc) because Physical media is not adequate for 'modern' gaming.
Its been that way for over a decade now, but some are too stuck in their 'traditional' ways and with BC requiring 'proof' of purchase and others using it to watch Blurays, Media players are a necessity for some too - so I don't know that they'll abandon the Disc Drive 'soon' - but I don't know that they'll continue wasting money on Manufacturing and Distributing plastic discs that fewer and fewer are buying...
Its no secret that as far as Physical goes, the ONLY platform MS can sell to is their Series X - which isn't the most popular Hardware in the Xbox ecosystem.
PC and Series S owners will buy Digitally anyway and Game Pass Subscribers probably aren't buying many (if any) first party games Physically when Game Pass allows then to play 'free' and/or 'buy' at a discount at a later date - so why buy Physical?
That really just leaves a 'niche' group of Xbox gamers that have a Series X, prefers to buy Physically AND unlikely to own Game Pass. I bet the vast majority of 'Starfield' players either bought Digitally or played via Game Pass with relatively 'few' buying Physically.
I think people should have a choice but when the 'majority' of Xbox gamers (PC/Series S/Cloud) don't buy Physical, can't play Physical discs, etc, as well as MANY Series X users choosing to buy Digitally OR play on Game Pass, the Physical Market isn't sustainable...
@FatalBubbles But a big incentive for Game Pass and it will drop in price, be on sale at some point.
$49.99 or 'GP:Ultimate' for $15 a month and if you 'choose' to keep subscribing, here's some great games coming this year - Avowed, AVA, Indy etc...
And 'Physical' release is really just the 'Series X' owners who 'choose' to buy Physical to sell to - everyone else, Series S, PC/Steam are all-digital purchasers and I bet a lot of Series X owners will play it via Game Pass than pay $50 for it. Essentially adding extra 'cost' of printing/manufacturing/distribution etc costs that gets pushed on to you the customer for a 'diminishing' return as fewer purchasers exist for Physical. Maybe they feel this will not be a big enough 'seller' to justify the costs of producing discs for those 'few' Series X owners interested in buying it Physically day 1....
Probably Titanfall - although I think of that more as 'year one' after all, the console was only a few months old when it released.
So really Sunset Overdrive is my 'year' two game but I voted for Titanfall just because I spent more time playing it in 2014 than ANY of the others by quite some margin but to me, its still a 'year 1' game....
Both have pro's/con's but I would still rather have the choice to buy or rent.
This isn't just about 'Physical' vs 'Digital' and/or 'game' preservation. Your N64 cartridges aren't 'better' preserved 20+ yrs later than digital just because you can still 'play' it as long as you still have the obsolete 'hardware' to play it on. Its not 'easy' to connect an N64 to modern TV's without buying converters and if your Hardware (console, controller, Memory paks etc) stop working, your 'cartridge' is useless. Same with Discs - you can't put your PS3 disc in a PS5 to play it. You need a 'working' PS3 - something 'obsolete'. If you want a 'specific' game, there is no guarantee you'll find a 'working' copy or working hardware to play in the future, the right 'devices' to play it on.
I had boxes of games from the 80's - all on tape but required various obsolete 'computer' systems and working tape deck to 'work'. Even if I sold them at a car boot, they'd be 'sold as seen' no guarantee they still load/work.
Digital is perhaps no better but whilst you have access, its always the most up to date version for whatever 'hardware' you bought it for and can still use in the future. At least with 'physical' there is a chance you can still play your games 20yrs+ later.
Owning Digital perhaps makes less sense in peoples eyes because you have that fear of losing resale value or what if they take it away - well then why buy? why waste your money on something when you can binge game with rental services and 'selectively' buy whatever 'games' you want physically/digitally
But at the end of the day - I still advocate for choice even if I rarely buy Physical these days and use 'rental' services instead of paying money for games I'll likely end up boxing up and never seeing again...
Nothing particular - things will come when they come but I hope it will be a 'memorable' year for Positive reasons.
There is a 'lot' to be hopeful for and the 'memorable' year always seems to be on the Horizon but not quite within our grasp, teased but not yet realised...
So I don't want to get my 'hopes' up for a Gears trilogy or maybe Perfect Dark news, Fable or whatever games I personally want or hope for - I'll just keep enjoying whatever games I have access to - whether on Game Pass or I bought, until games I want to play 'more' release and then look back and hope it will be 'memorable' instead....
@themcnoisy Oh god yes - I forgot about that Sorry LOL.
I was thinking just about the Multi-player and the single player Campaigns and forgot about those co-op missions.
OK - apart from those few Co-op missions we did together a few years ago, I haven't touched Halo MCC for about 9.5 yrs and unless a friend wants to play it specifically, I doubt I'll return to it in the near future...
Bought it 10yrs ago and haven't touched it in the past 9.5 yrs - but then I have played the OG halo games and cannot stand the Multi-player. I really don't know why I would still be playing a 10yr old game that in itself has content that is much older as it compiles 'old' games in one new package.
The Campaigns don't exactly take that long and Halo CE is very dated by modern standards. Being impressed by the scale of levels and 'freedom' that gave when it released etc is no longer 'impressive' and as I said, I can't stand the MP so no reason to return to MCC
At the end of the day, the Customers who choose to buy a Series X and buy Physical copies of games are diminishing. The Series S maybe more popular and of course some will choose to play on PC so the ONLY market on Xbox is to those 'Series X' owners who choose to buy Physical - which is a 'small' percentage of the entire Series X owners.
If there were 10m Series X owners and 20% choose to buy Physical, that's just a '2m' market. Combined with the fact that these aren't massive sellers, they probably determine that the costs involved in manufacturing and distributing games exceed the potential sales revenue to determine its not worth it...
Microsoft arguably don't need to make Consoles today as they have PC/Cloud and 'could' go 3rd Party too or bring Game Pass to Nintendo/Sony hardware - basically the ONLY hardware that MS doesn't 'regularly' release on.
We know certain Games/IP's are 'multi-platform' anyway - games like Minecraft and its Spin-Offs, as well as CoD and no doubt other ABK IP's etc so a good number will be multi-platform.
That being said, I think whilst the Market demands an Xbox console - even if its not as large a market as Sony/Nintendo have due to the fact its not 'necessary' as their games are available elsewhere too, then MS will continue to supply to meet demand.
Whilst you maybe able to play over Cloud or get a decent PC to play 'locally', that isn't the 'option' a lot of people want or have. Cloud may not offer the performance or infrastructure to be 'adequate' for some and PC's maybe too expensive. Consoles also provide an 'ease of use' and simple Plug & play approach which some gamers may prefer - therefore a Market exists.
If that 'market' dwindles as more either 'prefer' Cloud/PC for example, then maybe MS will reconsider, but in the 'near' future, there is demand for a 'Console' within the MS ecosystem...
So many of those I have and played on Xbox too. Sunset Overdrive is probably the standout in that list - such a fun addictive game that the trailers/concept doesn't do justice - A truly underrated gem! I enjoyed Titanfall as well but unplayable today - some maps still stand out to me as incredible and nothing like modern games. Destiny took over my life for a while too but lost me 'early' during Destiny 2.
A lot of great names - Wolfenstein was great - old school yet modern too, Alien Isolation was 'interesting' and nailed the aesthetic and the Evil Within was the RE we needed until RE came back...
Some of those feel like generations ago to me now, yet I started gaming quite a few decades before these released... LOL
@Cikajovazmaj That's $9000 'new' games to Game Pass over the last year, games that 'otherwise' would have cost you $9000 to play - if you 'choose' not to play or deem them not 'worthy' of your time to even try, that is 'your' choice but ultimately, they offered $9000 worth of New titles over the course of this last year!
How you deem the value for your 'measly' monthly sub of $15 or so - which includes all the 'other' benefits - cloud, PC Game Pass, EA Play, Online etc all in one Ultimate tier, that's on you, not the service.
Just because you may not have enjoyed games like Redfall, Forza or Starfield, Lies of P, Atomic Heart or any of the other 3rd Party releases offered doesn't mean that 'value' isn't lost, its not as if the games are here one month, gone the next... They stay a good long time - certainly long enough to complete most games - if you enjoy them enough!
@StonyKL The difference is that £25 may buy you 'just' the Yakuza series but you can 'play' those for even less money and/or maybe not even need to purchase them at all. You aren't paying a 'monthly' fee just to play the Yakuza games - you have access to whole range of other games 'new' & 'older' games. You can even try Yakuza before 'wasting' money on something you may not enjoy or play more than an hour or two.
Services like Game Pass are 'not' for everyone so I can understand why it might not suit some who may want to 'own' their games 'indefinitely'. However, I can also see why many may want to Subscribe to play these and a wide range of titles. I own many games but the 'vast' majority I have either not finished or beat and moved on from. I can't see myself going back and playing Spider-Man, R&C, Last of Us, H:ZD or GoW despite owning these and having that 'option', I'd rather play 'new' games (or at least 'new' to me I missed) than 'replay' a game I'm 'finished' with.
Each to their own of course but I'd imagine those that 'really' wanted to play Yakuza would have bought it - now its 'cheap', its more about trying to tempt those who maybe sat on the fence. Also, just because something is on Game Pass, doesn't mean you can't 'buy' it on sale with the Game Pass Discount on top - assuming you are 'concerned' about losing access long term - but won't cost you any 'extra' to play for FREE if you Subscribe to Game Pass on whatever Platform you have for a 'Range' of games, not just Yakuza....
Comments 3,145
Re: Xbox Game Studios' Ara: History Untold Is Coming To Console, Just Not At Launch
No different from Age of Empires, Flight Simulator or Gears Tactics for example - all came to Xbox after releasing on PC first.
Re: Phil Spencer Would Like To See Other Digital Storefronts Appear On Xbox
@Chaotic_Goat The Original concept of the 'Xbox' was to bring the PC Games to a much wider audience by making an affordable 'Console'. Nowadays, most consoles are built more like 'PC's' anyway but back then, it was built to be an 'affordable' way to bring PC games to a wider audience.
MS weren't a 'Hardware' company - they were always a Software and Services based. You don't really need an Xbox Console to play 'Xbox' games as you can play them day/date on PC and often on Cloud too. Series S/X only provide a certain 'tier' experience.
Cloud is 'entry' tier - 1080/60, limited Library and reliant on internet
Series S is Entry Hardware tier - 1440/120, larger Library but no Physical media player
Series X is 'premium' Console Tier - 4k/120, Physical Media player and often more customer choice (Performance or Graphics modes)
PC is the 'open' and variable spec tier to suit whatever budget and/or spec an individual wants with the largest Library and most Consumer choice...
Game Pass 'works' across all those options too. With GPU, I can play Forza, Starfield etc on my Mobile, my Xbox Consoles (inc last gen with Cloud), my PC, my RoG Ally etc at no 'extra' cost. My saves carry across all too so its all one 'ecosystem' of which the 'Xbox' Console is just one option for Consumers to play those games - based on their preferences and/or budgets...
Re: Phil Spencer Would Like To See Other Digital Storefronts Appear On Xbox
@Vaako007 The name change is just a 'technicality' but the reality is that you were and continue to be a Subscriber to an Xbox service. Whether its called 'Gold' or 'Game Pass Core', its still around the same cost.
As I said, it's a mere 'technicality' as the Subscriber numbers don't really change. If they had 10m just on Gold, those 10m are now Game Pass Core. If they had 35m Subscribers before, they still have 35m Subscribers.
Sony have gone from a '2' separate Subscriptions (PS+ & PS Now) into a '3' tier single name Subscription ( PS+ - Essential, Extra and Premium tiers).
Whether you 'care' about Game Pass or the 'games' you get to play on the 'Core' tier, it still costs the same as 'Gold' and just like Gold, gave you discounts on Digital purchases and access to Digital games. Since they 'stopped' giving 360 games on Gold, you never got ANY games to keep and rarely any AAA or well known Games to play.
Core at least offers 30+ games you 'can' play for FREE as well as keep buying Physical discs, keep playing 'online' etc.
Re: Major Game Maker Reportedly Questioning Xbox Support Amidst 'Falling Sales'
Then you find out that 3rd Party Publisher released a broken mess of a game that didn't sell on Xbox because Xbox customers aren't wasting their money on broken, unfinished games when they have 100's of games on Game Pass and 'new' games coming every week.
There is a lot of competition for Publishers and on Xbox, you'd imagine that the majority have GPU with 'few' Console owners actually buying games on release unless they live up to expectations at launch. WB for example have had two 'terrible' launches (Gotham Knights and Suicide Squad) so maybe had very few sales due to competing with Game Pass and all those 'free' games Xbox customers can play instead of spending $70 on a broken mess - not justifying the 'cost' of porting to Xbox for so few Sales and/or tiny player base to buy MTX/DLC etc...
Make games that people want to play and they'll 'buy' on Xbox too. I know Sony have PS+ but that offers 'old' games and not really competing with 'new' releases in the same way. Having brand new games day 1 in game pass that week/month some 3rd Party 'mess' releases isn't going to help them sell their terrible games...
Re: Talking Point: The Elder Scrolls Is Now 30 Years Old As We Await Xbox's First Series Entry
Morrowind and Oblivion were both Xbox Exclusives, at least until Oblivion was ported to PS3 with only Skyrim enjoying a 'multi-platform' console release. Of course since them, Skyrim has released 'everywhere' but arguably this IP has a longer history with MS and Xbox.
That being said, I am not overly excited by ES6. I wasn't the biggest fan of the IP to begin with but in the past decade or so, I don't really feel that Bethesda have advanced. They have used the same 'template' with the same dated interactions, animations, missions etc. I feel they really need to 'evolve'.
Re: Evil West Is Shaping Up As Another Big Hit For Xbox Game Pass
A concept and premise that appeals but certainly not enough to buy - It's a title that I'd play on a Sub service, not something I'd risk spending money on.
Most games tend to fall in to 'not interested' or 'wait for sales/sub services' with very 'few' actually worth buying at or near launch when they cost the most and generally need the most fixes with the least 'content/features' as these come post-launch as the price drops.
Therefore, whilst this may not have been 'worth' paying the asking price at launch, I think it will be worth trying on Game Pass
Re: With A 'PS5 Pro' Now Rumoured For 2024, Where Does That Leave Xbox?
@Kevw2006 A 'few' isolated games are not on PC but by comparison PC has a LOT more games available that aren't on 'current' Consoles at all. Not only do you have all those Steam games, but also thousands of games from old Consoles too.
Consoles were 'affordable' gaming systems and in fact, the OG Xbox was 'designed' and 'Built' to bring PC games to the more affordable Console masses. It even gets its name from its 'concept' as being a DirectX in living room 'Box.
Keeping that mantra in mind - MS still offer the more affordable Console at the more 'traditional' Console price point - that £200-£300. £4/500 is Premium' tier Console price already. Therefore, MS still have 2 Consoles on the market for those that 'prefer' the Console experience - but do they really need to 'compete' with PC's on higher tier 'visuals' and/or performance - who are they making it for? The PC gamer to play the 'few' games they can't play on their PC at visuals/performance they are accustomed to? The Series X isn't more 'popular' than the Series S, which to me indicates that most aren't bothered about having higher resolution/frame rate and content with 'Series S' despite the Series X offering 'enhanced' versions. A Series 'XL' (or whatever they called it) is only likely to enhance games so they 'compete' more in terms of visuals/performance to the higher end PC's...
Cost again may factor in - a locked device limiting what games you can play and even where you can buy from (digital purchases are only available from the Platform holder), having to buy a Subscription (even if its the most basic) to play all content you own/buy - just for a 'boost' in visual/performance may be harder to justify. During the PS4 Pro/XB1X life, they were both outsold by PS4/XB1S hardware despite offering 'enhancements' because the 'majority' are content to play on the 'cheapest' hardware.
MLB26 (for example) may look better and/or run at higher FPS on a PS5 Pro, may not be on PC, but will people spend £600+ on a Series XL just to play this on GPU at similar to PS5 Pro settings? Or just be happy to play on Series S/X and save money?
Re: With A 'PS5 Pro' Now Rumoured For 2024, Where Does That Leave Xbox?
@Grumblevolcano What if they replaced the Series S with a 'hand-held'? Its already an 'all-digital' platform and potentially within the realms of possibility spec wise. Games are already 'optimised' to Series S and of course, you have BC with older gen hardware. Its not as if they'd have to expect devs to 'port' to their Hand-held.
Games then that maybe too much for Series S may not get a 'Local' release for that Hardware - instead may only offer Streaming options.
I don't know that MS would sever that 'parity' clause with releases, as in allowing devs not to release a 'local' Series S version and raising the 'base' tier to the Series X...
Anyway, I do think its possible they could replace the Series S with a Handheld but I would think they'd need to sever the Parity clause if they released a 'higher' end Xbox so the Series X essentially becomes the 'base' tier so Devs can choose to scale down to Series S or not...
Re: With A 'PS5 Pro' Now Rumoured For 2024, Where Does That Leave Xbox?
Its a difficult situation to comment on as 'both' MS and Sony, whilst they maybe have a Console on the market in competition with each other, their situation is very different.
MS has a much higher tier option than a Series X in its 'ecosystem' already and already offers their games with 4k, 60/120+ fps and DLSS etc on PC day and date on PC. The point being that if you want better 'visuals' and/or 'performance', you have options. So many options from Streaming to any compatible device to playing on various hardware specs Consoles, handheld PC's up to the highest spec gaming PC's.
Sony on the other hand don't. The 'best' visuals/performance on their games is limited to just PS5 - at least until they release on PC. At the moment, they only have 1 'option' for gamers, that's whatever the PS5 hardware can deliver.
Take Starfield - you can play via Streaming - ok its not the 'best' way to play for the 'best' visuals/performance, but it is a low cost option. You can play on Handhelds (Steamdeck, RoG Ally etc) and Series S as well as Series X or PC's - all day/date. Spider-Man 2 was only available on PS5 and people have to wait to play it on PC if they want 'Quality' visuals but 'Performance' frame rates.
Cost is another factor - PS5/Series X are still around £400 - so what cost would a mid gen 'Pro/elite' cost. One X and PS4 Pro were 'double' their base hardware cost on launch. Also MS already have multiple SKU's to 'build and Optimise' for with Series S, Series X and/or PC's...
Would people be willing to pay £600+ for a 'Console' that's likely to be tied to 'weaker' hardware and be surpassed in a few years when 'next-gen' Hardware comes out?
Re: Poll: What Do You Think Of 'Control' On Xbox Game Pass?
Played it on PS5 but only got so far before I'd had enough and moved on. I've not wanted to return either so I guess I'll pass on this.
It was Highly Rated but I guess its just not a game or game-play loop I felt compelling enough to keep persevering with from my own personal perspective and does add to the Game Pass content hype...
Re: Ninja Theory Shares Four New Screenshots From Hellblade 2's Photo Mode
I still have a feeling this will be the modern day equivalent of Dragons Lair - a game that looks far beyond its peers but ultimately has a disappointing game-play loop.
From what we have seen, It could also be more an interactive 'movie' too - we haven't exactly seen much 'action' yet either. and the 'making of' video's have had more in common with Making movies. I didn't enjoy the puzzle elements of the first, trying to find that perfect spot to line up the shapes to create the Rune and the Combat was 'functional', but nothing amazing.
If it wasn't for the way they tackled the Mental Health and the Audio landscape, the first would likely have been a pretty mediocre 'Game'. It's still praised for that today.
I fear that Game-play will be secondary, that its more a 'Movie' with some interactivity along the way. At least I can decide if its 'worth' my time when it releases, not spend money on pre-ordering/buying only to find my fears were realised...
Re: NBA 2K24 Seemingly Has A Pretty Short Xbox Game Pass Contract
Makes sense, get people playing for free, buying add-ons, DLC, MTX. in-game Currency, Season Passes etc and then have to buy the game in 6 months to keep playing, 6 months before the 'next' years entry, '2K25', releases...
Re: Talking Point: In Your Opinion, What Made The Xbox 360 Era So Incredible?
Many games were made by 3rd Party Developers - Gears of War was made by Epic for example and sold the IP to MS after they didn't want to carry on after the Trilogy. Games like Mass Effect, Bioshock, Oblivion etc also helped bolster the 360s 'Exclusives' at the start of the generation, even if by the end, those developers were now releasing games simultaneously on PS3 too and those games stopped being 'exclusive' to Xbox.
That's why by the XB1 era, they had 'few' Studio's of their OWN making games and owning 'few' of their own IP's. They had to create studios to take on Halo (after Bungie left) and Gears (after buying the IP) with Turn 10 making Forza. Rare and Lionhead were 'struggling' too. Hence most of XB1 exclusives made by 1st Party Studios were Halo, Gears or Forza.
That success of the 360 era came because MS was relying on 3rd Party Studios, 3rd Party IP's (inc Call of Duty which became the Juggernaut thanks to MS and their 'Partnership' with Activision). By the XB1 era, those 3rd Party IP's were not 'exclusive' (timed or otherwise) and MS had 'few' studios and IP's of their own. Now of course, they own IP's and Studio's having been building up both in the past 5-6yrs to be 'competitive' with Sony/Nintendo who both own a LOT of IP's.
Re: Former Xbox Boss Thinks Microsoft 'Would Love' A Cloud-Only Future
If they move there entirely, it will be because the vast majority of Customers are there and paying the 'bills' and 'not enough' consumers for 'Consoles' at a certain price point that 'limits' whatever scope/scale/vision of the developer had....
Re: Former Xbox Boss Thinks Microsoft 'Would Love' A Cloud-Only Future
Its no secret that these Platform holders sell their Consoles at a Loss with the 'intention' of locking you in to their 'ecosystem' and spending time and money (Subs - even if just a basic Sub for Online, No competition digital store front, Peripherals etc) to offset those 'loses'.
Even if they are 'breaking' even on the Cost of manufacturing, there is all the research, development, Software Development Kits etc that also add to the 'cost'
with say 50m 'Consoles', that's 50m SSD's, 50m APU Chips etc. If every console has 1TB SSD's that get full 'quickly', 50m TB's of Storage in the Cloud for example could hold EVERY game ever made and 'load' it to servers.
Investing in those servers, putting the 'money' into Servers instead of all those separate 'units' - each with its own Raw materials, manufacturing, Shipping/distribution, 3rd party overheads (Retailers, Distributors, Printers etc) etc etc Costs also as well as the environmental impact (carbon footprint, waste etc) - I can see Consoles disappearing - at least the 'high end hardware' console.
I can still see Digital consoles - I could see MS for example replace the Series S with a Series S 'handheld' for example with High End Hardware being the PC - systems you 'build' yourself. Much like you don't really see 'Hifi systems' to play music now - its all 'Digital or 'low-ish' tier Hardware or expensive Audiophile Separates to build your own Hifi system...
Re: Dragon's Dogma 2 Launches With Uncapped 30FPS Performance On Xbox
@HotGoomba The fact is that this is NOT going to be a 'stable' 30fps. It may run around say 30fps but could be 28-37fps with uneven frame pacing. That could be an average of 'around' 30fps for large chunks of the game but could even jump up to 60fps if you look at the sky creating a much bigger change in Frame Rates, making it feel even more inconsistent/worse.
There is NO such thing as an uncapped 30fps as such. It's just an uncapped frame rate. It may well be 'capped' to 60fps for example, meaning the frame rate can't go above 60fps, but is often running closer to 30fps...
Re: Poll: How Would You Grade March's Xbox Partner Preview Showcase?
@GuyinPA75 Whilst I would agree that there wasn't much of interest to me either - other than maybe Stalker on Console, but the LAST game I'd expect at a Partner Showcase - as this was, then 1st Party Games as 'State of Decay 3' is (made by Undead Labs - an Xbox Studio since 2018)
Its the same reason I don't expect to see any of the ABK or Bethesda games, updates etc here either.
Stalker Trilogy is a great Shadow Drop in my opinion and overall I think it was 'Solid', nothing that made me 'excited', but overall for the Xbox Community, a good show and I liked the format so a C
I didn't really expect anything 'stellar' from the partners - and I know that some will love FF or Persona or whatever other games Xbox doesn't have much of coming to Xbox - even if others can and have played them already.
Along with all the 'Big' Multiplatform releases, the Exclusives and all the other 'new' releases coming, certainly not short on variety...
Re: Helldivers 2 Dev Urges More 'Compassion' In Response To Negative Xbox Tweet
Maybe in time it will - maybe in time in won't.
At the end of the day, games like this may 'benefit' gamers who can play the SAME game with their friends/family etc on whatever Platform they would rather game on. Having that 'Community' that grows and continues investing in that IP is better off not limited to one 'brand' of console - unless that IP really is a System Seller, an 'important' IP in your history.
I would 'expect' Killzone or Resistance to remain on Playstation (maybe PC too eventually) despite its 'massive' online potential because its an historic and important IP in Sony's History, like Halo is for MS.
Butt some 3rd party made game you've paid for 'exclusivity' and//or publishing rights may think its not really a System seller and see the financial benefit of bringing a 'successful' online game to a wider audience to expand its 'diminishing' or 'reinvigorate' in their terms playerbase...
Re: Poll: How Often Do You Buy Games That Have Been 'Remade' Or 'Remastered'?
Overall, of the many that have been released, I have bought/own very few and I doubt I spent anywhere near as much time playing them a '2nd' time.
Of course there maybe an exception, but overall if I played it and all its had is a visual/performance upgrade, I'm not going to bother finishing it knowing what's coming next and how it ends.
I certainly am not buying games that may have a higher res count or even higher. more consistent frame rates if the polygon count is still 'low' (Turok, Tomb Raider etc). I wouldn't mind these 'existing' for people that missed out on them first time round, but I do feel they are beginning to rely on something quick and relatively cheap/easy to release to make 'money' as their incessant need to find those long time Live Service game that only require 'minimal staffing' to keep supplying Cosmetics to purchase and get Maximum profit from minimal content.
To me, these 'ports' (hardly 'remakes' are minimal effort for maximum Profit games - no need to 'create' anything, design anything, write anything etc...
Re: EA Shuts Down Battlefield Campaign Studio Ridgeline Games
I don't think gaming is going through a Crisis because these 'big' publishers with 'bloated' expectations and 'easy money making' ideas haven't exactly panned out for them.
MS I can understand some 'consolidation' with their Acquisitions -you don't need 3 different Publishing departments (MS, Bethesda and ABK) each with its own Marketing teams etc - that can be 'consolidated' into one.
I look at EA for example who over promised, under delivered. Look at BF2042 as an example - a game very light on content so probably didn't sell well at $70 yet they still had to keep ploughing money into it to get it to a playable state but now the game is basically free.
When I look at Sony for example, they seemed to put their 'eggs' into Live Service games - much to their Gamers dismay. Of those '10 or so they had in active development, several are not going to see the light of day (it seems) - Last of Us Factions, Twisted Metal and some Fantasy co-op game cancelled.
When I look around at AAA publishers, Many of them have put prices up, going for 'Live Service' based games or generic sequels, remakes/remasters and often releasing broken messes of games at release - Gotham Knights, Suicide Squad, Skull n Bones etc
All while Indies and Sub Services are offering a 'plethora' of options that many gamers would prefer to play than waste $70 on a broken AAA game that demands you spend more money on Cosmetics, on in game currency, on season passes etc etc. Why would I buy some generic bland game when I can play many others for FREE on PS+/Game Pass and with modern Consoles supporting BC, we have thousands of games on sale. I'd rather buy 4+ older (XB1 era) games in sale than just 1 new $70 game I can't really enjoy until its patched and/or complete on content...
I think its a shame that people are losing jobs, but I also think some Publishers have created their own problems by pushing Devs to make 'generic' Live Service games wrapped in their IP skin designed for selling cosmetic outfits for $10+ each, but the game-play is dull, repetitive and very generic - instead of letting them create 'great' games people want to play so will 'sell' if they are given time to ensure they aren't broken at launch.
I see so many games releasing and many studio's really making a name for themselves. Plague Tale by Asobo for example or PalWorld is blowing up right now.
Re: PSA: You'll Need A Microsoft Account To Play Sea Of Thieves On PS5, Unsurprisingly
@NoLifeDGenerate 20 years ago, if you bought CoD or Battlefield on 'Xbox' you could only play ONLINE with those on the same Platform as you. CoD Ghosts for example had Xbox 360, XB1, PS3, PS4 and PC versions but each had their 'own' player base.
Now if you buy MW3 or BF2042, you can play with everyone else who has MW3 or BF2042 regardless of what platform they are on. Not only that, you can also chat, add friends from other platforms. You don't 'need' them in your Xbox friends, don't need an Xbox party to chat etc.
Its a 'change' that's happened because the Circumstances and what most of the players want. If you could only play with other 'Xbox Series' owners, then your games would generally dire sooner, would be a 'worse' experience as fewest players online to fill lobbies, to minimise 'ping' and or facilitate faster match-making.
By 'refusing', that's literally like 'cutting your nose off to spite your face' type attitude. You want games filled with players, cross-play/cross-progression and all those other 'benefits' that come from this 'change' in requirements. If you only want to play with 'Xbox' gamers, or the game is only on Xbox, then Xbox online is sufficient but you can't play with PS in cod, have party/game chat with them without signing up to an Activision account...
Re: PSA: You'll Need A Microsoft Account To Play Sea Of Thieves On PS5, Unsurprisingly
Just like you need an Activision account to play CoD for example and all that cross-play, cross-progression, voice chat etc...
Its a Microsoft game, using Microsoft servers so why is this a surprise? its not different to Minecraft or signing up to EA or Activision for their 'online' games.
The only thing that makes this 'news' is really the fact that Sony and Microsoft have been reluctant to release their games on each others platform. However , its no different from Sony requiring a PSN account for Helldivers 2 on PC or requiring an Activision account to play online in CoD enabling you to add friends on other platforms - I have some PS/PC players in my CoD friends list and can chat with them in 'game' without requiring EVERYONE to be in an Xbox Party for example...
Re: Xbox Influencer Klobrille Shares Impressive Player Numbers For First-Party Lineup
@Markatron84 I disagree - that's more a 'you' problem who won't accept a different metric than Sales because maybe Sales were the 'only' metric - despite not really saying whether the game was actually played or enjoyed. Bundle games, like Kinect Sports, outsold many games simply because it was 'bundled' in.
A game like Returnal - an award winning game only reached around 560k 'gamers' in its first 3 months on SALE. Yet Halo Infinite had Millions of players in its first day! Is it better to have half a million pay $70 in revenue or for 35million paying $10-15 every month as well as selling games at $70 and counting 'players' that actually played 'some' of the game. Of the 560k that bought Returnal, you have no idea if they even bothered playing more than the opening level/mission - its just 'units' sold.
Sales help boost sales figures but if a $70 game is only $20 in a sale, that's not bringing in the same revenue. It also doesn't indicate if that person even bothered installing or how much they enjoyed and played the game either... its just an additional number on the sales figures that tells you nothing. A game could go on to sell 10m but again doesn't say if that was due to hype, a decent game or so cheap that it was worth 'trying'....
Re: Talking Point: Will Certain PlayStation & Nintendo Games Eventually Come To Xbox?
Will Sony/Nintendo be happy to help their Competitor in revenue?
A first party game is made, published and sold through their store so 100% of the revenue comes back to them. If they 'sold' to their competitors through their Competitors store, they get 70% revenue with 30% going to their Competitor.
With MS climbing above them in Gaming Revenue terms, I do wonder if they will - after all, Exclusives bring players to their Ecosystem and buying 'other' content too. It seems MS is happier to take 70% and get their games to more players, build up bigger Communities around IP's etc.
Re: Xbox Influencer Klobrille Shares Impressive Player Numbers For First-Party Lineup
@Markatron84 Sales don't tell the whole story and revenue is difficult too when you have 30+ million paying into a Subscription service every month regardless of whether they play these games or not on a 'regular' basis.
Sales don't indicate player engagement - it's just 'units' sold - not whether they were installed, played for 20mins' or finished, and counts whether you bought at Full price or picked up in a sale...
No 'metric' is perfect, but at least you can say 35+ have at least 'tried' Sea of Thieves - a game that would probably of sold a few million and likely died without Game Pass letting people try it for free, Game Pass Subs contributing to its growth and Seasonal content...
Re: Obsidian Blasted By Xbox Fans For 'Prioritising' PS5 & Switch Versions Of Pentiment
A limited run Physical release for the 'minority' of Xbox Series X gamers who wanted to buy it Physically instead of playing it on Game Pass or buying it Digitally.
PC and Xbox Series S are pretty much Digital only platforms anyway...
Re: Poll: Will You Be Playing Any Of Xbox's New Multiplatform Games On Other Consoles?
I have no reason to 'buy' these games on Playstation 5 and I don't own a Switch anyway as I have a RoG Ally. As I have Game Pass Ultimate, I see no reason to play elsewhere.
It's the same with games like High on Life, Plague Tale: Requiem, Back4Blood or Lies of P for example - even though these were 3rd Party developed games, I see no reason to buy on PS5 when I can play as part of my GPU Subscription on my Console, Gaming Laptop and RoG Ally for 'free'.
I don't begrudge these games coming to other Platforms at all, it makes NO difference to me at all that 'others' can now play these - if anything, I actually think it could be great for the Grounded/SoT communities to grow and for games like Pentiment and Hi-Fi Rush to reach more gamers....
Re: Sea Of Thieves Sets Sail On PS5 This April With Xbox & PC Crossplay
These games - of ALL the games in MS's catalogue, make the most sense to me. Grounded and Sea of Thieves are probably 'saturated' in the Xbox ecosystem and cannot 'grow' without increasing their Population - more people, more revenue, more 'growth'.
Pentiment & Hi-Fi Rush may not have recuperated a great deal of their development costs - releasing on Game Pass and perhaps not seeing enough 'sales' or bringing more people into Game Pass.
Grounded/Sea of Thieves are a bit like Helldivers 2 - games where the 'community' that are built up around playing socially is limiting the potential. Yes you can argue that maybe its better used to bring players into your 'ecosystem', but is it better for the gamers, the game itself and its long term support?
That's why we aren't seeing games like Starfield or Indiana Jones coming to PS5 - at least not whilst they are potential System/subscription sellers and as they don't/won't have an active 'online' community to 'grow', serve better as Exclusives.
As the ABK deal concluded that MS would 'lose' so much more revenue by taking CoD away from PS, which has a massive online community and would split 'friends/family' from playing together, same with Minecraft, I can totally understand why some games may not be 'exclusive'.
Sometimes it may well be better to have more people as Fans of a Microsoft IP than being 'exclusive' to a MS console...
Re: Xbox Exclusive Trends Online Ahead Of Nintendo's Partner Showcase
Considering that Minecraft (Mojang) has remained and in fact been expanded upon on all Platforms as well as ALL Xbox releases also releasing on PC since Sea of Thieves, inc Steam and 'Steam Deck' (which is a Console), then they have been doing 'Multi-platform'' for years.
Gone are the days of 'Xbox Console Only' exclusives - timed or otherwise. But also gone are the days of Paying Devs to keep their IP's/Games exclusive. Epic made Gears of War for example yet were NOT a 1st Party Studio, same with games like Oblivion, Mass Effect, BioShock etc - many of the games that were 'exclusive' in the 360 era.
Now of course they OWN a LOT of Studio's and IP's and many of them have a History of Multi-platform success - CoD, Doom, Wolfenstein, Diablo etc. Many of which had MP so would 'benefit' from being on as many platforms as possible for both Gamers (more players mean better ping, better experience etc) and Devs (more revenue to keep the Players in content etc).
That's why I still think Social games will continue to be 'Multi-platform'. Its about growing the Active Online Communities that are built up around these IP's. Sea of Thieves can't 'grow' its community beyond PC/Xbox if its not available elsewhere...
Re: Poll: When Do You Think Xbox Will Release Its Next-Generation Console?
I'd say 2026. That's 6yrs after they launched the Series S/X hardware and a 'good' innings for any generation. I have to wonder whether the Series S would still be able to scale games to its more 'limited' spec.
It seems MS aren't going to do a 'Pro' console with already 2 SKU's for developers to optimise for and maybe getting a 'head start' on the next Gen could be beneficial to MS (like they did with the 360).
Its just a guess as to when I think they will bring new Hardware to Market - but I know some will want MS to offer something more powerful sooner and others would prefer not to feel like they have to replace their 'Series' hardware for years to come...
Re: Phil Spencer: Xbox's New Plan Is 'Not A Change To Our Fundamental Exclusive Strategy'
I do think this makes sense. Sea of Thieves or Grounded for example have built up a great community that enjoy playing. The ONLY way to expand that Community and grow those IP's, keep bringing in 'Revenue' to keep building upon the content already provided is to open these to more players. Look at CoD that grew and grew or Minecraft.
Games like Starfield or Indiana Jones are 'Single Player' focussed games - the games that you'll buy an Xbox for to play. These are the type of game that it really doesn't make sense to 'sell' on Playstation. If you have a LOT of extra MTX, expansions, seasonal content etc, it makes sense to have as many people invested in that 'IP' to buy that extra content that in turn helps fund the next seasons content or sequel.
Halo FTP Multiplayer would probably have benefited if it was available across more platforms, more Season passes sold, more people playing and more money coming in to invest in more Halo content. Even keeping 'staff' on that IP costs money so the more coming in, the better. It also benefits 'Xbox' gamers as they have more 'players' in lobbies for a 'better' online experience (lower ping, more filled games etc)
Re: Activision Blizzard's First Game Pass Release Has Been Confirmed By Xbox
@RetroMan71 I never said anything about 'Game Pass' having a Dwindling player base!!!
What I was referring to was Diablo 4's dwindling player base that is no longer playing the game to 'buy' any of the 'extras' that keeps games supported and supplied with 'new' content.
It makes sense to put Diablo 4 on Game Pass as soon as possible to inject Players into this game which in turn also brings back players who purchased. That then gives them a 'larger' player base to 'buy' extras etc - thus increasing the Games longevity and support instead of it dwindling away to die...
If they put Diablo 3 or Prototype into Game Pass, it doesn't really bring 'revenue' in that will help those games continue to be supported with expansions, micro-transactions etc...
Diablo 4 needs Game Pass more than Game Pass needs D4 to reach more people and bring funds in so the Devs can keep making their 'planned' content for it...
Re: Xbox Team 'Excited' And Wants To 'Learn' From Bringing Games To Other Platforms
Its got to be the games that benefit from a social aspect and the 'growth' of those communities is 'limited' if only available o certain platforms - So Sea of Thieves is almost certain, Maybe Towerbourne too as that is coming out soon...
But 'single-player' games that bring people to you 'ecosystem' to play, well I'm not so sure - unless it 'suits' their business to give games that maybe didn't 'sell' well an added income 'boost' - especially some that could easily find an audience if available on more devices.
Re: Activision Blizzard's First Game Pass Release Has Been Confirmed By Xbox
Well its dwindling player base to sell more stuff to is drastically in need of a boost - so Game Pass makes ultimate sense to get it on as soon as 'legally' as possible so that all the 'new' players boost the dwindling economy to keep it going...
Re: Xbox Hires Call Of Duty GM As New President Of Blizzard Entertainment
Well she perhaps maybe perfect to turn the brand of Blizzard around and re-energise the studios and staff into a positive as her track record would suggest she can do....
Re: Xbox Is Employing 'A More Focused Strategy' After Merging With Activision Blizzard
@NeoRatt Exactly - and don't forget both Blizzard and ABK had there own 'Publishing' and 'Marketing' side - people who'd organise releases, physical printing, distribution etc etc so a lot of those jobs are doing the same role but now under MS and Microsoft 'Publishing' - those are in name only - sub divisions of at most.
I bet most actually 'developing' games will be retained and a lot of the 'streamlining' is part of that integration - one team handling Marketing instead of 3 or more for example.
Of course no one likes to hear of job losses and I hope they all find successful employment elsewhere quickly. However it was inevitable....
Re: Redfall Deploys A Small Hotfix Update For Xbox & PC, Here Are The Details
@CharlieChooChoo As @Kaloudz states, its not about 'appeasing' the few that maybe purchased it at/around launch to try and tempt them back, its about the long term, the 'value' of Game Pass etc.
Every year, there are new 'gamers' joining the Xbox ecosystem and/or gaming for the first time. The fact that they can play 'Redfall' as part of a Subscription service means that its 'important' to MS to have 'playable' and 'enjoyable' games across a wide spectrum of genres etc to 'appeal'. Maybe the game, its 'story' and/or style isn't 'your' prefered taste, expecting Arkane to do something more Single Player and more like Dishonoured or Prey - but others may 'prefer' the co-op nature and/or setting/story - especially if they had no expectations or 'preconceptions'. If they read the review, the game is likely to exceed expectations today...
Re: Talking Point: Do You Think Xbox Will Release Another Disc-Based Console?
Who knows whether physical will still be relevant enough to justify or not. The vast majority of gamers don't buy Physical and that market is in decline.
Its not as if every 'hardware' comes with a physical media player today and since the XB1/PS4 era, discs themselves are nothing but a 'key' to opening access to the Software that has to be installed on your HDD/SDD to run - the disc 'delivered' the Software too but often its not playable without additional Downloading (missing content, patches, updates etc) because Physical media is not adequate for 'modern' gaming.
Its been that way for over a decade now, but some are too stuck in their 'traditional' ways and with BC requiring 'proof' of purchase and others using it to watch Blurays, Media players are a necessity for some too - so I don't know that they'll abandon the Disc Drive 'soon' - but I don't know that they'll continue wasting money on Manufacturing and Distributing plastic discs that fewer and fewer are buying...
Re: Starfield Discs Could Be Removed From Sale At US Retail Giant Soon
Its no secret that as far as Physical goes, the ONLY platform MS can sell to is their Series X - which isn't the most popular Hardware in the Xbox ecosystem.
PC and Series S owners will buy Digitally anyway and Game Pass Subscribers probably aren't buying many (if any) first party games Physically when Game Pass allows then to play 'free' and/or 'buy' at a discount at a later date - so why buy Physical?
That really just leaves a 'niche' group of Xbox gamers that have a Series X, prefers to buy Physically AND unlikely to own Game Pass. I bet the vast majority of 'Starfield' players either bought Digitally or played via Game Pass with relatively 'few' buying Physically.
I think people should have a choice but when the 'majority' of Xbox gamers (PC/Series S/Cloud) don't buy Physical, can't play Physical discs, etc, as well as MANY Series X users choosing to buy Digitally OR play on Game Pass, the Physical Market isn't sustainable...
Re: Hellblade 2 Is Officially Coming To Xbox Series X|S In May 2024
@FatalBubbles But a big incentive for Game Pass and it will drop in price, be on sale at some point.
$49.99 or 'GP:Ultimate' for $15 a month and if you 'choose' to keep subscribing, here's some great games coming this year - Avowed, AVA, Indy etc...
And 'Physical' release is really just the 'Series X' owners who 'choose' to buy Physical to sell to - everyone else, Series S, PC/Steam are all-digital purchasers and I bet a lot of Series X owners will play it via Game Pass than pay $50 for it. Essentially adding extra 'cost' of printing/manufacturing/distribution etc costs that gets pushed on to you the customer for a 'diminishing' return as fewer purchasers exist for Physical. Maybe they feel this will not be a big enough 'seller' to justify the costs of producing discs for those 'few' Series X owners interested in buying it Physically day 1....
Re: Poll: Which Was Your Favourite Big Exclusive From Year-Two Of Xbox One?
Probably Titanfall - although I think of that more as 'year one' after all, the console was only a few months old when it released.
So really Sunset Overdrive is my 'year' two game but I voted for Titanfall just because I spent more time playing it in 2014 than ANY of the others by quite some margin but to me, its still a 'year 1' game....
Re: Ubisoft Wants Players To 'Feel Comfortable Not Owning Games' In Future
Both have pro's/con's but I would still rather have the choice to buy or rent.
This isn't just about 'Physical' vs 'Digital' and/or 'game' preservation. Your N64 cartridges aren't 'better' preserved 20+ yrs later than digital just because you can still 'play' it as long as you still have the obsolete 'hardware' to play it on. Its not 'easy' to connect an N64 to modern TV's without buying converters and if your Hardware (console, controller, Memory paks etc) stop working, your 'cartridge' is useless. Same with Discs - you can't put your PS3 disc in a PS5 to play it. You need a 'working' PS3 - something 'obsolete'. If you want a 'specific' game, there is no guarantee you'll find a 'working' copy or working hardware to play in the future, the right 'devices' to play it on.
I had boxes of games from the 80's - all on tape but required various obsolete 'computer' systems and working tape deck to 'work'. Even if I sold them at a car boot, they'd be 'sold as seen' no guarantee they still load/work.
Digital is perhaps no better but whilst you have access, its always the most up to date version for whatever 'hardware' you bought it for and can still use in the future. At least with 'physical' there is a chance you can still play your games 20yrs+ later.
Owning Digital perhaps makes less sense in peoples eyes because you have that fear of losing resale value or what if they take it away - well then why buy? why waste your money on something when you can binge game with rental services and 'selectively' buy whatever 'games' you want physically/digitally
But at the end of the day - I still advocate for choice even if I rarely buy Physical these days and use 'rental' services instead of paying money for games I'll likely end up boxing up and never seeing again...
Re: Talking Point: What Are You Hoping To See Over The Next Year From Xbox?
Nothing particular - things will come when they come but I hope it will be a 'memorable' year for Positive reasons.
There is a 'lot' to be hopeful for and the 'memorable' year always seems to be on the Horizon but not quite within our grasp, teased but not yet realised...
So I don't want to get my 'hopes' up for a Gears trilogy or maybe Perfect Dark news, Fable or whatever games I personally want or hope for - I'll just keep enjoying whatever games I have access to - whether on Game Pass or I bought, until games I want to play 'more' release and then look back and hope it will be 'memorable' instead....
Re: Talking Point: 10 Years Later, What Do You Think Of 'The Master Chief Collection' In 2024?
@themcnoisy Oh god yes - I forgot about that Sorry LOL.
I was thinking just about the Multi-player and the single player Campaigns and forgot about those co-op missions.
OK - apart from those few Co-op missions we did together a few years ago, I haven't touched Halo MCC for about 9.5 yrs and unless a friend wants to play it specifically, I doubt I'll return to it in the near future...
Re: Talking Point: 10 Years Later, What Do You Think Of 'The Master Chief Collection' In 2024?
Bought it 10yrs ago and haven't touched it in the past 9.5 yrs - but then I have played the OG halo games and cannot stand the Multi-player. I really don't know why I would still be playing a 10yr old game that in itself has content that is much older as it compiles 'old' games in one new package.
The Campaigns don't exactly take that long and Halo CE is very dated by modern standards. Being impressed by the scale of levels and 'freedom' that gave when it released etc is no longer 'impressive' and as I said, I can't stand the MP so no reason to return to MCC
Re: Limited Run Gets Brutally Honest As Xbox Misses Out On Two New Ports
At the end of the day, the Customers who choose to buy a Series X and buy Physical copies of games are diminishing. The Series S maybe more popular and of course some will choose to play on PC so the ONLY market on Xbox is to those 'Series X' owners who choose to buy Physical - which is a 'small' percentage of the entire Series X owners.
If there were 10m Series X owners and 20% choose to buy Physical, that's just a '2m' market. Combined with the fact that these aren't massive sellers, they probably determine that the costs involved in manufacturing and distributing games exceed the potential sales revenue to determine its not worth it...
Re: Talking Point: Do You Think Xbox Will Ever Stop Making Consoles?
Microsoft arguably don't need to make Consoles today as they have PC/Cloud and 'could' go 3rd Party too or bring Game Pass to Nintendo/Sony hardware - basically the ONLY hardware that MS doesn't 'regularly' release on.
We know certain Games/IP's are 'multi-platform' anyway - games like Minecraft and its Spin-Offs, as well as CoD and no doubt other ABK IP's etc so a good number will be multi-platform.
That being said, I think whilst the Market demands an Xbox console - even if its not as large a market as Sony/Nintendo have due to the fact its not 'necessary' as their games are available elsewhere too, then MS will continue to supply to meet demand.
Whilst you maybe able to play over Cloud or get a decent PC to play 'locally', that isn't the 'option' a lot of people want or have. Cloud may not offer the performance or infrastructure to be 'adequate' for some and PC's maybe too expensive. Consoles also provide an 'ease of use' and simple Plug & play approach which some gamers may prefer - therefore a Market exists.
If that 'market' dwindles as more either 'prefer' Cloud/PC for example, then maybe MS will reconsider, but in the 'near' future, there is demand for a 'Console' within the MS ecosystem...
Re: All Of These Xbox Games Are Celebrating Their 10th Anniversaries In 2024
So many of those I have and played on Xbox too. Sunset Overdrive is probably the standout in that list - such a fun addictive game that the trailers/concept doesn't do justice - A truly underrated gem! I enjoyed Titanfall as well but unplayable today - some maps still stand out to me as incredible and nothing like modern games. Destiny took over my life for a while too but lost me 'early' during Destiny 2.
A lot of great names - Wolfenstein was great - old school yet modern too, Alien Isolation was 'interesting' and nailed the aesthetic and the Evil Within was the RE we needed until RE came back...
Some of those feel like generations ago to me now, yet I started gaming quite a few decades before these released... LOL
Re: Xbox Game Pass Dunks On PlayStation Over Dirt-Cheap Yakuza Deals
@Cikajovazmaj That's $9000 'new' games to Game Pass over the last year, games that 'otherwise' would have cost you $9000 to play - if you 'choose' not to play or deem them not 'worthy' of your time to even try, that is 'your' choice but ultimately, they offered $9000 worth of New titles over the course of this last year!
How you deem the value for your 'measly' monthly sub of $15 or so - which includes all the 'other' benefits - cloud, PC Game Pass, EA Play, Online etc all in one Ultimate tier, that's on you, not the service.
Just because you may not have enjoyed games like Redfall, Forza or Starfield, Lies of P, Atomic Heart or any of the other 3rd Party releases offered doesn't mean that 'value' isn't lost, its not as if the games are here one month, gone the next... They stay a good long time - certainly long enough to complete most games - if you enjoy them enough!
Re: Xbox Game Pass Dunks On PlayStation Over Dirt-Cheap Yakuza Deals
@StonyKL The difference is that £25 may buy you 'just' the Yakuza series but you can 'play' those for even less money and/or maybe not even need to purchase them at all. You aren't paying a 'monthly' fee just to play the Yakuza games - you have access to whole range of other games 'new' & 'older' games. You can even try Yakuza before 'wasting' money on something you may not enjoy or play more than an hour or two.
Services like Game Pass are 'not' for everyone so I can understand why it might not suit some who may want to 'own' their games 'indefinitely'. However, I can also see why many may want to Subscribe to play these and a wide range of titles. I own many games but the 'vast' majority I have either not finished or beat and moved on from. I can't see myself going back and playing Spider-Man, R&C, Last of Us, H:ZD or GoW despite owning these and having that 'option', I'd rather play 'new' games (or at least 'new' to me I missed) than 'replay' a game I'm 'finished' with.
Each to their own of course but I'd imagine those that 'really' wanted to play Yakuza would have bought it - now its 'cheap', its more about trying to tempt those who maybe sat on the fence. Also, just because something is on Game Pass, doesn't mean you can't 'buy' it on sale with the Game Pass Discount on top - assuming you are 'concerned' about losing access long term - but won't cost you any 'extra' to play for FREE if you Subscribe to Game Pass on whatever Platform you have for a 'Range' of games, not just Yakuza....