BAMozzy

I would imagine that if they have 'something' in store for the next 6-12mths, we would see them at the DevDirect (or similar) show. However, I would expect them to focus more on the Games coming 'soon' - like Avowed, Towerbourne, Stalker 2 etc...

@cragis0001 That's also a possibility but I don't think that would have anywhere near the same impact for MS in particular as its also expected for PS5 too and itt being an 'old' game with 'free' update expected for ALL F4 owners, its not really helping Game Pass, not helping MS sell more hardware/subscriptions and its an 'old' game too.

People consider the Series X launched without any 'games' despite Gears 5 and Hivebusters were 'updated' to Series X versions for 'free'. It had Gears Tactics too as well as Forza Horizon 4 free 'update' - didn't really help MS.

STALKER2 perhaps is at least 'new' and whilst its not quite the same as having their OWN first party Shadowdrop and could still be a few weeks out as well at the time, its also a 'known/confirmed' entity so not quite the same surprise. That's why I would think this over F4, but F4 is certainly a possibility too...

I guess we know exactly soon enough - but I am sure MS will hold a DevDirect (or similar) soon to set their roadmap for the upcoming 6-12mnths

@Edwirichuu I enjoyed Valhalla but its your typical Ubisoft open world game and I thought quite Solid. I didn't have any issues really completing virtually everything I could or wanted to do. I don't really enjoy 'fishing' or their 'board' game side quests and the 'modern day' parts aren't frequent.

I would say its probably a decent one to play - although Mirage and earlier AC games (prior to Origins) is more 'typical' of the Franchise - but its still a solid game and I enjoyed it - and completed the Expansions too.

At the end of the day, you can try it yourself for 'nothing' and let the game dictate to you whether or not you continue playing. If you 'enjoy' the opening section, before the game opens up to England, then you'll likely want to keep playing - if not, you'll find something else you enjoy/want to try...

I'm sure MS will have some show to set up the next 6mnths of their road-map - like they did last year. Their 'E3/Summer Show' set's up the Holiday season with some indication of what's coming in the new year - but we still don't have 'release' dates for 2024.

As for a Surprise drop, I could see STALKER 2 being a possibility - a game expected, but obviously the Studio had a very difficult time in recent years and maybe would benefit from extra 'hype' from the publicity of a Stealth drop after the 'troubles' they have endured during its development.

Even if its not on the day, within a few weeks or so could still have a big impact...

@NobleWarrior I couldn't care less who writes, voices or creates the Games I enjoy and if AI can do the job, then I couldn't care less. Why pay some over-priced 'hollywood' star for their 'likeness' or their 'Voice' when another person could have done the same job? They pay it because it acts as Marketing and Hype but at the end of the day, doesn't really change the game.

If AI doesn't do a 'good' job, then you won't buy the game. The fact that a 'human' these days is relying on AI to build more realistic worlds. It's AI that drives a lot of the placement of bushes, trees etc in the Landscape today - the tree's aren't 'handcrafted', individually placed etc - a Lot of it is AI.

Cortana is 'AI' so why not have an AI voice it for example or why not use AI to upscale or AI to fill in a LOT of the space between 'Human' created areas. UE5 has a lot of AI potential that 'help' humans create the games we play today ANYWAY.

Might as well go back to the 'dark ages' before automation came in and 'replaced' a LOT of the Human manual labourers - those who used to work on Farms now replaced by tractors and automated milking parlours so you get your Farm produce at a low cost - not paying a fortune for 'milk' because of all the Staff required to get your pint...

To me these 'Artists, writers' etc complaining about AI is no different from all those farm labourers who were complaining that automation would replace them too...

Definitely NO perfect system because people differ in what they enjoy. For example, I do not enjoy Turn Based Combat and no matter how 'good' the story or anything else maybe, the fact it has a mechanic I cannot stand would obviously have a big impact on whether I play a game, let alone rate it as one of 'my' top 5 games of the year.

If I won't even play games like Gears Tactics or Marvels Midnight Sons due to the 'Game-play' mechanics, regardless of how 'perfectly' used they are, then I'm not going to play a 'sequel' to an IP I've never played (BG3) or have any interest in.

I can't stand Fighting games either so Street Fighter would never get a vote from me. In fact, I'd rather give Redfall a vote than SF6, BG3 etc because despite its 'issues' at launch, it still appeals to me MORE as a 'game', its setting, its general game-play loop, its combat etc.

Availability may impact the results a bit too - the fact that Starfield 'could' be played for free to Game Pass Subscribers may help 'reach' more people to pull in more votes, but games like HiFi Rush, Forza Motorsport, Lies of P, Atomic Heart and even games like Star Wars and Dead Space have been on Game Pass via EA Access and didn't get the 'votes' that Starfield did. Hifi Rush was Critically acclaimed and considered the Highlight of the Dev Direct show in January yet still didn't get the 'votes'.

All you can say is that Starfield had the 'most' votes - in other words, it appeared in many more peoples 'top 5' than any other game by quite some margin and based on Avg Score too, it was rated above 3rd place by most too - not necessarily their 'best' game, but 'decent' enough to consider in their 'top 3' with some others no doubt deciding it was 4th/5th.

I know that if BG3 had released at the SAME time as on Playstation/PC and into Game Pass too, I wouldn't have played it because it does NOT appeal. I've never played a BG game so wouldn't jump in at the 3rd and cannot stand TBC so that's an instant turn off for ME. Therefore it would never get a Vote from 'me' so 'mass' appeal and easy access may well help more in these type of systems.

If you want to think of it another way, Game Pass not only helps gamers 'try' games, the reach also helps them gain popularity and enjoyed by 'more' people who perhaps can now 'vote' for Starfield having played it than BG3 for example with its expensive barrier to entry and with Saving issues perhaps putting people off from buying

It doesn't need to be the 'best' game ever to win these type of things. It just needs to be in MORE peoples Top 5 to accumulate a LOT more points. It's not the 'best' game of the year in my opinion but its not a broken mess of a game that just can't be 'enjoyed'.

There are people with hundreds of hours spent in Starfield so even if it's not 'their' number 1 game of the year, it will no doubt get voted for - therefore accumulate points. It had the most votes by quite some margin and even if those nearly 300 more votes were voting 3rd place or lower, that's a LOT of points more to the overall score...

So why get angry over some game that maybe more 'niche' for want of a better word, not necessarily mass appeal game that you loved wasn't voted #1 for whatever reaffirmation purposes you seem to need, and accept that this shows that some games are more popular and/or enjoyed by more gamers than others despite the 'Vocal' minority who try and bash everything....

Probably made by some well intentioned intern with little/no time who thought it would be a nice gesture to shoutout Indies and the ID@Xbox.

It's only when you zoom in and/or look closely, you can see where the 'art' fails but overall at face value, it looks OK.

Why would you spend 100's if not more on creating a 'twitter' post image? It doesn't make sense to commission 'artists' to create bespoke images for a 'free' post that literally serves no purpose other than to add some more 'pop' to the message.

Whether or not MS can afford to commission bespoke art for a twitter post is not the point. You don't want Companies wasting money on throwaway stuff and would rather keep their costs down so that they don't pass unnecessary expenditure down to the Customers...

@Tasuki As mentioned, MS want you keep bringing your library forward - much like upgrading a GPU doesn't stop you playing games you bought 10yrs ago. So I do expect more an 'evolution' as such - but you also have to look at it from the other side too.

Games are built to use CPU/GPU/RAM at a basic level so ALL consoles have to have the same basic parts to run multi-platform games. 30 years ago, they were developing their own hardware and Software but most games had to be 'built' for their specific hardware.

With modern Consoles also sticking with AMD/nVidia chips that are essentially superior to their former ones, its more like the PC too in that new games are feeling like prettier, maybe more performant versions of games you played a decade ago because Story telling isn't evolving, your not really doing anything you couldn't do before - albeit with fewer polygons and lower quality textures - but still conveyed enough emotion. But really once you have full surround realistic sound, able to practically do anything from 'fly around the Globe, to have hundreds of enemies swarm you at once, there isn't much more they can 'do - other than make it look more realistic, with better lighting/physics and improve the frame rate - its up to the 'devs' now to create something you've never seen or done before to feel truly unique. I doubt you'll have that 'first time' hearing proper speech or the ability to move in 3D instead those asymmetrical attempts at simulating 3D in 2D in gaming because there can't be a 'first' they can't or haven't ben able to with Hardware - unless 'Cloud' and the potential hardware resources they 'could' use to create something unique - but I bet it will still feel more like 'evolution' than completely fresh that changes the gaming landscape

I considered it 'over' the day the Series X released - just so happened to be the day I got my Series X. However, I consider the day they ceased production, stopped making them to be the day the 'Console' over - Anything after is 'legacy support', keeping things ticking over for those still using it - which for MS may still be worthwhile for their Game Pass Ultimate Subscribers for MANY 'years' to come - but I still consider it 'over', like the 360 era stopped when MS ceased making them, but I'm sure for some-one, its still not 'over' for them...

I've said it before and I'll say it again - its a typical Bethesda game and not this amazing 'First Party' AAA game that defines that Console or pushes beyond what '3rd Party multi-platform' games offer as they are not built specifically for the Hardware - as we have come to expect from Gears/Forza or from Sony's first Party games.

I think 'expectation' - because Bethesda stopped being a multi-platform Studio owned by Zenimax into a Microsoft owned first party Studio, expected Bethesda to suddenly 'evolve' from F76 or Fallout 4, their previous games that were 'awful' at launch into the Coalition or Naughty Dog overnight...

It's typical Bethesda - For better or Worse. The same 'Janky' interactions, facial animations etc, the same basic RPG format - just spread out across many Planets instead of a large square open 'world' (or area on a world). If it was Islands and you had to sail to and from Islands, the travelling would get tedious too - especially if much of the Water was empty space and combat only took place around the coast...

Easy C - better than the year before but could have been so much more. We started 2023 on a drought from 2022 but expected Forza, Starfield and Redfall in the first 6 months based on E3 Messaging.

Those 3 'big hitters' that were supposed to be the Start of MS's Quality and Quantity of AAA games coming regularly after massive acquisitions, all really failed to live up to expectations. Not saying they were 'bad' games but not exactly GotY contenders or pushing Gaming/Xbox to a 'new' level

With so much promise coming in, under delivering and wasted potential - particularly Redfall with its state at Launch, I can't justify anything more than a C. That was mostly helped by Hifi Rush, AoE2 and 4, Goldeneye etc as well as those '3'

Blades or Custom Soundtracks - I loved the fact I could make my own Playlists from my CD collection and use those ass the Soundtrack in my game. Driving around with my Music blaring out the Car Stereo was so much better than having the 'in-game' Radio station with the same few tracks on a loop.

I also preferred the Blades to the tiles...

A remake, as far as I am concerned, has something no new game can really compete with - Nostalgia. Even if they 'tweak' things a bit - like Dead Space too, its still hitting all the key moments you remember which hits you right in the Nostalgic feels that new games can't offer.

If anything, I think these games perhaps deserve some award, some recognition - best 'remake/remaster' for example, but NOT a Game of the Year. Game of the Year should relate to ALL the games that are completely 'new', not 10yrs old or more games who had the chance to win GotY the year they 'originally' released.

I do think they deserve recognition - just for the industry to take note of what a 'good' remake/remaster should be - not just changing the output resolution to 4k but still keeping the same 'low' polygon count and dated textures and/or increasing the 'frame-rate'. But should not really be 'Game of the Year' and if an 'old' game is GotY, what does that say about the video game industry? That new games are 'worse' than a 10yr+ game?

I think Starfield is the Game that if they were being 'honest', should have expected. Its so typical of Bethesda in every way - apart from the state of the game at launch.

If MS hadn't bought Zenimax, this is the 'game' Bethesda would have made - it probably would have released 11/11/22 with many more bugs, glitches etc that you'd be waiting for them to patch. It would still be the same Engine, Same Character designs, same RPG mechanics, same physics, maybe Combat would be worse and more 'clunky', but its exactly what you'd expect from the SAME Studio that made Fallout 3, 4, 76, Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim and ESO.

It seems that SOME expected Microsoft to suddenly Change Bethesda, get them to 'evolve' into some mythical Developers. Maybe even Change to a new Game Engine so more 'modern' looking Presentation, somehow transform them from being the 'Bethesda' they always have been into a studio that makes the 'impossible' a reality and significantly raises the bar for the rest to 'try' and catch up to - a generation defining Game...

I haven't played 'every' Bethesda game, and those I have, only a few at 'Launch'. Their 'last' Single-player RPG, Fallout 4, wasn't great at Launch, the Base building is very Clunky and the Combat too isn't great - much more fluid in Starfield. In my opinion, its the 'best' Bethesda game at Launch, but that's not necessarily a high bar to beat.

However, it is a typical Bethesda game (for better or worse) and pretty much what I expected - maybe 'better' than I expected as I expected Combat to be 'Clunky' and 'more' bugs/issues than I encountered.

Not my GotY, but I can say it's pretty much what I expected.

@OldGamer999 But then the devs were more concerned about the 'next' game. They didn't support the game once it released anyway. When the Gen moved, those games were 'obsolete', old and now replaced by much newer experiences.

Its only in the last 'decade' or so that Game Preservation and Long term support have become 'important' to gamers. If you wanted to play Goldeneye, regardless of how 'poor' that performs on N64, you had to keep your N64 - no support, no updates etc and if you 'upgraded' to new gen, those 'old' games were left behind...

@Friendly I doubt it, that 'lawsuit' was settled and no proof of any systemic issues were brought to court as 'evidence' so with them 'restructuring' and 'new' management to Answer to as part of the Microsoft company, they are unlikely to try and Sue him now he is gone.

I can't speak for anyone, but I think its a Massive 'win' overall for the employees of 'ABK' as its brought about 'change' for them and their 'future'. Kotick will be gone and they have a much 'bigger' support network, able to join Unions and of course MS's own working practices/policies which many were 'recommended' that ABK adopted and implemented which they supposedly have in the past year or so - You could say in 'preparation to bring them up to MS's standards but they say were 'recommended'.

So what benefit would dredging up the past do when things are 'changing' for the better for those that had to work in those environments - unless it's still persisting...

Sometimes its better to move on. Kotick will have to live with that 'stain' on his name regardless but the 'future' for ABK looks positive to me. Considering the 'size' of ABK, the amount of Studio's they had, and their 'output' - yet people complained about MS's when they had less than half the staff working on games!

I don't think I'll get enough 'value' over time with a Ubisoft Subscription personally. If I had a month where I could bang through AC and/or Avatar, I'd still rather just pick them up in a sale in a few months time and play as and when I want and not feel I want to get it done before I have to pay 'more' to keep playing.

Based on my previous decade of gaming, I don't buy more than 1 or 2 Ubisoft games a year at most and as their games drop quickly in price, I can wait until they drop low enough (or come to a Sub service I have) as I am never 'desperate' for something to play that I must play Day 1 and pay the Premium for that. Therefore I won't be Subscribing to Ubisoft+ in the near future.

That's £180 a year that I could easily buy all the Ubisoft games I want to play released that year and play them 5yrs from now if I want...

Haven't really wanted to get back in at the moment and side-tracked on other things, but I do plan on returning at some point

There are 'fans' of this? LOL

@MrMagic Point I was trying to make is that I'd probably buy/upgrade my PC to play 3rd Party Multi-platform releases at 'PC like' Visual Quality and Performance.

GTA6 may come out 'later' on PC but I would make do with Series X or PS5. Besides the fact that games like Perfect Dark, Hellblade 2, Fable etc etc as well as ALL the other 3rd Party Multi-platform release would 'benefit' from investing more into the PC, than buying a mid-gen upgrade. Even games like Cyberpunk, an 'old' game now would automatically be 'enhanced' on PC with an 'upgrade' - no guarantee they'll 'patch' in some pro enhancements in a year or more.

Not only that, there is NO guarantee Sony's PS5 Pro will offer a '4k/60' option - it may still be a 30fps. It may have 'frame generation', but that's like 'motion blur', a 'visual' option to smooth out motion by 'faking' the look of higher frame rates.

Time will tell of course, but I wouldn't buy a mid season upgrade for a 'handful' of games that I can't play elsewhere at 'better' Quality. I am not a fan of GTA anyway - so I certainly wouldn't buy a Console just to play GTA

@BoiAster I don't know - it may depend on what other aspects are being 'used' to achieve that metric - for example, they could use their own bespoke 'upsampling' (instead of FSR) and its own form of Frame generation. It could still run at 1440/30 for example but use Sony's proprietary hardware to upsample and add frames similar to DLSS to 'boost' the presentation.

As for Xbox, they already have a 'solution' to deliver their games at 4k/60 with RT etc and that's the PC. A PS5 Slim already costs ~£450 so how much would a Pro cost? £650? £750+ to add any 'meaningful' upgrade over a PS5. High end PC owners aren't going to buy a Series X, let alone an 'Elite' version to play games they can on PC.

Of course that doesn't mean they wouldn't create a 'next' gen Console for those that 'prefer' the Console experience and its ease of use so instead of making an 'elite' which is also locked to the Series S/X and therefore won't get 'bespoke' releases if they can't scale down to Series S, it makes more sense to start a 'new' Gen.

But the point of 'Xbox' trying to 'compete' with PC's and their ability to offer 4k, 60+ Frame Rates and much higher RT settings etc too is somewhat redundant as the PC/Xbox are part of the same Ecosystem. Its not GTA6 so much as if people were 'concerned' about Series X performance for example, they'd probably own a decent Gaming PC to ensure they get 4k/60 - same with Perfect Dark, Fable or Hellblade 2 for example.

I'd probably upgrade my PC - I have a 3080ti GPU - rather than buy a PS5 Pro just to play GTA6 at 'better than' the current Consoles can offer. However, if Sony had a few 'exclusives' that would be significantly 'enhanced' by a PS5 Pro and they appeal to me, then it makes sense.

This also doesn't 'compare' whether all that 'extra' work on Physics like the tyre contact points etc has had any major difference in the way the cars feel when driving.

I'd likely accept that 'Forza' perhaps has sacrificed some 'visual' elements if they traded the resources required for those in a meaningful way that separated the games in the way the cars feel, handle etc.

I must agree that as a 'game' with the aim of giving players a great Single player and/or MP game that celebrates 'Motorsport' and 'Car Culture', something that can go from Casual to hardcore Sim and still bring players in, GT7 is a better Package. Some of that maybe down to maturing from Launch where Forza felt 'light' to begin with and hasn't yet really matured as a Game - but Forza does feel 'soulless' and somewhat less fun, more grindy and not really what I want/expect from a Forza game.

Being criticised for having 'empty, lifeless' planets/moons in this game that people can 'visit' if they choose is not what I call a major flaw in the design.

The setting and story is based on 'reality' - its NASA influence is evident. The point is that 'every' planet/moon can be visited now you have conquered Space Flight, and like the 'mountains' in Skyrim in the distance may not have ANY reason to visit, you can 'choose' to go to the extreme limits of the Game World.

It wouldn't be right to expect every one of the 1000 planets to be settled and/or have some major reason to visit, and would likely be somewhat limiting if you can only visit Planets that have Story/missions on with a 'Space' ship that should be able to go to those other planets.

Personally, I don't criticise the 'design' of a game - after all, that is the Devs choice for their game. I can criticise the execution or the technical limitations that may impact that design - like the old engine that makes the Game look and feel dated, where travelling between planets feels more cumbersome and makes the game feel bitty too but I can see why the game design is like it is because its in keeping with the setting/story.

I think its biggest issue is the engine and the fact that so much seems 'copy/pasted' and reskinned from Fallout/ES games so doesn't exactly feel like Bethesda have 'evolved' in 20yrs or created their first 'New' game that feels 'fresh'.

I don't think I have Lost any save - I may have, but haven't returned to that game to find out.

I have had numerous 'sync' messages come up and I recall one taking a bit longer than I expected - but that seemed to resolve itself.

I know I'd be gutted if I lost a lot of progress - I know how annoyed I can get if I lose just 30-60mins worth if a Game crashes. It often makes me turn off and go do something else for a while instead of restarting immediately.

Cloud saves makes most sense for Xbox Ecosystem - being able to play on PC and/or Cloud too means that I can play on Cloud whilst on my XB1 in the bedroom, maybe carry on playing on my Laptop/RoG Ally until I can get on the Series X thanks to Cloud saves. It would be a nightmare with 'Local' only saves...

@The_Pixel_King I would imagine - although don't quote me on this, that it would be an update for PS5 too as that specific Fallout Game was and still remains on Playstation and MS did say they would continue to support ALL games that are on Other Platforms, not pull them.

I could see Fallout 5 being Exclusive because these games are NOT 'sequels' as such but Self contained Single Player games. You have to create your character and its not tied to the previous game - other than by 'lore' - there are 'no' fans of Fallout 5, its setting or its story, but there are Fans of Fallout 4 on PS hardware.

But Games like Fallout 4, Skyrim, F76, ESO etc were released on Playstation and so I do expect that MS will continue to Support these - unless Sony themselves make that 'difficult' by not sending SDK's or maybe demanding it's a 'separate' PS5 release with its own SKU.

Time will tell of course, but I would be surprised if its just 'Xbox'. That doesn't mean it won't be Exclusive but I think the PR would be 'better' if they did and it also keeps with their 'commitment' to keep those games supported on Playstation for the Fans of those games.

@OldGamer999 Chances are, its a 'small' group of devs that are working on this whilst others are working on Starfield stuff, others maybe working on ES6, whilst another group maybe working on F76 and/or ESO content.

Certain parts of 'Game' development can't start until others have 'finished' their part. You can't have voice Actors in until scripts are written for example. Maybe can't create cut-scenes until the voice work and/or storyboard artist has finished their work - Character design or Environmental artists maybe can't start until they have concept art or been to visit the 'area' the Game is set in, taken photo's etc...

Point is, if they aren't working on the 'next' game yet, it maybe due to the fact that the 'new' game isn't far enough along to require them to 'work' on it with their Skill set. Its better to keep them employed and working on 'older' stuff until they maybe required to work on the newer stuff....

I've been saying for the past 2-3yrs that a remastered Gears Collection would make a LOT of sense. Gears 2 and 3 were only on the 360, at least I don't think 2-3 released on PC, so a remastered package would bring those to PC too.

With UE5 being 'new' too, what better way to get fully up to speed with Developing a Game in that new Engine than remaking Gears? You have 'everything' already to essentially act as a 'template' and so its more about learning the 'engine' than trying to create something 'new' whilst also trying to get to grips with UE5.

Personally I would be much more interested in a Marcus Fenix Collection than Gears 6 as I find the newer games lacking in the 'horror' of 'War'. Things seemed darker, more emotional and better characters - but I do want 'Gears 6' to finish off that arc. I still think that 4 and 5 should be Gears (no of War) 1 and 2, so we need Gears 3, but I really want them to go back to the 'Gears of War'.

I also hope that in remaking Gears 1-3, they would ALL have a better understanding of why those games stood out, why 4 and 5, whilst 'solid' enough from a 'technical' perspective, didn't connect as well with their Campaigns. Bring back that 'Darkness' that War brings...

@eire-shabba 4 modes over 6 maps will be available as the 'core' MP mode - although you do get 3 Maps of their 'big team' MP Ground War mode too to try out.

You also get access to their Zombies mode too - a co-op only mode

@Kienda I would imagine that Playstations gamers in general are very similar to Xbox gamers - you'll have those that play daily for hours on end and others that may only play an hour or two (average) a week due work/life commitments etc.

Its possible to imagine that Playstation gamers may spend 'more' time (average) on each game they play - but Xbox gamers may play 'more' games overall due to Game Pass for example. If you only have 1000hrs to game a year, that could be spread over half a dozen or so games on PS for example or double the Games on Xbox but the 'engagement' is the same even if that is 'spread' out of more games...

Then you have others that may have multiple Platforms - maybe a PC and Console so only play Exclusives which equate to 1-2hrs a week. Some may only get a few hours a week maximum to 'game' too...

@GuyinPA75 I don't know - I don't play Halo MP - I just know they added each 'game' and their MP Maps and from an 'Xbox' perspective, it would seem 'Complete' and other than bringing something, new - which that Map technically would for Console gamers if they haven't added it already, then with Forge and everything else in that '10yr' old game - although dates back even longer with 'Halo: CE' in OG format, not Anniversary, it would seem complete!

It would seem to be a 'complete' package, basically 'everything' from the original games that Console gamers (at the very least) remember as a 'compilation' of a decade of Halo games that released on Xbox and Xbox 360 - now 'obsolete' hardware effectively. The servers are turned off so you can't play those MP Maps unless you play on Halo:MCC. That map was 'never' on Console to 'lose' access to...

Now you have 'every' Halo game and the Content from OG Xbox and the 360 era all playable and 'preserved' in the Halo:MCC so every Halo game is playable - inc its MP on XB1/Series Consoles.

E3 was a 'trade' show and the writing was on the wall for years with the rise in internet users, youtube etc. Companies don't 'need' to spend a fortune to attend a trade show to tell the press what they have planned for the year ahead so they can go write up articles to inform the 'Gamers', the Gamers now get their info straight from youtube/twitch,

Companies know that they can put out a video and get their message out so E3 became less and less important to both companies and the 'Trade'. You don't 'need' to go to E3 now to play some game to write about it, they can be sent a digital download.

E3 didn't evolve quickly enough and perhaps should of shifted its focus to Consumers and it becoming the start of the run into the Holiday season - a 'Summer Game Fest' for the Gamers - not the press/trade that E3 was...

I am not expecting to want to play South of Midnight as I wasn't much of a fan of their previous games - I am not expecting a AAA massive budget/big team game - something more akin to We Happy Few.

As for 2024, time will tell - but I never really look beyond the 'next' release coming. All the other projects in development are only of 'interest' and want to see/hear more before I can get excited by any game. By the time its 'next' to release, I'll know whether to be 'excited', interested to see how it reviews or lost interest entirely. At the moment, I have 'no' Xbox game I'm 'excited' for as I haven't seen/heard enough yet to be 'excited' and I don't know what is actually next to release.

I'm 'not' excited for any game in 2024 - yet. Nothing is 'close' to release that I am excited to play - although there is a LOT of games that I am very interested in...

And I hear Fntastic (or whatever the studio was called) have shut down too after the massive disappointment and feedback from the Day Before...

So many Studios seem to be in trouble but how many of the 'creators' of those great games remain? I expect many have moved to other Studio's or set up their own 'independent' Studio to create 'games' they want to make, not get stuck making more of the 'same' game year after year after year.

No one likes to hear of job losses etc so I wish everyone luck in seeking alternative employment and whilst it is 'sad' the Studio has gone, I hope we see some new studios come along.

Visceral, creators of Dead Space, got closed down - but went on to create Sledgehammer games. The head of which left to create Striking Distance (creators of the Callisto Project). The creators of CoD are no longer at IW either so whilst some may disappear, others aren't the 'same' Studio anymore and/or become a 'new' Studio...

@S-Bacc yeah - its like awarding a 7/10 average game an Award for just delivering what you should expect from a game instead of giving to games that 'exceed' expectations and/or go above/beyond the minimum standards you should expect.

I see it as their job to make a game, fix any issues with that game and deliver the Content they 'promised' even if that is 'post-launch' content on the road-map presented 'before' launch. Therefore that Content was expected anyway - not above/beyond expectations to merit an award. Of course they could be eligible for best DLC content award or if they had an award for 'most improved' game (which I think would encourage some to release 'early' to have the 'most' to improve to win that award), maybe but that Support had to be 'necessary' because the game was so much of a mess to begin with - unplayable for 'many'.

It already has all the content from all the Halo's prior to its release, including all the MP content and more besides. I guess the ONLY thing they 'could' do is update the Visuals but unrealistic

The purpose, as I see it, is to keep those old Games playable on modern hardware - even via BC as the OG/360 era games are no longer (or will be soon) able to offer Online play - game 'preservation' of a sort.

There can't be much more to add - other than more 'recent' Halo games into the package in reality and if its in a 'good' state, then it doesn't need ongoing work and move on to 'new' projects. Its not as if they can't 'update' something if it goes wrong in the future...

@S-Bacc There is a big difference between given Devs some credit for sticking by their game and 'fixing' it to be the game they 'promised' at Launch, not just writing it off as a 'bad' product and moving on quickly to something else and releasing a 'great' game at launch and then supporting it with additional content that keeps players engaged and/or even bring new players in long beyond its 'expected' life cycle.

Giving an 'award' to a Game that was 'not' what gamers expected and paid top price for (as games are most expensive at launch), that they couldn't 'play' until months/years later when the game is now much cheaper too doesn't sit right with me.

As I said, I have no issue with acknowledging the fact that those Developers have turned their games around, snatched some victory from the jaws of defeat so to speak, but to give an award for 'finally' getting the game in its best state and its 'promised' post launch content out is saying that this is acceptable practice.

I'd rather they awarded it to games that were good to start with, get out all the 'promised' post launch content on time etc, then because the game is 'still' popular, go above and beyond to continue to support the Community that still play. If CoD for example was expected to end after 1yr, but they continue to support it with new maps, new modes, new content beyond what was promised/expected, then that deserves an Award more than a game that 'finally' gets the Game and all the promised Content, features etc out and in a great playable state - that was what you 'expect' from the Game anyway. So Awards should go above and beyond expectations - not fixing issues and adding content that was 'promised' before launch...

I remember playing Doom on the PC but was influenced by some 3D Maze games that also put you in a First Person perspective. I'm sure one had a tank that shot to clear enemies, but that was a 'fixed' barrel and only shot forward - couldn't aim up/down/left/right. As tech advanced, the mazes became more complex with more 'verticality' and gave more control to aim so games like Doom evolved from those early 3D maze games in my opinion.

That being said, Doom is still the grand-daddy of the FPS genre as it was that games, especially with its MP, that inspired and pushed others to create their own FPS games and popularising the 'FPS' genre. For some, their 'first' may have been Goldeneye a few years later or Quake but Doom was the first I know that popularised the MP aspect of FPS.

Talking of id Software, I wonder if they are 'ready' to reveal what they will follow up Doom: Eternal with. Personally didn't enjoy or play the MP modes on the recent Dooms, and prefer Doom 2016 to Doom: Eternal myself...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I really don't think ANY Studio should be praised for getting their game up to the standard expected and with the content/features etc promised finally added. Getting awards for 'turning' a disaster launch into the game those players expected eventually is promoting bad practices.

Ongoing support should be for games that 'continue' to add content etc above and beyond the expected or promised content in my opinion...

@Markatron84 I certainly won't hold my breath - but things do change during development and the game isn't officially released yet either - its early access beta.

I don't know about the Devs or the Studio but they wouldn't be the first to 'over-promise' and 'under-deliver'. My point is that maybe this isn't the full product, its an 'early' build to get some feedback and constructive criticism. Its not a full price release and could still be years away from its 'full' release.

I won't hold my breath, but I also don't tend to buy into games before they are fully realised so I can make a more informed decision about whether to buy. I wouldn't be critical of a project in development - particularly 'early' development as things can progress and change by the time it does get a full release.

All I can say is that early impressions are not great and it seems they need to do a LOT of work to get the game up to the standards we expect and they 'promised'. Its early access may well of proved the game exists, but also now may kill off its chances of being 'successful' - but also maybe tell the developers that they are a LONG way from realising their ambition and nowhere near 'ready' to release the game in this state....

To be 'fair', there was a LOT of scepticism that this game would actually release with some claiming it doesn't exist. Therefore this 'early' Access Beta is proof that they have developed 'something' and therefore proving those people 'wrong'.

However, and here is the crunch point, it really does seem that it is 'very' early access - not well optimised, not exactly well populated and rather 'basic' and clunky movement too.

For its setting too, it seems particularly empty. A big City with all those Skyscrapers that 1000's of People would occupy, yet you maybe only see 1-3 'Zombies' - hardly a 'Survival' game when it seems so deserted and empty.

It either requires a LOT of work to bring that 'early' access Beta to the potential they themselves aimed for before it goes on General release or its another game that promised more and under-delivers at release. Whether they turn it around (No Mans Sky/Cyberpunk) or not, either before 'general' launch or after, time will tell, but it hasn't created the right 'first impression' with this 'early access' game.

Finished the Campaign and everything possible in that campaign - enjoyed it overall, a solid 7.5, and have never been interested in the 'Multi-player' Aspect and likely, never will.

I bought into Microsoft Xbox on the Strength of what Halo: Combat Evolved would bring to Console as a fantastic Campaign - with a 'bolt on arcade MP to take advantage of Xbox Gold. When Halo 2 came out, it had a much bigger 'Gold' base and the MP 'took off' but the Campaign was still 'priority'...

But MP is where they can 'milk' the IP and fanbase with seasonal Battle Passes, extortionate 'cosmetic' bundles (a Skin bundle can cost more than many games cost) etc so the campaigns are somewhat being 'neglected' to cater to the repeated 'money' generator of Live Service over single player 'meaningful' campaigns.

To be honest, this is pretty much what I expected from an Ubisoft open world game. The setting may change and be a lot more sci-fi than their Far Cry, Assassins Creed etc games leading to a more 'unique' environment, but many of the Ubisoft 'filler' and repeated missions are present too.

The typical Ubisoft Enemy bases to take out, fetch quests etc and the usual 'resource' gathering busy work wrapped in an Avatar skin. Its pretty much what I expected from a Ubisoft open world game. Doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable, but may explain the range of reviews.

Its an Ubisoft game so no doubt will be cheap in a month or two. I'm in no rush to play it, but I'd give it a go at the right price...

Whilst most of these make 'sense' in the fact that the main part of their support and overturning potential criticism into what players 'hoped' it could be was the 'Live Service' element - its a shame that some had to start from trying to get their game to 'expected' launch status so kudos for 'post launch' fixes and/or adding missing features promised - eventually - is not what I consider great post launch support - its fixing what should have been the launch experience - now let them give us some great post launch content....

Looks typical of GTA and not something I'm particularly interested in from a Game-play perspective although obviously a leap in graphics as expected.

By GTA4, I lost interest in the IP and cannot stand GTA Online so I expect to give this a miss too, like GTA5...

I doubt I'll bother staying up beyond midnight and I doubt that anything major will surprise drop that I can't wait until morning at least to find out about.

The thing is that Microsoft now has a much larger group of Studio's now and instead of 'pressurising' studio's to make 'certain' games to fit an IP that stifles their creative freedom, they can now let them make the Games they really want to make. The 'next' Halo won't seem so long a wait if you have all these 'other' IP's and games coming from ALL these Studios - even if some will be on Playstation (at least) too.

The hope is that a studio would want to make a Game with Banjo, with Conker or with any other Iconic character (Blinx?) from their catalogue of IP's. MS can obviously 'suggest' some creative ideas could be developed further IF they were to use their IP's for example, but it seems MS won't dictate as such but could make some Suggestions to help Studio's focus on 'something'...

@CourtneyDL Couldn't agree more...

Also, just think of all the IP''s Toy's for Bob could use in a Kart Racer or Party Brawler etc Obviously there is Banjo, Conker, Crash, Spyro etc, but you could have Marcus Fenix, Master Chief, Doom guy, Joanna Dark, BJ, Fallout boy, Senua as well as 'iconic' CoD/WoW etc etc caricatures too.

But I'd probably prefer a good old fashioned 3D Platformer to those more multiplayer focused games these days - although the potential for some great 'combat' shooter game mash-up with ALL the major iconic Shooter games in their rosta now is there. Definitely see more crossover cosmetics for sale no doubt too - unfortunately LOL

'Wanting to' and 'plans in place to actually do that in the 'near' future' are two very different things and can both co-exist - LONG term, it would make sense for MS to 'want' Game Pass Available on EVERY possible device inc Nintendo/Sony hardware - but that doesn't mean they have a plan in place to do so when they are not yet fully up to speed with their Cloud streaming service and all these 'new' handheld devices coming on the market - inc Windows 11 PC hardware handhelds too from a 'tech' side to sort out.

Not only that, the 'Xbox' side has just massively grown with the acquisition of ABK. No doubt there is a LOT of planning and work ahead to merge and integrate ALL these new Teams into one big productive gaming unit under MS, get them pushing each other, put also helping each other too to produce Games in reasonable time and quality standards 'expected' from a First Party studio.

So I do believe that they have NO PLANS to bring Game Pass to Nintendo/Sony platforms and potentially won't need to, maybe they may 'ask' first or decide to want to 'trade' services so you can 'stream' Nintendo or Sony games from their services on ANY hardware (inc) Xbox but can ONLY download/buy games native to the hardware from 'their' respective store.

I also believe that 'long' term, they want Game Pass on EVERY device inc ANY future Playstation or Nintendo console so therefore BOTH statements can still be FACT and make logical sense....

All things considered and what the Studio and its development team has had to cope with over the past few years, there is absolutely nothing I would criticise about this. It's a miracle it is still coming along...