101Force

Exclusivity deals appear (at least in the US) in the same legislation that regulates monopolies for a reason: They can have a similar effect on the market. The problem is exclusivity deals are a lot more difficult to prove.

They're not wrong in the sense that both PlayStation consoles and the Switch vastly outsell Xbox consoles. I'd argue consoles as we know them have less than a decade left, before there is a transition to streaming/cloud-based services offered straight through consumer TVs though.

Edit: This is what frustrates me about Microsoft, with the above in mind you'd think they (and their subsidiaries) would focus on games that close the gap on their consoles instead of directly competing with the strong third-party titles that are released for them.

They should have softened the blow by officially announcing the friends & family Game Pass bundle for most markets as well.

Halo "Infinite" should have been exactly that by using a tile-based procedural generation system for objective-based campaigns. Even just dividing the map into 4 interlocking parts and then carefully crafting 10 options for each results in 5,040 possible combinations. Add some clever rules for enemy and item placement and adjusting the goal, and it would be a blast to play... especially with friends in (both local and online) co-op or deathmatch.

Edit: For context, the team that developed Rico, a game that uses procedural generation, had less than 25 people, and whatever shortcomings the game had could have been overcome and improved upon by a team of 500, like the team that developed Halo Infinite.

@NEStalgia : With "couch VR" you'd still be using an analogue stick to move in those types of games, so I don't really see VR-aiming as a huge win, especially when strafing, quickly turning around, etc. The type of advantages offered VR-aiming are similar enough to the gyroscopic aiming in Resident Evil 4 for the Wii and while it's certainly fun, the game found far greater success on the PS3 and Xbox 360. And I'd argue that's because without a specific degree of immersion people tend to prefer to play on a TV.

@NEStalgia : I think the only "couch VR" that appeals to me are racing games, flight sims, and a handful of other games. For FPS games, RPGs, adventure games, etc. I'd rather play on a TV instead of "couch VR", if those are the only options available to me. And maybe I'm in the minority, but I suspect the sentiment is common enough.

Microsoft is right to stay out of VR, there's a real risk it remains a niche consumer market that doesn't really grow over the long-term.

Some of the most populated areas — where most consumers live — are facing an affordability crisis that is resulting in the construction of apartments and condos that are too small for VR. And the real wages / buying power of the general population is declining while the cost of VR remains relatively high.

I suspect Starfield will prove to be a strong GOTY contender in various magazines and on various websites, but I feel it's still too soon to say with any real certainty.

A remake or new entry in the series would be great and all but...

...the id Tech 1 engine and its derivatives are so simple by today's standards that it's a real shame there isn't a finely-tuned roguelike variant of the engine for Hexen, Doom, Strife, etc. A limitless variety of levels would be a blast, especially for local co-op or deatmatch on Xbox consoles.

It's a single-player game, I'm not too fussed about it.

For context, Tears of the Kingdom has a dynamic resolution between 720 and 900P and runs between 20 and 30 FPS... and a lot of people still enjoy that game.

At this point I'd say only one of two things would lead me to consider Ubisoft+:

• A price drop.
• A substantial amount of unique gaming content that can't otherwise be bought.

As a sales strategy, it would make a lot of sense for any game that had a day-one Game Pass release to leave the service just before releasing (either free or paid) DLC. And considering how much of a blast this game is for local co-op, I'd probably be willing to buy it and the DLC.

On the original console? No, I'm just not familiar enough with its library. But I do wish Dark Messiah of Might and Magic: Elements for the Xbox 360 was backwards-compatible. And naturally I wish F.E.A.R. was available in the digital store.

It's about time.

Since the launch ofthe Xbox Series X|S I've had three complaints about controllers: There are no gyroscopic controls, there are no easy ways to use hall effect joysticks, and compatible arcade sticks start around $250. At least this addresses the last one, I think I'll get two for game nights.

Resident Evil 5, and more games like it. The local co-op is a blast.

All they need to add is up to 4-player local multiplayer to get a purchase from me.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm not overly fond of any of the layouts. I'd prefer (customizable) groups on the left that temporarily hide when you go into them, and tiles with fixed sizes (of your choosing) that scroll up or down as you explore them, similar-ish to Netflix. And it would be cool if when you pushed the menu button on a tile you had the option to view a manual for that game.

Of course they did, they don't want to bring attention to the size of Tencent — the largest video game company in the world, even with Activision-Blizzard under Microsoft.

Edit: Tencent also has the largest Cloud Streaming Services platform in the world, although it's currently a B2B product.

I'm looking forward to this game, but it's a damn shame it doesn't feature local co-op or deathmatch, it could have easily become a fixture of my gaming party nights.

The answer is that it makes for easy theatrics, to fool the public into thinking the CMA is actually doing their job. The reality is that the CMA turns a blind eye to acquisitions that have a far greater impact on people's lives, such as acquisitions in the medical and property sectors.

And yet the CMA is turning a blind eye to acquisitions that have a direct impact on people's lives, such as Pfizer's upcoming acquisition of Seagen, proving their opposition to Microsoft's acquisition of Activision-Blizzard is little more than theatrics.

Just The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom here...

As a Series S gamer... I'm too poor to game on a PC, although I am currently a Game Pass Ultimate subscriber.

Despite the rave reviews for BOTW and BOTW2, those games (and other first-party Nintendo titles) aren't alone in carrying the Switch. Microsoft should learn from that and license inactive/unused IPs to indie studios (with some reasonable oversight), prioritize games that offer local multiplayer, and prioritize games that fill out the genres that are somewhat lacking on Xbox.

Edit: As of typing this, there are "more than 5,000 games...and counting" available for the Switch according to Nintendo.com. A lot of it is shovelware of course, but that volume allows Nintendo to hit a lot of specific demographics regardless. Without a similar volume of releases Xbox needs a higher percentage of hits for each demographic, or a large number of demographics at any rate. And this is why Redfall was so perplexing to me, even if it were a smash-hit at release it would have catering to a demographic that is already well-supported by third-parties on Xbox.

If successful, people will say Microsoft just bought political connections.

But as I've said before, considering regulatory bodies like the CMA are turning a blind eye to acquisitions that will affect consumers a lot more than the acquisition of a video game company, eg: Pfizer's upcoming acquisition of Seagen, it really does seem like opposition to the Activision-Blizzard acquisition are theatrics meant to fool the public into thinking these regulatory bodies are doing their jobs.

I think the best any of us can say at this point is that it will be an uphill battle.

Having said that, considering regulatory bodies like the CMA turn a blind eye to more serious and meaningful acquisitions, such as Pfizer's upcoming acquisition of Seagen, the opposition to Microsoft's acquisition of Activision-Blizzard seems like theatrics meant to fool the public into thinking these regulatory bodies are actually doing their job.

For me it's Prey, no contest. I wish they'd remake it as a side-scrolling Metroidvania.

> "We lost the worst generation to lose in the Xbox One generation where everybody built their digital library of games."

I'm usually in agreement with Phil Spencer's views, but statements like this make me wish I could have an hour of his time over a beer or coffee (if he ever made his way to the Canadian West Coast...)

There were four times as many Xbox One consoles sold as Nintendo's console from the same generation, the Wii U, but its successor, the Switch, is currently one of the best selling consoles of all time. This demonstrates that while consumers can get attached to their digital libraries, the bottom-line is the gaming experience. And while there are great gaming experiences to be had on Xbox, it's frustrating watching Microsoft (mostly) ignore certain demographics that would go a long way to enriching the gaming experience as well, such as local co-op, licensing dormant IPs to indie studios, and certain genres of video games.

@Bleachedsmiles : I haven't used Microsoft's streaming platform for a while either, but I found it was dependent on whether or not I was using a wired connection. I saw in the news yesterday that Tencent now ranks number one in the world as a cloud technology provider though.

@WallyWest : I don't think it really matters why Microsoft's acquisition was blocked. I think Microsoft is simply more likely to raise formal complaints about competitors — especially with respect to issues they've previously ignored — now that their business plans have been blocked.

I said this elsewhere, but:

• Raising formal complaints about Tencent's recent move toward cloud gaming.
• Raising formal complaints about Sony's exclusivity deals (which are subject to regulation).
• Acquiring indie studios with IPs that have franchise potential.
• Acquiring IPs that have yet to be made into video games.

And if they're smart:

• Pushing the Series S as a "family" or "party" machine by prioritizing local co-op games.

Even if Microsoft is able to move forward with this acquisition after appeals, this whole ordeal is bound to leave a sour taste in their mouth. I expect more formal complaints about Sony's exclusivity deals — which it should be stressed are subject to regulation — and the acquisition of both indie studios and IPs that have yet to be made into games that have franchise potential.

Obviously it depends on whatever measures are implemented to ensure quality, but I'd like to see an Xbox IP licensing system for indie studios — at least for dormant or inactive IP.

Pretty wild that the US taxes prize winnìngs. That's not how it works in Canada, is that the case in the UK?

The Series X is powerful enough and I expect a large uptick in sales when Starfield is released. The problem with the Series S is that it's been advertised exclusively as a cost-effective option, but it would be a better fit for the "family" or "party" machine demographic like the Wii was in the early 2010s — if Microsoft put more of an effort into bringing games that support local multiplayer to the platform.

@AverageJoseph : If you're referring to the update that I think you are, you can tweak the UI in the settings to reflect the earlier style.

Local multiplayer?

I'd like to believe it's coming back with an updated/newer version of the Northlight Engine, bringing it up in quality to that of Control, but I've got a bad feeling about this...

Hopefully the remaster does something about the text size in the console ports. Playing it on a Series S, sitting a few feet back from a TV, is difficult since it was clearly meant to be played up close on a monitor. The option to choose between horizontal or vertical split screen for local co-op would be nice too.

The issue here is exclusivity agreements specifically — those are regulated by anti-competition laws and could land any business that relies on them too much or applies certain conditions in any one agreement in a lot of hot water.

@Phornix : Hey now, you're reading into my comment and making assumptions about me here.

I'm not suggesting the only reason to be interested in local multiplayer is for budgetary reasons, and I've repeatedly suggested here on Pure Xbox that Microsoft should promote the Series S as a "party" or "family" machine by encouraging more local multiplayer titles. But Microsoft hasn't done that, they've really only promoted the Series S as a budget-conscious option and my comment was made in that regard.

It seems to me if Sony is unwilling to work with Microsoft and regulators — particularly the generous 10-year COD offer — they should get nothing.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of Xbox Series S owners are in a financial situation where local multiplayer is more attractive than online play, which would make dropping split-screen support for Baldur's Gate III on the Series S a real shame.

It seems to me as though the Xbox brand plays and important role in supporting Microsoft's software services and products, eg: Windows and DirectX.

Given all the hoops Microsoft has gone through maybe next time they'll just buy the IPs outright.

@JayJ : The majority of the population in the target markets is in urban centers — 84% in the UK, 75% in the EU, 83% in the US, 82% in Canada, 92% in Japan, 81% in South Korea, 65% in China, 81% in Mexico, and 87% in Brazil — and high-speed internet exists in some rural areas of these countries as well. Clearly maximizing profits in high-speed internet areas by transitioning to cloud/streaming game services would vastly outweigh the losses caused by the exclusion of slow-internet customers.

If they can sort out splitscreen co-op that would make it an insta-buy for me. There aren't nearly enough games with local multiplayer for the Xbox unfortunately.

Cloud/streaming game services give publishers greater control over piracy, cheating, and mods, it can potentially reach a larger consumer base than any other type of platform, and it provides publishers with a consistent revenue stream. Every single AAA developer — even the likes of Sony and Nintendo — will probably transition exclusively to cloud/streaming game services in the next decade or so. And most of the objections people have to this may be legitimate concerns from a consumer's perspective, but not from the publisher's. What's less clear is if indie developers will be able to make a living after that transition has happened.

With headlines elsewhere that Game Pass "cannabilizes" sales it will be interesting to see how Microsoft adapts. Funding or outright buying more indie games for Game Pass? Funding more ports of games that were already released a year or more ago for Game Pass? Allowing developers to lock certain features, eg: multiplayer, out of Game Pass? It's hard to say...

My only gripe is the lack of 3- or 4-player splitscreen, but 2-player splitscreen is still nice.