BAMozzy

Exclusives will factor in as long as big corporations keep making their games 'Exclusive' to force people to buy their Console Hardware in order to play the games they want to play.

If Consoles were able to play EVERY release, then people would buy the Console based on Price, Aesthetics, Ease of Use, OS/UI, Controller layout etc - especially if Friends/Family can still connect and play together, still chat.

It would just mean that ALL Gamers could play ALL Games on the Hardware they have and./or prefer - not forced to miss out because they didn't buy a certain branded box and can play the games they want with the controller layout they prefer, User Interface they like best etc.

Exclusives aren't made for the Fanboys that defend them, they are made for Hardware manufacurer to force you to buy their Hardware or miss out on playing those Games, made to get you locked in to their 'platform' so they can make money through Subscriptions and monopoly on their Digital storefront. Unless you pay their Sub fees, Games you've paid are 'unplayable'. You've paid £70 to play the game, but unless you pay for PS+ or Game Pass Core, you can't play the game you bought on the console you paid for! The 'Exclusive' was to get you to buy their Hardware and then spend the rest of the generation paying them a monthly fee to keep playing the games you bought!!! And Fanboys will defend their corporate overlords who want to exploit gamers for their cash...

@Skinny-Pete I finally got round to starting Hogwarts Legacy too after buying it cheaply in a sale because it was also 'Play Anywhere'. I'm really enjoying it even though I'm not a big Harry Potter fan at all.

Unless it has Play Anywhere, I'm not buying games these days. I still have quite a few I haven't started yet in my backlog, let alone all the other games I've yet to finish so I don't really need to buy anything. Even if I don't but another game, I doubt I'd clear my backlog before Helix comes out

I don't want yet another remake/remaster. I'd be happy with a reboot or a completely new game. I've never like Halo's MP so I don't care about that - far better FPS MP games on the market in my opinion - but I'd be interested in a new Single Player Campaign (and I don't care or particularly want any co-op mode for that either). I'd like a reboot more so they perhaps don't have to do Couch Co-Op or the 'expected' arena style MP

Personally I'm more disappointed than happy with the direction and feel like Microsoft have broken a promise by removing Call of Duty - regardless of the savings in Game Pass Ultimate!!

I don't believe that Call of Duty was the BIG reason the Price jumped up - I believe that was bundling in a Subscription to Fortnite Crew. A Premium tier sub to a FREE to Play game so it doesn't bring games to a Game Library service and isn't required anyway to play Fortnite. It does NOT expand the Game Pass Library at all. That is a $12 sub and after it was introduced, the price jumped up to $30 from $20 which already had CoD in it.

Microsoft 'promised' all Microsoft Games Day and Date, buying ABK to increase the Library of Games they can add to their Game Library service. Call of Duty IS expensive but also makes the majority of its money from Season Pass and CoD Point sales and lets not forget, that its still 'sold' on other platforms too. No-one will sub to Game Pass Ultimate 'just' to play a $70 game for a year as that costs MORE than buying the game anyway.

I really think they took the wrong thing out and know that they'll still sell CoD regardless but likely pocket the money from all those who pay for Fortnite Crew but never use it. If they made Fortnite Crew 'optional', they wouldn't get any money from those on Ultimate who never play Fortnite.

As I said, I feel that Microsoft have lied and broken a promise to release all their IP's Day/Date in Game Pass. What's next? Elder Scrolls 6 not being in GP because that was Expensive to make, the next Doom? I subbed to Ultimate for ALL MS games Day/Date as that was what they told us Ultimate was. The ONLY reason it jumped up to $30 was because they added a $12 Fortnite Crew Sub that doesn't add Games to a Game Library service. At least Ubisoft+ and EA Access bot expand the number of Games/IPs you can play so make sense.

As such I am dropping Game Pass Ultimate - even though I did end up buying BO7 (not Day 1) because I feel lied to and promises broken

CoD costs more to 'rent' for a year on Game Pass than the £70 it costs to play Day 1. CoD also makes most of its money on Season Passes and Cosmetic Bundles and those aren't 'free' on Game Pass.

They'll lose quite a few GP Subscribers who subscribed for CoD just to sell a few more games and not everyone who plays CoD via Game Pass will now buy it - at least not Day 1 and will wait for a sale, not buy the Blackcell Season Pass (or fewer of them) and/or buy less CoD Points/Cosmetic Bundles.

CoD is likely one of the 'big' games that would sell Game Pass and as that's only on Xbox Consoles, a big reason to buy the Xbox Helix next gen so you can play CoD Day 1 through Game Pass. The big reason they bought ABK was to add games to Game Pass Day 1 and they also promised ALL Microsoft games would be in Game Pass Day 1 - they've broken that promise and can't say that anymore...

Time to quit Game Pass Ultimate. If they are taking a Microsoft First Party game out, how long before they take others out? Should have removed the Fortnite Subscription and made that an optional add on...

I've cancelled Ultimate and dropped to Premium, but I'll probably drop it down to Core now and just buy the games I want to play when they are on sale, like I used to do!!

Absolutely zero interest in this so won't be playing it. It seems that a few others here too have little/no interest in it either.

The only 'positive' I can say is that at least MS have let Double Fine make the games they want, experiment with ideas and have creative freedom and I hope it finds its audience...

I think it reached its 'maximum' price at $20 - but then they added a $12 Subscription to a 'Free to Play' game and raised the price by $10. That Subscription is NOT required to play Fortnite and doesn't add GAMES to a Game Library service. At most, it makes a game EVERYONE can play regardless, na little more customisable.

EA Access and Ubisoft+ at least add Games, add titles/IP's to that library, expands the quantity (and arguably the Quality with a lot more recognised IP's and AAA games).

I really think that adding Fortnite Crew was the breaking point. I don't think they should have made EVERYONE wanting Day1 releases pay for it - at most, it should have been a perk, an optional add-on to their Monthly GPU at a discounted rate. Instead of paying $12 a month, those that 'want' it can add it to their GPU subscription for $10 for example saving $24 a year.

That way, the price of GPU wouldn't have jumped up so much and its not forcing those who don't play (or play enough) Fortnite to have to play an additional $120 a year!

They could even do something similar with EA and Ubisoft services, make them optional, give GPU subscribers the 'choice' to add them to their Subscription at a discounted rate. Start of with 'just' their Game Pass and Day 1 releases with the option to add on EA Access, Ubisoft+ and/or Fortnite Crew at discounted rates as Subscribers and for ease of a 'single' monthly payment. Maybe they could even have deals with Netflix or whatever other Sub services gamers may use on their Hardware to add to Game Pass to 'build your own' Game Pass tier to suit the way you 'use' the service. Only want MS Game Pass and Day 1, this way you can without having to pay for Ubisoft, EA and Fortnite too...

Microsoft won't make CoD, minecraft and Doom Exclusive. I can't see them making Fallout and Elder Scrolls exclusive either and therefore I think the big advantage MS has is Game Pass, the option to play via a Subscription day/date and that these games will be Built for MS based OS's using DirectX before being ported to Playstation and their OS.

I have NO issue with OLD games also releasing on other platforms. Halo CE for example has been 'exclusive' for 25yrs and also had an upgraded version released 'exclusively' 15yrs ago. Gears of War has been Exclusive and also had a upgraded version released 'exclusively'. Both Exclusive for over a Decade.

I think that after a 'year' (or more), those games are not selling uniits, not selling hardware, not selling Subscriptions anymore. Whatever 'new' games are releasing are the games that are selling and therefore, I have NO issue with MS wanting to extract whatever additional income they can get. I have NO issue with Starfield, South of Midnight etc releasing long after they were 'relevant' on Xbox.

I don't think they should or will release 'EVERYTHING' on other platforms - which really is just Switch/Playstation anyway. They will ALL release on PC as PC is a Microsoft Platform (it has a MS OS, uses MS Direct X and is sold on MS store as well). Forza Motorsport probably won't release on PS because it probably won't sell enough to be worth the cost of porting, won't compete with the established Gran Turismo series.

I do think that MS could ensure that they do have exclusives for at least a year or more - at least exclusive from other Consoles. Some of those may well end up as fully exclusive as it makes no sense to release on PS as they won't recuperate the costs, but others will be timed - exclusive for at least a year.

The 'essentials' for a complete 'newbie' would have to be Game Pass - Not necessarilt Ultimate, but I'd recommend Game Pass as a newbie is unlikely to have an existing Library and the money to spend buying a variety of games to play on their hardware.

I also think that Game Pass would enable a newbie to discover the games they want to play, the genres they find most enjoyable etc. I could recommend Gears of War for example, but they may not like that style of game, that type of story/setting etc and prefer to play a platformer or Racing game instead.

Rather than recommend some of my favourite games, I'd suggest Game Pass so that they could discover their own Favouriite Games and have a large variety for minimal cost...

@Sindayl I disagree - that may well be the case for games sold through Steam or Epic Storefronts - after all, they are generic storefronts for ALL PC configurations - but I do expect those sold through Xbox for 'Xbox Helix' will be Optimised for that 'fixed spec' PC.

The default settings will be optimised for the Fixed Spec hardware - that's the difference between building/releasing a game for 'fixed' spec as opposed to building for custom/varied hardware as PC's are. Xbox Helix will be a 'fixed' spec, a known quantity and so the Devs can provide an optimised version specifically for that hardware.

Unlike Console, you'll likely be able to have the option to change settings, like the PC version, but the default settings would likely be optimised for that hardware so gamers can just jump in without having to mess around optimising the settings for their Hardware.

@Sindayl Whilst I do agree that if they don't optimise their Windows OS, it will use more System Resources, Its also likely to be relatively small gains compared to the OG Xbox era.

The OG Xbox had 64MB of RAM, compared to 16GB of RAM in the Series X - wiith more allocated to System than the entire OG Xbox had (around 3GB). When you have so little RAM (as the OG Xbox had), even a 'small' saving of 10MB here or there matter. With 16GB+, 10GB here or there is not a really an issue.

Obviously Windows is somewhat 'bloated' for a purely Gaming Device. Its not optimised for that task as its designed for multi-tasking, for running numerous different apps simultaneously. But the RoG Xbox Ally is more akin to the 'Windows' you are likely to get on the next Xbox - a much more 'gaming' focused OS that doesn't load up all the Windows Processes.

As for competing with PS6, Chances are both will allocate similar amounts of RAM to System resources and have Similar amounts for Gaming. That being said, the hardware isn't going to be the 'same' - just like the PS5 and Series X havea different design and ethos behind their chip. Xbox has more cores, but slower for example.

It will be interesting but Xbox will likely offer a much larger Library with access to 'PC' games (old and new), whilst Sony has its own 'exclusives' and quite a decent selection of 3rd Party releases.

@Titntin As I said in my first post, I'm sure it will be a solid and fun game for those that really enjoy these games. I just think it won't iterate enough, that it will still feel like I've played it many times before and a new coat of paint won't 'help' that feeling.

I'm not expecting a Fallout 2 to Fallout 3 type of change but I think so much will be cut and pasted from the other games from the cars and customisation to many of the events and game-play loop.

Just moving to a 'new' setting isn't really working for me any more. Even when they moved to the UK, that still felt like I'd played the game before and wasn't really bringing enough 'new' (and that added Seasons) to hold my interest and FH5 lost my interest even quicker for very much the same reason.

I've never been to Japan and the map looks very similar to any other Forza Horizon map. I don't think it will bring enough 'new' to stop me feeling like I'e played it before, like it could just be a new Expansion, a new DLC map rather than a whole new game.

@awp69 Its still more of the same with minor tweaks. Progression is just the 'grind' through the game but the game-play loop is still very much the same. They've made the Showcase events more 'replayable' for example, but that's still doing the same thing you did in every previous game.

I'm bored of driving around those maps, bored of seeing various things like speed traps, bonus boards etc, bored of the same basic game-play loop, bored of the Horizon Festival backdrop, fed-up with the annoying voice work and extremely limited soundtrack (maybe 1 radio station of music I'd tolerate and each station with its same audio loop that gets annoying really quickly)

Its iterative and/or minor changes but underneath that 'new' skin, that 'new' setting, its the same game, the same basic sructure, the same basic format, the same basic game-play loop of driving around, competing in races/events, buying/upgrading cars to do more driving around and competing in more of the same type of events - something EVERY Forza Horizon game has done.

Its 'fun' for the first half hour or so, but then I get bored and move on to other games. I'm spending less and less tie in each new Forza Game, the 'novelty' has worn off snd I'm bored with the basic Game-play loop that these offer. After the opening spectacle, and some of the showcase events, there isn't really anything that makes me want to play...

Not excited for FH6 at all, although I do think its a better and more fun racing game than Motorsport. I don't think it will do anything radically different from the previous 5 and I've always got bored of them after a few hours or so.

I expect this to be very similar to all th e others - graphically impressive with a rock solid performance. The same mix of activities and events, the same structure and likely, same annoying voices and limited soundtrack.

I'm sure it will be a Solid game and fans will enjoy it, but after 5 games, I'm not really excited for 'more' of the same...

I don't think any Hardware ages well and never really use them after a new generation releases. In fact by the time new Hardware releases, I'm more than ready to ditch the old and buy the new.

With modern hardware offering Backwards Compatibility and with 'upgrades' - even if that's just higher frame rates/resolution, it makes the old hardware obsolete and not even the best place to play my old games.

I've bought ALL Xbox hardware at launch and a few revisions, new versions released mid gen too - like the XB1X (Project Scorpio edition), a OG Xbox Crystal Edition, 360 with Kinect and XB1S. I have also bought several Playstations like the PS3 (60GB Phat), PS4 and PS5 as well as a few iterations like the PS3 Slim and PS4 Pro. I've also purchased a RoG Ally and a RoG Xbox Ally X day 1 too.

I still own my XB360 Kinect and XB1 VCR and Kinect too, but other than both Kinects, not that I ever really used them, I don't own any random Peripherals. The only game related Peripherals I would ever buy would be a Limited Edition Controller with custom design related to a game.

At this rate, I'll be able to sell my Day 1 PS5 for the same money I paid as that price will seem a bargain against the new...

I think this was inevitable. It was only a matter of time they too would have to raise prices as costs and lets not forget, fuel has gone up so Shipping and distributing globally also adds to the cost. There was mention that Sony had bought quite a bit of stock prior to MS's price rise so that would run out as productioin continued leading to the eventual price rise as Sony buys more stock at the higher prices.

10m consoles with 1TB SSD's is 10mTB's of Storage, 10m Chips, 160m GB RAM - as well as all the other components, plastics etc that go into a Console and Controller...

Not used it yet - but I think it makes more sense than adding a Fortnite premium subscription - like EA Play, Ubisoft+ at least adds 'games' to the Game Pass library where as Fortnite Crew does NOT and should be a 'Perk' - just like other Free to Play games have Game Pass Perks .

As I said, I have not really used it, but I don't really use EA Play either. Both are decent enough with a reasonable library of titles and add to the plethora of games available on Game Pass. As such I have no issue with them both being part of Game Pass, I just haven't had much cause to use Ubisoft yet and rarely use EA play but that's because I have bought the games I enjoyed playing before they came to Game Pass - not because they had no games I'd play.

The marketing maybe changing, but the concept hasn't or isn't. The point was that ALL these devices gave you access to 'Xbox' games - whether native releases or cloud based - the sentiment is still there too, but the audience is still somewhat closed minded on what 'Xbox' is. They still think Xbox is just the Physical Console Hardware, not the Entire Microsoft Gaming division, their games and their Gaming Ecosystem.

The language and marketing may well change, but I can't see MS reverting back to 'Just' their Console and not releasing on PC or Cloud Day 1 just so the Console 'sells' and Console gamers feel they have exclusives that are ONLY on their Hardware, that maybe MS will then challenge Sony in Console sales instead of lagging behind because PC (and casual Cloud) gamers will have to buy the Hardware or miss out.

@Nakatomi_Uk 1000 staff, 1000 salaries, 1000 health insurance plans, Employee and building Insurance, rates inc electricity costs for the hardware they use, the heating and rent, Tax etc etc.

What jobs do you think they have going that they can just move 1000 staff - I doubt ALL are working on Fortnite as it is. I would expect that any they could keep, any 'open' vacancies within Epic, they'd have tried to fill with but they aren't really saving money by closing down those Fortnite modes, they are saving money because by closing those modes, they don't need the staff to support them. They aren't generating the money to pay the Staff so the Staff have to go.

If they haven't got the revenue coming in to pay them now, where is the revenue going to come in to pay them if they move them. No one wants to hear about Job losses but I doubt they'd make people redundant if they had positions and/or revenue coming in to pay them. Its the fact that 'Epic' as a whole are losing money - they are spending more than they have coming in and so have to reduce their costs before they go bankrupt and EVERYONE loses their Jobs.

People globally are struggling to put food on the table, pay their bills, put fuel in the car to go to work etc etc so aren't spending money on things like Cosmetic bundles in Free to Pay Games. Every Publisher is struggling as 'leisure' activities, like gaming, are often the hardest hit, Many jobs have been lost, studios closed, projects cancelled as Gamers don't have the disposable income to spend on Games as their costs are rising whilst pay is stagnating...

I'm torn between no and only for Back Compatibility.

PC, Series S and Play Anywhere, even Game Pass are purely Digital - its just Series X owners that can buy Physical and I wonder how many ONLY use it for BC with XB1 and older Hardware, choosing to buy ALL their new games digitally.

Physical sales have dropped significantly on Xbox Hardware - especially with Game Pass and the store discounts. I don't know if 'Play Anywhere' has been much of an incentive as I expect most Xbox gamers don't play on PC to want or care about Play Anywhere.

There will always be some that will want Physical, even if Games no longer fit on a Disc and/or cost more because of the additional costs of manufacturing and distributing - especially with the 'distribution' fuel costs rising. Some people will still want Physical even if all that's on the disc is the Licence key, that way they can sell that licence.

Maybe the best option will be to offer a separate Drive for BC and let 3rd Party Publishers decide if they also want to releases Physical editions but I don't think they'll bother themselves. Between Game Pass and all the Digital Storefronts, they'll probably decide that not enough people will buy Physical to justify the costs of manufacturing and it will likely be the SAME version as the PC version, not a Bespoke version ported to 'Xbox Console' specifically. PC's don't generally have a Disc Drive and I don't know if Drives will be manufactured for much longer.

When ALL Developers are building for and releasing on Windows PC, then of course it will make it a LOT easier and quicker for Developers to bring their games to Windows on Xbox Helix.

The major benefit to Xbox Studios (and others) is that they don't have to port their games and get them working on a 2nd Platform - thus cutting a lot of the cost and time down enabling Devs to release their games sooner. Its essentially the 'same' game released on PC as their 'Project Helix' Hardware - just with Xbox Achievements - but the Game is built to run on Windows PC so will run on Windows Xbox cutting down a lot of the time and cost of porting to a Console.

Windows 11 is designed and built for multi-tasking - a Jak of all trades OS for business and leisure users, for multi-media or office use etc etc but not a 'master' of one - specifically gaming which interests the majority of is here.

Its that ability to multi-task simultaneously across such a variety of uses that Windows became such a vital and widely used OS for PC's - in fact I doubt you'd find a PC without it - unless you go the Apple Mac route with iOS.

The purpose of this is to 'turn off' all unnecessary (for gaming) processes so that its not using 'resources' that could be used by Games - some processes would use some CPU cores so the game would be inconsistent. Consoles for example have 8cores but set aside 1-2cores purely for OS features so games are more consistent have 'fixed' resources purely for gaming.

Optimising the OS will help and it would be 'great' if they can bring some of the gaming features to PC - Game/OS updates when not in use, Quick Resume etc. Merging Xbox into Microsoft maybe the 'best' thing to happen to Windows and PC gaming for years as the Windows team have 'neglected' Gaming/gamers for years and now they have Xbox OS teams working with Windows team to optimise and improve the PC gaming experience!!

@Jayphex Basically all Gaming Hardware has a CPU, GPU and RAM for running games - even those devices that don't let you custmise or update the hardware.

Consoles tend to be built with a single chip that has both the CPU and GPU processors built into one 'chip' rather than a Gaming PC that may have a separate CPU and a separate Graphics chip on a 'Card' that can just plug into a Motherboard - RAM too plugs into that motherboard.

A LOT of devices, inc the RoG Xbox Ally, Laptops/Tablets etc may have a single chip with both CPU and GPU built into it so it can play games. PC's have tended to have Plug in RAM, SSD's etc into a board so they can sell you different specs. Pay a bit more to have 64GB RAM or a 2TB SSD for example - but a Console will likely have the RAM or SSD fixed to the main board along with the CPU/GPU chip because they are 'fixed' spec devices.

The only reason PC's have Graphics Cards is so that you can replace them, upgrade them etc where as Consoles are fixed spec hardware and built around a single Chip with its CPU and GPU combined.

I'd rather pay £1k and not have to pay a monthly fee for Online Social gaming than £700+ and another £5-10 a month for the next 5-7yrs just on PS+ or GPC.

We'll have to see what the world and market is actually like when this finally releases - the distribution costs too could make quite a difference with Fuel costs rising. The cost to transport the hardware around the world to get them to the customers will make a difference - just like costs of the raw materials inc Silicon, Copper etc can affect the cost.

I'm not worrying about it today or making a decision either. I don't have enough information to make an informed decision today and don't know how much alternatives will cost. A PS6 may not be a good alternative - not just specs, but other costs (PS+), Library (which includes exising Library carried forward) and Policy - no guarantee MS will release the Xbox games I want to play day/date and unlikely to have Game Pass for 'bette' value way of playing those games.

Point is, its too early to decide - you may not need to buy at all if you have a PC or content to play via cloud on your current Xbox hardware - especially if you choose to play the majority of games on other Hardware...

The entry/budget level will likely be Cloud on whatever device you have - streaming at upto 1440/60fps will be the cheapest option if you don't want or can't justify the 'Premium' Hardware option!

@BacklogBrad They'll still continue to shout that because they can't wrap their heads around the fact that Xbox is the entire Microsoft Gaming division, not just the traditional Console Hardware.

The fact is that since 'merging' Xbox into Microsoft a decade ago, when ALL games began releasing Day/Date on PC, Xbox and Cloud (starting with Sea of Thieves), Microsoft has 'invested' heavily in Gaming - in 2018, they announced numerous Studios they acquired - Playground, Obsidian, inXile, Compulsion, Undead Labs, Double Fine etc and then followed those up with first acquiring Bethesda and then ABK growing 'Xbox' to help MS become one of the biggest brands in Gaming overtaking Sony.

The 'Console' itself certainly hasn't grown or matched XB360 numbers, let alone compete with PS5 or Switch 2 sales numbers, but unlike Sony and Nintendo, MS's 'Xbox' users are not limited to just their Console, they also have PC and Cloud users and by PC, that's Windows, Battlenet & Bethesda.net platforms (not Steam - although their games are sold there too) - and Game Pass PC too of course.

Point is, they'll still shout Xbox is Dead because Xbox Consoles are unlikely to sell like Playstation or Nintendo consoles - even if they 'stop' releasing games on Playstation/Nintendo hardware (excluding CoD, Minecraft etc which will remain multi-plat regardless) because Xbox gamers will still have the option to play on Hardware they already have via Cloud or their PC hardware - thus negating the need to buy 'Project Helix'. I bet XB1 and/or Series owners can play via Cloud instead of upgrading if they want to save money...

Xbox won't 'die' because they'll still have their OWN platform (not just become a multi-platform Publisher like Sega) - even if that is 'Windows' PC and their OWN Cloud platform too. The traditional 'Console' may die but they can still make/licence Xbox branded Hardware with a MS OS at its heart!!! But to 'Console' gamers, they'll consider Xbox dead.

@Fiendish-Beaver I do think that MS perhaps have expected too much in some areas and in others, circumstances beyond their control have inhibited the growth they had expected/hoped for after the Acquisitions.

ABK was announced in 2021 although we all know that it dragged on far longer than anticipated before MS actually took over. In that time, things 'globally' had changed with the Russian Market being closed off from them as well as gaming suffering as prices rose whilst incomes stagnated leading to less disposable income for gamers.

As you are likely aware, many gamers are choosing to play Free to Play games like Roblox and Fortnite, certainly not buying the number of 'new' games they were a few years ago when Publishers were investing the studios, greenlighting games that would take at least the next 5yrs or so to make - committing to spend but not predicting the cost would rise so much whilst gamers would spend less. That's why Every publisher, not just MS has cancelled games and closed Studios - some Studios bought in the past 5ys or so not even releasing a game for their new owners before being shut.

For many on a site like this, which is aimed very much at the Console gamer and vocal minority, its likely to be very much more negative because their 'preferred' hardware isn't competing with Nintendo or Sony's Console in terms of sales figures, Seemingly dead, despite growing to become 'bigger' than both of those Publishers in terms of Gaming.

As for being to 'soon' - Cloud obviously is as the infrastructure isn't really there for it to be 'optimal' everywhere - although the experience is far better on home internet than on the go wifi and its also not something MS themselves have any control over. However, I'd say that them opting to return to their PC platform and try and build that back up was not too soon - maybe neglected it a bit too long. Most Gen Z gamers are PC gamers and don't want to be 'locked in' to that Console only platform. They've grown up with a PC and using Windows so its just as convenient/easy as a Console and grew-up with a SteamDeck so that's where their Games library is - they don't really care about Physical or 'Hardware', just that they can access their Games, Music etc on whatever device they can sign into their account on to access their Digital content wherever they are. The 'console' isn't important, its just an option - maybe the most affordable 'hardware' option for Native gaming...

@Fiendish-Beaver I bet MS don't wonder - but the gaming community continuosly wonder...

A decade ago, MS announced that ALL their games would release Day/date on PC - thus no more 'exclusives' and the Community back then said Xbox was 'dead' as there was now no reason to own an Xbox. The XB1X, Series S and Series X have all released since Xbox and I'd say sold reasonable well considering they are totally optional. Now a decade on, they ask why Xbox isn't selling like Playstation yet know that you don't 'need' to buy an Xbox to play in the Xbox ecosystem...

That's not even counting the Cloud and all the devices (inc Fire Stick in recent years) that no doubt would 'hurt' the sales of Hardware. In fact, Xbox gamers don't even need to upgrade from their XB1s/X hardware to play Xbox as they can play games via cloud on these. Why spend money on upgrading hardware when you can play on the hardware you already own?

People obviously have bought Series consoles as they offer a native and improved gaming experience over cloud, a 'Console style' experience and at a console like price point they won't get from a PC and the ability to play older Xbox console games via BC.

However, a LOT of the Casuals maybe content to play on devices they own via Cloud (inc their old XB1 hardware or Firestick) thus negating the need to purchase a Series Console. PC gamers, regardless of the Specs of their set-up, aren't spending money on an Xbox Console when it has NO games they can't play - even on a Student Laptop via the Cloud with whatever Controller they have/prefer.

I'd wager that Microsoft themselves expected to sell far less Consoles but expand the Xbox userbase beyond what their Consoles have ever reached. Xbox is 'bigger' than its ever been since they've built up their Studio count and owned IP's and now one of the biggest brands in Gaming - Xbox is not just the Console, its the brand name for ALL of Microsoft Gaming. I bet MS themselves didn't expect to sell as many units as Sony or Nintendo - even after buying Bethesda and ABK - maybe expected to sell more Game Pass subscriptions across PC, Console and Cloud but not necessarily more Consoles knowing that a percentage will choose to play on PC or Cloud so won't be buying Console Hardware!

@kmtrain83 And that's where Cloud comes in and you having to use a Microsoft owned App and a Microsoft owned Subscription to Stream their games. I can't see them releasing 'Native' versions to compete with their Windows or Xbox hardware versions in general - although certain IP's could be the exception (like Minecraft for example).

Ideally, they want to get you into their ecosystem playing on a Microsoft powered device - whether that's a Windows PC, an Xbox Console or their Cloud via their App. Yes there are Games that will release Day/Date on Playstation for example but most probably won't. If they do release day 1, it will be OLD games they've remastered, maybe even for a 2nd time (like Gears and Halo) otherwise, the games they do release will be months, if not years later to maximise Revenue from Gamers that won't or can't buy their Product to play. As MS customers, you get the games first and opportunity to play 'free' via a MS Service....

If you want to play games like Halo, Gears, Forza, Fable natively etc you'll buy a Microsoft OS powered device as that is what they will be 'built' for in the first instance and available in their service too. You may get some games (eventually) on other platforms, but that isn't guaranteed and may wait years to play - long after they've been on sale on Microsoft platforms!

You know some games will certainly release Day 1 elsewhere, but you also have to consider that MS own these IP's, these Studios etc and can decide to keep games Exclusive if they want...

What you also have to consider is whether there are any EXTRA costs to the hardware like Consoles. Both Playstation and Xbox consoles have required a Subscription to unlock the full Library and options the Console offer - PS+ Essential and Gold, now Game Pass Core are 'required' for most gamers.

Whilst I know you can buy cheaper in bulk, both these are $10 a month. I know that most gamers will likely buy years in advance to keep the cost lower, but it still adds up over the years. Even at £60 a year, over 5yrs that's an additional £300 on top of the £500+ you spent on your Series X and/or PS5.

I'm sure they'll have Game Pass for PC, but I don't expect to have to pay for Online Social features - that would push gamers to buy all their Online games through Steam which don't require any sub fees. Why buy CoD on Xbox when it requires Game Pass Core yet buying on Steam or Battlenet doesn't require a sub for Online Social Gaming?

Of course that may mean the Hardware isn't subsidised so more expensive than Consoles tend to be - but Consoles are often sold at a LOSS and then make money from the gamer because they are 'locked in' to paying Sub fees to unlock Content and features, buying games from their store ONLY giving them a Monopoly on digital content etc. That's why Consoles are/were 'cheap' in the first place as the manufacturers expected to make money off of selling you Subs, Games and Peripherals like Controllers that won't last a generation...

@kmtrain83 What's that got to do with anything? It won't have Windows or Xbox Console games so the only way to play your 'Xbox' on an Apple device is via the Cloud.

Microsoft will want you to buy Games from their store and play on their Platform - not Steam or Battlenet. Apple Mac/iOS aren't their platform or selling OS's to those devices - but they do have their App that you can play via Cloud. They only make games for Windows PC, not Mac.

Apple Mac is irrelevant to the conversation as they aren't going to offer Xbox games and certainly not Xbox Console games 'natively' so no Xbox/Microsoft Gamer is likely to be looking at Apple Macs as an option to rival a Windows PC or Xbox Hybrid Console...

@kmtrain83 Maybe it will be a bespoke/Hybrid OS or custom Hardware design that allows them to switch between PC and legacy Xbox modes so that only they (or Licenced partners) can access/use.

The RoG Xbox Ally had a custom Windows build that booted to a optimised version so I'm sure they could have a Customised Windows build for their 'Console' thats purely designed gaming and has Back Compat/Series OS built in to run Console games but that's not the 'Windows' version they'll sell to other PC manufactures, only those that wish to Partner with or Licence the Xbox brand.

If it requires some Custom Hardware or a specific tier of AMD Chip as MS has partnered with AMD for their future Hardware, that too may stop some cheap PC clone.

When the RoG Xbox Ally's launched, they were the only ones with the Handheld optimised version of Windows - although it did roll out to insiders and eventually other devices, but that also shows that they 'could' have their own unique version of Windows that does allow Back Compat with their Console Library.

At the end of the day though, they may also not care if other PC users can now access the Xbox Console Library and then decide to buy and play Xbox Console games on their 'cheap PC's as they'll still be in the 'Xbox' ecosystem contributing to their user base numbers, revenue, engagement figures etc etc. If EVERY PC suddenly becomes an 'Xbox' Console able to play Xbox Console games as long as you have an Xbox Profile and buy from Xbox, I don't think MS will be too 'concerned' you didn't buy their Hardware - especially not if its subsidised and makes no money or even loses money like most Consoles do at launch.

Xbox Console will likely be exclusive to Microsofts PC platform regardless - not Steam or Epic - so it may bring PC gamers from Steam to Microsoft on their PC, choose to play on MS's Platform instead. What many console gamers don't seem to understand is that a PC isn't a 'single' Platform (Steam) but multiple Platforms and its not always the most popular for some games CoD for example was more popular on Battlenet than Steam but Steam is the only one to publish data. MS may use Xbox Console Games to really be a Rival to Steam on PC so gamers maybe can access on ANY Windows PC - after all, Windows is Microsoft owned...

It only needs to be a PC hardware with BC to Series S/X as that brings your Consoke games forward and all 'new' releases will be PC games anyway so MS doesn't have to make their games for two different Hardware platforms.

PC and Console share the same account and Profile so all your Console games from the Past generation (inc the BC library on the Console) just need to be playable on their next hardware and all their 'next' gen games will just be PC versions. They'll run on the 'Console' anyway but also on ANY PC too so will still be Play Anywhere' but with less costs and work involved as they aren't having to port and try and get a different Hardware version running too..

Its about being on the side of the OWNER of the software, the creator not the 'entitled' person who thinks they deserve 'more' than what they actually paid for.

I as a consumer am totally aware of what I am 'purchasing'. I've know for years and years that you don't 'own' software, just a licence. I've seen many Devs/Publishers try to protect their property - mostly from Piracy back then.

Games like this you didn't even pay a Licence fee, they are 'Free to Play' so you certainly can't say you've bought a Licence let alone paid for the 'Game'. If you bought Cosmetics, that's like Donating to a streamer and then demanding your donations back when you find out that streamer no longer wishes to stream anymore.

But like I said, I do expect that things will change, that Publishers will be forced to make things a LOT clearer about what you are actually purchasing so you don't 'think' you've bought the Game and then feel 'entitled' to it, that you are only purchasing a Licence and that the Licence (and/or access to the Software) can cease at some point. At most, I think you can argue they've misled gamers and the Laws would likely agree.

its not 'anti-consumer' to sell a License to use their Products/services and I really do side with Creators who own their art. Its their Product, their IP, their creation so up to them to decide if they wish to remove it/shut it down. As consumers, you should have a right to proper notification and opportunity to claim refunds if certain criteria are met - but not a right to keep accessing if the owner doesn't want that...

@Jenkinss At most, EU Law will make it MUCH clearer that you are NOT purchasing a Game but a Licence to access the Software that is OWNED by the Creator or Publisher. Whether you or I as consumers like that or not, you have NEVER owned a Game, just a Licence to access the software. Whilst you can sell/trade the Physical copy - whether on Disc or Cartridge, you have only sold your Licence.

I don't think that EVERY game should be kept 'alive' and that's not Anti-consumer, that's coming down on the side of the 'OWNERS' of their Software. I do think though that as a Consumer, you should be better informed of what you are purchasing and that if games are to be shut down, that you as a Consumer should have proper notification and in a reasonable amount of time. I also think that 'refunds' should be available too under certain circumstances - for example no more than 5hrs playtime.

Devs won't stop making Online games because the most likely outcome is that Publishers will have to be more transparent on what you are buying. Its your 'Entitlement' attitude that thinks you have a right to keep playing/accessing something you don't OWN, that's not yours. You bought a Licence only - which is why those games require you to sign in to your Digital account or put a disc into your drive - where your Licence key is stored. Without a valid licence, the Software is not playable.

Like I said, its ignorant entitlement that some gamers think they 'own' the game and therefore should have Access indefinitely. The reality is that you ONLY own a Licence and that Licence can be revoked by the Devs at anytime - break their Terms of Service and you can lose your licence - cheating or using inappropriate language can result in bans, temporary or permanent blocking your Access.

They won't stop making games, but then I can't see them being 'forced' to include some 'end of life' thing that keeps the game 'alive'. Offline Bots is not the SAME game/experience at all and team games (like Horde modes) won't work 'offline' and certainly not with AI team mates instead of Humans. Whilst I don't think they'd 'stop' making them entirely - at least not unless entiitled gamers aren't 'happy' with just being able to load up the game and wander around the map on their own - no 'game-play', no XP, just to 'comply' with keeping it accessible..

The point is the game is OWNED by the Creator and its their RIGHT as creator, as owner to decide if they want games to have an END, not be forced to add something (which does cost and take time to add in on top of developing the game as they want) just because some entitled gamers think that games shouldn't 'end'. It's their product, not yours, their creation, their legal property by LAW hence you can get into trouble or lose your licence by breaking Terms of Service - something you AGREED to when you accepted the ToS before you even played.

They won't stop making games because they won't have to change, at most I can see the Law forcing them to make it much clearer that you don't OWN the game, that you ONLY purchased a Licence and that Licence can be removed at anytime - so buyer beware!!!

He would leak that certain guns or maps would be coming and whilst he may of been correct about the majority, there would be several additional ones that weren't part of the update.

Apart from 'spoiling' what was coming, he'd also indicated that more content was coming than was delivered so the Community were led to believe they were getting more than they got as well as spoiling the content they did get - a double whammy.

Whatever you think of CoD, I do think that leakers should be silenced and I don't just mean those that leak Call of Duty content. Unless they are whistleblowing bad practices like crunch culture or mistreatment of staff, I think that devs/publishers should have the right to legally block and even prosecute leakers - not only does it spoil the 'official' reveals, it can lead to greater expectation and leave the community 'disappointed' and even angry that 'leaked' content isn't coming.

@Jenkinss Again, you paid for a Licence to use those games whilst they were Active, you don't OWN them. That's always been the case and you also agreed to the terms and conditions of Access - failure to do so can get you banned (indefinitely in some cases) regardless of whether you paid or not. That's all because you don't OWN the games and the Devs/Publishers do.

Social games require Online for Social features to work and with NO servers, NO matchmaking, NO online infrastructure (the Company aren't paying for it anymore if no income is coming in to cover those costs), then the 'Game' is not the Game you bought a Licence to 'play'. Being able to walk around empty maps or even play against Bots for example is NOT what the Game was meant to be, its not the SAME game people spent money to play.

Its that 'entitled' behaviour that is the problem - you think you are entitled to play something that you don't own, that the 'licence' you do own is for a product that has expired. It's like buying a Season ticket to watch your favourite sports team and expecting it to last forever.

Yes some licences don't 'expire' because the Product doesn't - although Publishers/Developers can still remove that 'product' so no more Licences can ever be sold, therefore that game is basically dead. Games like Marvels Spider-Man 2 published by Activision can no longer be purchased so NO-ONE can play it - unless you bought and still own a valid licence and suitable hardware to play it - but they also don't incur any cost.

How do you know how much it would cost to build in some way to keep the game 'alive' in some meaningful capacity that entitled gamers would consider acceptable and why you think Devs/Publishers should even pay anything? But as I said, its their game, their code, their assets, their trademarks/IP's and Copywrited content and you 'paid' for a Licence to play it, not paid for the rights to it, not paid for them to hand it over to the 'Public' or those that maybe paid for a Licence key.

The Laws do protect both the consumer and the company - it will protect their rights as the OWNERS of the game code and all its assets, like they would protect the Artists and/or Publishers of Musicians. I expect that they'd either not make these games if forced to keep them active or 'hand' them over - but what I really expect is that the EU will force Publishers to be a lot clearer in what you are 'paying' for and that you aren't buying a Game, you are paying to access their Software, their game they made and OWN. Whether that impact sales, I don't know, but that's how Games work - you don't buy games, you buy a Licence to access the software ONLY. That game belongs to the Devs/Publisher, its their Property - not yours. You are paying the 'entry' fee to theme park that maybe one day will close....

@Jenkinss And then you don't understand economics and business - no Business will keep something going if its losing them money and if they have spend a LOT of money designing and/or building in some end of life plan, that discourage if not stop Devs from making those games in the first place.

As others have said, even if you can still access the game, even if it's just against AI bots because NO online servers, support, anti-cheat etc exist, that is tokenistic and them using a 'loophole' in the law to avoid consequence. The point of online games is not to play with and/or against Bots. They are 'social' experiences and designed for Social play - either competitively or co-operatively.

The point of some is to 'team' up with friends and play together - whether that is against other Humans or take on challenging modes like Destiny's Raids which are purely PvE only.

You can't replace that Social aspect with 'bots' - just to keep a game 'alive'. Not EVERY game should be kept alive in my opinion. There are numerous games - like Killzone for example, that had its 'online' modes killed and I have NO issue with all the Annual sports releases having their Servers being shut down 'regardless' of how much people may have spent on Cosmetics or DLC map Packs.

You only had Legal Access whilst you had a Legal Licence to access those games - the Game, the worlds they created etc all belong to the Developer/Publisher that created them - it's their 'creation', their 'work', their 'copywrited' material inc their Assets etc. You only have a Licence to Access.

As I said, if Devs/Publishers feel 'forced' to keep games alive, they will either stop making those games or what you can 'play' is so shallow, so pointless that people won't bother accessing anyway.

Publishers/Devs can also issue take downs and block people from using their game code. their assets etc. Just because they can, doesn't make it Legal or ethically right to do so...

A live service game relies on its user base to keep paying to keep it going and a Free to Play game also needs to make back the money that's already been invested.

Games that lose players aren't going to have the user base to 'buy' cosmetics etc to keep the developers employed on making more content to keep the game alive so it makes sense to 'kill' them before they lose much more money.

@Jenkinss If that does become a Law, you just won't get F2P live Service games being released - maybe no Online Multi-player games at all because they aren't going to keep games active that cost them money or can be detrimental to them/their reputation if the game is a 'broken' mess, no working anti-cheat or updates, no safe servers or anything.

Chances are, Devs/Publishers would just choose not to make online games if they are expected to keep them 'alive', costing them more money per day than they get back in revenue or maybe find some loophole, like the game is active, but only if you buy your own server or via LAN because they aren't paying for servers, anti-cheat, ongoing support etc etc. It may not be 'official' shut-down but basically unplayable.

@Fiendish-Beaver Well they will all share the Microsoft OS that Games require in order to communicate with the Hardware but I can see them having a Fixed Spec design specifically so that Devs will provide a 'Optimised' game by default and if you play on any other PC, you may have to tweak the settings to get a consistent performance like a Console.

I can see them licencing Xbox but only for Fixed Spec 'Console' style builds made by Asus for example. Instead of MS maybe making a 'mid-gen' upgraded version, that's now licensed out to a different manufacturer - but it must be a fixed Spec Chip that Devs will optimise and provide a 'XB1X/Series X' like upgrade over the base fixed spec Hardware.

Despite the RoG Ally being a PC, MS are still checking games and verifying them for that spec Hardware - its also a Fixed Spec Handheld so they can provide a default setting that is optimised specifically for that Hardware. Games they (or others) make can use that as say the 'minimum' spec Hardware to consider if they wish to target 60fps for example - knowing that if they can get 60fps on that, then everything else (Series S, Series X etc) can scale up from that.

Of course if you really want to, you could of course buy ANY PC (like you can today) and play EVERY new Xbox game released but may have to tweak the settings to optimise the game specifically for your Hardware and preferences. The difference is that the 'default' is set for their Hardware, not bespoke hardware - pretty much how the situation is today. The ONLY difference is that Devs won't have to port their build to the Xbox Console platform, they can build for PC and just optimise that, provide a default setting specifically for that 'fixed' spec AMD Chip and I doubt the 'Xbox PC' will be built with separate CPU, GPU, RAM etc that can be swapped out like most Gaming PCs and I would expect that 'licensed' Hardware would use that Chip (or the 'X' version - like Xbox Ally and Xbox Ally X, Series S and X etc).

The point is that those 'settings' and fixed spec hardware still provide that consistent Console like experience and Devs a 'fixed' spec to build for, to optimise to - and lets be honest, third party Publishers don't always 'optimise' for the Consoles today as they aren't consistent and drop frame. Series X and PS5 often share the 'same' settings too and/or rely on dynamic resolution scaling to try and maintain a consistent Frame Rate.

Arguably, the weakest PC on the market will be the Handheld and Xbox/MS certainly do consider it as they are checked and verified. If Dell made a 'budget' Xbox, it would likely be using a fixed spec AMD Chip that MS would allow their Xbox brand to be associated with or Dell could just build a cheap PC with MS Windows without the Xbox brand licence anyway...

@Fiendish-Beaver I don't know that they'll stop supplying them that soon after release - but I can see them potentially licencing so other PC manufacturers will make PC Xbox hardware in the future - much like they have done already with the Asus Ally.

They still continue to make 'Surface' hardware so why not make a Surface Xbox for example?

I think the point of them doing their own 'fixed' spec Hardware is more about Devs having that as a guide to target when building their game, whether that's ensuring that it will run smoothly at say 60fps and 4k with med-high settings and that is the 'default' and everything scales up/down from that.

Personally I have NO issue with Microsoft bringing a 25yr old game to Playstation. The majority of Xbox gamers aren't buying a 25yr old game and more likely to play it on Game Pass if they play it all and even Halo fans are likely to play it via Halo:MCC than spend money on it yet again. Point is, Xbox gamers have likely bought it, maybe twice already so maybe won't be willing to spend money on a 25yr old game they can and have played multiple times.

Its not like they are selling a brand new game that's never released before Day and Date. I bet few bought Gears of War yet again - I know I wouldn't having bought the OG 360 version and the XB1 version the remaster and PS5 version is remastered from as I could play them via BC or via Game Pass - MS knows that and so to get any revenue, the only option is to sell on Platforms like Playstation (and/or Switch) - the only Platforms they haven't released those 'old' games on before.

Its not like they are releasing (or should release) the 'next' big main release - certainly not Day 1. These should remain Exclusive if MS wants to sell Hardware and/or Subscriptions, get players into their ecosystem. They can release on PS5 once the sales dry up on their Hardware to extract what revenue they can from those who wouldn't buy their Hardware or Subscribe to Game Pass anyway.

Old games, remastered or just released a year or more later, aren't really hurting Xbox - if people really wanted to play, they'd have bought an Xbox, subbed to Game Pass and/or already played before. These are all on Game Pass, playable via BC and/or been on sale for years so if people wanted to buy an Xbox to play, they'd have done so.

Xbox is not just the Console - yet there are many that still think that it is. Xbox became MS's entire Gaming 'brand' having an established Console with that branding. It gets its name from being a Microsoft Direct X product in a Box a 'DirectX Box' which became 'Xbox'.

I can see that Xbox hardware, as a traditional 'Console' product, may well be over but that doesn't mean that I think Microsoft will no longer have Hardware or pull out of the gaming market. Microsoft have invested heavily in Studios and IP's over the past decade after merging their Console gaming division into their main Microsoft business and Windows - hence Day 1 releases on PC and the 'end' of Exclusives.

Xbox ceased being just their Console and became their entire Gaming brand across PC, Cloud and Console - rebranding their Studios too as Xbox Studios.

That's why I don't believe Xbox will end soon - even if the Traditional Console Hardware ceases. Xbox will still continue across PC and Cloud, Xbox Studios will still continue to make Xbox Games because 'Xbox' is Microsofts Gaming brand.

We all expect MS to make at least 1 more Hardware device as they have planned and openly discussed their Partnership with AMD to supply chips for their hardware. Its 'rumoured' to be more of a PC hybrid than a Taditional console with access to other platforms/storefronts like Steam and Epic - thus not a 'Traditional' Console which has now 'ended' but Microsoft still continues to bring Xbox games to market, Xbox brand continues...

I''m in the middle - not optimistic, but not pessimistic either. MS has a LOT of Studios and IP's and if they use them by making great games, their future will be OK - gamers will play them which will ensure MS's future is 'successful'.

I don't know that ALL aspects will be successful, particularly Hardware and/or the future of their 'Console' Library. I don't really want 'AI' involved bringing my old Library forward to PC's for example or making slop that 'humans' allow into their Games.

As a Gamer first and foremost, MS has a Strong Portfoliio of IP's and Studios so their future should be secure too - but I don't know that the leadership will handle those well and may 'force' Studio's to cut corners and in doing so, allow slop to ruin them...

@Cakefish

I guess the difference will be that the hardware is designed in-house and with OS-level modifications to have a controller friendly UI, as opposed to any other bog standard PC.

That's basically what the RoG Xbox Ally's are - Not 'solely' designed in-house as such as its merged the Asus RoG Ally's with an Xbox Controller - but to be honest with you, if MS were to build their own Handheld, fully themselves, it would basically be the same design - a screen inserted between both sides of an Xbox Controller. Internally, I doubt it would be much different - an AMD Chip, RAM & Solid State Storage.

The booting Direct to Xbox FSE and work MS has done to optimise Windows for Handheld Gaming also includes making that UI controller friendly as that was a big issue with the Windows 'Desktop' on the first wave of PC Handhelds and having to use those little 'touchscreen' keyboards wasn't the easist.

So whilst its not 'technically' a first party Hardware because its made in Partnership with Asus (who don't make Games to sell the Hardware) who obviously can't use MS's Xbox logo/button and Controller design. They also rely on MS to provide the OS and worked with MS based on Feedback they'd received on their 'first' Handhelds.

As I said, technically games like Crackdown, Gears of War and even Flight Sim are NOT made by a First Party/Microsoft owned Studio in the same way this 'Hardware' has MS owned branding, Custom MS OS and even an Xbox Button (something no other Handheld PC has). Its part of their Hardware line-up much like those games were part of their Software line-up so whilst technically 'not' a first Party hardware as it wasn't made/assembled by MS, its still very much a MS product.

I believe that 'other' Handhelds, like MSi's and Lenovo's, can now install the Same Custom Windows OS so they too can boot to the Xbox FSE. That too makes it more 'Xbox' as you are booting directly into the Xbox ecosystem, not the full Windows. That has a MS UI designed for Controller Navigation and locked to the MS store - yes you can play Steam Games (as long as you've installed them) but the store tab is MS ONLY. To browse, buy or even install Steam games so they'll show up in the 'Xbox' FSE, you have to load up the Steam App.

Point is, the OS is custom, Controller Friendly and is designed to keep you in the Microsoft 'Xbox' Ecosystem. Unlike the Console though, you can access 3rd Party Apps and even load up the full MS Windows too if you want but Hardware is pretty much useless these days without an OS and Gaming Hardware is very generic, its really just the OS, which Games communicate with that separates them

@Cakefish I'm agreeing that its not quite First party in that its fully made and assembled by Microsoft - but that its STILL an Xbox abnd part of the Xbox Family.

Its not quite the same as your iPhone or iPad as they weren't built in partnership with Microsoft, don't have the 'Xbox' branding/License and certainly don't come with a Microsoft OS and run their Games Natively. Microsoft also isn't 'passive' and actually is verifying games for the Hardware so buyers will know if they are optimised for their Handheld.

Just because they didn't make the Hardware, its their OS and part of their Hardware line-up. Its like Flight Sim - That's not made by a First Party Studio yet its still part of the Xbox Library if you want to be technically correct (and Pedantic about who made something). It's certainly not '3rd Party' and certainly not some 'stream' only Android/iOS powered device that can't run Xbox games natively.

The fact is both the Console and the Handheld have a Microsoft OS which also controls the Hardward and runs Xbox Games natively so they are both Microsoft based products. Microsoft is building their Games for their OS's.

Cloud games run on a MS OS too and you use a Microsoft owned App to 'stream' them to whatever device you can access their App from.

The most important aspect is the OS. Sony's games are built to use Sony's OS to utilise whatever 'Hardware' its on - just like Windows games rely on Windows to utilise the PC hardware (why SteamDeck has a ProtonLayer to simulate Windows and won't run games that require Windows TPS Security). Point is, the OS is the 'important' part of ANY Hardware and its Microsofts OS at the heart of both the Console and Handheld.

Its not quite 'First Party' in the sense that Asus built it having the factory and tooling in place to do so as well, but its still part of the Microsoft Family of Hardware, still has a Microsoft OS and Xbox Controller feel/layout.

@Cakefish Made in Partnership with Microsoft and running a Microsoft OS. It's basically using Microsoft's Controller design as part of the 'hardware'.

A Console is basically assembled by Microsoft but has a Chip by AMD at its core. The various components are made by various other Companies - the SSD, the Disc Drive, the RAM chips, the Wifi component etc - none of that is 'made' by Microsoft.

The Xbox Ally has Xbox branding and made under licence - the next Xbox too could be made by Asus under Licence.

Xbox isn't 'just' the Console Hardware - its the ENTIRE Gaming division and includes PC and Cloud. PC and Console hardware both have a CPU, GPU and RAM and both run games from its Internal Storage, both also have Microsoft OS's. MS could have made the Hardware (maybe could do under their 'Surface' PC line for example) using tthe same AMD Z2E chip, same quantity of RAM and Storage, even use the same Screen and Windows OS and sell that as an 'Xbox' handheld - but instead licenced that out to Asus...

The 'Console' is only 1 part of the Microsoft Gaming Ecosystem and Hardware is pretty much universal - its the OS that really makes the Hardware and both PC and Series hardware has Microsoft OS at its heart. Sony has Sony's OS despite it too having a CPU, GPU, RAM etc that if you 'could' install an MS OS (like Windows) would still play games.

I'd say that the Asus RoG Xbox Ally's are NOT 1st Party Hardware but they are still part of the Xbox family, the Xbox ecosystem - its just not 'locked' solely to Microsoft so have access to 3rd Party Apps like Steam or Epic, like you do on any other Microsoft Windows PC!

In such a dynamic industry, plans are always Subject to Change regardless. It makes no difference what they could say today, tomorrows situation/circumstance will force plans to change.

It may not be their own making, take the RAM shortages for example or the Pandemic a few years back, those situations forced 'changes' to Plans made. The Pandemic for example would have affected the plans around release schedules, the events (like E3) etc and maybe the RAM shortage has changed plans over Hardware and/or Pricing.

You cannot expect something to remain 'true' indefinitely so what maybe was true for the situation/circumstances yesterday could be different today and very different tomorrow. In the easiest way, they can 'plan' to release a game in June, and yesterday, everything was still on course to release in June, but then something happens today that now causes them to change their plans, change what was stated and now plan to release in say September, but tomorrow they have to change their plans again due to something else impacting on the Plan.

As for Exclusives, they could say that 'some' will be Exclusive (others won't like Minecraft, CoD or Doom for example) but then that doesn't sell enough Consoles or Subs so they have to release this on other platforms or risk losing so much money, risk closing Studios and/or selling IP's just to break even etc.

In a very Dynamic industry, future plans will ALWAYS be subject to change. Companies will 'try' and be reactive, although not easy with such long development schedules and changing trends - just ask Sony who went 'all-in' on Live Service a few years - that was their 'Plan', that's what they communicated they would be delivering yet those plans changed.

Xbox 'Console' as a separate MS Platform from 'Windows PC' may already be dead - the next may well be a fixed spec Windows PC in a Console like box designed to sit under a TV and be used primarily with a Controller - but its still a Windows PC and plays ALL Windows PC games (inc those sold by Steam or Epic) and so Devs don't need to port to yet another platform - they can just build their PC version and the default settings are 'optimised' for the fixed spec of the Xbox PC for simplicity. It would be better and cheaper for Devs - inc MS who currently have to build every game for multiple platforms - even if 'Exclusive' to just their own Ecosystem - adding more cost and time to its development.

None of their 'big' IPs - like Gears or Halo ever need to release on PS Day 1 - even if the older titles are remastered and do release Simultaneously. Those OLD games are not selling Hardware or Subscriptions and a LOT of Xbox gamers aren't buying yet another 'remake' so why not sell EVERYWHERE day 1 to cover costs and bring in Revenue that keeps Xbox as one of the biggest Games publishers in the world, ahead of Sony and Nintendo, as a rival to TenCent...