Good job I had no interest in it as that price point would certainly kill any interest - pure GREED as far as I am concerned. I won't pay more than £50 for ANY game and I doubt GTA will be so innovative, never been done before game-play mechanics etc. I bet it will be extremely similar to its predecessor, just spent all that time and money on Graphics.
As there are superb stories, games with great Game-play and many many hours worth of entertainment value available in sales, in my backlog etc, no game is worth paying that much just to play it at/near launch. For $80, I can buy 4 or more games in the sales...
Just look at PS5/Series X prices as well as the all digital PS5 Pro with its 6yr old Chip. SSD storage and RAM have gone up and I doubt the chipp will be 'cheaper' with a more powerful CPU/GPU built in to it. Shipping and distribution costs too are escalating so I'd be surprised if it was 'much' cheaper - and I can't imagine Sony selling a PS6 either for 'less' than a PS5 Pro costs either.
The raw materials aren't any cheaper, if not actually more expensive as they too likely incur additional shipping costs to get them to the factory for assembly into the Console.
The demand for Silicon, for RAM, for storage etc is increasing which is why the costs are escalating. Add in the rising cost of fuel that affects shipping the hardware around the world and we are more likely to see prices going up and up through the generation if they try and undercut, subsidise and/or take a loss on it...
Xbox only picked it up because its got Kojima's name attached and only got that opportunity as no other Publisher had any faith or belief in the project.
Having a Kojima Game on Xbox probably meant more for Microsoft than having that exact same game without his name attached would have. I bet it having his name on the project will boost its review score by a few extra points it otherwise wouldn't receive and of course help Microsoft a bit in Japan too...
I really don't care s I don't have any interest in GTA and haven't had any interest since GTA 3. Therefore I don't have any expectations at all but I can make an educated prediction.
Consoles are the 'budget' option, literally the lowest priced Hardware designed to allow gamers to play games at a 'reasonable' frame rate. I wouldn't expect '60 fps' unless they are targetting last gen Hardware and 30fps for that hardware. The reason we have a LOT of 60fps games this gen is primarily because those games were designed and/or released on last gen hardware. If its running (or designed to run) at 30fps on last gen Hardware, it will likely scale up to 60fps on current gen.
Cutting edge games for the current gen tend to target 30fps and 60fps (or better) requires PC level CPU's and a lot more power consumption. You may be able to sacrifice quality and/or features somewhere to free up resources to push for 60fps on the Series X - like dropping the resolution, lowering the visual quality settings (shadow quality, draw distances, object density etc ) but I doubt you'll have a 60fps mode on Series S.
Consoles tend to offer 30fps because they are designed to be 'affordable' for mass market appeal - not the 'best' hardware on the market designed for optimal performance, competing with high end PCs. They are designed to 'compete' with budget end Gaming PC's and enable you to play these games on hardware that cost's 'less' than the 'minimum' spec PC required to play those games and often does so at a equivalent or better graphical quality albeit at half the Frame Rate - although generally more stable too...
You either settle for a game that's not exactly pushing the hardware, designed to also run on last gen hardware or to run at 60fps and anything that impacts that will be 'cut' or you want a game that is the pushing the hardware to the very limit with cutting edge features and designed with one eye on future, one eye on next gen Consoles and the high end PC's of tomorrow so 30fps is the 'best' a mass market 'budget' hardware can expect.
I know Series X, PS5/Pro aren't 'cheap' but they are 6yrs old in their CPU and still cheaper than a minimum Spec PC expected to run these games would cost, still the 'budget' mass market hardware option that Consoles have always catered to which is why the 'cutting' edge and most ambitious games have always been 30fps so I doubt GTA will be any different!
I believe that Fortnite Crew is the reason that Game Pass jumped up so much in Cost and that they took the WRONG product out! I don't think it was CoD, but they know the fan base will still buy CoD and probably pocket the money for all those paying for Fortnite Crew but don't play Fortnite, don't have to give Epic their cut...
Game Pass is about Games, its a Game Library service and Microsoft promised ALL their Games Day and Date in Game Pass - that promise has been broken and now I don't trust Microsoft or that they won't decide to keep other games from the Service in the future, maybe Elder Scrolls 6 or some other expensive game to make that won't get the sales they want/expect.
Call of Duty doesn' just make its money from 'sales' of the base game, it makes money from Blackcell Season Passes, CoD Points and Customisation bundles - and more gamers in, more buying those extras. No-one will buy in a 'year' when the Seasonal content is gone and it actually cost 'more' to Sub for a year than buy anyway.
Fortnite crew doesn't add Games to a Game service, doesn't enable you to play a Game you couldn't play 'Free' without Game Pass and added a LOT to the price - CoD was in Game Pass before they added Fortnite Crew (a $12 Premium sub) and Ubisoft+ and raised the price by $10 - a 'bargain if you consider Fortnite Crew and Ubisoft+ would cost around $17 separately but only raised GPU by $10 - but it was that $10 price rise that forced many to quit and dropping CoD and the Price back down won't bring me back at all.
I subbed to GPU because ALL MS games, now and future were expected to be Day 1 but now they aren't. It may only be CoD (an Annual release I enjoy and usually end up buying anyway) but its the principal and I'm not paying for 'other' Subscriptions (Fortnite, Ubisoft etc) that I don't use - its now 'cheaper' to buy the 1 or 2 MS games a year I'll play - especially as I don't need to play Day 1 than Sub. I won't miss not trying games that I probably wouldn't have bought just because they were in Game Pass - even if it did lead to a couple of purchases I wouldn't have made without trying but I'm also not paying for a Subscription that I'm only playing 1 or 2 games
It was nice to play some games Day 1, instead of waiting for sales, but I'm happy to wait for sales and save my Subscription fee to buy an extra game or two...
If true, that would be a new 'low' for MS who has a history of low points. Its one thing to try and find potential buyers for your Studio's that you no longer deem feasible in the current market place - at least for your plans going forward, but to advertise a Product to your Customers that you don't expect to be delivering, don't expect to make and/or release is unbelievable.
That game was being advertised to sell 'Xbox' - either hardware, Services (Game Pass Subscriptions) or the software itself as well as what your existing Customer base can expect in the coming years. Just like we expect Gears of War or Modern Warfare 4, we expect to see Senua arrive. If the 'intention' is to sell Ninja Theory and you are seeking potential Buyers, then that should have been kept separate from the showcase, and certainly not for 'public' viewing.
I do think its incredibly bad practice, maybe even False advertising as these are a 'promise' of what you can expect to come in the future if you buy into their System today. I've said MANY times that Games shouldn't be revealed, publicly confirmed etc until they are certain it they will release. That's a promise of the 'content' we expect to come to our Hardware in the near future, a promise of what we can expect 'inside the box'. Its bad enough when delays occur as the date they give is a 'promise' to the customer when they can expect to receive the content they promised.
In other words, NO game should even be revealed to the Customers or publicly confirmed until its guaranteed to release - can't be 'too' disappointed if they cancel - its not as if you knew and were expecting to play it - not as if you pre-ordered or bought hardware to play it if you didn't know it existed (until after it was cancelled anyway). Once revealed, that is a 'promise' to your customers of the Content they can expect and ONLY give it a Date as to when they can play it when they 99.999% sure it will release then. I know you can't account for unforeseen problems and/or issues outside your control, but gamers would be far more forgiving with Transparency in your communication and delays would be extremely rare - if you haven't announced a release date, you haven't made a 'promise' to your Customers, set their expectations.
Microsoft does own a lot of great IP's and that means they have a lot of potential for success in the future but as was also pointed out, you need 'Studios' to realise the potential, to make the Games to 'sell' to Gamers. It doesn't matter if you own the IP's but not using them.
Of course they can use Studios for hire to make games for them instead of owning the Studios but if they can't afford to keep their own studios, how are they going to pay a 3rd Party to make them with similar costs and overheads?
When CEO's and Managers are making Millions every year, maybe they should take a pay cut, not award themselves pay rises and bonuses instead of closing down the Studios that are actually making the Products you sell to your customers!!
I understand that the market is tough and gamers in general aren't spending what little money they have on 'new' video games, choosing to wait for sales whilst playing their backlog or free to play games like Fortnite or Roblox. Therefore their revenue is shrinking whilst their costs are rising and market is shrinking because of Global unrest and resulting sanctions etc.
Its never great to hear that jobs are going to be lost and as Gamers, its the loss of Studios that hurt the most as they are the ones that make those games, make the products we want to buy, make the products that keep us engaged - even if you don't like their games, ,you don't really want to see them closed and ultimately 'less' games from a Publisher.
We all know that if they sacked some of the higher ups, they could keep these studio's open because of saving the obscene salaries the CEO and top level managers get but its people like Nadella and Sharma that don't play games, being paid an obscene amount of money making decisions that ensure they'll keep getting their Salaries whilst hoping to reduce the amount of Products they sell and likely raising the costs too.
I know the Market has been tough and its affected EVERY publisher. They have ALL closed down very talented Studios, even some that never got the chance to make a game for their 'Publisher' after being acquired, some after releasing a game so the Publisher makes money and isn't going to be paying the Studio to make another game.
Its a shame that Developers can't 'self' fund and 'self' publish so they don't need to be owned by Publishers and are 'free' to release their games on ALL platforms for maximum reach without interference from Platform manufacturers. I've said for years, ALL games should be playable on ALL Hardware so ALL gamers can access them, that ALL games can reach their Audience and that NO hardware manufacturer should have the right to limit content or Reach. I'm sure that MANY developers would be far more Successful and Secure if they only had to cover 'their' costs and not the Salaries and overheads of the Publishers, not have to make them a Profit too...
@themightyant It may not have been 'wise' to buy ABK in hindsight, but they were available and offered MS something they truly needed back then - IP's, Studio's and Games for their Game Pass service. They also had expertise in Mobile Gaming - something MS had struggled with.
Buying ABK also gave them Publishing rights to ALL of the CoD games and previous releases so instantly started making money back - every game, DLC, Cosmetic bundle etc sold, MS made money. They didn't need to wait for these studio's to make a Game they could Publish and sell to start earning money back.
But they also had to honour agreements - like Deathloop and Ghostwire, like Marketing rights on CoD for Sony and no doubt haven't really had the 'opportunity'' to have the control as owners you would expect as the Games released would have been greenlit and started development under Koticks management.
By the time they had taken over ABK, things had drastically changed in the market. From coming out of that Pandemic boom when they announced the Purchase, when Game Pass was very much on the 'up' and being held back by lack of First Party IP's/Games, the costs of putting third Party games in was escalating so they needed their own instead, being 'hurt' by the 'lack of games' that had plagued Xbox for the past few years and even the 2018 Studios had yet to really deliver, they needed Big IP's (and CoD is arguably the biggest) and more IPs. ABK wasn't interested in 'Game Pass' and Kotick himself stated he would not put games into a Sub service.
Xbox was at its most Successful when it had CoD and that sold Xbox Gold far more than Halo ever did, that sold hardware and actually gave them that market lead that Sony eventually caught up and probably overtook in the end - but I'd argue ABK needed MS (if not for the staff and working practices, to stop the 'rot' and decline, for getting rid of Kotick and/or stopping them being owned by a Chinese Company) as much as MS needed ABK and its Global circumstances that has (currently) impacted them - but maybe in 5 or 10yrs, things could look very different. EA were once the 'worst' company in the world yet today aren't viewed that negatively.
I don't want to bring Politics and Wars into the discussion, but the reality is those things have had and continue to have a MAJOR impact on our Hobby and unfortunately, the lack of revenue, from a shrinking Market space as well as people spending less but escalating costs is the cause and why EVERY Publisher is suffering - MS perhaps more so because of the size of the 'Xbox' group and the fact they merged 3 'publishing' divisions into 1 - that meant that there are a LOT more staff doing exactly the same job - effectively 3 managers where only 1 is required. You don't need 3 separate PR teams, each having to organise their OWN group of studio releases, the PR schedule, organise the events (E3, Gamescom etc) and their groups timetables - that can ALL be handled by one 'MS' team with 1 manager. Yes studios are individual and required for the development of games, to make a sellable product - but there is also a LOT of Publishing staff at MS, at Zenimax and at ABK that are doing the same job. There is likely to be rationalising as those teams 'merged' and some would be surplus to requirements.
@themightyant MS bought Zenimax and ABK hbecause they were BOTH struggling and on the decline - Fallout 76 was a disaster, Wolfenstein Youngblood flopped and they were forcing Arkane to make a Live Service game that MS basically killed the 'Live Service' part when they took over. ABK shares were crashing and Kotick had basically killed most studio's he could to ensure CoD would release annually on time every year regardless - even if that meant NO other releases. Blizzard too had studio's merged into it and I bet both would have suffered massive culls too in the current climate if no-one had bought them - just like EVERY other Publisher.
TenCent potentially would have killed ABK altogether - maybe even destroyed CoD if they took over as they were interested in doing so. Sold off aspects, closed down others and kept the IPs to be made by their Chinese studios where costs are cheaper.
Sony too invested and has had quite a few rounds of 'restructuring' and Closures with the likes of Bluepoint Studios closing in March 2026 after only joining a few years prior and Dark Outlaw Games - the Jason Blundell Studio that never made a game for Sony also closed too. Bungie has been culled and its future uncertain and there was rumours that Housemarque could be in trouble too after both Marathon and Saros failed to hit the Commercial success expected.
When you take over a MASSIVE Publisher- there are also MANY jobs that are duplicated, unnecessary and therefore need to be rationalised. You don't need 3 separate PR teams, 3 separate HR teams, 3 Separate 'Publishing' teams - each with their own managerial structure etc - they can be rationalised into 1. ABK alone more than doubled the MS Xbox Game staff when they joined - ABK alone was 'bigger' than Xboxx and Zenimax combined in staff numbers - despite its LOW output of games in recent years.
Point is that MS may have had to Cull more, but they also had much more staff, much more overhead, much more reason to 'cull' and just because they may have done it a few times already, doesn't mean that others haven't 'culled' multiple times or maybe weren't more Ruthless earlier on. Just because MS acquired Zenimax and ABK doesn't mean that those Publishers wouldn't have been affected, wouldn't have culled staff etc with recent global events. In fact I would expect Kotick to have been more Ruthless and much more likely to replace humans with AI for bigger Profit margins and I would expect Zenimax to have continued to push games out far too soon so those broken, unready messes would have flopped harder leading to even more financial problems leading to a harsher 'cull'...
@themightyant very different world to the one that we 'thought' it would be when MS bought Zenimax in March 2021 and committed to buying ABK in January of 2022.
Yes the Pandemic was basically over and that of course meant that the 'boom' of people having a LOT of Leisure time and having to spend that all indoors/at home, but no-one predicted that Ukraine would be invaded and the resulting sanctions stop them from accessing a MASSIVE market whilst also raising the costs of shipping. 4 yrs later, that market is still closed off. The cost of things like Electricity, required to develop games has also risen above inflation and so the 'cost' to produce their products has escalated whilst the market to sell those products has shrunk. That 'smaller' market is also being hit by rising costs leaving them with less money to spend on their 'hobbies and leisure activities'.
Whilst some countries and areas may not be impacted that much, some regions, so some gamers are struggling to put food on the table after paying their bills and putting fuel in their car. The games they are playing are their Backlog games, free to play games and/or cheap sale games - not buying new at full price so all Gaming Publishers are being affected. MS perhaps more so because they 'invested' more.
Every Publisher has been affected - they have all closed studios, all cancelled games, all cut jobs etc and the more the world is unstable,, the more likely that the 'global' market for leisure/entertainment products will struggle to sell. Its not just AI for 'entertainment' purposes that are requiring Silicon, chips and RAM, but also drones and missiles for 'defence' too.
5yrs ago, we were coming out of a Pandemic and expecting the World to return to the status it had pre-pandemic, maybe even some of those who had discovered Gaming due to Lockdowns would become gamers, spend their free cash on Gaming products and services, but the reality is that some markets were 'blocked' from selling to, thus seeing a drop off in revenue and costs rose more than expected leaving ALL those Companies to re-evaluate and restructure to the 'new' reality they hadn't predicted, expected or planned for...
Caught between trying to move forward whilst many still want to cling to the past and by that I also mean the 'Hardware' and Exclusives model. MS can NEVER truly offer Exclusives anymore - partly because of the rising cost of Game development and the time it takes to make games as they don't sell enough Hardware units to sell enough games to cover the costs and they won't sell enough Hardware because NO PC gamer requires an Xbox to play those Exclusives. Instead of buying an Xbox for the exclusives, they'll buy a Playstation and/or Switch and play ALL the Xbox 'exclusives' on PC. Because they release on PC too, they are never truly 'exclusive' to the Xbox Console unlike both Nintendo and Sony Exclusives.
Back when MS decided to get into the Console business, they basically abandoned their PC customers who they had been making games for prior. They also 'bought' a lot games aand 'acquired' those IP's. They had very few studios and paid third Party Studios to publish and in some cases acquired the IP too. But the hardware wasn't that expensive and most games would be developed over a couple of years - hence you could see 3 or more games from a Franchise over a generation. Gears 1-3 and Judgement on 360, Uncharted 1-3 and Last of Us on PS3 yet now you'd be lucky to get more than 1 game per gen from a Studio and costs of Hardware are going up and up too.
So they are caught between those that 'demand' exclusives which limits their reach, their revenue, their 'business' just to sell a few more units of Hardware or find more avenues to sell their products/services to bring in more revenue that justifies the investment costs they put in. One way may well be to 'license' the Hardware manufacturing to the likes of Asus or Lenovo for example and effectively be just the Publisher - like they were before they got into Hardware. Consoles aren't super affordable compared to a 'basic' Gaming PC capable of running the latest games at 'console' like performance and graphics. The difference in cost 25yrs ago between a Xbox and a gaming PC was much larger than it is today which is why MS got into the Console business in the first place - to bring PC games to an 'affordable' mass market audience as PC's were too expensive - now kids are playing games on PC's, on cloud or mobiles whilst its the 'older' gamers who grew up playing on consoles that still want that 'traditional' Console experience...
A massive purchase for ALL those Studio's making just a couple of games at tremendous cost as Kotick had pushed all those Studio's into those few IP's. With 'Activision', that meant every Studio was eventually pulled away from making the games they 'wanted' into making or assisting with CoD. Studios were also folded into others - Neversoft for example to ensure CoD's annual cycle.
ABK was on the verge of Collapse because it ONLY relied on a few Games whilst employing MANY people. They were putting all their eggs in one basket and hoping that the Basket would continue to hold - that (along with the poor reputation and work environment) had seen the Share price crash, until MS offered a 'high' price per Share to buy them ALL. Shareholders saw their shares dropping and dropping, MS offered above Market price so they ALL accepted.
Now they have ALL those Studios making the 'few' games they did without restructuring and inherited the same issue ABK had - many Studios, but very few releases to show for it...
For me, it was what they 'added' to increase that price - Ubisoft+ (which makes some sense as it brings more Games to a Games Library service) and a Premium $12 Premium Subscription for a FREE to Play game which isn't required at all to play the game and doesn't bring ANY games to a Game Library service at all. The Price may have only increased by $10 compared to the price of Ubisoft+ and Fortnite Crew combined, but that pushed the price beyond acceptable.
Because they took the 'wrong' thing out, didn't remove a Subscription for a FREE to Play game but decided to take their OWN game out which breaks their 'promise' that ALL their games would be in Game Pass day and date, I won't resubscribe to ultimate.
If they'll take CoD out, their OWN product but leave in a Premium Subscription to an Free to Play game by 'Epic', then what next? Elder Scrolls 6 too expensive to put in Game Pass Day 1? Fallout? Doom? The whole point of buying ABK was to put GAMES in Game Pass, put CoD in Game Pass to sell Subscriptions!!!
Its not just the 'Price', its the games, the 'content' and if you are taking one of your BIG IP's out - knowing it will sell regardless - but leave in a Subscription to a Game you can play FREE without Game Pass anyway, then I won't be resubscribing. I'll just wait for sales to play the games I want and won't bother with the rest if I can't try them via GP first.
Maybe in a decade or two these will get remastered and released on other platforms - if other Hardware platforms still exist then...
I couldn't care less about 'Exclusives' and think ALL games should be on ALL platforms so gamers get to enjoy the Games they want to play on the Hardware they 'prefer' to play on, not be forced to buy boxes for a a couple of games a year you can't play on whatever Hardware you prefer to play all the other releases on, the one with the features, the UI or controller and layout you prefer!
I couldn't care less whether they are 'Exclusive' or not, all that matters to me is that I can play them on the Hardware I want to play them on and actually think its better that ALL gamers get to play the games they want on the Hardware they prefer to game on rather than be forced to buy Hardware they don't really want just to play a 'few' games or miss out on them.
For 'Xbox' fans, they can play the game Day 1 with their Game Pass Subscription whilst others have to pay the 'high' charge. I will never understand why some get really angry that others they don't know get to play and enjoy the 'SAME' games they can or feel they 'need' exclusives to justify their Hardware choice!
You can still have Exclusives to 'sell' your Platform, sell your Subscriptions etc but you can ALSO release games on ALL platforms to reach ALL gamers.
That may sound like a Contradiction, but you can release ALL your Single Player games for example on your own platform to sell the Hardware and once that Game is no longer selling Hardware, release it on other Platforms to maximise reach. Those that wanted to play it Day 1 or would want to play on your Platform would have bought it.
Any that would rather miss out or happily wait years for it to come to their platform, their preferred place to play can aren't buying your Platform just to play that game so its NOT selling Hardware anyway and they wouldn't get any revenue from a fairly large chunk of gamers who 'prefer' and/or ONLY play on a different platform.
For example, if you ONLY play on Xbox/PC or that is your preferred platform of choice, you are unlikely to buy a Playstation for a Game or two - especially not as the price of Hardware and basic Sub to unlock all content/features (PS+ Essential for Online/social gaming, cloud saves etc) is so expensive these days. You'd either 'miss out' entirely or wait until Sony decides to release on PC. It may not be worth spending £500+ on Hardware for 1 or 2 games at most a year as ALL the other games are releasing on your Platform day 1 anyway.
Its not like the 360/PS3 era when Consoles were £300 or less and there were 4 or more Exclusives a year because devs weren't taking 5yrs to make a Game. Naughty Dog released 3 Uncharted games and Last of Us on PS3 but only 1 Uncharted (and a Standalone expansion to it) and Last us Pt 2 since the PS4 released (not counting the ports of old games they'd already made and released).
Multiplayer - like CoD, Minecraft are better with friends, are better with full lobbies, are better with cross-play and not splitting their fanbase between platform choices. If you are CoD fan, you should be able to play with other CoD fans, be in the same lobbies etc - you all share the same passion for that game.
Point is, If you are a Playstation gamer, you maybe won't buy an Xbox just to play a 'few' Exclusives so no Revenue and far less 'reach' for their Games. You can still make them 'exclusive' for a year or so to sell Hardware for those that 'need' exclusives to justify their Hardware purchasing decision - but still release them to maximise reach and revenue at a later date, when the game is no longer selling on their platform, no longer selling hardware either as their newer releases are doing that...
Considering the games that do run on a Series S, I do think it has more to do with the Developer and their lack of planning, lack of proper management of their project and may even reflect more on the Devs themselves.
These games aren't doing thing that 'other' games, other engines, other developers haven't implemented, aren't pushing Graphics, physics, mechanics etc beyond other games, not relying on extremely expensive and/or complex methods (like Path tracing with multiple bounces) instead of traditional methods. Animation, Audio etc aren't generations ahead of other games that run on last gen hardware.
It seems that the devs either didn't really plan or manage their development well, didn't optimise or design efficiently which now needs more attention and time. Its not as if these games are doing 'more' than other games that run well on a Series S, its more that it shows up those devs that didn't plan well, didn't make their game 'optimally' so it would scale 'down' - using 'power' to push through their sub-optimal coding.
The Games should scale down as they aren't trying to hit the same 4k graphical presentation and the CPU isn't as scaled down as the GPU/RAM so the Brains (CPU) isn't scaled down like the 'Graphics' are (or should be).
2 days 'early' access that will be 'worthless' to ANYONE after that date or anyone who isn't interested in pre-ordering or playing it 2 days before it goes on sale to EVERYONE. Games are NEVER at their best on release day, let alone 2 days earlier. Bugs always exist and patches will come, let alone additional content/features added post launch. Early players are Play-testers to find the bugs/glitches/issues in the 'real' world and/or with thousands/millions of 'real' players rather than a handful in controlled environment.
Play Anywhere will still benefit Xbox/PC gamers for months after it releases and when the game is cheap on sale. A few days early access is NO incentive to buy after its general release day and is a 'free' way to encourage pre-orders. The game is ready to release and often released to reviewers so its no 'cost' to the Publisher and they may 'gain' a few extra pre-orders - therefore a no-cost to publisher/dev offer to incentivise pre-ordering. Its not like they had to pay to make something exclusively for those who pre-order.
Physical is JUST a delivery system and has been for the past two generations of hardware. Since the XB1 (and PS4) era, ALL games have required installation to the internal storage to run - especially now on the Series/PS5 generation where SSD's are REQUIRED for a game to run. The ONLY reason you have to put a disc in the Hardware is to either Download the game OR prove you still own a Valid licence to access the game.
The disc is basically a coaster with a licence on it, just an 'access' key that is required to unlock the Game stored and runs on your Hardware. Discs and Disc drives are 'useless' for Gaming as they have limited Capacity and are far too slow to run Games. Gone are the days when you could buy a game, but the media in the Hardware and begin playing immediately. Now you have to wait hours for the game to download and install regardless of whether you bought from Disc or not.
The ONLY real advantage of Discs is that you can sell, loan or pass on that Licence to someone else, trade it in for something different, give it to your friends/family etc. Maybe in 30yrs time or so,you might be able to 're-download' the game and play on OG hardware after its been switched off from Internet Access - but those that bought Digital can probably download and play on modern hardware via Backwards Compatibility
Chances are, the Disc Drive and Discs will become 'obsolete' soon as they are an added expense, discs can't fit the content on it and can't play games as the read speeds, the data transfer speed is far too slow for 'modern' gaming. A £30 disc drive added at point of manufacture adds £100 at point of Purchase just so Gamers can 'sell' their Licences if they choose - which is a valid reason to buy Physical in my opinion but the disc itself is just a delivery system to get the 'game' on your Hardware (like the internet is) and the ONLY reason you have to keep putting the disc in 'every' time you want to play is to 'unlock' the software, to prove you still own that piece of Plastic, that you haven't sold, traded, loaned, lost or damaged it. The game is installed and running on your hardware!
Sony would likely feel that their hardware would not be 'competitive', that their fans woukd abandon their ecosystem because Sony wouldn't have any 'unique' games but as PC and Xbox both have a Microsoft OS and as such, would have 'ALL' Xbox games as well as the 1000's of games exclusively available to play on PC, their own hardware would be 'obsolete'.
Personally, I think Hardware should sell on Price, Specs, Aesthetic, OS/UI, Controller layout/features etc and Games/Content should be available to ALL gamers. If gamers prefer Sony's OS/UI or MS's Controller, they shouldn't miss out on Games or be forced to buy multiple devices.
Consoles these days aren't 'cheap' mass market boxes and cost as much as a gaming PC with far less Games in their Library. Also Games are taking far longer to develop so you see far fewer 1st Party releases. Naughty Dog released Uncharted 1-3 and LoU on PS3 but haven't released that many 'new' games in the past decade. SuckerPunch, Guerilla etc are releasing a game every 5+ yrs. So instead of paying under £300 for hardware and getting 5 or 6 exclusives a year, its now £600+ for 1 or 2 games ONLY on that hardware - and you still have to spend money on a Sub fee to play the games you've spent £70+ to play because they yrequire online connectivity to run. It ends up costing over £1k for Hardware and PS+/GPC for 6+ yrs and if you stop paying the sub fee, you can't play the games you bought to play on that hardware...
Sony may think I'll buy their Console just because they have half a dozen games I can't play on PC, but I'm not paying that much for just an Exclusives 'box' when the PC has '100's' of games that probably have a similar Game-play loop, similar genre and mechanics.
I still haven't played much of FH5 and still have all the others to play IF I want to play a Forza Horizon game so I won't be buying early access and doubt I'll bother playing FH6 until its cheap on sale. I don't think they've really addressed the 'issues' I have with the series which over 5 games now have grated and put me off.
I'm sure its a superb Forza Horizon game but the 'festival aspect, the dialogue and very limited Radio/music choice (I only tolerated 1 music station and that got very repetitive quickly) and repetition of activities and races, things I can do on previous games - I don't need to spend money to get the exact same experience etc just means I won't be rushing to play this. Its not really what I want to play and can play FH1-5 if I did anyway.
Pre-ordered as it has Play Anywhere and I had a gift voucher to use up - its the only game releasing soon I was interested in and if I didn't use my voucher, I'd lose it soon.
I was also surprised that it is the 'deluxe' edition and cheaper than most new AAA games releasing. Game-play looks interesting and could fillthat hole left by the cancellation of Perfect Dark.
Completed it and really enjoyed it #, collectedeverything on my first run through so never felt the need to return but I much preferred it to 2016's Doom and a LOT better than Eternal which I quit playing because its NOT what I want or expect from Doom. It felt like a return to what Doom was and should be - more in common with the OG games too!
4 had that 'local' setting which to me gave it the edge over 3 which I think was where the game-play peaked. 1 set up the Franchise and how it would differ from Motorsport, 2 built upon and refined what 1 did and 3 was where it peaked. 4 had the setting that I am most familiar with but by 5 I had outgrown the Game-play loop and the Festival structure in particular, wanting something different as it felt more like a reskin of what came before and fear FH6 will be just more of the same...
I don't expect them to have ALL the details figured out, inc the price as I expect the world is too volatile for that.
That being said, I am certain that the device will Likely be a Windows device - whether it can/will boot to the 'full' windows, come supplied with ALL the parts or just be limited to booting in what is effectively Windows Gaming mode. If you can't access the full Windows and those processes that are switched off, not required in Gaming mode are not supplied, then you may not be able to search for and download emulators or use it as a full PC too. Its still a MS Console and MS can control what other Apps you can access - Steam, Epic etc
And they can't please EVERYONE - Some of the things that others see as an issue and/or need fixing, another will be angry or frustrated that they Change or 'fix' it the way they do.
Try and regain some Xbox users with changes/fixes and push others away who would prefer they changed/fixed something else and what they did change/fix was the one thing they were happy with...
Point is, what maybe 'bad' for someone could be great for another, what may make someone join could be something that makes another leave, Whatt maybe the best thing about Xbox for one, could be the worst for another so they won't please everyone and will end up pushing some away as they attract others back
I won't pay $/£70 for ANY game and NO game is worth that much to me. They are NO bigger/better than games were on the 360 generation - from a Game-play loop, Story and/or content perspective. Tech may have help games look or run better, but they don't offer better stories or better Game-play mechanics and often use the same game-play loop those old games offered.
Games may take longer to make, but they are choosing to spend that time on improving the graphical look - increasing the detail, the polygon counts, the number of assets they can render on screen, the draw distances etc.
I also don't need to play games on Day 1, not with the massive backlog I have. I still have games I haven't started yet so I would rather play those than spend £70 on a game that needs at least 3 of 4 patches to fix the bugs and optimise for better performance. I can also buy 4+ games in a sale for that much and many that offer 100's of hours of content, great stories and engaging game-play loops.
The 360 generation had games like Bioshock, Mass Effect, Fallout 3, Skyrim, Gears of War trilogy, Dead Space etc etc and modern games aren't 'better' from a narrative or game-play perspective, just graphically better due to technology and hardware evolving. It would be nice if games 'evolved' not just graphics to justify costs...
@Skinny-Pete yeah - it feels huge - I spent a day just trying to unlock the whole map and do the Demiguise mission - I still haven't unlocked ALL the map and still only done 1 trial in the main mission quest. I think I've put in 34hrs so far...
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.
Comments 4,100
Re: GTA 6 Costs $80, Described As A 'Single-Player Experience'
So a LOT more and lacking GTAO.
Good job I had no interest in it as that price point would certainly kill any interest - pure GREED as far as I am concerned. I won't pay more than £50 for ANY game and I doubt GTA will be so innovative, never been done before game-play mechanics etc. I bet it will be extremely similar to its predecessor, just spent all that time and money on Graphics.
As there are superb stories, games with great Game-play and many many hours worth of entertainment value available in sales, in my backlog etc, no game is worth paying that much just to play it at/near launch. For $80, I can buy 4 or more games in the sales...
Re: What Does A $1049 Steam Machine Mean For Xbox's Project Helix?
Just look at PS5/Series X prices as well as the all digital PS5 Pro with its 6yr old Chip. SSD storage and RAM have gone up and I doubt the chipp will be 'cheaper' with a more powerful CPU/GPU built in to it. Shipping and distribution costs too are escalating so I'd be surprised if it was 'much' cheaper - and I can't imagine Sony selling a PS6 either for 'less' than a PS5 Pro costs either.
The raw materials aren't any cheaper, if not actually more expensive as they too likely incur additional shipping costs to get them to the factory for assembly into the Console.
The demand for Silicon, for RAM, for storage etc is increasing which is why the costs are escalating. Add in the rising cost of fuel that affects shipping the hardware around the world and we are more likely to see prices going up and up through the generation if they try and undercut, subsidise and/or take a loss on it...
Re: "They Said That I'm Crazy" - Hideo Kojima Says Many "Big Companies" Rejected His New Horror Game Before Xbox Snapped It Up
Xbox only picked it up because its got Kojima's name attached and only got that opportunity as no other Publisher had any faith or belief in the project.
Having a Kojima Game on Xbox probably meant more for Microsoft than having that exact same game without his name attached would have. I bet it having his name on the project will boost its review score by a few extra points it otherwise wouldn't receive and of course help Microsoft a bit in Japan too...
Re: Talking Point: How Well Do You Expect GTA 6 To Run On Xbox Series X|S?
I really don't care s I don't have any interest in GTA and haven't had any interest since GTA 3. Therefore I don't have any expectations at all but I can make an educated prediction.
Consoles are the 'budget' option, literally the lowest priced Hardware designed to allow gamers to play games at a 'reasonable' frame rate. I wouldn't expect '60 fps' unless they are targetting last gen Hardware and 30fps for that hardware. The reason we have a LOT of 60fps games this gen is primarily because those games were designed and/or released on last gen hardware. If its running (or designed to run) at 30fps on last gen Hardware, it will likely scale up to 60fps on current gen.
Cutting edge games for the current gen tend to target 30fps and 60fps (or better) requires PC level CPU's and a lot more power consumption. You may be able to sacrifice quality and/or features somewhere to free up resources to push for 60fps on the Series X - like dropping the resolution, lowering the visual quality settings (shadow quality, draw distances, object density etc ) but I doubt you'll have a 60fps mode on Series S.
Consoles tend to offer 30fps because they are designed to be 'affordable' for mass market appeal - not the 'best' hardware on the market designed for optimal performance, competing with high end PCs. They are designed to 'compete' with budget end Gaming PC's and enable you to play these games on hardware that cost's 'less' than the 'minimum' spec PC required to play those games and often does so at a equivalent or better graphical quality albeit at half the Frame Rate - although generally more stable too...
You either settle for a game that's not exactly pushing the hardware, designed to also run on last gen hardware or to run at 60fps and anything that impacts that will be 'cut' or you want a game that is the pushing the hardware to the very limit with cutting edge features and designed with one eye on future, one eye on next gen Consoles and the high end PC's of tomorrow so 30fps is the 'best' a mass market 'budget' hardware can expect.
I know Series X, PS5/Pro aren't 'cheap' but they are 6yrs old in their CPU and still cheaper than a minimum Spec PC expected to run these games would cost, still the 'budget' mass market hardware option that Consoles have always catered to which is why the 'cutting' edge and most ambitious games have always been 30fps so I doubt GTA will be any different!
Re: Poll: What Do You Think Of Call Of Duty's Delay To Xbox Game Pass?
I believe that Fortnite Crew is the reason that Game Pass jumped up so much in Cost and that they took the WRONG product out! I don't think it was CoD, but they know the fan base will still buy CoD and probably pocket the money for all those paying for Fortnite Crew but don't play Fortnite, don't have to give Epic their cut...
Game Pass is about Games, its a Game Library service and Microsoft promised ALL their Games Day and Date in Game Pass - that promise has been broken and now I don't trust Microsoft or that they won't decide to keep other games from the Service in the future, maybe Elder Scrolls 6 or some other expensive game to make that won't get the sales they want/expect.
Call of Duty doesn' just make its money from 'sales' of the base game, it makes money from Blackcell Season Passes, CoD Points and Customisation bundles - and more gamers in, more buying those extras. No-one will buy in a 'year' when the Seasonal content is gone and it actually cost 'more' to Sub for a year than buy anyway.
Fortnite crew doesn't add Games to a Game service, doesn't enable you to play a Game you couldn't play 'Free' without Game Pass and added a LOT to the price - CoD was in Game Pass before they added Fortnite Crew (a $12 Premium sub) and Ubisoft+ and raised the price by $10 - a 'bargain if you consider Fortnite Crew and Ubisoft+ would cost around $17 separately but only raised GPU by $10 - but it was that $10 price rise that forced many to quit and dropping CoD and the Price back down won't bring me back at all.
I subbed to GPU because ALL MS games, now and future were expected to be Day 1 but now they aren't. It may only be CoD (an Annual release I enjoy and usually end up buying anyway) but its the principal and I'm not paying for 'other' Subscriptions (Fortnite, Ubisoft etc) that I don't use - its now 'cheaper' to buy the 1 or 2 MS games a year I'll play - especially as I don't need to play Day 1 than Sub. I won't miss not trying games that I probably wouldn't have bought just because they were in Game Pass - even if it did lead to a couple of purchases I wouldn't have made without trying but I'm also not paying for a Subscription that I'm only playing 1 or 2 games
It was nice to play some games Day 1, instead of waiting for sales, but I'm happy to wait for sales and save my Subscription fee to buy an extra game or two...
Re: Report: Xbox Already Planned To 'Sunset Or Split With' Ninja Theory Before Senua Reveal
If true, that would be a new 'low' for MS who has a history of low points. Its one thing to try and find potential buyers for your Studio's that you no longer deem feasible in the current market place - at least for your plans going forward, but to advertise a Product to your Customers that you don't expect to be delivering, don't expect to make and/or release is unbelievable.
That game was being advertised to sell 'Xbox' - either hardware, Services (Game Pass Subscriptions) or the software itself as well as what your existing Customer base can expect in the coming years. Just like we expect Gears of War or Modern Warfare 4, we expect to see Senua arrive. If the 'intention' is to sell Ninja Theory and you are seeking potential Buyers, then that should have been kept separate from the showcase, and certainly not for 'public' viewing.
I do think its incredibly bad practice, maybe even False advertising as these are a 'promise' of what you can expect to come in the future if you buy into their System today. I've said MANY times that Games shouldn't be revealed, publicly confirmed etc until they are certain it they will release. That's a promise of the 'content' we expect to come to our Hardware in the near future, a promise of what we can expect 'inside the box'. Its bad enough when delays occur as the date they give is a 'promise' to the customer when they can expect to receive the content they promised.
In other words, NO game should even be revealed to the Customers or publicly confirmed until its guaranteed to release - can't be 'too' disappointed if they cancel - its not as if you knew and were expecting to play it - not as if you pre-ordered or bought hardware to play it if you didn't know it existed (until after it was cancelled anyway). Once revealed, that is a 'promise' to your customers of the Content they can expect and ONLY give it a Date as to when they can play it when they 99.999% sure it will release then. I know you can't account for unforeseen problems and/or issues outside your control, but gamers would be far more forgiving with Transparency in your communication and delays would be extremely rare - if you haven't announced a release date, you haven't made a 'promise' to your Customers, set their expectations.
Re: Ori Creator Shares His Take On The Future Of Xbox's First-Party Strategy
Microsoft does own a lot of great IP's and that means they have a lot of potential for success in the future but as was also pointed out, you need 'Studios' to realise the potential, to make the Games to 'sell' to Gamers. It doesn't matter if you own the IP's but not using them.
Of course they can use Studios for hire to make games for them instead of owning the Studios but if they can't afford to keep their own studios, how are they going to pay a 3rd Party to make them with similar costs and overheads?
When CEO's and Managers are making Millions every year, maybe they should take a pay cut, not award themselves pay rises and bonuses instead of closing down the Studios that are actually making the Products you sell to your customers!!
Re: Report: Multiple Xbox Studios In 'Active Negotiations' With Microsoft To Avoid Closure
I understand that the market is tough and gamers in general aren't spending what little money they have on 'new' video games, choosing to wait for sales whilst playing their backlog or free to play games like Fortnite or Roblox. Therefore their revenue is shrinking whilst their costs are rising and market is shrinking because of Global unrest and resulting sanctions etc.
Its never great to hear that jobs are going to be lost and as Gamers, its the loss of Studios that hurt the most as they are the ones that make those games, make the products we want to buy, make the products that keep us engaged - even if you don't like their games, ,you don't really want to see them closed and ultimately 'less' games from a Publisher.
We all know that if they sacked some of the higher ups, they could keep these studio's open because of saving the obscene salaries the CEO and top level managers get but its people like Nadella and Sharma that don't play games, being paid an obscene amount of money making decisions that ensure they'll keep getting their Salaries whilst hoping to reduce the amount of Products they sell and likely raising the costs too.
I know the Market has been tough and its affected EVERY publisher. They have ALL closed down very talented Studios, even some that never got the chance to make a game for their 'Publisher' after being acquired, some after releasing a game so the Publisher makes money and isn't going to be paying the Studio to make another game.
Its a shame that Developers can't 'self' fund and 'self' publish so they don't need to be owned by Publishers and are 'free' to release their games on ALL platforms for maximum reach without interference from Platform manufacturers. I've said for years, ALL games should be playable on ALL Hardware so ALL gamers can access them, that ALL games can reach their Audience and that NO hardware manufacturer should have the right to limit content or Reach. I'm sure that MANY developers would be far more Successful and Secure if they only had to cover 'their' costs and not the Salaries and overheads of the Publishers, not have to make them a Profit too...
Re: Two Key Members Of Xbox Game Studios Are Stepping Down
@themightyant It may not have been 'wise' to buy ABK in hindsight, but they were available and offered MS something they truly needed back then - IP's, Studio's and Games for their Game Pass service. They also had expertise in Mobile Gaming - something MS had struggled with.
Buying ABK also gave them Publishing rights to ALL of the CoD games and previous releases so instantly started making money back - every game, DLC, Cosmetic bundle etc sold, MS made money. They didn't need to wait for these studio's to make a Game they could Publish and sell to start earning money back.
But they also had to honour agreements - like Deathloop and Ghostwire, like Marketing rights on CoD for Sony and no doubt haven't really had the 'opportunity'' to have the control as owners you would expect as the Games released would have been greenlit and started development under Koticks management.
By the time they had taken over ABK, things had drastically changed in the market. From coming out of that Pandemic boom when they announced the Purchase, when Game Pass was very much on the 'up' and being held back by lack of First Party IP's/Games, the costs of putting third Party games in was escalating so they needed their own instead, being 'hurt' by the 'lack of games' that had plagued Xbox for the past few years and even the 2018 Studios had yet to really deliver, they needed Big IP's (and CoD is arguably the biggest) and more IPs. ABK wasn't interested in 'Game Pass' and Kotick himself stated he would not put games into a Sub service.
Xbox was at its most Successful when it had CoD and that sold Xbox Gold far more than Halo ever did, that sold hardware and actually gave them that market lead that Sony eventually caught up and probably overtook in the end - but I'd argue ABK needed MS (if not for the staff and working practices, to stop the 'rot' and decline, for getting rid of Kotick and/or stopping them being owned by a Chinese Company) as much as MS needed ABK and its Global circumstances that has (currently) impacted them - but maybe in 5 or 10yrs, things could look very different. EA were once the 'worst' company in the world yet today aren't viewed that negatively.
I don't want to bring Politics and Wars into the discussion, but the reality is those things have had and continue to have a MAJOR impact on our Hobby and unfortunately, the lack of revenue, from a shrinking Market space as well as people spending less but escalating costs is the cause and why EVERY Publisher is suffering - MS perhaps more so because of the size of the 'Xbox' group and the fact they merged 3 'publishing' divisions into 1 - that meant that there are a LOT more staff doing exactly the same job - effectively 3 managers where only 1 is required. You don't need 3 separate PR teams, each having to organise their OWN group of studio releases, the PR schedule, organise the events (E3, Gamescom etc) and their groups timetables - that can ALL be handled by one 'MS' team with 1 manager. Yes studios are individual and required for the development of games, to make a sellable product - but there is also a LOT of Publishing staff at MS, at Zenimax and at ABK that are doing the same job. There is likely to be rationalising as those teams 'merged' and some would be surplus to requirements.
Re: Two Key Members Of Xbox Game Studios Are Stepping Down
@themightyant MS bought Zenimax and ABK hbecause they were BOTH struggling and on the decline - Fallout 76 was a disaster, Wolfenstein Youngblood flopped and they were forcing Arkane to make a Live Service game that MS basically killed the 'Live Service' part when they took over. ABK shares were crashing and Kotick had basically killed most studio's he could to ensure CoD would release annually on time every year regardless - even if that meant NO other releases. Blizzard too had studio's merged into it and I bet both would have suffered massive culls too in the current climate if no-one had bought them - just like EVERY other Publisher.
TenCent potentially would have killed ABK altogether - maybe even destroyed CoD if they took over as they were interested in doing so. Sold off aspects, closed down others and kept the IPs to be made by their Chinese studios where costs are cheaper.
Sony too invested and has had quite a few rounds of 'restructuring' and Closures with the likes of Bluepoint Studios closing in March 2026 after only joining a few years prior and Dark Outlaw Games - the Jason Blundell Studio that never made a game for Sony also closed too. Bungie has been culled and its future uncertain and there was rumours that Housemarque could be in trouble too after both Marathon and Saros failed to hit the Commercial success expected.
When you take over a MASSIVE Publisher- there are also MANY jobs that are duplicated, unnecessary and therefore need to be rationalised. You don't need 3 separate PR teams, 3 separate HR teams, 3 Separate 'Publishing' teams - each with their own managerial structure etc - they can be rationalised into 1. ABK alone more than doubled the MS Xbox Game staff when they joined - ABK alone was 'bigger' than Xboxx and Zenimax combined in staff numbers - despite its LOW output of games in recent years.
Point is that MS may have had to Cull more, but they also had much more staff, much more overhead, much more reason to 'cull' and just because they may have done it a few times already, doesn't mean that others haven't 'culled' multiple times or maybe weren't more Ruthless earlier on. Just because MS acquired Zenimax and ABK doesn't mean that those Publishers wouldn't have been affected, wouldn't have culled staff etc with recent global events. In fact I would expect Kotick to have been more Ruthless and much more likely to replace humans with AI for bigger Profit margins and I would expect Zenimax to have continued to push games out far too soon so those broken, unready messes would have flopped harder leading to even more financial problems leading to a harsher 'cull'...
Re: Two Key Members Of Xbox Game Studios Are Stepping Down
@themightyant very different world to the one that we 'thought' it would be when MS bought Zenimax in March 2021 and committed to buying ABK in January of 2022.
Yes the Pandemic was basically over and that of course meant that the 'boom' of people having a LOT of Leisure time and having to spend that all indoors/at home, but no-one predicted that Ukraine would be invaded and the resulting sanctions stop them from accessing a MASSIVE market whilst also raising the costs of shipping. 4 yrs later, that market is still closed off. The cost of things like Electricity, required to develop games has also risen above inflation and so the 'cost' to produce their products has escalated whilst the market to sell those products has shrunk. That 'smaller' market is also being hit by rising costs leaving them with less money to spend on their 'hobbies and leisure activities'.
Whilst some countries and areas may not be impacted that much, some regions, so some gamers are struggling to put food on the table after paying their bills and putting fuel in their car. The games they are playing are their Backlog games, free to play games and/or cheap sale games - not buying new at full price so all Gaming Publishers are being affected. MS perhaps more so because they 'invested' more.
Every Publisher has been affected - they have all closed studios, all cancelled games, all cut jobs etc and the more the world is unstable,, the more likely that the 'global' market for leisure/entertainment products will struggle to sell. Its not just AI for 'entertainment' purposes that are requiring Silicon, chips and RAM, but also drones and missiles for 'defence' too.
5yrs ago, we were coming out of a Pandemic and expecting the World to return to the status it had pre-pandemic, maybe even some of those who had discovered Gaming due to Lockdowns would become gamers, spend their free cash on Gaming products and services, but the reality is that some markets were 'blocked' from selling to, thus seeing a drop off in revenue and costs rose more than expected leaving ALL those Companies to re-evaluate and restructure to the 'new' reality they hadn't predicted, expected or planned for...
Re: Microsoft Has Considered 'Spinning Out Or Restructuring' Xbox, Claims Report
Caught between trying to move forward whilst many still want to cling to the past and by that I also mean the 'Hardware' and Exclusives model. MS can NEVER truly offer Exclusives anymore - partly because of the rising cost of Game development and the time it takes to make games as they don't sell enough Hardware units to sell enough games to cover the costs and they won't sell enough Hardware because NO PC gamer requires an Xbox to play those Exclusives. Instead of buying an Xbox for the exclusives, they'll buy a Playstation and/or Switch and play ALL the Xbox 'exclusives' on PC. Because they release on PC too, they are never truly 'exclusive' to the Xbox Console unlike both Nintendo and Sony Exclusives.
Back when MS decided to get into the Console business, they basically abandoned their PC customers who they had been making games for prior. They also 'bought' a lot games aand 'acquired' those IP's. They had very few studios and paid third Party Studios to publish and in some cases acquired the IP too. But the hardware wasn't that expensive and most games would be developed over a couple of years - hence you could see 3 or more games from a Franchise over a generation. Gears 1-3 and Judgement on 360, Uncharted 1-3 and Last of Us on PS3 yet now you'd be lucky to get more than 1 game per gen from a Studio and costs of Hardware are going up and up too.
So they are caught between those that 'demand' exclusives which limits their reach, their revenue, their 'business' just to sell a few more units of Hardware or find more avenues to sell their products/services to bring in more revenue that justifies the investment costs they put in. One way may well be to 'license' the Hardware manufacturing to the likes of Asus or Lenovo for example and effectively be just the Publisher - like they were before they got into Hardware. Consoles aren't super affordable compared to a 'basic' Gaming PC capable of running the latest games at 'console' like performance and graphics. The difference in cost 25yrs ago between a Xbox and a gaming PC was much larger than it is today which is why MS got into the Console business in the first place - to bring PC games to an 'affordable' mass market audience as PC's were too expensive - now kids are playing games on PC's, on cloud or mobiles whilst its the 'older' gamers who grew up playing on consoles that still want that 'traditional' Console experience...
Re: "It's Hard To Say" - Xbox Boss Isn't Sure The Activision Blizzard Deal Has Paid Off
A massive purchase for ALL those Studio's making just a couple of games at tremendous cost as Kotick had pushed all those Studio's into those few IP's. With 'Activision', that meant every Studio was eventually pulled away from making the games they 'wanted' into making or assisting with CoD. Studios were also folded into others - Neversoft for example to ensure CoD's annual cycle.
ABK was on the verge of Collapse because it ONLY relied on a few Games whilst employing MANY people. They were putting all their eggs in one basket and hoping that the Basket would continue to hold - that (along with the poor reputation and work environment) had seen the Share price crash, until MS offered a 'high' price per Share to buy them ALL. Shareholders saw their shares dropping and dropping, MS offered above Market price so they ALL accepted.
Now they have ALL those Studios making the 'few' games they did without restructuring and inherited the same issue ABK had - many Studios, but very few releases to show for it...
Re: Xbox Game Pass Lost 'Millions' Of Subscribers Following October 2025 Price Increase
For me, it was what they 'added' to increase that price - Ubisoft+ (which makes some sense as it brings more Games to a Games Library service) and a Premium $12 Premium Subscription for a FREE to Play game which isn't required at all to play the game and doesn't bring ANY games to a Game Library service at all. The Price may have only increased by $10 compared to the price of Ubisoft+ and Fortnite Crew combined, but that pushed the price beyond acceptable.
Because they took the 'wrong' thing out, didn't remove a Subscription for a FREE to Play game but decided to take their OWN game out which breaks their 'promise' that ALL their games would be in Game Pass day and date, I won't resubscribe to ultimate.
If they'll take CoD out, their OWN product but leave in a Premium Subscription to an Free to Play game by 'Epic', then what next? Elder Scrolls 6 too expensive to put in Game Pass Day 1? Fallout? Doom? The whole point of buying ABK was to put GAMES in Game Pass, put CoD in Game Pass to sell Subscriptions!!!
Its not just the 'Price', its the games, the 'content' and if you are taking one of your BIG IP's out - knowing it will sell regardless - but leave in a Subscription to a Game you can play FREE without Game Pass anyway, then I won't be resubscribing. I'll just wait for sales to play the games I want and won't bother with the rest if I can't try them via GP first.
Re: 21 Game Pass Titles Get New Announcements At The Xbox Showcase 2026
Not enough to make me want to resubscribe to Ultimate just to play Day 1.
Re: Xbox Confirms Its Two New Console Exclusives Are Not 'Timed'
Maybe in a decade or two these will get remastered and released on other platforms - if other Hardware platforms still exist then...
I couldn't care less about 'Exclusives' and think ALL games should be on ALL platforms so gamers get to enjoy the Games they want to play on the Hardware they 'prefer' to play on, not be forced to buy boxes for a a couple of games a year you can't play on whatever Hardware you prefer to play all the other releases on, the one with the features, the UI or controller and layout you prefer!
Re: Xbox First-Party Title 'Clockwork Revolution' Is Yet Another Console Exclusive
I couldn't care less whether they are 'Exclusive' or not, all that matters to me is that I can play them on the Hardware I want to play them on and actually think its better that ALL gamers get to play the games they want on the Hardware they prefer to game on rather than be forced to buy Hardware they don't really want just to play a 'few' games or miss out on them.
For 'Xbox' fans, they can play the game Day 1 with their Game Pass Subscription whilst others have to pay the 'high' charge. I will never understand why some get really angry that others they don't know get to play and enjoy the 'SAME' games they can or feel they 'need' exclusives to justify their Hardware choice!
Re: 'It's A Tough Topic' - Xbox CEO Shares Her Latest Thoughts On Exclusives
You can still have Exclusives to 'sell' your Platform, sell your Subscriptions etc but you can ALSO release games on ALL platforms to reach ALL gamers.
That may sound like a Contradiction, but you can release ALL your Single Player games for example on your own platform to sell the Hardware and once that Game is no longer selling Hardware, release it on other Platforms to maximise reach. Those that wanted to play it Day 1 or would want to play on your Platform would have bought it.
Any that would rather miss out or happily wait years for it to come to their platform, their preferred place to play can aren't buying your Platform just to play that game so its NOT selling Hardware anyway and they wouldn't get any revenue from a fairly large chunk of gamers who 'prefer' and/or ONLY play on a different platform.
For example, if you ONLY play on Xbox/PC or that is your preferred platform of choice, you are unlikely to buy a Playstation for a Game or two - especially not as the price of Hardware and basic Sub to unlock all content/features (PS+ Essential for Online/social gaming, cloud saves etc) is so expensive these days. You'd either 'miss out' entirely or wait until Sony decides to release on PC. It may not be worth spending £500+ on Hardware for 1 or 2 games at most a year as ALL the other games are releasing on your Platform day 1 anyway.
Its not like the 360/PS3 era when Consoles were £300 or less and there were 4 or more Exclusives a year because devs weren't taking 5yrs to make a Game. Naughty Dog released 3 Uncharted games and Last of Us on PS3 but only 1 Uncharted (and a Standalone expansion to it) and Last us Pt 2 since the PS4 released (not counting the ports of old games they'd already made and released).
Multiplayer - like CoD, Minecraft are better with friends, are better with full lobbies, are better with cross-play and not splitting their fanbase between platform choices. If you are CoD fan, you should be able to play with other CoD fans, be in the same lobbies etc - you all share the same passion for that game.
Point is, If you are a Playstation gamer, you maybe won't buy an Xbox just to play a 'few' Exclusives so no Revenue and far less 'reach' for their Games. You can still make them 'exclusive' for a year or so to sell Hardware for those that 'need' exclusives to justify their Hardware purchasing decision - but still release them to maximise reach and revenue at a later date, when the game is no longer selling on their platform, no longer selling hardware either as their newer releases are doing that...
Re: 'Series S Is Making That Rough' - No Rest For The Wicked Dev Shares Update On Xbox Version
Considering the games that do run on a Series S, I do think it has more to do with the Developer and their lack of planning, lack of proper management of their project and may even reflect more on the Devs themselves.
These games aren't doing thing that 'other' games, other engines, other developers haven't implemented, aren't pushing Graphics, physics, mechanics etc beyond other games, not relying on extremely expensive and/or complex methods (like Path tracing with multiple bounces) instead of traditional methods. Animation, Audio etc aren't generations ahead of other games that run on last gen hardware.
It seems that the devs either didn't really plan or manage their development well, didn't optimise or design efficiently which now needs more attention and time. Its not as if these games are doing 'more' than other games that run well on a Series S, its more that it shows up those devs that didn't plan well, didn't make their game 'optimally' so it would scale 'down' - using 'power' to push through their sub-optimal coding.
The Games should scale down as they aren't trying to hit the same 4k graphical presentation and the CPU isn't as scaled down as the GPU/RAM so the Brains (CPU) isn't scaled down like the 'Graphics' are (or should be).
Re: Control Resonant Early Access Is Exclusive To PS5, But At Least We Get 'Play Anywhere' On Xbox
2 days 'early' access that will be 'worthless' to ANYONE after that date or anyone who isn't interested in pre-ordering or playing it 2 days before it goes on sale to EVERYONE. Games are NEVER at their best on release day, let alone 2 days earlier. Bugs always exist and patches will come, let alone additional content/features added post launch. Early players are Play-testers to find the bugs/glitches/issues in the 'real' world and/or with thousands/millions of 'real' players rather than a handful in controlled environment.
Play Anywhere will still benefit Xbox/PC gamers for months after it releases and when the game is cheap on sale. A few days early access is NO incentive to buy after its general release day and is a 'free' way to encourage pre-orders. The game is ready to release and often released to reviewers so its no 'cost' to the Publisher and they may 'gain' a few extra pre-orders - therefore a no-cost to publisher/dev offer to incentivise pre-ordering. Its not like they had to pay to make something exclusively for those who pre-order.
Re: 'We Don't Want It At All' - Playasia Hates The Idea Of An Xbox Disc-To-Digital Program
Physical is JUST a delivery system and has been for the past two generations of hardware. Since the XB1 (and PS4) era, ALL games have required installation to the internal storage to run - especially now on the Series/PS5 generation where SSD's are REQUIRED for a game to run. The ONLY reason you have to put a disc in the Hardware is to either Download the game OR prove you still own a Valid licence to access the game.
The disc is basically a coaster with a licence on it, just an 'access' key that is required to unlock the Game stored and runs on your Hardware. Discs and Disc drives are 'useless' for Gaming as they have limited Capacity and are far too slow to run Games. Gone are the days when you could buy a game, but the media in the Hardware and begin playing immediately. Now you have to wait hours for the game to download and install regardless of whether you bought from Disc or not.
The ONLY real advantage of Discs is that you can sell, loan or pass on that Licence to someone else, trade it in for something different, give it to your friends/family etc. Maybe in 30yrs time or so,you might be able to 're-download' the game and play on OG hardware after its been switched off from Internet Access - but those that bought Digital can probably download and play on modern hardware via Backwards Compatibility
Chances are, the Disc Drive and Discs will become 'obsolete' soon as they are an added expense, discs can't fit the content on it and can't play games as the read speeds, the data transfer speed is far too slow for 'modern' gaming. A £30 disc drive added at point of manufacture adds £100 at point of Purchase just so Gamers can 'sell' their Licences if they choose - which is a valid reason to buy Physical in my opinion but the disc itself is just a delivery system to get the 'game' on your Hardware (like the internet is) and the ONLY reason you have to keep putting the disc in 'every' time you want to play is to 'unlock' the software, to prove you still own that piece of Plastic, that you haven't sold, traded, loaned, lost or damaged it. The game is installed and running on your hardware!
Re: Digital Foundry Labels Sony's PS5 Exclusivity Pivot As A 'Defensive Move Against Project Helix'
Sony would likely feel that their hardware would not be 'competitive', that their fans woukd abandon their ecosystem because Sony wouldn't have any 'unique' games but as PC and Xbox both have a Microsoft OS and as such, would have 'ALL' Xbox games as well as the 1000's of games exclusively available to play on PC, their own hardware would be 'obsolete'.
Personally, I think Hardware should sell on Price, Specs, Aesthetic, OS/UI, Controller layout/features etc and Games/Content should be available to ALL gamers. If gamers prefer Sony's OS/UI or MS's Controller, they shouldn't miss out on Games or be forced to buy multiple devices.
Consoles these days aren't 'cheap' mass market boxes and cost as much as a gaming PC with far less Games in their Library. Also Games are taking far longer to develop so you see far fewer 1st Party releases. Naughty Dog released Uncharted 1-3 and LoU on PS3 but haven't released that many 'new' games in the past decade. SuckerPunch, Guerilla etc are releasing a game every 5+ yrs. So instead of paying under £300 for hardware and getting 5 or 6 exclusives a year, its now £600+ for 1 or 2 games ONLY on that hardware - and you still have to spend money on a Sub fee to play the games you've spent £70+ to play because they yrequire online connectivity to run. It ends up costing over £1k for Hardware and PS+/GPC for 6+ yrs and if you stop paying the sub fee, you can't play the games you bought to play on that hardware...
Sony may think I'll buy their Console just because they have half a dozen games I can't play on PC, but I'm not paying that much for just an Exclusives 'box' when the PC has '100's' of games that probably have a similar Game-play loop, similar genre and mechanics.
Re: Talking Point: So, Did You Cave And Buy Early Access For Forza Horizon 6?
I still haven't played much of FH5 and still have all the others to play IF I want to play a Forza Horizon game so I won't be buying early access and doubt I'll bother playing FH6 until its cheap on sale. I don't think they've really addressed the 'issues' I have with the series which over 5 games now have grated and put me off.
I'm sure its a superb Forza Horizon game but the 'festival aspect, the dialogue and very limited Radio/music choice (I only tolerated 1 music station and that got very repetitive quickly) and repetition of activities and races, things I can do on previous games - I don't need to spend money to get the exact same experience etc just means I won't be rushing to play this. Its not really what I want to play and can play FH1-5 if I did anyway.
Re: Poll: Are You Planning To Buy 007 First Light Later This Month?
Pre-ordered as it has Play Anywhere and I had a gift voucher to use up - its the only game releasing soon I was interested in and if I didn't use my voucher, I'd lose it soon.
I was also surprised that it is the 'deluxe' edition and cheaper than most new AAA games releasing. Game-play looks interesting and could fillthat hole left by the cancellation of Perfect Dark.
Re: Talking Point: One Year Later, What Do You Think Of DOOM: The Dark Ages?
Completed it and really enjoyed it #, collectedeverything on my first run through so never felt the need to return but I much preferred it to 2016's Doom and a LOT better than Eternal which I quit playing because its NOT what I want or expect from Doom. It felt like a return to what Doom was and should be - more in common with the OG games too!
Re: Poll: Which Is Your Favourite Forza Horizon Game To Date?
4 had that 'local' setting which to me gave it the edge over 3 which I think was where the game-play peaked. 1 set up the Franchise and how it would differ from Motorsport, 2 built upon and refined what 1 did and 3 was where it peaked. 4 had the setting that I am most familiar with but by 5 I had outgrown the Game-play loop and the Festival structure in particular, wanting something different as it felt more like a reskin of what came before and fear FH6 will be just more of the same...
Re: Talking Point: Amidst PS6 Uncertainty, Do You Think Xbox Has Project Helix All Figured Out?
I don't expect them to have ALL the details figured out, inc the price as I expect the world is too volatile for that.
That being said, I am certain that the device will Likely be a Windows device - whether it can/will boot to the 'full' windows, come supplied with ALL the parts or just be limited to booting in what is effectively Windows Gaming mode. If you can't access the full Windows and those processes that are switched off, not required in Gaming mode are not supplied, then you may not be able to search for and download emulators or use it as a full PC too. Its still a MS Console and MS can control what other Apps you can access - Steam, Epic etc
Re: Xbox Needs To 'Sweat Every Detail' In Winning Over 'Frustrated' Players, Says Asha Sharma
And they can't please EVERYONE - Some of the things that others see as an issue and/or need fixing, another will be angry or frustrated that they Change or 'fix' it the way they do.
Try and regain some Xbox users with changes/fixes and push others away who would prefer they changed/fixed something else and what they did change/fix was the one thing they were happy with...
Point is, what maybe 'bad' for someone could be great for another, what may make someone join could be something that makes another leave, Whatt maybe the best thing about Xbox for one, could be the worst for another so they won't please everyone and will end up pushing some away as they attract others back
Re: More Than 50% Of Hardcore Gamers Don't Buy Full-Priced Games Anymore, Survey Finds
I won't pay $/£70 for ANY game and NO game is worth that much to me. They are NO bigger/better than games were on the 360 generation - from a Game-play loop, Story and/or content perspective. Tech may have help games look or run better, but they don't offer better stories or better Game-play mechanics and often use the same game-play loop those old games offered.
Games may take longer to make, but they are choosing to spend that time on improving the graphical look - increasing the detail, the polygon counts, the number of assets they can render on screen, the draw distances etc.
I also don't need to play games on Day 1, not with the massive backlog I have. I still have games I haven't started yet so I would rather play those than spend £70 on a game that needs at least 3 of 4 patches to fix the bugs and optimise for better performance. I can also buy 4+ games in a sale for that much and many that offer 100's of hours of content, great stories and engaging game-play loops.
The 360 generation had games like Bioshock, Mass Effect, Fallout 3, Skyrim, Gears of War trilogy, Dead Space etc etc and modern games aren't 'better' from a narrative or game-play perspective, just graphically better due to technology and hardware evolving. It would be nice if games 'evolved' not just graphics to justify costs...
Re: 30+ Xbox Games Are Reduced By 90-95% To Kick Off The New Month
@Skinny-Pete yeah - it feels huge - I spent a day just trying to unlock the whole map and do the Demiguise mission - I still haven't unlocked ALL the map and still only done 1 trial in the main mission quest. I think I've put in 34hrs so far...
Re: Talking Point: New Survey Highlights The 'Top Reasons To Play Games On A Console'
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...
Re: 30+ Xbox Games Are Reduced By 90-95% To Kick Off The New Month
@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
Re: Talking Point: After Halo: Campaign Evolved, What Do You Want Xbox To Do With The Series?
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
Re: Reaction: Xbox Is Changing For The Better, And Now Microsoft Needs To Be Consistent
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
Re: Call Of Duty Titles Will No Longer Join Xbox Game Pass On Day One
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...
Re: Here's A Breakdown Of The New Prices For Xbox Game Pass As Of April 2026
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!!
Re: Xbox's Next First-Party Game Arrives This Week, And Preloads Have Already Begun
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...
Re: Xbox Boss Wants A 'Chat' With Ex-PlayStation Exec Over Criticisms Of Game Pass
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...
Re: You're The Xbox Boss And Need To Figure Out Exclusivity, What Decision Are You Making?
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.
Re: Talking Point: If Someone Was Buying Their First Xbox Today, What Games Would You Recommend?
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...
Re: Former Xbox Exec Says Project Helix Is 'Very Similar' To Microsoft's Plan For The OG Xbox
@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.
Re: Former Xbox Exec Says Project Helix Is 'Very Similar' To Microsoft's Plan For The OG Xbox
@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.
Re: Preview: We've Played Forza Horizon 6, And It's Potentially The Best Entry To Date
@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.
Re: Preview: We've Played Forza Horizon 6, And It's Potentially The Best Entry To Date
@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...
Re: Preview: We've Played Forza Horizon 6, And It's Potentially The Best Entry To Date
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...
Re: Talking Point: Which Xbox Console Do You Think Has Aged The Best?
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.
Re: Talking Point: How Many Consoles Have You Bought At Launch, And Were They Worth It?
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.
Re: Talking Point: How Many Random Peripherals For Xbox Games Do You Still Own?
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.
Re: Sony Announces Major PS5 Price Hikes, Here's How They Compare To Xbox Series X|S
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...
Re: Talking Point: Xbox GPU Members, What Do You Think Of 'Ubisoft+ Classics' So Far?
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.