BAMozzy

I take no pleasure in killing 'real' players that are obviously significantly less 'skilled' than I am and in fact prefer Bots that pose more of a challenge to fight. Equally, I don't enjoy constantly being killed over and over and over again by some highly skilled player - its not fun and I'm not 'learning' or 'improving'.

The ONLY aspect of Matchmaking that was in EVERY CoD was persistent Lobbies. You stayed in that 'lobby' between matches and those that choose to leave would be replaced. Sometimes it was great to get your revenge on your nemisis from the Previous Match or even make friends by playing 'several' matches together and enjoying the Banter for example.

I have NO issue with a 'Competitive' based mode ensuring that players of a Similar skill face each other. Its 'fair' and its balanced with both sides evenly matched for a 'close' and unpredictable outcome - that you could 'lose' or even die as many times as you get kills, but that is where you 'learn' and 'improve'.

Facing 'easy' opponents leads to complacency and regression, Facing too difficult opponents leads to frustration, anger and loss of interest (cease engaging). The fact that matches are close and people feel they have to really 'try' is because its 'balanced' and 'Competitive' - No-one wants to be Cannon Fodder to much better players so if you want 'easy' matches, use 'Bots' as your Cannon Fodder.

@ILuvGames It's not rules I've created, its what First Party tends to mean and when Ninja Gaiden isn't a Microsoft owned IP or Microsoft owned Studios, not really their 'own' - more a Collaboration than '3rd Party' but its not really that dissimilar from FF being funded and 'exclusive' to PS for some time or Death Stranding...

Gears was 'never' first party to me back then, it was like BioShock or Mass Effect - just Published by MS Exclusively but ultimately an Epic owned and developed game - We know now that they did do some work on a PS version back then too.

Anyway, I still think that what more a Collaboration than 'First' Party, but that Trilogy became 'First' Party when they acquired all the Rights and ownership under one (hence First) party - MS.

Game and IP rights/ownership remain under a separate Party from MS and its not even 'exclusive' so at most they have 'full' publishing rights. The game 'code' and any assets created are likely owned by the Developer and owner of IP - not MS so at least '2' Party's are involved and its maybe more a Collaboration of Parties rather than being First or Third party - like the 'Xbox' Ally or Meta hardware - MS is Providing the Software and 'Support' to those devices - but not 1st or 3rd Party!

@ILuvGames Gears was never considered 'First Party' until they acquired the IP from Epic, but it was considered one of the best 'Exclusives'.

Exclusive doesn't mean First Party (although now they are First Party as MS owns them). You have to own more than just Publishing rights. Ownership of all 3 (Publishing Rights, IP Ownership and/or Studio Ownership) if not 2 out of 3 minimum, is First Party and where things get 'complicated' with some games who have 2 or more different party's that own various different rights - Goldeneye N64 is 'complicated' as Rare own Game Asset rights, Nintendo own Publishing rights and MGM (I think) own the James Bond Licence and music rights...

So MS may have Publishing Rights and 'funded' its development to ensure it got made, they don't own either the IP or the Studios whose creative ideas and vision for their OWN IP was allowed to develope and become a realised product for market by that funding, but that's not 'First Party' to me....

@Balaam_ Couldn't agree more - Microsoft may have funded it's 'entire' cost and of course Publish it, but its not their IP and it was the Studio's idea and they 'developed' the game in the way they 'wanted' thanks to 'MS' help, But First Party has to be at LEAST an Owned IP or an Owned Studio (in the case of Licenced games like Indy, MLB, Blade, Spider-Man etc - IP's not owned by Publisher/Developer) and 'published' by them.

First Party means its 'all-enclosed' within. Games/IP's built by Internal Studios - of course you can licence, finance and support development on your own IP's made by 'independent' studio's (like Flight Sim) and call that a 'First Party', because its still your own IP.

Yes it would not have existed IF it was not for MS funding and publishing it, but the Studios and Owners of IP are NOT owned by MS.

@Krzzystuff Switch 2 is 'weaker' but some of that maybe down to its design and Battery usage but its also the 'new' console and priced around the same as a Series S - it is 'competing' within the same Price Bracket.

Series S is 5yrs old now and was sold as more 'budget' friendly Console and often 'ridiculed' and mocked for its deficit behind a Series X - lacking in 'modes' or 'Features' that the PS5 and Series x offer. Yet it competes 'very' well, if not the 'best' in its price range - the 'hardware' it was built to compete with at a 'similar' price point. If anything, 5yr old slightly cheaper hardware is delivering more for the 'big' screen gamer than the latest, similarly priced Console is able to offer with DLSS etc..

Personally I think BO7 is the best CoD release in years and the campaign is certainly better than MW3's and BO3's which also relied on Simulated Memories for Missions. End-game is a lot of fun too.

Zombies is bigger, better than BO6's even if it feels like more of the same - which can be said for Multi-player too but its the refinements and certainly Map Design in BO7 that makes it better.

The one thing that I think does 'hurt' BO7 is that it lacks any real 'innovation', lacks something that feels 'fresh' - it just plays and feels like a typical CoD game - whether it offers 'more' content, more ways to play etc.

End-game, whilst new for a CoD campaign - its BO4's Blackout (Which didn't even have a Campaign), MW3's MWZ/MW2's DMZ modes in essence. MP may have more Maps, but is still very Typical of CoD MP's and Zombies, like I said is more of a continuation of BO6 so it doesn't really innovate - its just 'more' of the same in a very solid package.

Arguably, with Battlefield returning to the formula that worked best in their history and delivering and Arc Raiders too being very succesful, CoD needed to 'surprise' with something new, fresh for the franchise, but instead you get more of the same, even if its 'more' than you'd normally get at launch from a CoD game.

I bought the Official 2-in-1 Hardshell case for Xbox Ally X and that is a superb case with many of the same features - but also comes with an addition bag for charger/power and/or docks.

Of course that wasn't as 'cheap' as a 3rd Party Option and I don't think as slim either, but like you, I wouldn't want to travel anywhere without a protective case.

I could have waited for alternatives, but I pre-ordered both the Hardware and Case at the same time to protect my device from 'accidents' and my two cats that seem to cause many... LOL

What people may NOT remember is that Don Mattrick was in charge of Xbox and the XB1 hardware. The XB1 was a 'flop' at launch and almost killed 'Xbox' entirely.

Phil Spencer came in and as we know, Xbox was also merged into 'Microsoft' as their gaming brand. Ever since then, ALL games are releasing on PC and the Console has always been just 1 option, not the 'best' or 'only' option to play games, but maybe the 'best' for an individuals preference or budget.

Games don't 'need' hardware to play - although it may provide a 'better' experience. Game Devs/Publishers don't need 'Hardware' to sell their games to - in fact most Publishers publish games on as many devices as they can to maximise 'reach' and of course Sales.

Hardware is often sold at a LOSS and the Console manufacturer has a 'monopoly' on that Hardware - they can decide which games they'll allow, the content (censoring) and even make you pay them to play 3rd Party Games you've bought a Licence to access - blocking that until you pay them a Sub fee and of course have the ONLY digital store front too to make money off of other dev/Publisher owned products - so 'cheap/subsidised' hardware with 'exclusives' you can't play anywhere else causing FOMO to get you in, then Blackmail and rip you off to make their money back = but that's 'traditional'!

Sony will NEVER allow you to play 'Xbox' games on their Hardware without at least taking their 30% cut and/or Any Sub fees required to play that game - CoD for example not only cost $70, but also requires PS+ so Sony won't let you play CoD on PS5 just because you bought it on Xbox.

Microsoft can say 'Play Anywhere' because you can literally play Anywhere - the only 'hardware' you can't is Sony/Nintendo but MS don't claim you can play on 'every' device/platform, but that their Ecosystem is basically accessible from ANYWHERE on a massive variety of devices. If you don't want to buy an Xbox, doesn't mean you'll 'miss out' on playing ANY Xbox game if you really want to play it. Cloud might not be your prefered option but it is an option!

@Fiendish-Beaver As I said, I don't know if MS incentivise it for Publishers but it could also benefit them too as people are more inclined to buy rather than wait for bigger discounts or Sub services knowing they can play it anywhere within that family.

Yes MS may well be making the most noise, but that's also free Advertising on their Platform, going to appear in search results for 'Play Anywhere' games (my most used Filter option) so may get 'more' sales on 'Xbox' than they anticipated. It's not as if they are 'losing' as I said, they don't count on gamerrs buying the SAME game on multiple Hardware so it adds 'value' to their customers without really impacting their 'sales'. If people prefer to play on Steam/Steamdeck, they'll buy it there anyway or if they do pick it up a 2nd time, its generally when its heavily discounted and not Full Price with maximum Profit margins.

@Fiendish-Beaver Most publishers don't expect to sell the game multiple times to the SAME person and expect them to 'choose' which platform they wish to play it on.

Instead they are letting their customers choose which 'ecosystem' to buy for and let their Customers who already bought their game to play it within the SAME family - like Steam with its Steamdeck Console or Windows based Steam on PC. As long as its all the 'SAME' family, its no different from say Back Compat that lets you play in that same family.

What you are not considering is that 3rd Party Publisher and their 'Fans' of their Products, their customers who buy their Games. Its not as if they are giving away ANY games at all with Play Anywhere, all they are doing is saying if you 'buy' on Xbox, Steam etc, you can play on any Hardware within that family - you still have to be a customer, purchase their Game and maybe you will 'choose' to buy on Xbox because you get the PC version too but the vast 'majority' won't be buying it once(let alone twice) regardless and so they are rewarding their Customers (or more importantly allowing them) to buy and play games anywhere within that ecosystem - you buy on Xbox, you can only play on Xbox, buy on Playstation, only play on Playstation, buy on Steam, only play on Steam etc...

@Fiendish-Beaver They don't have to as far as I know and I don't think MS would or 'should' pay them - although could take less from sales (give the Publisher 80% instead of 70% for example) as an incentive.

From a Publishers perspective, there is also the view that you are supporting 'customers' who choose to buy games on an Xbox to allow them to play ANYWHERE within Xbox. Maybe they'll gain 'engagement' and potentially sell more MTX content if people are playing more. Its not as if they are giving away a Steam Key or Playstation Licence, its ALL Xbox.

If you look at it from a Consumers perspective, its very anti-consumer to charge again for the SAME game within that same 'Family' (like XB1 and Series or PS4 and PS5) - you buy the Xbox version, you expect to play it in the Xbox ecosystem.

From a Publishers perspective, it's not necessarily a LOST sale because that person has already purchased the game and can play it when they want/can. They maybe won't expect many, if any, to buy their games more than once so its not 'losing' a sale, but instead allowing their Fans, their customers to play within the 'Ecosystem' they bought the game from - they sold an Xbox Licence and that entitles the gamer to access the game from any 'Xbox' based platform - regardless of whether that's streamed to a TV/Mobile Phone, played on some Physical Hardware etc...

Apart from a few 'nostalgic' videos and look backs at the launch of the 360, I didn't expect more for what is now 'dead' hardware. I expected nothing more than a '20yrs ago today, MS launched the Xbox 360'

That era of gaming for me was the best - great and innovative games that studios were producing every couple of years - now some Studio's are struggling to release a game a generation and what they release is no 'better' - it may look better and/or run at higher frame rates but Game-play, narrative etc is no better.

The 360 era was also the last era Xbox Consoles had 'true' exclusives as the XB1 and Series Hardware have Day 1 releases on other Hardware so less need to buy an Xbox as all those games can be played on 'worse' (cloud), Equivalent and/or better Hardware if you want 'better' quality gaming with a minimum 60fps Frame rate for example.

I don't see the point in having a 'big' celebration or doing more for something that is now 'dead'. It may have been 'born' 20yrs ago, but its not still going 20yrs later as a fully supported and still in production model.

@Cakefish I'm not denying they maybe 'useful' to a small percentage of the user base and of course minor QoL tweaks are always 'welcome' whether you use them or NOT. However, they need to work on bringing their OTHER platform up to their 'Console' and working on both their PC OS/UI and streaming Quality to at least that standard before they consider 'minor' Updates.

It kind of does have to be an 'either/or' situation because they need to bring those other platforms up, spend the time, money and resources on bringing their PC more in line with their Series OS/UI etc instead of increasing that 'gap' by focusing on 'minor' little things that few will appreciate or even use.

Steam has had years now on refining their PC experience and is 'consistent' because its basically the samewherever you access 'Steam' - but MS neglected their PC for decades and allowed Steam to not only establish, but also cater 'specifically' to Gamers - all whilst Windows and Windows team were focusing on Multi-tasking. Only really in the last few years has MS turned more attention to their 'PC' OS/UI.

You could say its 'arrogance' that MS didn't do much with their PC platform - believing that games built for Windows would be reason enough to play on their Platform as those games rely on MS DirectX so Windows and DX are 'essential' for PC Gaming - but because they neglected it, its now the most urgent in need, its where they 'need' to put their efforts and work into to bring it up to standard - especially if Windows (as expected) will be the OS in the next Xbox.

They have maybe a year or two to try and get Xbox PC to parity with Xbox Console UI and features, find a way to bring their Console Library to their Windows platform for Backwards Compatibility and bring it up to at least be competitive with Steam. Even if they do let you arrange the Wishlist - (for example date added or Alphabetically), they'll always be someone who would want more options (genre, avg game length, price or whatever their preference is) despite being just Cosmetic anyway - same with game icons.

Of course these may also tak up resources on UI/OS that impact the amopunt of resources they can allocate for gaming and of course the amount of 'space' it takes up on the internal storage.

All I'm saying is that the console is in a 'good' place and its OS/UI is more than adequate as it is for the vast majority. It doesn't get in the way of playing games or affecting how games run - therefore it makes most sense to push as much resources into their other Platforms first to bring them up to parity before looking at 'everything' holistically and making minor tweaks, adding some Cosmetic customisation options etc...

@Cakefish I've never had that bug but the rest are merely minor cosmetic tweaks that the vast majority maybe wouldn't even use or care about and whilst I will agree that you can 'endlessly tweak until EVERY possible option and/or customisable option can be configured 'Personally' to EVERONE's ideal/perfect' configuration because otherwise, there is always something 'minor' to adjust tweak to suit that 'individuals' unique preferences.

What I am referring to is the MAJOR updates that bring New modes or features - increasing the 'functionality' of more so than tweaking the existing OS for stability, optimisation or 'minor' Cosmetic variations. The Console is already in a Strong place and its more about bringing their other Platforms up to an 'equivalent' state - bring features like Quick Resume for example and try and get the their two Hardware Platforms more in sync, more feature Parity etc.

Maybe when they do achieve Parity, they will look at ways to 'evolve' but that doesn't mean they'll 'change' things you (or any other individual) specifically want/hope unless they think it will be beneficial to the majority and/or simple/cheap to implement without taking anything away from other areas...

@Cakefish What 'updates' do you think they are or should be working on? Other than stability fixes, I think after many, many years of Console building, there isn't really anything that is missing or lacking.

I can obviously understand why their PC platform is getting the most attention as it was neglected for years and years as they focused on building up their Console base. Now the 'Xbox' OS team are working with the Windows team to bring what 'Gamers want/expect' to that OS. Its the platform that needs the most attention to catch up with Consoles and even Steam. The Series Hardware are pretty much done and complete so at most, its only getting minor updates.

They could surprise us with a new look (instead of the tiles) but realistically, their other platforms (PC & Cloud) need to 'catch-up' so need the most work/updates. Their Console is pretty much feature complete, stable and as 'optimised' as it can be with Fixed 5yr Old hardware inside so don't 'need' updates like their others..

@OldGamer999 Yep - no subs required to play online with your friends.

If you want to play Battlefield or CoD for example on console for a 'year' its $70 + 1 yr of Essential/Core tier Subscription to unlock online Social Gaming - No PC game requires Game Pass Core, PS+ Essential or Nintendo Online (or equivalent) to play. You just buy the game and have access to EVERYTHING (and maybe even find it cheaper Digitally on PC due to more competition). So it only costs up to $70 and can play it for years and years if you want.

If you stop paying for GP or PS+, you can't play a LOT of games or content/modes on that Hardware - even if you do 'own' a License to play as you bought the game. Most AAA games with Online modes etc - even if Single Player - require a Subscription on Console but not on PC.

As much as I love the ease of use and convenience of a Console, I've had enough of being 'Blackmailed', Held to ransom by Console Manufacturers who 'demand' payment to play Games with friends/family - something they 'promote' and make games specifically to do, but unless you pay them, games you bought, paid money for a Licence to access, are 'blocked'. You've paid EA to play Battlefield, but now you have to pay MS/Sony to play it on their Hardware that you 'bought' and paid them to play games on in the first place...

That's a BIG reason why a LOT of GenZ's aren't buying Consoles.

@OldGamer999 Unfortunately for 'console' based gamers, that is true. If you go back 20 yrs ago, a Gaming PC capable of playing games - even at 'Console' like Quality/Performance, the cost was extremely high.

Nowadays, you have such a range of PC's that you can play at console like settings and on 1080-1440p displays too. They may not be '4k' on a LARGE TV across the room but then they often play at higher Frame rates than Consoles 'Capped' limits.

The Steam Machine seems like the logical next step for nany 'young' kids today who maybe have a Steamdeck as their first console - instead of Switch for example and can be cheaper for Parents to purchase and a LOT of households have a PC that Kids grow up using too.

Console gaming, like Purchasing Games etc are not really the Gen Z way of gaming. Its the older gamers that still hold on to those 'traditional' gaming Purchasing. The rise of F2P (Fortnite, Roblox, PUBG, Warzone etc), sub services (afterall they've moved to Sub services for all their other media, TV, film, music etc) and grew up in a PC Computer dominated age. When I started gaming, very few homes had a Computer and IBM was extremely 'expensive' business hardware and PC's were more 'work/business' devices. My Kids grew up with access to a PC (and my Consoles) but none now game on Console as they prefer PC's.

The Gen Z gamers grew up around PC's and very Computer Literate and whilst it maybe higher upfront cost initially, they also know they don't thave to buy a Sub to play games with their friends which adds to the 'Console' cost - its not $500 - its $500 + $10 every month, $120 a yearwhich over 5yrs is $600 (more than the Hardware) and games are generally cheaper, more numerous and of course offer Mods, emulation etc and being very comfortable on PC, makes most sense.

Of course there are still Gen Z console gamers but maybe as a 2nd System or suits their Budget, lifestyle better etc but in general PC's capable of gaming are a LOT cheaper than 20yrs ago, Consoles and Subs aren't as cheap anymore, and kids grow up around computers are very computer literate so don't 'fear' gaming on PC.

Nothing - I already own the games I might have bought and with Game Pass and my Backlog, not really looking to spend money on something I might never get round to using/playing

Well if the console does go up, its only one method of playing Xbox for those who after 5yrs still haven't bought a Series Console, but all others remain - even if its not the 'best' way to play, streaming to your XB1 (or whatever other GP device) is a lot cheaper than buying Hardware specifically to play with 'rising' costs for all.

And for those in more affluent situations to spend on their Leisure Activity, they already have their Hardware anyway and if not, can choose various different Hardware options depending on how much they are willing to spend - from Hardware they own (streaming or maybe a Gaming PC/Laptop) to Series S, Series X or whatever spec gaming PC they want to invest in.

I've used my Elite V2 since Day 1 so was using it on my XB1X before getting my 'day 1' Series X - in fact, the standard controller that came with it has never come out the box...

However, if it ever needs replacing, I would look for TMR controllers but I won't use 'standard' controllers with the potential for stick drift. Whole reason I switched to Elite controllers back when MS released their first was because of going through Controllers (left thumbstick drift the culprit) and even if it lasts just 2yrs, it would work out cheaper than buying a new Controller every 4-6months....

Xbox 360 was dominated by CoD and I think far more 'important' to Microsoft and their 'Gold' tier pass for online access - much more than Halo was.

Its no wonder MS was very interested in both Bethesda and ABK - although both were also very big PC developers before bringing games to consoles and as we know, MS have their OWN PC platform too.

3 of the 5 games are Rockstar games (GTA 4 & 5 and RDR) with Rock band and BF3 the other two not owned (now) by MS.

But of these 20, only 4 are Exclusive - 2 Halo and 2 Gears games, Forza doesn't make the top 20.

I can't remember which games I got at launch or soon after but I did play Condemned, Gun, Need for Speed, PGR3 and Perfect Dark Zero.

Of these, Condemned probably stands out most in my memory today but I couldn't say it was my favourite as I feel they were just different and would depend on which I happened to be playing at the time.

@kmtrain83 To be honest, I have no idea - its pretty much going to depend on the games and whether or not there is enough on a Platform to justify the costs of porting that game to. If it costs $100k to port, but maybe only get $80k in sales, it doesn't make sense.

Microsoft started in gaming developing games for their Windows PC platform exclusively, choosing to neglect that to chase 'Mainstream' Console success and establish Direct X as the Gaming API of choice on Windows as well as Devs would have to use it for their Console. 25yrs later, PC's are more mainstream now and DX is well established, as is their Xbox brand. Their MS OS's (Windows and Xbox) are driving the vast majority of gaming Hardware and it would seem that the next Xbox will be a Windows based device so that it will play 'Windows PC' versions of games - meaning that NO publisher 'needs' to port and optimise for 'anotherr' platform - inc MS who currently need at least an Xbox PC and Xbox Console version.

Would anyone have accurately predicted when cross-gen releases will end on ALL last gen Hardware? I think most expected 2-3yrs at most, but as games are very scalable and enough people remain on last gen hardware to make it financially viable to port games to, then Publishers will release games to increase their sales revenue.

Even if a game can't be ported, or runs so badly on Last gen hardware, you can still play their games via Cloud Streaming. Take FH5 which does run on an XB1S, but at less than 1080p and only 30fps, but Streaming it maybe 1080/60 and higher graphical settings too making it look and play better than native. So even if ES6 doesn't release on Series Hardware for example, you don't 'need' to upgrade, just like XB1 owners can play Starfield. Its not as if you will be 'forced' to upgrade (unless of course you want to play 3rd Party Published games not available on Game Pass to Stream).

The point is that the next Xbox will be a 'PC' platform and so ALL 'Windows PC' games, past, present and future, should run on it so that Publishers only need to make a PC version for their 'Xbox' Platform. Whether they also decide its 'worth' porting to last gen depends on the 'market' on last gen and Series Hardware isn't the most populated. There has to be a financial benefit to releasing on that system, potential to make enough revenue to justify the cost first and foremost. So it depends on how 'popular' last gen Hardware remains as much as it does that games will scale down to that hardware...

I have a Series X and a Xbox Ally X (as well as a gaming Laptop too) so I will only buy games that Support Play Anywhere so I can literally play Anywhere on whatever hardware - both now and in the Long term too as PC's will continue long after 'Consoles'.

I think the next Xbox will be a 'Windows PC' with built in Xbox Series Backwards Compatibility. Every game will essentially be 'Play Anywhere' - inc 3rd Party Published games as they'll just be the PC version sold on MS's 'Xbox' store anyway. There probably won't be Xbox Console version made so I'd rather start building up my 'PC' Library.

The next Xbox will likely play last gen 'Xbox' Console games (and all the BC games on Series Hardware) via some form of emulation so it can bring that history forward, but I'd still rather have a 'native' PC version than play an 'emulated' Console version.

It makes sense to focus on one Platform for game development - and PC makes the most sense. Therefore MS will only need to make the game for 'PC' as it will be playable on their next Hardware and at most, port down to Series Hardware or to 3rd Party Consoles. Their 'PC' game would be the same game on their own platform or sold on 3rd Party Platforms like Steam - but as their hardware will likely be fixed Spec, will have optimised settings for their PC hardware.

It may ot be 'useful' if you ONLY play on Console today, but if the next Xbox is a PC, its much more useful...

I am sure Valve cannot subsidise their Hardware to the same degree that MS, Sony or Nintendo can with their Console. Valve don't lock content/features behind a paywall which can add up to another $600 over 5years (up to $10 a month for PS+ or GPC) just to unlock the entire Library of games (inc ONLINE only).

Also, Steam isn't the ONLY storefront - although it is the most prominent and easiest to access out of the Box so they can't guarantee that EVERY gamer will be spending money and their time in the Steam ecosystem.

If they sell their Hardware at a small loss, they can't guarantee they'll 'make' money back through Sales of services, accessories and/or games/content. That's the difference between a Single Platform and Multi-platform Box. Both can have exactly the same (or equivalently spec) Hardware inside but cost quite different and/or be more/less 'restrictive' on the Games you can play.

What people forget is that a $500 PS5/XSX is extremely limited without the 'Core/Essential' tier Subscription unlocking all Games, Content and Features. Whilst you may save money buy buying 'months' in bulk, like a year's Subscription in Advance, but that adds up over 5-7yrs of a Console life and costs 'up to' $120 a year on Sony/MS consoles (an additional $600 over 5yrs) just to have access to Social Gaming in games you've already paid a 'premium' for on Console...

The Game Awards isn't really an Awards show - its more an Advertisement for the Games industry. The games aren't selected on merit by a professional jury so I don't take the 'Awards' part seriously and, if anything, its the worst part about the 'Game Awards' Shows which are really about showing off upcoming games in a 'celebratory' way and giving some of the industry a 'pat on the back'.

Calling this an 'Award' Show is a misnomer as its not really about Awards, but celebrating the past year and looking ahead to the future of the Games industry. The Awards and Nominations are just the games that some people mentioned more than others in their 'top 5' or so in any category. Its more a popularity contest than anything else...

@Krzzystuff I never liked the Small maps anyway - most are 'too small' - I hate Shipment, Rust etc and even Nuketown gets too much. I play Hardcore mostly and I want to at least live more than a second or two from spawning before I end up in combat.

BO7 Maps feel much better over all and the flow is much better too so I think its a much better designed MP - its like they took what many criticised about BO6 - inc the lack of Medium/Larger maps and 'corrected' and refined it into a better overall package. Of course BO6 has benefitted from 6 seasons of content, lots of Patches and tweaks since it launched, but the 'core' BO6 package you would have played in the first 'week' of release wasn't as 'good' or as filled with Content/Modes etc as BO7 is.

For me, the Gun-play and Movement is far superior to other 'options' on the market. That makes the game a lot more 'fun' for me to play - even if others have similar modes. The very act of shooting and moving around the maps can feel quite different and I much prefer the solid, consistent and smoothness of CoD over the competition - that's the main reason why I prefer to play CoD over BF, Fortnite, Apex or the vast majority of other FPS games. BF6 may well be the best BF game since BF3, but its still feels like a BF game with its inconsistencies and frustrating moments - even if some aspects 'look' impressive.

Each to their own, but I find small maps are just Chaotic messes with people running around like headless chickens and its basically just spawn and die. I thought it was 'popular' just because Matches are over so quickly and its the quickest way to Grind Camo's - not because its the 'best' way to play the Game.

Each to their own, I only liked the Big Map modes in BF because their infantry only modes feel like a 3rd rate attempt to 'steal' CoD gamers away.

Everyone was very negative about MW3 - worst/Laziest campaign in History, MWZ was set on a F2P Warzone Map and not what the Zombies community want/expect. MP was just the OG MW2 maps remade and bulked out with MW2's maps weapons etc and seems like the vast majority are jumping on that 'bandwagon' of hate without ever even playing the game, then criticising or belittling those that have and do play for not being negative about something that is fundamenality 'better' than the last 2 (or more) CoD releases

Personally, I prefer BO7 in every way to its predecessor. The campaign story maybe less grounded, but I think its more Fun to play and its structure and End-game at least offer more options on how you want to play, level up and/or earn rewards.

Multi-player is so much better than BO6 because the Map design is so much better too making game 'flow' more predictable and much less frustrating/annoying. Zombies too is so much better than BO6 zombies - even though in both these cases, there is a LOT of Similarities. It feels like a more 'refined' and overall bigger/better package than BO6 was at the same point in their life cycle.

PGR2 was the pnnacle of the series for me and thought PGR3 and 4 were awful ste backs by comparison. PGR3 felt like a much smaller game - even if it looked prettier...

I enjoyed the Campaign - beat everything and collected all skulls too . I've never enjoyed the MP so couldn't care less about that aspect.

Whilst I will say that the Campaign wasn't a great 'story' and narrativey was more 'functional' to serve the Game-play - give some context as to why you needed to be somewhere or do something to progess through the game, the actual game-play and moment to moment action was fun and solid. I had a lot of fun just running around and destroying groups of enemies.

For me, this was the closest that 343 have got to understanding what 'Halo' is and Bungie created - their first looked good, but Campaign was very short and felt more 'inspired' by Halo and they followed that up with a game that barely featured Master Chief and that campaign is arguably the worst in the franchise.

It feels like Halo has become Multi-player focussed with a tacked on Campaign when the OG Halo's were Campaign first and Foremost with a 'bonus' MP mode. There are so many FPS MP games that have very similar modes, mechanics that you have so much choice to find the ones that you prefer but a Campaign can tell a unique story and far more interesting and/or exciting unique moments - if they 'bother' or tend to go for generic plots to serve the game-play structure and move the player 'forward' through it.

I stopped buying games day 1 when the price jumped up beyond £50. Now I buy games in sales only or make do with my Backlog and Subscription games. I refuse to pay more than £50 just to be one of the 'first' to play when iit will be MUCH cheaper in a few months or so - also likely to be more polished too.

I don't care who Publishes a game, the Studio that made it etc, I won't pay what I consider over-inflated prices just for a Licence to access some Software in my Leisure time. Its not as if I don't have 100's of games I could play at NO extra cost - either because I already bought them or they are accessible because of a Sub. If I didn't have those options, I'd probably jump into a F2P game until the games I want to buy are lower in cost to consider..

I won't buy games unless they are Play Anywhere now too so I can play them natively on my PC hardware.

@Medic_alert And as a Platform holder - Microsoft have several Platforms that ALL contribute to their Success and only '1' of those is their own Hardware.

They have their OWN cloud and PC platforms selling Products/services too - just like their Console Platform. It doesn't matter if you choose to buy a Microsoft made Hardware or have a PC you built yourself, as long as it has a Microsoft OS, you have a Microsoft Platform. They have 'virtual' Xbox platforms built into servers for cloud, only accessible through Microsoft owned Apps and Subscriptions.

All I said is that they do NOT need to sell their OWN Hardware to still have their OWN Platform - Steam had a Platform before they released Hardware, Battlenet is a PC platform too (owned by MS) so they have more than 1 platform - the Console just so happens to be their Hardware too but not their ONLY platform.

If you don't want to buy the 'next' Xbox because its not Subsidised as much as Sony's PS6 or because its 'full fat' Windows based hardware instead of being a 'limited' Windows based OS locked to just MS, that's up to you, but that doesn't mean that 'Xbox' has no 'Platform' as Microsoft have their own PC Platform and Cloud based Platform with their own Storefront selling first/3rd Party developed Games.

Xbox and PC 'merged' a decade ago and PC s where they started Game development, only making the Console to make 'DirectX' a core gaming API and become 'mainstream' as PC Gaming was only for the rich. Xbox was built as a PC to bring 'PC' games to Mainstream - games that weren't popular or common, dumbed down for Console versions but 'affordable'.

25yrs later, you might not want a new PC or spend $1k+ on Hardware (you'd rather spend $500+ and then spend another $500+ on just Subs to unlock Social gaing and other features instead??) but you can always 'keep' your series hardware and rely on Cloud for the games you want to play but don't release on last gen hardware.

You could go to PS6 too but then won't bring your Xbox history forward or guarantee you'll get the Xbox games you may want to play Day 1.

At the end of the day, you as a Consumer will make the choice that suits you best and I will to. I am NOT buying another Console that blackmails me into buying a Sub to play the Games I have bought - I can't play some games at all even after spending $70 to play without a Subscription to the Platform holder just because its a Single Platform device and they can do that. I'd rather have Full Fat Windows than be held to ransom, but I can see MS having a 'Limited' function Windows (similar to the Asus Ally) for Gaming and a more 'console' like experience, but the option to go full fat Windows too if you want...

@Weebleman Whilst exclusives sell Hardware, at the end of the day, those games are still Microsoft owned games, still Microsoft Products an even if you buy on Steam or Playstation, still a Microsoft Consumer/Customer too.

Yes they make a bit more money selling their own games on their own platform, but can still make a LOT of money by selling their Products on more Platforms and make more Fans of Microsoft owned Products/IP's etc, make money from licensing and merchandising, make money from other Platforms/gamers.

Of course you may 'prefer' people to play on your Platform so you make the 'most' money per person, but that could leave a LOT of customers and potential revenue from coming your way. They have 'incentives' to play on their Platform (Game Pass, Day 1 releases, Play Anywhere etc) and if you want to play 'Xbox' games Day 1 in the future or bring your Xbox library forward, you'll need a Microsoft driven device. You could play a few Day 1 on PS but if/when you do, you'll still be buying a Microsoft Product, spending time in their creation and contributing to their revenue as a Microsoft consumer...

People buy Hardware because of Games they want to play - want to play Uncharted or God of War, you buy a Playstation even if just for games you can't play elsewhere. With Xbox, you don't 'need' to buy a Console, but its 'cheaper' than PC and/or better than Cloud streaming - but if you have a decent PC already, you don't need to buy hardware to play the 'Xbox' games you want.

I've basically stopped buying games that aren't Play Anywhere because I have a Series X, Xbox Ally X and a Gaming Laptop too. I don't know that I'd buy the 'next' Xbox - I might invest in a Gaming PC I am happy with under the TV instead - but if the next Xbox is more like the Ally X than the Series X, I would consider it. I won't consider it IF its just a Console with a Sub fee for Online Social Gaming etc. I can still be on Xbox, just Xbox PC.

I'm far more interested in the future if MS can successfully merge their 'Console' History into their PC ecosystem. Fact is that EVERY first Party Game is still a Microsoft product generating revenue and helping Microsoft be the third Largest Gaming Company ahead of their 'Console' only rivals, that merging enabled MS to grow their Gaming library and Studios, grow their Output, and have some of the Biggest selling games/IPs of all time in their portfolio, all helps Xbox and their revenue.

Console owners are far too blinkered, narrow minded or selfish to not see that Games are what is 'most' important and you'll buy Hardware purely based on Games, not its specs or who manufactured it - if the next Xbox is a PC but still brings your entire Console history forward, you'll buy it - or another PC that has a Microsoft OS for 'Xbox' compatibility.

Feedback from 'just' the Console fanbase is not necessarily 'good' or useful Feedback at all - especially not if it impacts all their other Fans on PC or their Cloud platforms, fans of their IP's etc and those are also paying Microsoft Customers too buying Microsoft Products (Games, DLC, Accessories, Merch etc) or Services (Game Pass) - even if they buy on another Platform, they are still buying a 'MS' product and a MS consumer too...

@Medic_alert Hardware is 'irrelevant' - is just a 'tool' to which you are able to do what you really want, which is to play the Games and Content you want.

It doesn't matter if the next 'Xbox' is a PC or a single Platform Console - what matters is whether or not your Library of Games/Content, your Profile, friends, achievements etc are also carried forward or if you have to start from scratch again.

You may not wantt a Cloud enabled device to play games, but if its that or nothing, you'd play on Cloud because you want to play that game. If you want to play a Sony game, you'll buy Hardware that runs it if its not available on Hardware you already own. If you already own a PC, you aren't buying an Xbox because all the games are playable on your Hardware, where you 'prefer' to play.

MS aren't releasing 'everything' day 1 on 3rd Party Platforms so I wouldn't buy a Playstation expecting to play Fable or Clockwork Revolution - even if they do eventually release. Their Platform (regardless of PC or Console) is still the ONLY platform with ALL Microsoft First Party releases guaranteed to release, the only platform with Game Pass and Day 1 MS First Party games, the only platform that MS can bring your existing 'Xbox' Library to.

Yes you may also get Steam on a PC, but you could also get your Xbox Console history on MS's Xbox PC Platform in the future. You may not 'need' to buy a 'Microsoft' built PC - although it could still be 'subsidised' as MS have their own Platform (unlike Asus, Lenovo, MSi etc) so the best 'bang for buck' PC - but its still part of the Xbox family, still has a Microsoft OS and storefront, still has their Games and Services - just the hardware is assembled by another company and MS got money for selling them a Windows Licence too...

@Medic_alert Depends on what you determine success as - they are now the third largest gaming producer in terms of Revenue across all their gaming Products (Games, Hardware, Accessories, Merchandising etc) one of the bigest names in Gaming and of course have some of the biggest selling IP's too.

Even if games like CoD or Minecraft are sold on Playstation or Steam, MS are still 'successful' if they sell well on those Platforms, still making money, still have gamers choosing to spend their time in their Products. Their console may not have sold as many as Sony or Nintendo, but that doesn't mean it was a 'flop' either if it makes money and its not the 'ONLY' platform you own. They may have expected to only sell 20m units knowing that their own hardware is optional, a 'fraction' of their Playerbase and selling 30m exceeded that and deemed successful.

Success is relative and cherrypicking say 1 aspect of the entire 'Xbox' Gaming Brand is not that indicative. Considering where Xbox was a decade ago, I'd say that Xbox has succeeded in fighting back from iminent collapse and disappearance. Yes Merging into MS impacted the 'Console' and its Sales, but have grown from 5 Studio's to over 30, given gamers far more places to play their games, made Backwards Compatibility a 'must have' and Xbox has grown massively.

In some areas, they are perhaps not as 'Successful' as others, but more successful in others. There is talk of Sony wanting to make their own PC platform/Launcher with 'Play Anywhere' too.

Success can often be relative but at its most 'basic' its whether its generating enough revenue or losing money and I wouldn't say Xbox isn't successful as the 3rd largest Gaming Company in the world - ahead of Sony and Nintendo - even if those two are more 'successful' in a specificc area...

@Medic_alert I do agree that MS's biggest mistake in their Gaming History was probably neglecting their Windows Platform to push and establish their Console which enabled 3rd Party Platforms - like Steam and Battlenet (although Battlenet is now MS owned) - to not only 'establish' themselves, but also focus on 'Gaming' specifically and what 'gamers' want.

But they do still have their OWN platform on PC which is more than Sony do for example (at the moment). Their Game Pass Service is LOCKED to their Platform and all games are 'Microsoft Store' games that will sell you DLC/MTX's etc so MS get their Cut - even on PC. Cloud may well be available on iOS/Android, but you have to use a Microsoft owned App that's also locked to their Platform and can sell you games and content as well - stream your own.

When Sony sell their games on PC, they are using Steam/Epic etc where as MS could make some games 'exclusive' to their PC store if they wanted - but maybe 70% from Steam and all the other retailers means they get more sales of not just the game, but DLC and MTX than they would if 'exclusive' so make less money overall. Being able to make 100% and/or encourage people into their Services so they make 'more' on each game, DLC or MTX is obviously making 'more' per person than those on 3rd Party for sales revenue, although sales revenue on their own platform could be hurt by their own Sub service.

Its 'possible' that they make 'less' per person on their Service (Game Pass) than selling the game and extra content on 3rd Party and only getting 70% - but they also get 30% from 3rd Party Published content too.

All I was trying to show is that Hardware and Platform are not the same thing. A PC is a multi-platform gaming device - it has Xbox, Steam, Battlenet, Epic and other Platforms too. A console is just a Single Platform device locked and controlled by the Platform holder - even if the Hardware is 'identical' to a PC and/or could run PC games if you could swap the OS.

Single Platforms use 'exclusives' to get you to buy their Hardware and 'lock you in' to their Platform so they make money off every purchase, not just their own content. MS have more than 1 Platform and one of those is on a 'Multi-platform' device so Exclusivity is no incentive to buy their Hardware - even if Exclusive to Xbox Platforms/Game Pass, you don't need the Microsoft Console - you can play on iOS/Android and Windows based hardware too. MS can still make 100% from sales of DLC/MTX through their Store but as a gamer, with a decent PC, you aren't buying an Xbox.

Owning your OWN Platform - especially if that also entails selling 3rd Party Games built for your Platform (Xbox or Windows OS - both use MS DX API's) is still different from being a '3rd Party' Publisher with 'no' platform or at most, just their own first Party only offerings like EA, Sega or Ubisoft. Even if MS quit making their 'own' hardware, they would still have their own 'platforms/store fronts' etc - unlike Sony/Nintendo who'd lose their ONLY platform should they quit the Hardware business - unless they create their own on a multi-platform gaming device like a PC.

@Medic_alert How do other Game providers make money without any Hardware of their own? In the past, Hardware wasn't a 'money' maker, certainly not in the first few years as they sell at a 'loss' to get you in buying games through their Store and having to pay a Subscription because some Content/features are hidden behind that paywall.

Sell just 10m Consoles with a just a $10 loss, that's a $100m deficit they have to make up in 'sales' of Software/Services. If you take a $500 console and add 5yrs of Game Pass Core/PS+ Essential (both $10 a month if you pay monthly - although I know can be purchased cheaper if bought in bulk), that can add up to another $600 so you've paid out $1.1k just to have the same Online Social gaming content that is 'FREE' on PC's.

Whilst they aren't making as much money by selling their games on 3rd Party Platforms, like Steam or Playstation, they are still making Money and will still make money on 3rd Party content they sell through their store too. Ubisoft and EA both have Sub services offering their First Party releases Day 1 as well.

Microsoft don't actually 'need' to sell their 'Own' Hardware as they have their OWN platforms on PC and Cloud, have their own Storefront and so can reach EVERY gamer with their Products - of course they make 'more' on their own Platform/store but they don't need their 'own' Hardware to access their Platform - unlike Sony (who uses 3rd Party on PC currently) and Nintendo who only have their 'OWN' platform on their OWN hardware. MS Window is a 'multi-platform' OS but is a Microsoft gaming Platform too.

Hardware (as in just the box that plays games) may not be that profitable at all, although maybe could Break even or even make some money, but they'll also make accessories (like Controllers, Headsets etc) that will contribute to profitability and Xbox Controllers are also 'popular' on PC.

Arguably, the more 'screens' Xbox/MS have either their OWN platform (to maximise profitability on their OWN content) or 3rd Party is a potential market to sell MS Products and services which is where they 'make money'. A lot of Publishers only make money on 'Software' released on others Hardware.

Hardware doesn't necessarily need to be profitable to be considered Successful. If they lose money on each, but that means they sell far more Games and Subscriptions that over time makes them far more money than they would have...

Considering some Handhelds are Streaming ONLY devices, I think that an 'Online Only' game is not that big of a deal.

Of course you can't play 'Online Only' Games in certain situations - like on a Plane for example, but you can play 'other' games which you can't on a Streaming only Handheld. I wouldn't expect to play Destiny 2, Battlefield 6 or other Online based modes/games but at least they run Natively in other situations.

I doubt you could play BO7 on a Plane on ANY device and won't play Natively even with a decent Internet Connection on some Gaming Handhelds/Devices regardless.

You also can't play a LOT of other games/modes because they rely on an internet connection. Some may have an 'offline' option, but that can be very limiting or missing 'something' from the online experience, feel a more basic/stripped out package.

Most don't bother with CoD's Campaign anyway and the minority who do, most don't even finish it despite it only being around 8hrs long. I've beaten BO7's Campaign entirely Solo and enjoying End-Game too (playing Solo with Squad Fill off) and didn't 'feel' like I was playing it 'wrong', that it was meant to be played co-operatively. I think its possibly the Strongest CoD since they changed to the New Engine and Format in 2019 - certainly better than BO6!!

8/10 for me - completed the Campaign (Solo) and quite enjoyed several matches of End-game, Played a few matches of MP and its better than BO6 and even Zombies is a bit more expansive than BO6's launch. So not only does it feel like a bigger game than BO6 with more options. modes, ways to play etc, the gun-play and movement are both superb and solid.

The Only real negatives from my perspective is the Narrative which is not grounded in any way but it does serve the game-play and context. The other is arguably the lack of any real innovation. Both Zombies and MP feel a LOT like BO6 - albeit slightly refined/developed etc and whilst the Campaign is 'experimental' compared to traditional Linear SP campaigns, you won't remember it narratively!!

@Fiendish-Beaver I've beaten the campaign now - entirely Solo aand found the entire Campaign to be quite enjoyable overall - the narrative is 'functional' if somewhat out-there, not grounded at all, but it leads you through the missions.

I quite liked Titanfall 2 - even though its Mission Structure was 'repeated' - Foot sections with Combat and Platforming areas as you have to separate from BT only to meet up at the end for a Boss fight before the next mission would follow a similar structure.

CoD, with its more 'out-there' story, does enable most (if not all) to end in a Boss Fight and not just be some Human or AI controlled Tank/Mech (Robot). Yes they are not what you'd expect from a 'Grounded' Military Shooter even one set in the near future, but Game-play - the feel of the Combat and movement combined feels really Solid and Consistent, which just makes it 'fun' to play and shoot whatever 'enemies' the game throws at me - regardless of what they 'look' like (Human, Zombies, Robots, vehicles, mechs etc).

I played 1 match, just to see what End-game was like, and it was much like MWZ - other Humans are running around too but its PvE only. I did some activities and exfiled but with different Zones of Difficulty, you can decide if you want a 'easy' time or push yourself.

I don't expect anything - that way I can't be disappointed if my expectations are not met. Of course I expect them to release games in the run up to and post their 25th Birthday, but exactly what IP's are ready to release, I don't know.

Its possible AL 4 of those Main Xbox IP's will release within a year either-side of their Birthday, possible all 4 could release in 2026 but if not, they do have other games like CoD 2026, Clockwork Revolution etc and updates/DLC for their recent releases as well as 3rd Party partnerships etc to make it a 'good' year for Xbox gamers...

@You-come-to-me Some people will always want to hate the most 'Popular' and want the 'underdog' to beat the champion. The more popular, the more they hate and often try and seem superior because they don't like the most popular option.

CoD has almost always had negativity - W@W was hated because it felt like a step back after CoD4 on release, MW2 was hated for all the bright colours and pop-up notifications, changing points too - too 'arcadey' now etc yet today are considered the golden era of CoD.

Each to their own off course, but I'm too old to care about popularity, I'm just interested in the Game-play and CoD's is extremely Solid and the movement feels slick and responsive too. It won't win Best Narrative or most innovative game, but I think its the best CoD since they changed engines and format back in 2019...

@Fiendish-Beaver At the end of the day, I don't think its any worse than some of the other 'experiments' in campaign - the weird 'optional' Strike Force missions in BO2 or the 'simulated Memories' you play through in BO3 for example to me were worse - but at least Treyarch have that history of doing less 'grounded' and more experimental takes on a 'Military' based shooter campaign.

It feels, plays, sounds and looks like a CoD game - but unlike a standard CoD game, you could spend ALL year playing Campaign to reach Max Level and rank up all your guns in strictly PvE content and End-game is a bit like MW3's MWZ mode - but you need to complete the Campaign first. Point is, unlike traditional linear CoD campaigns, they are trying to give more value than just an '8hr' campaign you never return to once finished.

At least you (or anyone) can try it with their GamePass Sub and decide if its worth your time, let alone your money. If you have GPU, it

@fatpunkslim I see the Steam Machine as the 'big screen' option for those who bought a Steamdeck. Whether that's for their Kids who may 'share' a Family PC or someone who wanted a 'cheap' gaming device to rival Consoles but without the charge for Features like Online Gaming.

It could be for Series/PS owners too as their '2nd' Console as they branch out to more 'PC' games but without the cost of a typical Gaming Rig, something they can simply plug into their TV and have a 'console-like' experience. I doubt those with Gaming PC's would be interested - just like they won't likely buy an 'Xbox' - even the 'next' Xbox because they already have Hardware and both Steam and Xbox have their own PC based platform on their Hardware so pointless to buy.

If Sony make their own PC platform with their own Launcher too, then no PC owner would need to buy a Console at all. The only people buying Consoles are those that prefer that ease of use and/or suits their Budget better. Steam Machine looks to be wanting to offer that Console like experience at Console like prices for those that want or only have the budget for. The 'big screen' version of Steamdeck Handheld Consoles...

@Fiendish-Beaver I felt it was about 'normal' - not too easy, especially some areas with enemies coming from all around, but with methodical positioning and using a Sniper to clear ahead, its about where I'd expect a CoD game.

I don't know if they have more enemies for more players, but it seems like you can take a few hits before going down so its not as brutal as Veteran. Some enemies take a lot more hits to kill and most missions (so far) end in a Boss Fight. There are often Ammo/Plate Caches around and a self revive or two, opportunities to find/loot/upgrade weapons etc too.

I'd say probably the Difficulty is closest to 'Normal' whilst playing Solo. A few enemies can be a bit tougher to take out but nothing I've felt was unmanageable solo yet

I've really enjoyed the open 3-4 missions of the campaign so far. I've played it entirely Solo thus far and its a lot of fun with Solid Combat and slick movement. Yes the Story is't very 'grounded' at all, but that doesn't mean the moment to moment gun-play, Action etc suffers. It feels like a CoD game.

I haven't reached 'End-game' yet, but I've enjoyed the Campaign and a few Survival rounds on Zombies. Personally, I'm having more fun than I did with BO6, MW3 and MW2 before that...

I can understand the problem from a commercial perspective - shrinking 'technology' helps when you want to make something 'smaller/lighter/cheaper' to make and ship in massive quantity. Even going from 90nm process to 45nm would save a lot of space and cooling requirements to make consoles cheaper a few years later.

Nowadays, you can't really get 'smaller' to shrink the Hardware to save money. When you are already at 6 or 5nm, dropping to 4nm is not much of a difference and cost per yield goes up as well as demand for 4nm chips. RAM too and Storage hasn't really decreased much in price and again demand is raising prices as AI demands grow too.

Take into factors like growing global economic unrest, A LOT of Competition for what little leisure time and money people have and certain markets closed for business, then you can maybe understand why their 'revenue' isn't growing and prices increasing. More and more are playing F2P games like Fortnite and Roblox , fewer and fewer are buying NEW 'games' not to say they don't buy ANY games, but aren't buying games in the first few months and in general, buying fewer games a year.

Of course there are still a core group of Gamers who are still buying games and spending just as much (if not more) on Gaming but a lot are engaging with 'free/low cost' entertainment - inc Social media instead of buying the new products from these big companies...

Can't say I like the situation, but I can understand it

Its possible that GTA6 could well be a Launch title in 2026 or at least launch day 1 on that hardware too if its out prior to the Game releasing - doesn't mean it won't release on current gen hardware too. It could very well be a motivator to 'upgrade' to next gen hardware for improved visual or frame rate performance.

The fact is that GTA is now not expected until mid-November 2026 shouldn't impact the release schedule for Hardware. Maybe the Delay was incurred to ensure they can release on Next-Gen Hardware too in a polished state if any release beforehand.

Delaying 'next' gen hardware just because a Game was delayed a bit is pointless. Chances are that GTA is built to run on Current Hardware anyway so 'next' gen should have no issue running it. If it can't run on 'current' Consoles, it would make sense to delay the game until Next gen Hardware arrives to maximise sales potential - not delay 'next' gen Hardware because a game is releasing....

It means nothing - MS has its OWN 'Xbox' Community, History and Library of games on both PC and Console gaming platforms. If they 'merge' that into the 'PC@ Platform, bringing their 'Console' History (at least all the games, inc BC Games, playable on Series Hardware) forward.

Your Xbox Profile/Achievements/Friends etc are on both and your digital licences are on both so hopefully they find some way to enable you to play the 'console' version via some Back Compat layer.

Just bringing your History forward is a big incentive - especially if you have no or little history with other Platforms. The Steam Machine seems more for those with Steamdecks and want a cheap 'console' to rival PS5/Xbox for the TV space or for those that maybe want to get into Steam but don't want a 'PC' and the Cost of buying a 'decent' PC Rig.

If the next Xbox is PC based, brings your Xbox Library forward (not just your Play Anywhere Library) and runs games better (as well as maybe enjoy Game Pass as a Service), there are many that will prefer to stick with Xbox and maybe start building up a Steam Library there for the games you can't play on Xbox - inc Playstation games.

Game Pass maybe an incentive to some - especially with rising costs and its not 'just' MS's releases you get to play - and whether or not Valve sort out some of the issues with Games not working on 'SteamOS' as they require Windows TPM Secure Boot can all play a part.