BAMozzy

I don't buy Merchandise and would expect to be paid to be a walking advertisement. Never understood why they think they can charge more so you can walk around promoting them and their brand for them...

They may have been established in 01, but the fact they've downsized so much, got rid of and closed down numerous studios, it makes me wonder if they'll make it to 30yrs or quit the gaming business because its not profitable enough to keep paying Nadella a $100m+ Salary every year...

Really don't like the MP maps and think they lack flow with two many places for enemies to mount their gun and head glitch or to camp behind. With the poor spawns, and quick TTK, it can be tedious being shot in the back or from some 'unexpected' angle because the flow and spawn system is bad.

Its a step up from MW2 but that was not a high bar and Sledgehammer fixed a lot of the issues with MW2, but MW4 seems more a step back in many ways from the past couple of CoD games. As it stands right now, I'm hoping DMZ will be worth playing otherwise I may end up playing BO7 or older CoD, Battlefield 6 or one of the other FPS's that's better than MW4 (imo)

I have absolutely NO idea what badges I have, how to see which badges I have or how to select badges (if I can) and choose which to display, but its not something I've ever really cared about or noticed either. I don't think I've looked at my own profile for years...

It was never a game on my radar to be honest so I wasn't intending to buy it regardless. I don't see an issue with the Frame rate, if you wanted higher, you'd buy a high end PC as the Console is the more mass market and affordable, even if 'expensive' compared to previous generations, hardware option.

Consoles have always been the more 'compromised' option, not offering the highest Graphical settings and frame rates, often targeting 30fps to bring their games to the mass market, to majority who couldn't afford or justify buying a High End Gaming PC for the best frame rate and graphics - an 'acceptable' balance between cost and performance.

Now with Backwards Compatibility, a lot of those 30fps games do run at 60fps or better on newer hardware - but they were '30fps' games when they released and many Game of the Year winners were also 30fps on consoles when they won too.

If 60fps is the minimum you expect, then either buy a PC or wait to upgrade to a better console in a generation (or two).

Too many people put so much emphasis on Sales only and use that data alone to try and make out that a company is either smashing the competition or being smashed as if sales is telling the 'full' story.

Of course with Xbox, they do have Game Pass that will impact sales of software and lets not forget that they also sell their software on their OWN PC platform and have Game Pass their too, its NOT just the Console and/or the Console store. Steam too isn't the entire PC gaming platform so steam numbers (sales, player counts etc) don't represent the 'entire' PC Gamers yet are often used to make some argument about a game and its player count across ALL platforms.

Its clear that sales are struggling - not just hardware, but also 'new' releases too as these are expensive luxury items. An expense that MANY households can't justify as they struggle to pay their bills, put food on the table for their family and survive as costs keep rising. Many are also far more careful, far more selective and only buying the 1 or 2 games that they really enjoy, waiting for the rest to drop in price or to come to a Sub service which only happens after its dropped out of the best selling games lists anyway and the Game has passed its 'hype' window.

If a game has to sell 5m to break even, that's usually 5m at its 'full' price, not 5m after its been on sale for the past 6-12months - but its not as if they ONLY rely on sales these days with Cosmetic DLC packs, in-game Currency and other digital extras as well as fees from being available on a Sub service and able to sell more digital extras to that audience too so its not solely reliant on Sales so sales data is not 'that' important these days....

The ONLY current Xbox hardware to use discs is the Series X and I bet most people on Series X buy Digital and/or use Digital Subs for the majority of their Gaming. I would also be willing to bet that the primary reason people wanted a disc drive was to play their 'old' library via Backwards Compatibility.

With Xbox Sales easily accessible, Play Anywhere giving you both a PC and Console version, Quick Resume (which obviously works much better if you don't have to keep getting up to swap discs over as well) and Microsofts Preservation rhetoric, its positioned itself far better for the Digital market.

Discs are useless for gaming, that's why you have to download and install the software to the SSD because the Disc is far too slow to run games. Its why we have fast travel and quick loading, why we don't see Texture Pop-in etc because the game is NOT running from the Disc, not having to transfer the Data to the Hardware, the RAM. Discs are also barely adequate as a delivery method as Games are bigger than the Capacity of the Disc - hence having to rely on the Internet to supply the rest anyway. The ONLY reason you need to put the Disc in the slot is to prove you still own the disc, still own the licence key to unlock access to the game you installed on the SSD where as Digital games have that Licence key on your Profile so all you need to do is sign in to unlock games instead.

Apart from the ability to sell your licence because you bought 'digitally', which I will say is a big a valid advantage to Physical, you can still lose access to games on disc because they require Game Pass Core Subscription or the servers have been shut down etc - you can't play Destiny or Avengers if you bought those on Disc...

@Smackosynthesis NO-ONE is OK with Slop, but that doesn't mean that ALL AI is Slop and that NO Human can produce Slop.

The fact is that AI can do a better job than Humans and Humans are known for making mistakes, for producing slop - especially if they are tired and/or haven't spent decades perfecting a 'craft' - or at certain aspect of that craft and also Humans can take a LOT longer and cost a LOT more which can make the difference between a Project being Profitable or not - especially with small independent studios.

Not ALL AI is Slop and not ALL Human made projects are the quality, the craftsmanship or even the standard you expect or would pay money for. The Games industry is full of 'Slop' made by Humans that should never have been released in that state...

Slop is Slop regardless of who made it and just because someone used AI, that doesn't mean that the 'human' who used the AI didn't ensure the AI did a 'good' job before opting to use it in their game. IF AI slop is in a Game, its because a HUMAN thought it was 'good enough' or even 'better' than they could have done, its there because a HUMAN put it there and should have checked it first to see if it was 'good enough'.

Delay and the crisis could still continue as the world becomes far more divided and aggressive, more markets become 'difficult' to trade with which either raises costs and/or reduces opportunities to recover costs. Its extremely unlikely that prices will drop 'significantly' and even if they did, I doubt that these big corporations would pass any savings to the customer. Its more likely that they wouldn't raise prices of games, subs, peripherals etc for the 'new' hardware. We saw game prices increase this generation and some charging $/£10 more for the exact same game, same story, same content etc just because it was the 'next' gen version.

If you subsidise too much, the only way to recover costs is by making everything else 'expensive', reducing the quality and/or quantity of content of Games, opting to sell modes separately via DLC etc and/or raising the price of Subscription and keeping more games/features behind that Sub pay wall to force gamers to 'sub' to recover losses due to subsidies.

If you make hardware 'innovative', it may well become extremely difficult to port games to that are built for more traditional Hardware configuration and architecture, limit its Backwards and Forwards Compatibility etc too. There is a reason that pretty much all 'games' hardware is very similar, just with their own OS.

The one that should worry gamers is that Subsidised option as that will mean that you as a customer will likely be 'locked' in to their Hardware, their Platform and having to pay their prices for Games, Peripherals and Subs. I'd rather not have to pay an extra £10+ on EVERY game I want to play, have to pay £10 a month or not be able to play the games I've bought, lose the ability to play all those Online games from the last few generations I have and/or have to pay high prices for peripherals like Controllers just because they subsidised the Hardware to get people to buy it so they can rip them off for the next 6yrs+

Based on what I've seen and heard so far, It looks like I'll just be playing the Campaign and on to other games very quickly.

I was never a Fan of the Gears of War PvP modes but Horde mode, at least the Traditional build defences to survive the Wave as the only team on the map - and the Beast mode version where you play as the Locust was my favourite mode and kept me playing long after the campaign.

I just hope the Campaign delivers - although 4 and 5 were a bit of let down as they moved further away from the 'griity horror' that the 'of War' aspect gave us. They, along with Hivebusters, were OK to play but not as memorable or as dark, gritty as the earlier games which I prefer.

I've had my Series X since Day 1 after managing to get a pre-order as soon as they went live and use it pretty much every day for several hours or more at a time. So far, its been reliable but if something were to happen, I'm more like to play on my Gaming Laptop (with RTX 5080), RoG Xbox Ally X and/or invest in a Gaming PC that I'd use plugged into my TV and play from the Sofa but I'd maybe consider a reconditioned/used Series X too if I found one at the right price.

All the games I've bought in recent years have all been Play Anywhere and I'm seriously considering ditching the 'Xbox' Console because I am fed up of paying for Online Social Gaming access which is FREE on PC. Also, Game Pass is cheaper on PC too if I want to play Xbox Games because its not blocking Online access and keeping Games/Content behind that obnoxious Paywall...

@Tasuki People aren't let go if they are required or important to the running of that studio, important or needed to the creation of games etc. They get rid of the excess baggage and keep those they need/require.

As I said, its disappointing to find out you are NOT important or Vital to the Company who employed you, but that's ALWAYS been the case. The Employer will sacrifice the 'chaff' in times of Hardship, keeping the 'cream', the people they deem important/vital to their company and its future whilst clearing out those who are surplus to requirements, those that can easily be replaced if/when circumstances change but for right now, aren't needed, aren't important to the Company or its ability to function, to carry on delivering what they are 'known' for.

Don't forget, most of these Studios expanded because of the Boom during the Pandemic and the impact on working conditions that 'slowed' down development, made it less efficient and a lot slower due social distancing etc - but then never 'trimmed' the fat afterwards...

@Tasuki I never said THEY as people don't matter, the Job they had though didn't matter and isn't 'vital' or even remotely important to the Company, the Industry or the production of Games either in the past or looking ahead.

Yes it 'sucks' to lose your Job and yes I do know what that feels like after the Family owned Company I worked for got bought out by a big corporate business and decided to move Production over 100miles away instead. I, as well as ALL of us who worked in that family owned business were basically surplus to requirements as they had Staff elsewhere that would work in their 'bigger' facility to do the work I and ALL my colleagues would do and the site that had been family owned and built up over a century or more was 'sold off' to some construction company to build houses on instead.

That's just the way of the world - you either make yourself indispensable, valued and/or required for whatever that Company does or you get 'replaced'. I'm also old enough to see people from the 'old' ways of working in the Press, typesetters who'd lay out pages 'manually' get replaced by Graphic Designers like myself who'd use Computers to effectively do the same job so much quicker and with more complexity, more colour etc than they were able to do - back when Newspapers moved from Black and white to Colour.

Point is, these people are NOT Studio developers making games - they are people who sat on their asses playing video games so the people who actually make the games can collect Data, can find out if their Code works or crashes, can find out if their quest lines work as expected etc because they had those 'play testers' sat on their asses playing their games and getting paid for it.

They are 'surplus'. If the Studio/Company decided to close down that whole area because they can use the SAME function provided somewhere else within the Company, so they don't 'need/require' their own Play Testers for example or not really expected to have 'work' for them and they are just draining resources because you keep them on the books, that's not benefitting anyone in reality - yes they maybe getting a wage, but its not helping us get games quicker or any more cost effectively, not helping the studio make games to a specific budget if they are having to pay people who really aren't 'contributing' to the development, the 'creation'.

Asha has ONLY JUST come in, and the Previous Management not long left so you can't blame her and part of the 'Course' Correction may well be to cut out unnecessary departments, unnecessary costs that make their games a lot more likely to be 'profitable' and therefore keep that Studio open for the coming years - cut ot the dead wood and where they are wasting part of their 'budget', even replace with more efficient, faster, cheaper and far better options like AI for example who can play the game 1000's of times an hour whilst that whole team would struggle to play it 10x in a week so provide far more data and test it far more times so the devs have far more Data and testing in far shorter time and at much lower cost to them too.

@Mr-Cage To be honest, I've not tried the Siege version and doubt I'll bother trying it in the Beta either. I'm waiting until I've played the campaign before I even consider playing any PvE mode - its always Campaign first and see those modes as 'bonuses', as something extra to do once I've finished the Campaign.

@Fiendish-Beaver I'm sure hey have some Social Media accounts for feedback, to report 'issues' and its an issue if they aren't delivering an experience you've come to expect as its been a part of the Gears experience for Fans for a very long time. Its a combination of people telling them why they aren't playing their Game as well as the evidence of the numbers. It may not be you that needs to make the post, but liking and/or reposting others will certainly help it make more impact to the right people...

@Mr-Cage @Fiendish-Beaver When the Fanbase, which is us, isn't playing PvP or their Horde Siege mode, asking them to bring back 'classic' Horde/Beast modes, they'll bring it back to get their 'numbers' up. They may need the fanbase to tell them their new version SUCKS - either verbally or by not playing it...

I'm not a fan of Gears MP but loved Horde mode and of course the Campaign and its the Campaign that I buy Gears of War games for. I couldn't care less about the PvP aspect at all and haven't really but the hours into Horde for years - not since the 360 days when I'd play a LOT with my Son.

I doubt I'll jump into the Beta as I always play through the Campaign first and then after beating it, I'll maybe decide whether or not to play some PvE modes...

@Tasuki Again you are missing the point - these are NOT major people at the company and only hired in the last few years as Quality testers - not as vital developers necessary to make a game and likely 'surplus' to requirements if you haven't got games to test, or have other testers withing the Xbox branch that will do that same job as and when required - after all, its not something you need 'daily' at a single studio that releases games every 5yrs or more.

No one wants to hear of Job losses, but in this industry, you don't need everyone all the time. Yes in affluent times, you may keep the staff because its easier than hiring when required and letting go once they've finished that project - only to hire again when the next project nears completion. Thy haven't actually fired the devs, the ones building the games, the creative minds behind the games, just the ones who sit on their ass playing games so the Devs can get the 'data' they need, to play the game as we would so they find any bugs or problems etc and yes, AI could probably do there job far more efficiently, far more effectively and a lot more cheaply.

Its not just about the money, as I said, I have issues with MS saying it can't afford to keep Studios like Double Fine, Compulsion etc and whilst I'm glad they didn't shutter them, I do think its ridiculous when Nadella gets nearly $100m salary last year as well as tax breaks (but I won't bring Corrupt politics that gave the rich those Tax breaks into the conversation) but getting rid of staff that are surplus to requirements, not needed moving forward and literally get paid to sit around 'playing' games, not making them is not a decision I find difficult to accept or understand - in fact it makes a LOT of sense.

We want games much quicker and they aren't willing to spend as much making them, so get rid of all those who aren't required yet costing money - they spend months playing games that adds to the time and costs yet really don't add anything. AI can play the game 1000's of times an hour whilst 1 person takes a week or more to play test it once costing time and money for what? to find some error/bug that AI can find in seconds for example at no 'cost'.

There is a lot wrong in the industry at the top, but there is also a lot of wasted time and money too because they have 'people' sat around playing games and others waiting for them to finish, to find 'something' etc. Cutting out the chaff, if it helps get the games out quicker and more cos effectively isn't a bad thing in my book.

@Tasuki I agree, length in general doesn't matter but with a Gaming Company that hasn't made anything 'great' in the last 5yrs or more and what they have released has been buggy and not really up to the standard you should expect for a 'premium' game, The length of service shows these were not people involved in the best loved games from Bethesda and the vast majority were brought in with NO experience as Quality testers - which considering the state of the games released, were not great at their job, being paid to sit around playing games to assess the 'Quality'.

Its not as if they fired the Devs that actually make games and will no doubt be working on making ES6 right now - they got rid of many whose first job on their linked in Profile was as a Quality Tester for Bethesda and only joined in the last few years or so.

If you can't accept that maybe they were 'surplus to requirements' moving forward, then maybe you can accept they were 'fired' for not being good at their job. The last couple of games haven't been good enough to release to the public.

If it was just about money, I do have an issue that MS has closed and let go Studios that make the Products that Gamers will buy, gamers will sub to Game Pass for, gamers will join the Xbox ecosystem to play - even if they aren't 'big' sellers individually, they were all still 'Xbox' games and collectively benefitted the 'brand'. I have a BIG issue with their messaging about Sustainability and long term future whilst Nadella took nearly $100m pay last year but getting rid of some Game Testers, some who sit around playing games all day and then still release broken games would make sense even if the industry wasn't buckling under the Greed at the top!

I like the Red/Black design, but I'm not paying £85 for a 'standard' controller just to sit on the shelf and look good. I still have a few Ltd Edition Gears Controllers from the 360, XB1 era and even an Elite Gears of War Controller too that is still in its box unused.

No one wants to hear of Job losses but lets be honest here, the vast majority were Quality testers and been at Bethesda 5yrs or less - in other words, only involved with play testing Starfield before it released with the bugs, glitches and issues that had - let alone the Previous game Fallout 76. None of these were employed when Bethesda made and released the 'good' Fallout games or worked on Oblivion, Morrorwind or Skyrim.

When checked on LinkedIn, it became obvious these weren't important or 'skilled' creative developers. A LOT were only Game Testers and been at Bethesda for a few years at most and had 'no' previous experience. As for whether they were right to be let go, just look at how broken Starfield was on its PS5 release despite the 'years' its been out on Xbox/PC to ensure a 'smooth' and 'bug-free' release - isn't that what Testers are supposed to do?

Again, its terrible to lose your Job, but if you were good enough and/or indispensable to the creation and development of games with a 'proven' track record, I doubt you'd be there protesting!

@General-Foley Again, its preference - I may well pick Balanced or Quality for the Campaign or Horde. Its not a Twitch Shooter like CoD so maybe Balanced is fine for PvP modes too but the point of these options is really for you to decide whether the best visual quality plays well enough or whether you will prefer to sacrifice a bit of that visual quality for a higher frame rate.

Gears was always a 30fps Game on Console and it never stopped it becoming one of the 'big' IP's MS offered. That being said, you may think the Visual difference is that big and 60fps Performance is more important to you whilst another will prefer the Graphics mode and not notice enough of a difference to sacrifice the best quality visuals for.

The point is that you have a Choice to pick what's the best option for you and that could even vary between the different modes - 60fps a 'must' for PvP, but 40fps or even 30fps is fine, maybe even better for campaign and PvE modes as the graphical quality in Campaign is worth it to you - the softness of a lower resolution and other minor differences too much a sacrifice in 'campaign' but worth it in PvP modes for example.

See what works for you, what you prefer - that's the great thing about choice as it enables gamers to choose which they prefer.

@General-Foley No point playing Balanced if your TV doesn't support 120fps Gaming and then it really comes down to Graphics or Frame Rate.

Gears has 'traditionally' been a 30fps game on Console and that may well be a good option for the Campaign and/or PvE modes but maybe you'll want Performance mode for PvE.

The point about these modes is that you'll have the option to decide for yourself and maybe even select different modes depending on whether you are fighting AI in Campaign or Horde or other Humans in Multi-player. It gives you the option to pick your preference - whether the graphical sacrifices for higher frame rates or vice versa are noticeable or worth it to you.

@smoreon The onus should be on the Parents regardless to ensure the Hardware and/or Software are appropriate for their age and set up appropriately to ensure they cannot access 'inappropriate' material.

I think there is quite a difference too between playing a game like Halo with the supervision of your Parent, being fully aware of the conversation and language being used in Chat for example and letting them run loose.

The 'Adult' should be aware of the Content and/or language, deem what is suitable and taking appropriate action for their child, which may entail not allowing them to play unsupervised, not allowing them to chat to adults etc - certainly NOT in Private.

What I meant by fines is when things go 'wrong' - instead of getting Angry with the Content provider - whether that is a game or Social Mediia site, make the Parents somewhat responsible for any consequence that comes from it. Parents should use Parental Controls, should 'supervise' them in that more adult world, like supervising them when you visit a Pub. If something happens to the 'kid', blame the Parents for not supervising, not taking action to stop it sooner, not supervising them, allowing them to be in that situation 'unsupervised', not removing or 'blocking' their access sooner etc etc.

Its not about fining the parents because they played Halo at 12 for example, its fining the parents for them playing Halo 'unsupervised' and then something happens. You are able to give your child 'Alcohol' if you are supervising and do it responsibly, but if you allow them access to the alcohol cabinet without any supervision and they get very ill, its the parents fault and the parents should be fined for not being more responsible, not taking appropriate action to keep their alcohol out of reach for example...

Personally I think the Parents should take responsibility and be the ones fined for allowing their Children to access games or content they are underage for.

With games, they are age rated and I don't know any young child that is earning the money to buy Games or Hardware, so its generally the Parents buying their kids Games that they 'shouldn't' be allowed to play. With Hardware, they should also take responsibility for setting up their Hardware to ensure their profiles are set to their 'age' so that they can't access content/sites meant for adults.

There are Parental Controls for a reason and 'failing' to use them or being ignorant of them is not a defence - just like you can't claim ignorance of the law in court.

Parents are the ones buying their kids the Hardware and Games. I do agree that accessing social media through Hardware is different as that is 'free', but I do think Hardware should be set up by an Adult and limiting their Childs access to games/content by setting their age in that Profile. Not 18 yet, can't buy 18 rated games or access any website for over 18's and the onus should be put on the Parents to be 'responsible' for their Kids!

Discs should still run and work on the Hardware that you bought them for, that they were released, advertised and specifically labelled for. If you bought a game on disc for the XB360 for example, it was released and advertised to run on an XB360 and it case/box would state XB360 - it was NEVER released on disc for Helix, never advertised or labelled to run on the Helix either so you can still play your Discs - even delisted games on the hardware they were Advertised, built and released on, the hardware those games were sold for.

The fact that MS (or any other) have enabled their newer hardware to play 'older' games is a bonus. Your N64 Cartridge only worked on an N64 and not on a GameCube, Wii, WiiU or Switch - even if you 'own' the cartridge, you have 'no' right to play it on newer hardware you never purchased it to play on.

If they do decide to move away from discs - as expected as Discs are 'useless' for Gaming, then you will likely need to put the Disc into 'old' hardware for them to convert to digital. Its a bit like the way they handle 360 or OG Xbox BC in that the game doesn't play/run from the disc like it did on the OG hardware, but you have to download a digital store version - although still uses the licence embedded on the Disc. The next 'step' is to convert that Licence to a Digital licence and ensuring that if you 'sell' that disc, you also sell your right to play that game again.

Discs stopped playing games at the start of the PS4/XB1 era because Discs are too slow to play modern games. Now we have games designed around SSD transfer speeds which enable fast loading and fast travel because the transfer speed is so much faster than Discs. Its great that MS are trying to allow gamers to bring games forward even if the hardware moves away from that 'Physical' media type. If you upgraded, you left your old games behind and if you wanted to keep playing, you had to keep your old hardware. None of these games are built, released, advertised, licenced etc for Xbox Helix and no-one bought them for that hardware. The fact there is 'some' Backwards Compatibility is a bonus, and at the start of the XB1/PS4 Gen, you never expected your 360 or PS3 games to carry forward. It was one of the initiatives that Phil Spencer and MS brought in...

Discs don't make sense if the Software doesn't fit on it to distribute the entire game, for the Publisher/Dev to get the Game to the customers SSD storage where it MUST be installed to run. Discs haven't been used to play games for the past two generations since discs are too slow. Even the HDD of last gen is 'too' slow for modern games now with instant loading and fast travel.

From a Gaming perspective Discs are pointless and from a distribution perspective, barely adequate due to their limited capacity as games increase in size. The ONLY benefit is that gamers can sell their Licence if its on a bit of plastic they own but that bit of plastic doesn't play the game, it delivers it to the Customer for them to download and install onto their Hardware - just like the internet delivers software to the Customer..

Got to axe the people who actually make the Products we as Consumers want, we as consumers bought into the Microsoft Gaming ecosystem for etc whilst also paying Nadella nearly $100m last year, posting massive profits and getting Tax breaks but somehow can't afford to keep these staff who barely get paid enough to put food on the table, can't afford to keep the studios that actually make products to sell to consumers....

I still have my Gears of War 360 Controller, my Gears of War Elite Controller and my Gears of War XB1s and Controller. I'd be interested in a new Elite V3 Controller too...

@IllusiveMan To me, that would be a very major concern as I think it would prove to be even more Anti-consumer in an all-digital world. The problem with Digital isn't so much the format, but the system and the 'locked' platform format of Consoles.

With Windows and the fact that Windows has been OS of choice for PC gaming for decades, that has allowed third party digital options like Steam to rise and compete with Microsoft. Games aren't built for or locked to a Specific generation like Console games are. That means if you bought games from the XB360 or PS3 generation, they are still playable on PC today - not via some BC programme. If you own PS3 games on Disc, they are locked to PS3 - you can't put them in your PS5 (or any other Playstation) to play them. some 360 games may work via BC, but you have to download the Digital version and use the Licence on the disc to access as a 'work around' because its a different platform with its own OS that needs to be emulated.

Also you have all the licensing issue because they were licensed for that generation Console, were never licenced for modern day Consoles. They were licensed for Windows PC and Windows PC's are still in use today.

There is a reason that Digital only isn't such an issue as it is with Console and the locked nature of consoles is big part of that - losing access to a certain generation store front or that generation hardware suddenly being cut off from the internet. Games from older Generations not being playable on newer Hardware and even your games being locked behind Subscription Paywalls which Sony/MS can increase the cost of. Want to play Battlefield 3 or maybe one of the 360/PS3 era CoDs - all playable on PC but on Console, you may not be able to play on the latest Hardware and will require a Sub to play online with friends - cancel that sub and lose access to some of your games.

Its issues like that which are down to games built for bespoke OS and locked to specific Generations that make Digital a major concern for 'Console' gamers already too aware of the Anti-consumer nature of these - which was 'more' acceptable when hardware was so cheap and open platforms so expensive by comparison, but moving to Windows would open up the Xbox, open it up to a much bigger library, more Stores and more likely a better Digital future.

I think the BC with Xbox Console games on Windows PC may well be them moving to a Windows OS Helix and therefore Gamers bringing their 'old' console Libraries forward to Windows based Hardware - at least I hope so...

I don't buy games unless they are Play Anywhere and ALWAYS engage that filter option on ALL Store searches, sales etc to filter out all the games that don't support it.

I don't know that I will upgrade to an Xbox Helix Console, but I have Gaming PC Laptops and Handheld devices so I can always carry my Digital Library forward and play on PC.

I think its quite expensive for a 25yr old relatively short game and having a few extra missions to try and make up for the lack of Multi-player isn't really going to entice that many 'new' gamers buying it, let alone Playstation gamers at that price.

Xbox/PC at least may have Game Pass and I'm sure that figure is bumped up by a number wanting to upgrade at a lower cost but its an Xbox Game and most fans would be on Xbox (or PC) as Halo has a history on Xbox. Sales on PS may well be more curiosity or fans that left Xbox behind.

As someone who bought an OG Xbox to play Halo, then played it again for the 10th Anniversary, and then started it again on the MCC collection, I'm in NO hurry to play it yet again at the current price point. I can play the OG and remastered version anytime so don't really 'need' to spend money to play a remake

Good job I bought both my Series X Day 1 and got my PS5 a month or two later as I don't think I'd buy either, certainly not both, today and would rather invest that money and the cost of 5yrs+ of PS+/GPC on a PC as that will play ALL the games and won't require a sub fee to play the games I bought. Also as its not 'generational' like Consoles, games released on PC will likely still be playable on PC's in 20yrs time whilst games released on a specific gen of Console maybe locked to that generation - certainly Physical games are likely as future consoles won't have a Disc drive...

I don't really miss it as I never really played the games and felt like they were just trying to give 'something' to make up for the very anti-consumer way they lock Social gaming and a large portion of content behind that paywall. Stop paying for Gold (or Game Pass Core as it now is) and you'll lose access to games you bought because they are behind that 'paywall'

Without paying for these Sub services, you don't really get the hardware they advertise, the 'social' experience they showcase and promise and certainly don't get access to the 'full' Library of content/modes. Even if you paid full price for games like CoD or Battlefield for example, you still have to pay an additional fee just to play it every month...

Personally I think they ought to remove the reason I was forced into buying Gold or Game Pass, and it certainly wasn't for the games. I wonder all those who 'miss' Gold would have bothered paying to get those games if the Online aspect was 'free' like it is on PC, subbing purely for some random games every month? I know from my perspective, I would never have subscribed to get the games they offered and owned any of the games I would play anyway. In the last years, I had even given up 'claiming' any because I knew I'd never play them because the backlog of games I had bought in over the years and numerous sales meant that I'd never play these games even though they were 'free' .

@nomither6 yeah -Maria for example but I know 'darkness' plays a part in Gears 1

I started with Gears of War back on the 360 and loved it. Gears of War 2 was better - bigger, darker and more spectacular - it was also the game I used to show off HD as I had just upgraded from a big CRT TV to a much larger flat screen HD TV - open the doors to the locust base converted many of my friends to HD after I showed them that...

Slightly smoother cut-scenes on the Base PS5 when you aren't actually playing and therefore isn't impacting the game-play is maybe a 'bit' disappointing but not a major problem for Xbox and I doubt that ANYONE expected a newer machine with AI upscaling cores built in beats an older console without.

I'd also argue that having the option to play on PC via Play Anywhere so can also play on a RoG Ally handheld or on a PC that will easily beat a PS5 Pro (if Graphics and/or frame-rates really matters so much) as well as whilst relaxing on in front of the TV on a console beats anything PS5 or PS5 Pro can offer but that versatility maybe isn't important to all.

If you own an Xbox, you aren't going to rush out and buy a PS5 because Halo's cutscenes may drop fewer frames or spend even more just to get a PS5 Pro for the 'best' console experience - but its not really adding a 'lot' to the graphics or game-play.

There is selling at a Loss and selling at such a loss that you'd never recuperate and risk losing everything.

Lets be honest here, if they sold at just $10 under, that's $10m LOSS per million consoles sold or half a billion lost if they sell 50m consoles. Sell for $100 loss and its $100m lost every 1m consoles sold

There is NO guarantee that Customers will buy enough games, subs etc - especially not from Microsoft if they also allow Steam which doesn't require a Sub to play games like CoD or Battlefield. As people also seem to be spending more and more time in Free to Play games like Fortnite or Roblox, I can't see MS or Sony willing to lose that much 'per' console

MS's Console is said to be more expensive than Sony's and Sony's was reportedly around the $1k point for just the component parts - let alone the costs to put them all in a box with a controller and send them out around the world with the cost of fuel and those operators also wanting to make money, all the retailers too won't sell it at a loss to them.

A PS5 Pro cost as well as the current price of a Series X and PS5 will likely be considered and they will NOT sell it for less than any of those - its unrealistic to expect the more powerful system with more RAM in it and a far more complex and more powerful Chip containing a better CPU and GPU to somehow cost 'less' or even 'similar' to the cost of current hardware that had to be 'raised' due to the costs of their component parts inc RAM which is in high demand and costs have risen sharply for - same with SSD storage too so unless demand and prices suddenly drops, which also would drop the price of Current hardware still in production, at least be realistic!

It may well price out many who feel they are better off sticking with their current Hardware for a few more years - especially as games will likely release on current hardware too for a number of years. You likely won't 'need' to buy a next gen machine unless they artificially limit its release to next gen only to try and encourage more to upgrade.

I had no issues all day - I played for a few hours before lunch and then played for quite a few hours after lunch - both times in online games but not 'Physical games.

I had no trouble signing in to my account and playing games with all their DLC content, no issues with any aspect of the online gaming experience and if I hadn't read about outages, I would never have guessed or been aware that some had been affected.

I haven't bought a Physical game for years now as I've seen NO point. Games don't play from disc as the disc is far too slow to run games. The ONLY real advantage is being able to sell that disc and I've not sold games for more than 30 yrs or more - they've either ended up going to the tip because the Hardware no longer works and can't buy a replacement due to age or given to my kids to play as I'd moved on to newer hardware. I still have ALL my OG Xbox games, 360 Games etc in a box in storage and don't know if the OG hardware is still working - I know my OG PS3 Phat has YLOD and not 1 controller is working without Stick drift issues or will actually hold a charge anymore. In fact I don't even play my XB1/PS4 games anymore either as I've moved on...

I don't see the issue as one of Digital vs Physical, I see it more as an issue of Locked Console Platform with a 'locked' network and other anti-consumer aspects vs Open Platform with an open Network and more consumer friendly aspects. PC gamers don't have issues with Digital purchases and the 'benefits' outweigh any negatives. Their games are all PC games not locked to a specific era/generation. If you bought a PS3 era game on PC, its still playable and downloadable on whatever PC hardware - inc Handheld PC's - today, but your PS3 disc only works on a PS3 and not all 360 games came forward either...

I don't think this should be used to make some argument about Digital libraries but more against LOCKED platforms. It doesn't matter if you own a game like Call of Duty or Battlefield on Disc or bought it digitally, you still won't be able to play if the network you are paying your sub-fee for goes down.

Digital hasn't been an issue for PC players and their games, it doesn't stop them from playing the games they want online with their friends and the games they bought a decade or more ago digitally can be downloaded and run on ANY PC inc handheld PC's. Their Digital libraries aren't 'locked' to a specific brand or era of PC's like your Physical Library is.

You buy a PS3 game on disc, its ONLY playable on PS3 and yet if you bought a game from that era on PC, it would still be playable today on ANY PC hardware - there isn't BC or issues.

The issues come because of the Anti-consumer nature of Consoles. You sacrifice the freedom for a cheap subsidised box of fixed Hardware locked to a specific manufacturer and often Hardware too. Historically, if you bought a game on Cartridge, it was ONLY playable on that very specific Hardware so when you upgraded to the 'new' Console, those old games were left behind. You can't play N64 Cartridges on Game Cube, can't play Game Cube games on Wii etc.

You will 'lose' access to your Physical games too if they require a PS+ or Game Pass Sub to play. Stop paying a sub and half your games and Content is locked behind that pay wall. It doesn't matter if you bought Destiny or Avengers on Disc, you can't play them. If you buy games on disc today, no guarantee you can play them on the next gen Hardware and unlikely to as they probably won't have a Disc Drive, but your digital library can - like upgrading your PC doesn't make you old games unplayable.

The fact is that Consoles are 'locked' and as such you have very little choice. You can lose access to your games just by letting your Subscription lapse whether you bought on disc or not and lose access to playing with friends online too regardless of whether you bought on disc or not.

Nothing for me - either the games I want weren't Play Anywhere and/or not reduced to a price I'd consider purchasing or I already own them

I'm ONLY buying Play Anywhere games so I set the filter to remove all games that aren't Play Anywhere so I don't even see them to consider if they are cheap enough to try. There wasn't any Play anywhere games I wanted at a Price I was willing to pay.

I don't here my Series X when its on at all from the sofa about 7-8ft away. I've been using it since day 1 and its still the quietest console I've owned for years...

Delisted is no different from the publisher no longer making the Physical copy - the only real difference is that you find a digital copy in the used section. There are a number of Physical games that were incredibly difficult to find if you missed buying them when they were available - even used.

There are a number of games that you can't play regardless of whether you bought them (yes paid money to play) on a Physical or digital format and more games that you can only play a small fraction of the total package - you can't play Destiny for example regardless of whether you bought it on Disc or not and numerous games have had the servers turned off leaving some small or token 'offline' content still available.

Digital enables a Publisher to 'preserve' it for Purchase for far longer than Physical - there are 1000's of games you can still buy brand new today that they stopped making Physical versions of years ago. You maybe able to find one used but the Publisher hasn't made copies for customers to buy for years and its up to the gamer to 'preserve' their own games and hardware should they want to play them in the future.

They tend to give notice about games they are going to delist in the future or shut down aspects so those that bought have an option to re-download to 'preserve' their copy if they really want to keep it. Its not really the Publishers that ever preserved games, its always been the gamer looking after their own collection, their own hardware and peripherals because the manufacturers of those Physical discs, consoles, controllers etc have stopped making them - essentially 'delisted' and its only the 'excess' limited stock that hadn't sold or you have to buy used, buy what someone else discarded, no longer wanted.

That's really where Physical has an advantage - that when it is 'delisted', no longer being sold 'New' in stores, you maybe able to buy it used and/or can sell your own copy.

How long before Ads come to the paid tier - maybe Premium has Ads before every game but can play longer than 1hr and 'Ultimate has no ads - until they need 'more' money and increase either the number of ads you must watch before you play or shorten the time before you have to watch more ads to play.

You'd never expect to see 'Ads' on a Home Screen on a Console yet they show an ad there. I wouldn't be surprised if more ads get added to that too...

If you are moving to a windows OS system as used in Gaming PC's, they'll want to ensure they can bring their Console libraries to PC via BC. Helix and most of their own XB1/Series X games had a PC released version anyway. Starting from 2017's Sea of Thieves, All Xbox games released day and date on Both PC and Xbox.

Of course they'll want to find a way to bring all the third party games, but their own releases should have a Native PC version via Play Anywhere. Obviously most (if not all) of their 360 games didn't get a PC release as they focussed on building their console numbers up and neglected their PC platform allowing Steam to capitalise thinking 'Windows' and requiring DirectX would be enough.

Physical stopped being relevant for actual gaming at the start of the XB1/PS4 generation as Discs were too slow to run the games, hence it became necessary to download and install on to the Internal storage to function.

Of course from a consumer perspective, the ability to sell that bit of plastic with your Licence key embedded on it, like selling the keys to your Car or House so you no longer have access to it, was and still is a major benefit to some but you only need to put the disc in the slot to prove you still own it to unlock access to the game on your SSD - the disc is not required for the game itself to run. Up to and including the 360/PS3 gen, games would actually run from Physical media - in fact Xbox sold a 360 with only 4GB of storage (I believe) - just enough for Game Saves and you couldn't play BF4 with the high res textures as that required an 8GB of space for Installation to the HDD because it was on a separate disc to the Game - although installation to the HDD could see games boot up and/or load levels a bit quicker because even those 'slow' HDD's had faster Data transfer speeds than discs - now we have SSDs.

Let alone the costs, environmental impact of all that plastic and fuel to distribute and sustainability of that format, its 'obsolete' from a gaming perspective, just a delivery method to get the Software from the Publisher to the Consumers Internal storage. It would be great if they could find away to allow us to have the same freedom to sell, trade, let friends borrow etc our digital licences like we can with our Physical, but unless they sell us a USB 3.0 drive with a game embedded on it, I doubt Physical media will 'play' games again and I can't see companies investing in a Physical media that will play games directly from it - thus making it a viable gaming option rather than just an alternative delivery method that it now is.

@ThatFilbo Consoleless does NOT mean that Hardware as an option won't exist - it may just mean that you buy or build your own PC for the Hardware Gaming experience you can afford or want.

Streaming may well be the 'only' affordable option for the latest great games because the hardware specs required to run them natively maybe only for the Enthusiast, rich or dedicated gamer.

Its much the same as movies/music in that sense. You maybe happy to stream your music or movies via Spotify or Netflix but the best quality requires a Bluray player and home theatre set-up or an expensive Hifi system with a high quality Amp, CD/Vinyl player etc and the same could occur for games. Affordable consoles may still exist, but offer 'retro' or retro style games - not the 'latest' AAA releases

Consoles capable of playing those modern AAA games will likely be expensive - probably too expensive for the 'majority' 'who will opt to play via Streaming and believe that their Streaming experience is 'good enough' at 4k/60fps with 'minimal' lag as it enables them to play games anywhere and on any device, take their library with them etc (like Digital music/movies) and save the £1000+ they would need to spend on buying games that they can play ANYWHERE, not just in the home.

Hardware will exist, but I think it will be for those that can afford or justify spending so much on a box that for everyone else, doesn't play games they can't play on any device, doesn't 'improve' the experience enough to justify the cost - especially as internet speeds and the streaming infrastructure is being improved with more and more people having access to high speed packages.

@kuu_nousee Point I was trying to make is that Consoles are not the entry level mass market device they once were.

At £300, it wasn't quite so bad to pay £60 a year for Gold and £45 for games as it was back in the 360 gen - especially as you'd get more exclusives a year because games only took a couple of years to make - hence we had Gears 1-3 and Judgement, Uncharted 1-3 and Last of Us in that era but now you'll be lucky to get a single release per studio per generation whilst Games have jumped up to £70.

Hardware too has jumped up. Last gen, the 'Premium' Mid Gen hardware was £500 whilst the 'entry' tier PS4/XB1 were still around that £300 mark - although XB1 launched with Kinect as a Compulsory peripheral that increased the launch price but the Console itself dropped to ~£300. At £300 with another £300-400 on Subs over a generation, it still cost less than a minimum spec PC - but the PC would offer cheaper games and that much larger Library. You sacrificed a gaming library and the 'freedom', the frame rates and Graphical quality for an affordable, mass market 'Console' and its curated Library, tolerated the extra costs because the hardware was so cheap and accessible.

In terms of Gaming, my RoG Ally X plays far more games than my Series X and PS5 combined - ok so not at 4k or at 60fps minimum in every game - but for a handheld 'Console', its delivering Console like Gaming with the PC library and NO extra charges. Yes it maybe 'more' than a Series X but is a fully self contained unit - A Series X requires a TV and a Subscription too. Handheld PC's are arguably a 'better' entry level option and I bet there is PC's that will play modern games (as well as the vast library available) at Console settings or better than the console hardware they released on, better than the Console settings they are locked to (if you can play them at all on modern Consoles). 1000's of games that won't release on current/next gen hardware from the past 50yrs or so of gaming.

The purpose of the console was to be a LOW cost device for Mass Market appeal to deliver games that otherwise would require an expensive PC to play. It was the 'entry' level hardware option. It had a limited selection of games but quite a few would be exclusives and the games were a bit more expensive as the hardware was cheap. Online Social gaming helped subsidise the hardware to keep the cost down but would add £100's over a generation to the cost.

Now consoles are not the 'cheap' option and similarly priced PC's can play all the games a Console gets and a LOT more besides without the need to pay for Online social gaming and cheaper games to. With DLSS, they can compete on Resolution and certainly have playable frame rates so these may well be the 'entry' level option.

Consoles are pricing themselves out of that mass market entry level hardware tier they were in and have a LOT fewer Exclusives - partly because the games take so long to make so a studio can't make multiple games a generation like they did during the 360 era. So not only are we getting fewer exclusives and paying more for games, we still have to pay for Online social gaming to -and if you don't, the majority of games and/or content becomes unplayable - whether you bought it or not. You Pay £70 for a game and then have to keep paying Sony/MS to play it on their Hardware. They also only have one digital storefront - a monopoly and could raise prices of their online gaming sub fee that you MUST pay or lose he ability to play the games you own...

If the prices keep going up and don't forget to add on the cost of PS+ Essential or Game Pass Core over 5yrs+, the 'entry' level hardware for mass market appeal with the biggest library and cheapest games is a PC - no 'hidden' costs either and they won't block you from playing your games unless you pay a sub fee!