BAMozzy

Series S also has a lot more power to drive that hardware as its mains powered and not designed around portability - its also not powering the display too. I don't think the Switch 2 has the same capacity bandwidth for its RAM so perhaps needs more to offset that for example.

It's a very different device and you'll buy it because you want to play games like Mario, Zelda and whatever Nintendo IP's/Exclusives it has - playing 'some' 3rd Party games too is better for the kids who have just a Switch2 and the 'few' that want to play those on the go as well (without taking multiple devices at least).

The Switch seemed more in line with PS3/360 era in terms of the games that were ported although we did see some 'unexpected' ports too. The Switch 2 seems a generational leap above the Switch so should be more in line with PS4/XB1 hardware and no doubt will get some unexpected ports too...

Call of Duty is 'expected' at some point though...

I never expected this to come to Game Pass. I won't pay what I consider over the top prices that games have risen too in recent years and Game Pass provides a very good library so I'm not 'buying' games just because I want something new to play.

There was a time I'd buy several games just because I liked the box art or title because they weren't expensive. Now I won't buy games costing over £50 because NO game is worth that to me and the game will be 'less' than that in a few months or so. That's why I don't buy 'new' releases, its the price mostly and fact most games are much better several months later anyway - once they've fixed and optimised better!

I don't know that I would buy HD2, even though its less than £40, I have a PS5 and PC too and haven't bought it yet, so now its on Xbox too, it just gives me another platform I could buy on, but probably won't - and that again has NOTHING to do with the fact I have Game Pass too...

I just think it make sense from a Business perspective. Its Sony's most successful Live Service and whilst it is successful, I doubt the Community is still growing. Its either plateaued or declining as those that would buy have and others move on to other games.

I'm sure it has a Core group that Play regularly, but they may not be spending 'money' so not bringing in the revenue. Everyone on PC/PS5 that would buy, have bought so the revenue dries up. To keep that game 'alive', keep developing more content for it etc, they need to increase the revenue and the ONLY way is to open up more Platforms for gamers to play.

That doesn't mean that we'll suddenly be getting Spider-man, God of War or Horizon but maybe will get other Live Service type games as it benefits their Community and builds a larger Community of fans to their IP. They already release on Steams Platform as they explore a multi-platform strategy and may decide to limit 'exclusivity' to a year or 2 for their own Console across all titles.

As games are costing more to make, you can't necessarily rely purely on your own Platform, your own userbase to buy in sufficient numbers to be Profitable so need to release on more Platforms to increase the Revenue opportunity.

It's not defending them - Its looking at things with my Head, not my Heart!! I'm not looking at it from the perspective of an Angry Gamer who's just lost Perfect Dark, I'm looking at this no differently to the countless times over the decades, this cycle has repeated itself...

Go back to when EA were the most hated Company in Gaming, Loot Boxes, Gambling, Studio's being bought the EA management being too 'Hands-on' insisting on shoehorning MTX and/or Online play, then closing the Studio when the 'mess' of a game releases, or being cancelled/closed down because one of their other big games didn't work. ABK was such a disorganised and badly run Company - right up until MS took over and their History follows similar patterns, Ubisoft too. Square Enix sold off some Studios/IPs in their restructuring.

2K hit Crystal Dynamics with Job Cuts whilst they were supposedly working on Perfect Dark and a new Tomb Raider.

Point is, I am not defending by pointing out the way these companies operate and the repeated cycles throughout their History of 'restructuring' during difficult times and growth during booms. No point being Angry over things you can't control. I'd rather a Studio manage itself well than have some corporate manager dictate to the creative people, that's why you end up with pointless, generic online modes with thousands of MTX's or some other 'generic' version of some popular game (like Overwatch, CoD, Fortnite etc) as they want a slice of that commercial pie. Chasing trends instead of creating the next big thing to be at the top, to be the 'trend' others chase...

Sometimes, being more hands off it works out - Obsidian for example and I doubt you'd have got South of Midnight, Clockwork Revolution etc and sometimes it doesn't because the Studio Head is NOT able to manage or be honest with their bosses...

I am not a shill but I'm also not being overly emotional about the situation either and seeing the same pattern that EVERY Publisher has been through time and time again...

@GeeEssEff Not just that slice but no doubt spun the story the game was progressing well - Matt Booty has to manage quite a few Studios so probably was being fed back that things were going well by the Studio head and may have believed they were seeing something better than it was if they can doctor the game play to play a specific way to ensure it runs - couple that with Managers reporting that things are progressing you don't know what they show to try and convince managers to keep funding their studio, keep believing the Progress reports, keep giving them extensions and have something to show them when they do visit. I'm sure that's why they kept getting support until it became very apparent what they had was a long way from where it needed to be, let alone where MS expect it be. Its already had delays so Matt Booty would likely be why the Studio is no longer here more than Phil Spencer.

My point was that Studio Heads may show there boss those clips as 'progress' reports so they get more time/funding, a 'delay' in their release because they have the game this 'close', and then find out they're a lot further away than the delays they've already had it adds up.

The initiative has been plagued by internal strife since its formation and the Studio head is responsible for the Studio and management of the Studio, Matt Booty is Studio Manager, the person those Studio managers go to when they need extra time or extra staff, and who will greenlight what project they work on, their deadlines and expect progress reports, occasionally will visit to check on progress but by and large let the Studio head Manage the teams of developers and the overall development of that game to them.

Even based on his description, it still seems like its years away, not months. For a Studio that's over 7yrs Old now and still has produced absolutely nothing that can be sold to generate revenue. Its already been delayed multiple times and even drafted in Crystal Dynamics to try and get this game on Track.

The fact that this, whether it is actual game-play or doctored to make it seem much further along but more representative of the ambition, is clearly years away is a major problem - that's years of more Costs - not just paying the Initiative, but also a 3rd Party Studio and despite getting in that 3rd Party Studio and delaying the release window to help get the Game back on track, its still not coming within the next year.

Anyone who tried to play that slice themselves would quickly realise something isn't 'right' and that they were still a LONG way from a Release, a long way from having a Product on the market to recuperate the Costs already invested. It mislead the Gamers who believed the game was much closer to releasing and probably led their boss (Matt Booty head of Studios) to believe things were progressing well.

@Medic_alert And I believe that you shouldn't be so Hands-on - that is why you have Studio management to manage the Studio and it's their responsibility to run that Studio in the most efficient way. We have known that these Studio's were 'struggling' internally and Microsoft arguably have been 'lenient', they haven't gone in and sacked those Studio managers because they are not hitting a Deadline, they've gone in and given them more time with delaying releases, they've organised Support studio's to help get these games back on track. All these cancelled games and closed Studio's have had numerous delays and additional support - yet still haven't produced - so at what point do you say enough is enough?

Microsoft have poured Money into these Studios to those Staff to do their 'Job' and that includes paying Managers to Manage those Studios and Staff teams. Every 'delay' costs money and adds to the Cost of a Project. At somepoint, the amount it costs will overtake the amount of revenue it can make back and if you still have to keep plowing money, that's even more loss that will no doubt be passed on to us, the customer, to recuperate from.

Phil Spencer is Head of Xbox - he doesn't have the time to 'micro-manage' every single Studio, every single department etc that's why they employ Managers/Heads to manage. If the Studio Manager isn't up to the task, then you need to replace them. If I can't do the Job I've been employed to do, at some point, the Manager may well try and give me some 'extra' support to get me up to the required level of performance in the first instance and then if I keep 'failing', they'll have a good enough reason to fire me.

I do find it odd that people call for 343 to be shut down over their handling of the Halo IP but then get really critical of Microsoft for closing a Studio that after 7yrs+ still doesn't have anything to show and by all accounts, still need over a year - maybe even 2yrs or more - away from having anything out to generate revenue. MS agreed to give them more time, agreed to get them outside help/assistance etc and yet the game is still a LONG way off...

I'm not 'defending' MS - I'm just trying to bring some Balance and rational thought to what is a very disappointing time. It's not as if they have closed down Xbox and their entire Gaming division, not as if Companies haven't had big shake-ups in the past and years later, are in a better position. Say what you want about EA today, but they were once the 'worst' Company in the World, shutting down Studios, cancelling games, going all in on Loot Boxes and being to 'Hands on' with the Developers, changing their Creative vision and ambition into a generic experience designed to sell MTX content.

As I said, no-one wants to hear of Job Losses - least of all those affected, but in the 50yrs I've been playing, I've seen numerous Companies expanding rapidly, consolidating harshly, bouncing back and growing again, only to hit another crisis that means they need to 'streamline' or seek investment by selling some of their Assets. Square Enix sold some Studio's and IP's and Sony's closed numerous Studios and cancelled numerous games despite their Profits and massive lead in the Console space.

@Medic_alert That's what you have Studio Heads to manage the Studios and their Staff teams to ensure they hit deadlines and solve any arising issues. Only if they need external assistance, should they actually seek it. However, those SAME Studio Heads would likely be asked to give Progress reports to their bosses and if they are NOT managing the Studio well and/or not accurately informing their bosses, then that is on the Studio/Studio head. I bet people like Phil and Matt Booty would have given these Studio's more time, the benefit of doubt, maybe organised external support (like getting Crystal Dynamics in) to try and support the Studio in the first instance and ONLY after deliberating and assessing the situation, decide to 'cut' losses rather than plow more money into a growing disaster.

No-one wants 'Management' coming in and dictating to the Studio, they want support from them, want them to give them some Freedom to create the games. The Studio themselves will have their own management to manage the Studio and its projects. If Management are having to go in, that is indicative of major issues as they have a Studio Management team to manage that Studio...

I'm not defending the loss of Studio's and/or Projects but I can see that sometimes you have to cut your losses rather than keep plowing more and more and more money into something in the hope that one day you'll have something to show for it, something that will never make its money back and could even be another 'disaster' product.

Tango weren't the 'Tango' that made the Evil Within and Ghost Recon. Those staff moved on and the new manager is fixated on Hifi Rush - a commercial flop and a desire to make a sequel that doesn't make 'financial or business sense' to make, Arkane Austin also made a flop and even Prey was a commercial flop. You don't keep flops just because you make so much money from other products/services.

I quite agree that IP's are practically worthless if you don't do anything worthwhile with them, but in the right hands can generate revenue and owning those IPs and Publishing rights mean they generated revenue from the minute MS acquired them - if they are still being sold! Buy Fallout 4, Black Ops 2 or Doom (2016) for example, Microsoft gets money from - even on Playstation Hardware. They can promote them with sales and make money. But not as much as if they make new games.

Most of the games cancelled were Live Service too and we know how difficult they are to make 'profitable'. Couple that with the countless Studio issues at the initiative and numerous delays, its nearly 8yrs since they were formed and still have produced NOTHING. That doesn't sound like an Asset

As for management, that is the job of the Studio head to manage the Studio and the project to ensure it stays on schedule. Not the role of Phil Spencer who is most likely going to only get what the Studio head reports to Matt Booty. They are more likely to be Supportive and try and help, give them a bit more time and even a 3rd Party studio to help but still can't 'produce' so is it any wonder?

I hate to hear of Job Losses, hate to hear about games cancelled and studios closing/gutted, but after decades of it, Look at Activision, the IPs in their Portfolio, the number of Studios and output of Games a year. All those Studios and you'll be lucky to get more than just Call of Duty because that was how Activision Structured their Studios around their biggest money maker. It made more money for Activision than releasing other games so it had to release at the expense of other games. MS has inherited that now.

Point I'm trying to make and maybe failing is that it wasn't 9000 jobs from the most important part of Xbox we are concerned with - those making the Games. yes there are some losses, but none of that impacts me or my ability to play the games I want. I may have wanted to play Perfect Dark, but that Game Play trailer wasn't representative of the Game, it was more what they were looking to make but may have needed another 3 or 4 years to get there - assuming the Studio doesn't internally combust...

It seems that Xbox fans want 343 gone, Halo handed to another Studio, those developers fired but then when they do close down Studios, all you get is people saying they should keep 'everyone' as they make so much money...

If the restructuring means that the entire Xbox division, its Publishing, its R&D, Its PR, its Advertising and its studios are now better Organised, better supported and far more efficient and delivering Products and services to their Customers, the Gamers, then I'm sorry to hear of the losses but it's for the long term best -its ensuring their Customers stay happy and spending money and still making money for their Shareholders...

@IOI They bought 100bn in Studios as well as their entire Publishing side and all the IP's, all the Publishing Rights etc etc.

It wasn't 'just' for those Studio's - many of whom don't own the IP's or Games they develop at all - you wouldn't get Call of Duty by buying Infinity Ward, Treyarch, Sledgehammer etc. They also took on all the staff - regardless of whether or not they were 'Surplus' to the now bigger Organisation. You don't need 3 separate Publishing Division, Each with its own set of Separate releases to schedule in and do all advertising and promotional work all the Shows, each with their own management structure etc these can ALL be streamlined into one 'bigger' Publishing Division that can manage ALL releases and Promotions, they now do a Microsoft Show - not 3 separate MS, Bethesda and Activision show. So there is likely a LOT of jobs where you only need '1' person where 3 are currently employed - much easier to have just 1 European sales team, not 2 or three costing money to run doing essentially the same job. You don't need a team that only deals with Activision products, a team that only deals with Bethesda and a Microsoft team that maybe has to deal with those or forward them to those teams...

Point is, at some point, they had to restructure and may well 'restructure again' as circumstances change. They may not need so many involved with the manufacture and distribution of Physical media, it may go completely so all those people involved in that would likely need to find employment elsewhere, but maybe they'll increase their Server development and maintenance teams as Cloud becomes more popular and infrastructure improves.

Time will tell if it really has a negative impact on us, the consumer - it could be better if it allows MS to drop the Online access and playing with friends charge - Social gaming is the 'heart' of Xbox but hidden behind a Paywall!! May have to drop it if Steam comes to next box as Steam games don't require Game Pass Core for Online access but 'Xbox Console' versions do, Also the Windows PC version doesn't require a fee. So MAYBE we could benefit... We've lost a few games we were looking forward to, although they were never completed to know what we've really lost (could be a flop).

Point is, Xbox is NOT just the Studios or the Console, it also includes all the Publishing, advertising, R&D, QA, PR etc etc teams too and they also acquire Bethesda and Activision equivalent teams too from their Publishing and Marketing division.

Also, not ALL Job Losses mean unemployment, it just means that particular job in that particular area is 'gone', that staff member though could be filling a role elsewhere in the company where they still have vacancies and 'priority' is given to those affected. So if you've lost you job because that particular role was closed, but other roles exist nearby (or willing to relocate), you have a greater chance of successfully applying than those who didn't just lose their job.

@Kraven Just think of the severance pay they'll be getting - I'm sure that's a big incentive to want to leave if the game you wanted to make is cancelled and/or you've spent that many years and want early retirement - now with a big Payday severance bonus!

No-one wants to hear of Losses, but in reality I only care about the Customer experience - the customer being me! If all this ends up benefitting 'us', the gamer, in the long run I'm sorry to those affected and wish you all well, but lets wait and see...

I'd like to think that they aren't censoring content, just ensuring that its meets whatever Criteria is required for releasing on their Platform. Games have to certified for age ratings, but surely you don't need Separate 'teams' each requiring a 'head' that gets paid more for different departments - surely they as one 'team' with one 'head', maybe a few vice-heads to help with a large team. Everyone should be able to help with QA on any issue, Family and Child Safety should be in all their minds regardless and all able to give any assurance on such matters...

When you also take on so many teams - Activision too would likely have Similar teams in their Publishing side as Microsoft Xbox Publishing and similar Promotional teams too. Activision, Bethesda and Microsoft all used to have to do their OWN shows, own promotional campaigns, advertising etc on their own schedules, organise their own Product manufacturing, distribution etc - around the GLOBE! so many can probably be Streamlined into 'ONE' large Publishing division that's more efficient than running 3 together...

I really wanted a Perfect Dark and the Game-play interested me even more so I'm annoyed that got cancelled, I'm still not over Scalebound LMAO especially not as they opted to keep Crackdown instead. I did wonder when the Initiative have not really had a settled team all pulling together in a focused direction and Crystal Dynamics were hit with layoffs so I felt this either had to release Soon (as in the next 6months) or its doomed. Everwild too - always seemed to be an artstyle concept they just had no idea how to utilise in a compelling enough Game-play loop - no point keeping everyone guessing, its gone - officially! Turn 10 is a Surprise but then it isn't. A Flagship IP (Forza), its creators and engine builder, is being hit that hard but are Racing games really the 'flagship' show off game to your mates they once were? Cars were looking far more lifelike before humans and animals were so were a 'showcase' with speed too - but now, don't look that much different from last gen...

I don't think he retires until either one of two things happen:

1: they launch the next Xbox and its as well received as the XB1 was - maybe feel like 'Microsoft' has got in the way of Xbox and Gaming.

2: They launch the next Xbox and its a critical and commercial success beyond what MS themselves expected (even if that is not quite PS6/Switch 2 levels, just much better than they expected).

I just think in Situation 1, Phil would retire because he would feel Jaded at all the work he has put in to put the Gamer and Studios in the same space and the Community who are so passionate to see Microsoft become too Microsoft with Xbox instead of Xbox bringing Gaming to Microsoft.

In 2, I can see him retiring and feeling that Sarah Bond is the Right person to carry Xbox on, that under his tenure, he turned the Brand and Microsoft's Gaming ambition around completely.

He came in to 'save' Xbox as MS were considering dropping out of Gaming, they only had a few Studio's and their Hardware, this 'All in One' Kinect required entertainment box that you can also play the games PS4 gets - just not at the same Quality level, but hey you can talk and gesture to your Xbox and get to the 'entertainment' you want TV, Movies and Games was a flop at launch, dropping Kinect and the OneS helped, but never made a full recovery - which HURT as that was the Digital Transition, the 360 may have helped push Digital, it took off during the next gen even more.

Under him we get Games Day/Date in Game Pass and Play Anywhere but also lost that Total exclusivity as their Games released on their 'PC Platform' too and Game Pass on PC and Cloud will and has hurt Console Sales which also brings down 'Game Pass Core' revenue (although I bet those that pay for Ultimate don't really think about that part they are also paying for) but also opens up a whole new Subscription base that will pay 'more' than the Console gamer who only pays for Online access. A MUCH larger audience of gamers now they can get revenue from.

I can see Online access and Playing with friends charge disappearing next gen, maybe another reason 'cuts' are necessary, but with the PC and their Xbox branded PC Handhelds not requiring these and if they do allow Steam, you can't block 'online' in those which would be awkward for MS - buy CoD from them, requires Game Pass Core to play, buy from Steam. Things will have to change!! No point having Game Pass PC and Console if ALL the games are the same and playable on both - and Core is a 'useless' tier nobody would pay for, that is just to 'sweeten' the fact you are paying for online access and playing with friends - Social gaming that Xbox promotes!!!

@Kraven They didn't just buy Studio's - they bought entire Publishing Companies with MANY people employed to do the Same Jobs within those Companies. You don't necessarily need 3 European Sales team - 1 for Bethesda, 1 for Activision and 1 for Microsoft for example so you can merge those into one European Sales team, don't need 3 managers for that team so 2 can 'go'.

You don't need 3 teams that organise the Physical media manufacturing for example or 3 teams dedicated to Advertising and Promotion so a LOT of teams can be merged into a single team with a more streamline Management in place.

These are all within the Xbox side and that's before you consider the Studio's. I'd rather they restructure after those acquisitions, see where they can optimise rather than just keep paying out which is then pushed onto us the Customer. If they have 600 people employed in just sales because they acquired two new Sales teams with their Acquisition, but only need 350, only need 1 team with 1 manager, 1 vice manager etc, then I'd rather they did that than put the prices up even more to keep paying those staff.

Of course, no-one wants to hear of Job Losses, but if there is really only 1 position, but because of purchases, you've now got 3 staff in that role, something has to give!

I'm not saying the Studio's and Dev teams won't be affected, but the bulk affected don't seem to be those teams - It may well be some 'Game testers' at those studios because they now have a Microsoft Game Testers team for ALL Studios for example - not those that are actually creating and developing games - which are the Consumer Products MS needs for Profitability and Sustainability.

They can also cut down a LOT of their Physical Media teams if they are planning a more Digital focused future - don't need teams to organise and distribute those Discs, don't need Warehouses and Sales teams to communicate with retailers etc etc...

@smoreon But the next Xbox Console is more likely to be bought by existing Xbox Console owners who have a Library of Xbox games already and are now able to 'branch out' into Steam.

If you are Steam gamer, chances are you already have a PC and/or Steamdeck so aren't likely to buy an 'Xbox' Console - unless its more affordable than an 'upgrade' (if required). If you've managed without an Xbox so far, this isn't likely to move the needle.

The fact that these are Windows games, requiring a Proton Layer on Steamdeck is actually relevant. MS might not get money from 'Proton' but they are still getting money from the people buying their games through Steam - whether its playable or not on Steamdeck. Why 'buy' from Steam or MS when you can play FREE on Game Pass? That is the 'best' value way to play Xbox Games on PC, Cloud or Console - cheaper than Steam.

Your Xbox account, inc your friends list, your libraries, your achievements etc is your 'xbox' experience regardless of the 'Hardware'. It doesn't matter if you start playing Doom on your mobile phone in the morning whilst travelling, on a PC in the Afternoon and then the Xbox Console in the evening - you only need to buy the game once from MS to do that or just Sub to Game Pass Ultimate - steam won't let you do that.

Its more about trying to make Microsoft Ecosystem the 'best' place to play Microsoft games, but if you 'prefer' to play elsewhere, that's your choice but games aren't getting cheaper. 2 games now cost nearly as much as 1yr of Game Pass so if you wanted to play 3 or more Xbox games a year, then maybe its better to Subscribe to Game Pass than buy from Steam. Steam is NOT the most Popular for games like CoD, Consoles account for 2/3rds of the Players and Steam only accounts for ~6% - Battlenet (now owned by MS) is most popular for CoD on PC - Steam is most popular for cheaters!!

It's all hypothetical because its uncharted territory. No-one has attempted what MS is trying to do. MS doesn't 'need' to sell their games through Steam either - not Day/Date if they choose. They could treat Steam similar to Playstation and release exclusively to their Windows store - its still on PC and so EVERY PC gamer can buy/play and release to steam a few months later - offer incentives like early access for pre-ordering or for Game Pass Subscribers - numerous ways to incentivise buying from them over Steam on their Windows PC Platform

Never used it and don't think I will. I lived and played through these Eras and I tend to look forward to the 'new' releases rather than back at the old games and 99.9% of the time I've gone back to 'older' generation games, they are so much worse than I remember - but back then, they were cutting edge, now antiquated and very dated.

I do think its great that these are still playable, still around so that anyone interested in these can play. There are many that missed out the first time around too so its great they have an opportunity to explore and play the games yesteryear, the origins of IP's or Genres of Games etc.

I don't play the OG Xbox/360/XB1 games I can via BC on my Series X so I can't see myself opting to 'stream' them - maybe if I get a Comfortable Handheld to play on, these might be a good option if they don't require much power to run well or if I want to play something but don't have time to download & install...

@smoreon It doesn't need to sell - Almost Everyone has hardware they can play Xbox on - whether its Native or Streamed, its still part of the SAME platform. MS probably make little/no money from Hardware and traditionally 'lost' money on Hardware initially (sold at a Loss) to get people in. If you sell with just a $50 loss, but sell 100m, that's a $5bn loss to make back from Game Sales and Online Subscription fees.

They are NOT quitting Hardware, yet - after all Sarah Bond, Phil Spencer and even AMD have recently stated they are working and partnering for the next 'Consoles' (Plural).

Why buy from Steam? Buying from Xbox will have Achievements, will be on your MS/Xbox account, play it 'free' through Game Pass or buy it cheaper with Game Pass Discounts. If you have friends you play with on Xbox, then maybe buying on Xbox makes it easier to play together, to communicate etc. Game saves and progression matters too if you want to Play Anywhere - inc via Streaming.

You'll buy on whatever Platform you 'prefer' and MANY Xbox gamers may prefer to buy from MS so they have ALL their games on their Xbox account - regardless of whether they play on PC, Console or Cloud. If you have a Steamdeck, maybe buying on Steam makes more sense but then that person probably wouldn't have bought an 'Xbox' or bought the game through MS anyway. You can buy from Steam, but you bought a 'Xbox' and surely you'd buy from Xbox to keep your Game Library in one place, maybe buying Games from Steam (like PS games) because they are NOT sold in Microsofts ecosystem.

Steamdeck may run on Linus but Microsoft games are 'Windows' games so you must either install windows OR rely on the Proton Layer. Some Microsoft games don't run on Steamdeck (or at least not at playable levels) as Proton has issues with Direct Storage, DRM etc. Microsoft PC games are 'Windows' not Linux games and they need Microsoft Windows and DirectX to run. That is part of the point I'm trying to get across here, they are ALL Microsoft products, platforms etc - Xbox is a Microsoft product, so is Windows 11, so is Game Pass, they are all Microsoft platforms. You don't think of Activision or Blizzard as separate from Microsoft, so why think Xbox should be Separate from Windows? MS made PC games before they made a Console, before Sony made Games/Hardware - they started as a Software company and only made the Console to bring PC games to the masses

@Isolte you are missing the point - The PC is part of the 'Xbox' ecosystem too - if you choose to buy from Microsoft or play via Game Pass - they 'compete' with Steam, Epic and all the other 'Platforms' on a PC. Xbox (which is the ENTIRE Microsoft Gaming brand, not just the Console) is essentially the Microsoft Platform on PC and Game Pass Cloud is also a Microsoft Platform.

The Xbox Console is NOT the ONLY platform that Microsoft has. Unlike Sony who uses 3rd Party Platforms like Steam on PC, Microsoft have their OWN PC platform, their own Console and own Cloud Platforms. A PC is a 'multi-platform' device and as its also part of the Xbox/Microsoft ecosystem, you don't NEED the Console.

Consoles are NOT unique, the main difference is that the Console is locked to the Owner (Sony, MS or Nintendo) and therefore limited to only the games they will permit. They make 'exclusives' just to get you to buy their Hardware so you are locked in to their ecosystem so they keep making money off of you, they sell cheap, but lock content and Playing with Friends behind a Paywall which over 5-6yrs adds up and be as much as you paid for your 'cheap' hardware. $500 on Hardware, another $500 on Subs to play all the content and play with friends for the life of the Hardware with no guarantee the Games will come forward with you - especially not if you buy Physical these days.

All Consoles have been this way for quite some years now so a Console/PC Hybrid would be Unique. Their Surface PC Hardware line could also be the next Gen Xbox.

Brief History Lesson, MS made PC games but PC was very niche and expensive so they made a 'cheap' Console to bring PC games to the masses by making affordable hardware. They were making PC games before Sony got into the Video Game industry. Now, 25yrs later, PC hardware can be 'cheaper' than Console and still play the games - maybe have to settle for 1080p or 1440p but its still a Microsoft *Windows) Platform, still part of the Microsoft ecosystem.

To be honest, I think the idea of the 'traditional' Xbox console is dead but that doesn't mean the Xbox Hardware is.

In a Traditional console, you are locked in to a Single 'platform' and that Retailer for your Digital Content, you maybe have to pay for Online gaming with Friends and/or certain Game Content that's behind a Subscription Pay Wall and over 5yrs, adds up. There is no guarantee that your 'old' Console games will be brought forward - certainly not ALL. No guarantee they won't charge for 'minor' upgrades etc

Whether the next Xbox is more console or more PC, it seems it won't be limited to just the Microsoft Platforms (Cloud, Console and Windows PC), but also let you play on other PC Platforms like Steam or Epic or Ubisoft+ for example. It may not even charge for Online anymore - not that Game Pass will be cheaper now it doesn't include the Online component.

The fact that the next Xbox is unlikely to be locked to just the Microsoft Platform, allowing you to play on Steam for example, then the Traditional Console is 'dead'. You can ask why anyone would buy games from Microsoft when they can buy from Steam, well it depends on where your Friends are, whether you want to add to your Achievements, whether you want Play Anywhere in the MS ecosystem or Steam, whether or not you have Game Pass and/or Game Pass Discounts in store etc. If you have Friends and Achievements from Xbox, you may want to play in the 'Xbox' ecosystem, communicate over Xbox Parties etc.

Xbox is NOT just the Console - its their entire Gaming 'brand' whether on Cloud, on a Console or Windows PC (their Store, not Steam or other PC platforms). PC is NOT a Single Platform - its 'multiple' Platforms in ONE hardware. You can have a Microsoft platform (Xbox/Windows) as well as Steam, GoG, Epic etc etc - they are all individual Platforms. You buy Call of Duty from Steam, you can only play it on Steam, not Battlenet or Windows or Xbox, but buy it from Microsoft, you can play it on ANY Microsoft Platform (PC, Console, Cloud).

They can still keep their Games Exclusive - even on PC if they want - only sell it in their Store exclusively, not put it out on Steam or GoG or whatever other PC platforms. Xbox Platform is not 'dead', but the 'traditional' Console that locks you into Microsoft ONLY is!!

@smoreon It's not about shifting the needle so to speak - although MS will of course be making money from ANY PC sold with Windows OS installed, they also make money from Licenced products like the RoG Ally Xbox version. From a Microsoft perspective, it doesn't really matter if you bought an 'Xbox' Console or buy a PC with Windows and buy your Xbox games through their store and/or subscribe to Game Pass, doesn't matter if you choose to play via Streaming with their Game Pass Cloud, you are still a Microsoft gamer in the Microsoft ecosystem and they are getting revenue from all.

The Only difference is that a PC is not 'just' Microsoft, it has Steam, Epic etc as Competition - but Play Anywhere games are the Microsoft Windows PC versions, not Steam or other places it maybe Sold too. A PC is 'multi-platform' - a console is locked to the owner - the games are locked to a Platform - not necessarily Hardware. You buy from 'Microsoft', you can play everywhere Microsoft offers a 'Platform' - whether that's Streaming from their Servers, playing on 'their' Hardware, or ANY Windows PC is their 'Gamer' - you may 'choose' to play on Console, but that doesn't make you any more in the Microsoft Gaming ecosystem than someone playing on their Handheld PC via Game Pass or because they bought the games through Microsoft (or related Launchers like Battlenet or Bethesda - now owned by MS). Buy and play on Steam, MS still got money and they still need 'Windows (or at least the Proton windows Layer which is hit or miss at times on Steamdeck) to run.

Its that closed or dated mind that can't see your 'Xbox' profile is your 'Microsoft' profile and everyone who has a Microsoft Profile for Game Pass, for Xbox, for their Microsoft account and games bought from them, is in the 'Xbox' community, the Xbox ecosystem as Xbox is the Microsoft Gaming Brand Name - not just the Console - that's why you have an 'Xbox' branded PC coming because Windows PC, Game Pass and ALL their Games release DAY and DATE into their Ecosystem (why PC also gets EVERY release) and why it doesn't matter if NO-ONE buys Consoles, because they are ALL playing in the Microsoft Xbox Ecosytem on PC's or Cloud for example - Its the Microsoft Platform whether Virtual, whether singular and built by them, or competing with Steam etc on their Windows 'Open' Platform PC

The 'needle' will shift because its not everyones 'preference' to play on a 'fixed' spec Hardware with additional monthly costs, some may prefer a more flexible option to play anywhere on devices they have, their new TV, their mobile or laptop, whatever they have for a 'small' monthly fee. Some may prefer to build their own or buy a custom built Gaming PC to be able to choose what games they want to play, not be limited to just one platform, want the option to choose their own settings etc so ALL those who once bought Xbox just because they couldn't play any cheaper or more conveniently, couldn't play games on their high end PC's etc now don't need to buy an Xbox to be in the Microsoft Xbox ecosystem - that's just 1 of the Microsoft 'Platforms' unlike Sony/Nintendo who ONLY have their Console Platform - Sony uses 3rd Party PC platforms like Steam.

In a word NO.

To elaborate, Black Flag to me is the game Skull and Bones should have been and NOT an Assassins Creed game. It would have been much better as a Pirate game and I expect an Assassin to be silent, stealthy, blend in and everything that's NOT a Pirate.

30yrs ago, if you wanted to play Microsoft games and all the RPG's, the FPS games etc, you had to buy a PC and have the right 3D card to play at 'decent' frame rates. A PC would easily cost $2k and so Microsoft designed the Xbox to bring their and other PC games to a mainstream audience in an affordable box. That's why they brought games like Halo (was a Mac PC game), Morrowind (PC RPG) and others to Console. Sony copied MS in certain ways so by the PS3/XB360 era, most PC games could be released on Console - they had the Internal HDD and Internet connection required for example.

The only way to play games 25yrs ago was via an 'Expensive' Gaming PC or a lot more affordable Console. The Console had a few Exclusives to sweeten the fact that you were 'locked' in, limited to games only the Platform holder approves, content and Playing with friends locked behind a Paywall as they sold hardware 'cheap' to make their money back from sales and subscription fees.

Now 25yrs Later, technology has advanced to the point where a gaming PC can be as cheap, if not cheaper than a console. However, Microsoft now has a 'cheaper' platform than Consoles and PC's in their Cloud streaming service. You can play on Hardware you already have for a small monthly fee and whilst it may not be the 'best', its still better than playing 'native' on some hardware or not playing it at all if your hardware can't run it natively (XB1 Console owners for example). They have the Console too but also ANY Microsoft Windows Platform too - its all Microsoft - MS Windows, MS Xbox, MS Game Pass, MS Direct X etc all Microsoft...

They don't need to sell you a Console to get you into the Microsoft Ecosystem, they can get you in on ANY device that Game Pass is available - you have an Xbox Profile/Account, play on Microsoft Virtual Xbox hardware built into Servers etc. The Console is not the ONLY Microsoft device, its been the 'cheapest' hardware so the most affordable but now PC's can be as cheap, they don't need to sell their own Hardware to get you into their Microsoft Ecosystem...

@smoreon Not at all - the fact is that the RoG Xbox Ally - as opposed to a RoG Allly, Lenovo Go, MSI Claw etc is that they don't feel like playing on an Xbox with an Xbox Controller in hand - despite the asymmetrical style layout.

The other handhelds are designed to be as slim and as small as possible so the 'ergonomics' are compromised. Most only have 70% sized thumbsticks and buttons as well so it does not feel like gaming with an Xbox controller. I really struggle to use my RoG Ally as Muscle Memory makes it very difficult to hit the right buttons. I can just about play Forza as long as I only use the Thumbstick to steer with the triggers to accelerate and Brake - anything that requires A, B, X, Y and/or even the Shoulder buttons, I struggle to play.

The ONLY difference between a RoG Xbox Ally X, at least based on the information I have found so far, and other PC Handhelds is the fact this is designed to feel much more like an Xbox in Hand with full sized controls/buttons, using the 'years' of Xbox experience in Ergonomics to create a Handheld that 'feels' like an Xbox controller in hand with a Screen in the middle - the 'ideal' design many 'Xbox' gamers would want from an Xbox specific Handheld.

As for others, they should ALL benefit from the Xbox and Windows team working together to create a 'Windows' boot up in Gaming mode and other PC's may well have better specs that play games at higher quality and you can connect an Xbox controller to them too if you want, but NONE, unless they also design with better ergonomics and a 'full size' layout, will be as close to playing on an Xbox - but if that doesn't matter, any Handheld Windows PC is going to integrate into the Microsoft ecosystem - unless they go Linux (like Steamdeck), you have Microsoft Windows/Xbox/Game Pass available as its still a 'Microsoft' device. The ONLY reason I think the RoG Xbox Ally X in particular is the 'best' option for Xbox Console gamers wanting to 'feel' like they are playing Xbox games on an Xbox 'controller' rather than on a 'generic' Handheld PC with tiny controls and terrible ergonomics ...

@Kraven You don't give games away on a Sub Service AND expect them to sell. You are using these to 'sell' Subscriptions just like you use 'exclusives' to sell Hardware. Selling is just one option to get back the costs involved in Development. If a Game costs 100m to make, then they need to sell at least 100m worth to recuperate those costs.

However, with a Sub Service, they are getting in Revenue and that revenue can be used to pay for those costs. That game that cost 100m to make over 5yrs (20m a year or 1.67m a month) maybe was paid for by the Sub fee's. Subscribers are paying for these Games to be 'developed'. 35m subs paying a minimum of $10 a month is 350m - enough to recuperate the cost of 3 100m games before they are even Sold.

Of course its not the same as selling and no doubt get 'more' revenue per person from those that buy. They also have a 'smaller' console user base and the majority are not 'buying' because they have Game Pass. The ONLY way to maximise its reach and to maximise its revenue is to release on others. Sony may not choose to release on Xbox, even less so if the Console won't sell enough games to justify the costs to bring that game to MS - especially as MS take a 30% cut. MS would rather sell to those 100m+ PS users and take 70% than rely purely on Subscribers and 'limited' sales in their own.

The vast majority of Xbox releases on Playstation are 'OLD' games, games that Playstation owners refused to buy an Xbox to play, games that are no longer selling on Xbox, selling hardware or Subscriptions (as everyone who would has bought already). Point is, those games have 'exhausted' their revenue potential in the Microsoft ecosystem - that aren't generating Revenue unless MS releases elsewhere. Games like Indiana, FH5, SoT - even Gears of War: Reloaded are not making money for MS - Gears may release day 1, but you have the 360 and XB1 versions you can play via BC as well as the reloaded edition as a 'free' upgrade or via Game Pass so not likely to generate much, if any revenue on Xbox so releasing elsewhere requiring a Microsoft account to play ONLINE on Microsoft Servers makes sense.

You could look at it another way - that selling games on their 'Rivals' is effectively keeping Xbox Game Pass price as low as it is, that they are reducing the 'risk' of failure and enabling Devs more creative freedom knowing that they have more avenues to recuperate costs...

That's like saying the Next Millennium is getting closer every day...

Of course its likely to be getting closer as they continue to develop the game further. Its going to reach a point where a trailer is required so it will be getting closer.

Internal trailers may also not be 'ready' for external viewing. They could be showing off some aspects in a 'developer' style mode so that 'other' internal developers can see how they've done something and/or if they have any advice or feedback. Devs will playtest things without the Graphical presentation we would accept at a minimum - test their systems and mechanics before they are implemented in their game world.

Some will share how they've developed the game - but often only with remakes (unless we see leaks or get post-release video's of the Development). Dead Space had numerous video's of different elements - like how the fog moved or how enemies would react to weapon impacts - often in very basic or wire frame environments.

Internal may just mean that they are not prepared to show them publicly because they are not necessarily representative of the Final game, may not even be in the Final game if the feedback isn't positive...

@Kraven That's where I think people are getting this wrong - they are not becoming like 'Sega' who dropped out of the Console business as Sega dropped out of the 'Platform' space (as in no longer had their own Platform) as Microsoft don't appear to be giving up 'their' Platforms.

Microsoft own Windows, Xbox and Game Pass. These are ALL Microsoft platforms as are Bethesda.net & Battlenet platforms on PC. You buy a Microsoft game from a Microsoft store, you get Play Anywhere in their 'Ecosystem' which is their Windows PC, their Xbox Console and/or Game Pass Cloud - you don't get the Steam platform version (even if identical) or Playstation - its just Play Anywhere where Microsoft have a 'Platform' for you to access.

They may not need to make their 'own' Hardware to have their own Platform, they don't make the majority of PC's yet its still a Microsoft Windows device, and still able to be a Platform holder. Steam is its own 'Platform' on a PC and expanded to the Hardware sector with Steamdeck. MS is more like Steam than Sega in that respect as they started as a PC platform before introducing 'mainstream' affordable hardware to attract more in but you don't 'need' their first party Hardware to access their games/services just like you don't need to buy a Microsoft Surface PC to use Microsoft Windows//Office etc...

There are literally 1000's of Games Exclusives to PC - games you can play on ANY inc the RoG Ally that are not playable on a Series Xbox, Playstation or Switch consoles. That alone is enticing so the flexibility and portability of the handheld design is another reason.

As a founding member, your reason for creating the Hardware was so that Microsoft had a 'cheap' box in Mainstream gamers hands so that DirectX and their PC games would reach a larger audience - let alone bring other Publisher games from PC to more Consoles. That's one of the major reasons the Xbox had a built in Hard-drive and built in Internet connection.

Now, 25yrs later, you don't need a $2k PC just to play games like Doom, Elder Scrolls, Fallout or numerous other games that Originated on PC's. From the 360/PS3 era onwards, the majority of the big games were released on Consoles - inc games like Battlefield which had to be scaled down (32 players, not the 64 on PC - smaller maps etc). You can literally buy a Gaming PC in a Handheld Console style form factor for Console Money. These are around the Price of Series X/PS5/PS5 Pro hardware with a screen inc.

The Xbox Console maybe stopped be essential as a Microsoft Exclusive Games box, but that happened nearly a decade ago now when Microsoft merged Xbox into Microsoft and released all their games Day 1 on Microsoft Windows. That instantly means ALL PC gamers now don't need to buy an Xbox. MS own popular PC launchers/platforms like Battlenet (CoD and WoW) which compete with Steam, Epic etc. They have those players in their Microsoft Ecosystem - the Console just becomes one method of getting gamers, not the ONLY method, into their Microsoft ecosystem, buying/playing games on their Microsoft Servers through Microsoft Game Pass, Playing on Microsoft Xbox or Microsoft Windows devices.

Play Anywhere is Anywhere within Microsofts Platforms. Buying Doom on Xbox will get you the Microsoft Windows PC version (not the Steam Version so can't play on 'Steamdeck' ) and/or enable you to stream on Game Pass Cloud. You can't play on Nintendo, Sony or Valve platforms, they can still be 'exclusive' to the Microsoft Ecosystem too...

They still make Surface PC's despite the fact that Asus, HP, Lenovo, MSi etc as well as custom PC builders exist. Why bother when others are making Hardware for your Software as primarily a Software business? They bother because enough people want their Hardware and sell 'enough' to continue without needing to sell more than others. As long as there is enough people to build a Console for, considering its not their 'entire' user base (like Sony or Nintendo hardware), they'll likely make something. Unless they 'licence' their Xbox branding to 3rd Party Hardware makers, they'll likely make a 'console' (at least in form factor) to cater to all those who want/prefer to play on.

@Ricky-Spanish GTA4 turned me off because I no longer want or enjoy that type of game and GTA4, at least to me, tried to be too serious - maybe to separate it from Saints Row which got more OTT as each new game came out. GTA5 maybe 'better' but its story doesn't interest me, its world or its 'game-play' doesn't interest me and GTA4 was literally the game that killed ANY interest in the IP.

The story was AWFUL, the world was Empty and dead with the same 'few' type shops and dull activities, the game-play is terrible so I won't buy GTA5 regardless. I have NO interest in GTA6 either. I'd want Niko to die too, or at least certainly don't want to spend time with him. Each to their own, but I can't see myself buying a GTA game again - I'd rather play games from my XB1 Backlog that I still haven't found the time to finish, let alone all the games I am looking forward to playing and all the games from this Gen I haven't yet played or finished. If I get through ALL of those, then maybe I'd consider GTA...

I wonder if I am rare in that I have no interest in GTA5 (or 6) and have never bought it. I have played GTA, GTA3 and its various different releases (Vice City, San Andreas etc) and even bought GTA4 Limited Bank Vault edition - which I still have. GTA4 though put me off GTA completely. I also have absolutely NO interest in GTAO.

I guess this deal is to tempt XB1 owners to spend money on an upgrade rather than play it via BC.

Halo doesn't have 'bad' Gunplay - if anything, its the 'story', certainly where 5 was concerned and then its the 'open' style of Halo Infinite as well as the fact it was clearly built for XB1S and scaled up so it has a 'dated' visual.

The main issue post launch was also the fact that people wanted more Content than 343 could deliver and the lack of Forge was also a big contributor to that - but the actual 'gunplay' is better than any 'RPG' with Guns so I can understand why they may seek advice and assistance in that area.

I'd be concerned if they were asking 343 to help with their Story or their Management of Game Projects - that's something 343 should ask Obsidian for help with as they have developed numerous games and released to positive reviews.

If a game is 'good enough' it will sell well enough despite being on Game Pass - we have seen it time and time again. If your game is 'mediocre', then those that 'try' on Game Pass won't buy, won't recommend and will likely jump straight to a different game to try. Its easy to blame Game Pass for not getting the revenue and Sales you needed or expected, but it just means your game wasn't good enough or appeal to enough (too niche)

More info and/or options is rarely a bad thing but in truth, I've not had any issues (so far) - the games I have played on more than one Platform seem to always 'sync' or do some Sync stage as I load into them and the latest save has always been there.

Granted I don't play a lot on my PC's, I game mostly from my Sofa so the Console is my Main.

To me, it seems they have got their Game Pass Cloud streaming app, the same sort of thing you'd find on a Samsung/LG TV or Amazon Firestick, to access Game Pass Cloud games - its just another way to access/play Xbox Game Pass Cloud games, another device to sell Game Pass Subscriptions on - its not just the Console.

At that price, I never expected it to play Xbox games natively - certainly not the latest, most intensive games. Considering you are getting a £50 Xbox Controller as well as the VR headset and its regular Controllers.

Its not for me as I have no interest in VR and unlikely to play any game with a headset strapped over my eyes.

I play mostly on my Series X as it's where I play the most games - in the Living Room on my big Display whilst sat on the Sofa. Occasionally I will play games on my 3080ti Laptop - usually using Game Pass Cloud as I can't wait hours to download/install and even rarer on my OG RoG Ally via Cloud.

If I gamed more on either Laptop or Handheld, I'd certainly download games and be more prepared to game on these - but often its because the TV is in use and I have a spare 30-60mins or so to spend gaming.

Fortunately for Microsoft who own Windows, Direct X and Xbox, being all Microsoft products, buying from Microsoft (windows/Xbox store) gives you the 'Microsoft' ecosystem version of their Games. Buying FH5 on Xbox may well give me the ability to play on Microsoft Windows PC, it doesn't give me the Steam version or the Playstation 5 version. It lets me play on any 'Microsoft powered' device (Windows PC or Xbox) or play on Microsoft Servers via a Microsoft Subscription on Cloud.

It's not really 'Cross-buy' despite getting the PC version - its more like buying the 'Microsoft' edition which works on Microsoft devices and Servers - all in the Microsoft ecosystem. Its like buying on Playstation and able to play on any Sony Hardware or Sony powered 'devices' - you certainly don't get the steam/PC version and they won't sell on Microsoft owned stores. Sony and Nintendo only have their 'Console' for their Ecosystem and have no 'PC' OS or 'Platform' on PC like Steam. When Sony do sell on PC, they are just a 3rd Party Publisher - like MS is on Steam and Playstation too. But MS own Windows and the PC may not be 'their' Hardware, but it is their OS and using their DirectX API's so are in the Microsoft ecosystem. Its just that you have Steam, Epic etc able to Compete with MS as the PC is not 'locked' only to MS like the Xbox is..

@Ricky-Spanish Why would I want information about games I already own and have been playing? I already know what the game is, what it offers etc because I do my research before buying games so Why would I want to go to the hub.

I could understand if it jumped to the Hub for games you don't own - inc those on Game Pass as they want to sell the game and maybe have a price you wouldn't otherwise be aware of.

The point was that I wanted to emphasise that I feel differently about Games I own specifically over ones I may have played on Game Pass or is being advertised on the home screen - games coming soon or recently added to Game Pass for example. With owned games, you likely already know most of the information and just want to jump in to play and use the hub for the 'odd' occasion you want to check something.

So from my perspective, I emphasised Games I own to make it clear that I think there is a difference. Games I don't own - whether Game Pass or advertised, are trying to 'sell' you on the game with more info but that's not necessary if you own it.

Personally, I just want to jump in the games I OWN with the least amount of button presses possible. I don't want or need the Hub, the 'extra' information etc as I already OWN the game.

It's just a pointless delay from my perspective. I initially thought there was something wrong with my Installed game as it didn't launch straight away. However I figured out it must be some setting change so stumbled around the settings to switch off hubs.

I also often turn on my Xbox and press 'A' to launch a Game before I've even switched the HDMI input to the Console expecting the game to be loading, if not loaded so I don't spend anytime on the 'home' screen.

Each to their own of course - glad they at least offer us the choice so at least those that want to jump straight into games can turn that off...

@NishimuraX I don't know if you deleted yourself or the message was deleted for being too rude/insulting, but losing the Hardware 'war' is insignificant when you are winning the Gaming revenue battle. Microsoft have moved above Sony, further ahead of Nintendo in Gaming Revenue despite 'losing' the Hardware war.

Microsoft Windows, MS DirectX (the reason they got into the Console hardware business was to make DirectX the standard and bring PC gaming to mainstream in an affordable box) and Microsoft Xbox are all Microsoft - its all part of the same Company. Now 25yrs later, PC gaming is affordable - you can buy gaming PC's for Console money that can be upgraded, that don't hide content or playing with friends behind a Paywall etc. 5yrs of basic Game Pass Core/PS+ Essential will be almost as much as the Console cost on top.

MS are laughing to the bank with their gaming releases - selling 'more' games a year than Sony or Nintendo do and Games are most important to a Gamer and MS, with their more service driven and Software based business understand. MS are 'not' really a Hardware company - but still make Surface Laptops/PCs despite not being the most popular hardware brand for PC's. Its the sale of Windows Licences, sales of Software or annual subscription/licence fee to keep using their Software - they are first and foremost though Software based where as Sony is much more Hardware and Sales driven so 'sales' are most important.

@Ichiban I was around through the 360 era and I'd say that era was probably the 'golden-age' for Gaming. That was mostly down to the Publishers and Game Devs having the ability to make decent games in a year or two at most so you had a lot of games - especially 3rd Party releasing every year. Activision would release multiple games EVERY year but that dried up as CoD required either more time or more staff to ensure it releases annually and so they stopped making as many games. EA too and 2k - games like BioShock, Dead Space, FEAR, Lost Planet, Prototype, Guitar Hero etc all helped that generation.

Of course we saw Halo and Gears and Forza from MS but by the end of the 360 gen, both Halo and Gears had 'Lost' their Studios with Epic and Bungie giving up those IP's to MS. Apart from some 3rd Party deals (like CoD, Bioshock, Mass Effect etc) and 2nd Party Games (like Forza Horizon and Crackdown), MS had 'few' games - less if you don't count multiple Halo, Gears and Forza games every few years.

That's also part of the difference, you won't get 3 or 4 Gears, Halo, Uncharted etc games a Generation like you did back in the 360/PS3 era because games are taking 5yrs+ - even for sequels. 5yrs between Horizon ZD and Horizon FW, 5ys+ between God of War and GoW:R, 5yrs+ between Forza 7 and its sequel etc.

Xbox is in a Stronger position today as they own More Studio's, More IP's etc that are 'assets' to Xbox which is their 'entire' Gaming division - its NOT just the Console. They only got into Consoles to bring PC gaming to the mainstream and now PC's are becoming affordable and/or mainstream too. OK you may need to pay a bit more for 'equivalent' Graphics and Framerates, but they aren't Subsidised or force gamers to buy Subscriptions because Content and the option to play with friends online is behind a paywall - which saves money over time!!

I wasn't feeling 'concerned' about the future of Xbox. I couldn't care less if Consoles or Physical Media do become Obsolete, I don't care about the Box or whether its the bigger seller. I care about Games and throughout my nearly 50yrs of gaming, old games and hardware get left behind as new technology arrives.

No one is making Pac-man, Space Invaders or Centipede type games these days, certainly not AAA and most don't really care about 'preservation' of games, they only care about their Games.

Therefore MS's approach does seem to be in the better position - I won't 'need' to buy another 'box' just to play a handful of games I want to play that I can't play 'elsewhere', on devices I prefer or already have, Digital Future provides that 'flexibility' to a degree - although still 'locked' to an Ecosystem - buy from Steam or Xbox, your 'licence' to access is only through Steam or Xbox ecosystem.

The only issue I see with Xbox perhaps becoming more PC is what they do about Legacy Console based Library's.

I can see Digital Libraries perhaps being more BC moving forward - just because Cloud, handheld and many Big Screen devices won't have a Disc player. Much like upgrading from a XB1 to a Series S, your Physical library won't be 'part' of their Back Compatibility.

Of course I'd prefer to be wrong or at least offer some method to convert your Physical to the Digital version but with the ONLY Xbox customers really buying 'Physical' this generation, those on Series X as Series S, the most popular Console, is all digital, the majority of Xbox gamers will not have many Physical games.

I'd gladly give up my 'Physical' discs IF they would convert to the Digital version but otherwise, I'll keep them and the Consoles they were released for. I still have my OG Xbox, XB360 and XB1 hardware so that I can play ANY game I bought for those consoles regardless of whether I could play on newer hardware or not. To me, that is still the ONLY way of preserving MY library. I can still play 'Kinect' games on 360 or XB1 despite those not being compatible with 'later' XB1 or Series Hardware at all despite BC.

@Kaloudz Well with Handheld PC's you can often buy an External GPU that you can use as a dock for big screen play too as they have a HDMI output.

Regardless of what Handheld you buy, they are all fixed spec so if they can't run on the device you buy today, chances are they won't be running on any of the alternatives available. If it doesn't run on the cheaper Asus, then it won't run on a Switch or Steam Deck either in 3yrs time.

We can't predict the future but history has shown us that as hardware ages and 'newer' hardware releases, the weaker hardware gradually gets left behind. Whilst games will still likely run on old, weak hardware, they will likely gradually require more DRS range, drop res or frames a bit more etc. Games may run at 720/30 'comfortably' today but in 3yrs you may need DRS or drop some frames, may need to use TAA or FSR from a lower resolution to keep 30fps game-play, may even have to start dropping some settings from medium down to low but should be playable - unless they have something that these cannot do that 'newer' hardware has built in.

@themightyant that's my thought - some Software solution like the Proton Layer t I don't know if that will be 'too' expensive to run both on say an OG RoG Ally for example. AI could 'emulate' the Xbox Hardware too but again, it maybe too expensive or require built in AI processors - the Z2 RoG Ally has 'AI' and AI is mentioned a LOT too.

I too am very interested to see how they handle it I don't expect it to support Physical - just because you won't be able to 'stream' or play on any device without a Disc drive so it will be similar to 'upgrading' from an XB1 to XBS in terms of BC...

I think that BC with the Microsoft Xbox Consoles could be what separates these from other PC's - depending on what they need to do to get it working properly/seemlessly.

They could do it with AI or Software 'emulation' which may 'limit' the specs this can be offered on - No AI or not enough resources to run that Software and the game at adequate levels would impact the ability to offer that. Another option would be to build it in to their Xbox Console/PC but that may limit 3rd Party PC builders.

I hope they can build it into their Windows OS so its on every device running Windows.

I don't think it will extend to Physical releases, I don't think it will even have a Physical drive because the 'future' of being able to 'play anywhere', regardless of whether you are streaming, playing on a handheld or 'Console/Desk top' PC, Digital will let you do that, Physical 'won't'. You can't put your XSX disc into a Handheld to play it, but if you bought digitally, you can. Very few Discs are 'sold' relative to Digital on Xbox and only sold to XSX owners this gen as PC/XSS is purely Digital. I'd love a way to 'convert' my Discs to Digital without needing to rebuy games but expect I'd need to keep 'old' hardware to play 'old' games I have on Disc.

WW2 was the breaking point of CoD for me. I'd bought every Call of Duty and DLC (inc WW2) but it was the Loot boxes and RNG aspect that pushed me away.

As for the setting, I would rather they focused on modern/near future 'fictional' Conflicts than make an Arcade game around a real world tragedy that cost millions of lives.

Game-play wise, I find the mechanics and very limited Field of View by modern standards extremely dated after playing the latest FPS with FoV sliders and generally slicker/smoother movement.

I think this means that they have partners - like Asus - which can give you the 'in hand' native gaming experience and even buy an external GPU dock for Big Screen play. They themselves will offer a 'Console' like TV box and of course you have their Cloud streaming and likely own a mobile phone.

They could make a Surface/Xbox Handheld for example but with Asus, Lenovo, MSi etc making them and running the same OS, same Windows ecosystem, I don't know if they will.

Without doing 'anything' as far as Hardware goes, you can already play in the Hand and in the Living room but the 'next' gen is looking to do that 'better'

@Kaloudz At the end of the day, that's something only you can really assess. I could recommend one, but that will likely be the one that I would prefer, the one that suits me the best, not necessarily what is the best for you.

SteamDeck is going to let you play your Steam Library, but the RoG Xbox Ally will integrate better with your Xbox and Game Pass + it will let you play your Steam games too. Whether the 'cheaper' Xbox Ally is 'better' for you and the games you want to play, I can't answer. It may well be more ergonomic in the hands, feel more comfortable but may also be heavier and bulkier for portability. We don't yet know how games will run, let alone the User experience with the new 'Windows OS' so we don't know if there is ANY performance gains over a Steamdeck for example.

There is plenty of time of the next few months before the RoG Xbox Ally's are released so maybe check out some reviews and/or previews, maybe even hold them both to see which feels best in the hands and then decide which one is the best for you, your budget and games/gaming preferences. It's your money and you that will be using it.

@J_Mo_Money Exactly and as Sony don't release their games Day 1 on PC, they will also have that 'Console' exclusivity.

I'm certain the next 'Xbox' will be a PC, like the RoG Xbox Ally, use the same Windows OS so that it is a Gaming PC. Therefore you have the exact same Game Library as ANY PC and Devs won't ever 'need' to make a Xbox Console' specific version ever again. What they may do though is provide 'optimised' settings (Quality/performance modes) for a 'fixed spec' PC - which the Xbox PC would inevitably be. You won't 'need' Play Anywhere anymore because 'Xbox' and 'Windows PC' is the SAME platform - just one maybe built by MS with a 'fixed spec', or you buy 'Custom' spec Windows PC from Asus, Lenovo etc...

I do think they will sort out some Back Compat solution for Xbox Console games - either use AI or Software driven emulation or perhaps have some custom hardware built in to address that problem of 'legacy' software - some of which released long before Play Anywhere and if you wanted to play your OLD games, you also had to keep your OLD hardware too - you can't play SM64 on a GameCube just because you still own the SM64 Cartridge or play your Call of Duty Black Ops 3 on your Series S because you still own the disc. I do wonder if their Solution to Back Compat would be Exclusive to their Console/Brand so that ONLY Xbox Branded PC's have the 'full' BC with their Xbox Console Library whilst others will only play PC versions. I guess that depends on whether or not its software integrated into the Windows OS, a separate Software that requires certain spec hardware (especially if AI driven) and/or what they need in the Chip. Older PC's or lower spec (like Handhelds) may not have the resources or 'power' to run the games and Emulation software for example

Its clear that Windows OS and working with Xbox to optimise Windows for Gaming specifically, inc the UI for a Controller is the future for their 'Console' too.

The RoG Xbox Ally X is a full Windows PC (like the Lenovo Go or other RoG Ally products) but doesn't/won't boot up to the Full Desktop version of Windows - certain processes are turned off. The next Xbox could use the exact same OS. Therefore, like any PC, you'll also have access to Steam, Epic etc.

Developers won't need to make an 'Xbox' version of their game - it will be the PC version in the future. At most, they may have a Optimised setting (Quality/performance modes) for a 'fixed' spec PC but you can also tweak all the settings like a PC.

I think they will either have AI or Software driven 'emulation' of Xbox Console hardware so that your OLD Xbox Console library is playable 'natively' on your Xbox PC - either that or some hardware built into the chip so it will play your OLD console games, but EVERY new release will just be a Windows PC release as that will run on the Xbox PC natively regardless.

As for Sony and their PC ambitions, I can still see them releasing their games but exclusive to third party vendors like Steam and not selling them on Microsofts store or ever in Game Pass. Like you can play Spider-man, God of War or Horizon: Zero Dawn on a RoG Ally, you'll be able to play them on a Xbox branded PC too. Sony don't release Day 1 so would still get their Console exclusivity.

Not locked to any device is perhaps misleading as their games are 'locked' to the Microsoft Ecosystem and whilst I maybe able to play Gears Reloaded or Outer Worlds 2 on PS5, I can't play on PS5 with Game Pass, can't play if I buy on Xbox/PC etc and is only 'streamable' from Microsoft servers if I have a Microsoft subscription and account. I can't play on a Steamdeck or Switch natively either.

But any Windows device or any device with access to Microsoft Servers will let you play the games you own - hence more games added to Play Anywhere and their Streaming Library so that when they build their 'Windows Xbox PC Console', a large number of your games will be playable on ANY PC device, inc 3rd Party PC's that may not build in or have the capability to 'emulate' Xbox Console hardware - like the RoG Xbox Ally X seems to be heading (at least at launch)

The 'Windows the Number 1 platform for gaming' comment makes me think that the Xbox and Windows team working together to make a Gaming Optimised OS that boots up with a Controller focused User Interface, but can also boot to the full multitasking Windows OS, is the template for the 'Next' Xbox.

I can see MS building an Xbox with the SAME OS as the RoG Xbox Ally X - maybe with 'Xbox' specific hardware built in for 'Back Compat' reasons as not all your Xbox library also supported Play Anywhere.

However, that means that every Publisher, inc Microsoft, only need to make a 'PC' version and maybe release with 'optimised' settings specific for the Xbox PC - but you can tweak them like a PC if you want to as well. You buy a game on Xbox, you can play on ANY PC regardless or buy on PC and play on Xbox - even if you buy from Steam for example.

Sony won't sell their 'PC' games through the Microsoft Store, they'll be exclusive to Steam/Epic etc but you can still play on 'Xbox'. From Sony's perspective, they don't release Day 1 on PC often (if at all). Microsoft own Windows, Xbox, DirectX and whether you game on Microsoft Servers, Microsoft Windows PC or Microsoft Xbox Consoles, you are all Microsoft Customers...

Microsoft built the Xbox to bring PC gaming to the mainstream in an affordable way - now 25 years later, gaming PC's are 'affordable' to play PC games - maybe not at 4k/120 HDR with full Ray Tracing - but still play those games at least at 'Console' settings (inc at or above Switch or Series S quality/frame rate) - even these Handhelds offer a Gaming PC at 'prices' unbelievable when Xbox started and playing games no-one would have believed possible, let alone running on something so small and portable.