@Darthcuddles90 Not mine or actually many others as you state - most polls and comments on the Fable main games would indicate that Fable 2 was the 'best' in the Series.
Fable, the first, was a good game and maybe seemed 'better' because it was the first, the first to introduce you to that world but I actually preferred the 2nd and its story way more - not just the combat which was aother area they improved on but that was just 1 of the areas I thought they actually improved on.
Like a LOT of games back then, Sequels took what they learned from the predecessor and built upon, improved areas that needed it, worked on and/or removed things that didn't work as well etc to make a 'better' game.
You are entitled to your 'opinion', as everyone is but I don't agree - and it would seem from the many conversations and polls about Fable over the years, Fable 2 is regarded as the better game, better story etc with Fable a 'close' 2nd - but it was the first Fable and that helps boost 'impression' when its 'new' and 'unique' - something a Sequel can't really offer, it can only build upon!
Fable was and still is a 'good' game, I just think that Fable 2 is the 'better' game. I also think that a LOT of games from that era are actually better because they aren't so focused on the Graphics and/or performance but on the mechanics, story and Game-play loop. I think a lot of modern games would sacrifice Mechanics in order to bump up the Resolution/frame rate or add some extra Graphical effect (RT for example) or push the settings up a bit. First impressions matter and most peoples 'first' impression is the way a game looks when the watch a pre-release trailer.
Fable, or Peter Molyneux, promised a LOT from a game mechanics persperctive and under-delivered from that perspective but I think that 'focus' on Mechanics is what helps that game stand up today - especially as so many modern games are Sequels with the same game-play loop and general mechanics that you've played many times before with 'generic' and predictable stories but look more impressive than their predecessors thanks to RT or a 'new' engine....
Couldn't stand the first - didn't play beyond the first Boss as I couldn't stand their 'humour' and the voices really irritated and annoyed me so I doubt I'll bother with the sequel.
@BacklogBrad Exactly this - You might be able to install Epic or Steam 'apps' on your Ally or PCXbox, but it boots to Xbox FSE and that is promoting Games that are on Xbox and links only to the Xbox store versions - not Steam or Epic.
Of course if you have bought and installed games from those stores, you don't need to load up those apps to find them but you'll have to load up the Steam/Epic app to go browsing their store, purchase games and/or manage, download, install any games you own on that platform.
The 'point' about installed games (inc those from Steam/Epic etc) showing up in Xbox FSE is so you don't NEED to go to those Apps to access those games - it keeps you in the Xbox FSE which is linked to the Xbox store so if you 'search' for a new release or see it advertised on the Xbox FSE, it will take you to the MS/Xbox store to purchase.
If you want to 'compare' prices, you then have to go the Steam app and load that up, search for the game, do the same with Epic and most people will just buy from Xbox out of Convenience and only dipping into 3rd Party Platforms for the Games (like Sony's Spider-Man or God of War) that aren't sold on the Xbox store.
It also means that they are not running a 'Monopoly' on their Hardware - something the EU and EU law takes quite seriously. You as a consumer have more choice - yes you can buy from Epic or Steam, but that's Freedom of Choice. If its a MS produced game, they'll make money regardless, even though its likely available on Game Pass and get a decent 'Game Pass Subscriber' Discount. Other incentives, like adding to your Achioevement score, Xbox friends list, Streaming, Reward points etc, maybe will also factor in your decision as to which store and therefore platform you buy from...
@OldGamer999 There is always 'uncertainty', always has been uncertainty and even what they choose to 'share' about the future is always 'subject to change'.
Go back to ANY ERA and the period of time leading up to a reveal of Hardware - there was always speculation, rumours etc and even after some reveals, things would change. One of the most notable was the Xbox One that changed quite a lot between its 'reveal' and launch, and changed more in the first 6 months or so with the backtracking over DRM and Kinect being essential for operation - it also 'boosted' its CPU specs and freed up more CPU resources post launch.
No-one knows 'exactly' what a Company will do in the future or even if 'features' would be offered, let alobe how they may be implemented and/or how well they work. If you buy a PS5 expecting Xbox like Backwards Compatibility and equivalent VRR capability, then you'd be disappointed although if you're coming from a PS4, its great news and perhaps increased your enthusiasm for it. Even when they reveal the 'specs' the size/speed of CPU/GPU, that doesn't necessarily translatte to significant difference compared to 'alternative' Hardware.
I do get it, Microsoft look to be 'evolving' in a certain direction that 'traditional' consoles aren't. It looks like they are going to build a Win11 PC (even though you could probably replace Sonys or MS's console OS with Win11 and run PC games on their 'current' hardware - unlikely as performant as the 'optimised' OS console but the 'Physical' Hardware is still a PC like build) and that concerns 'Console' gamers because they want the 'simplicity' of a Console OS and hopefully their 'Library' to come forward - don't want the 'issues' associated with PC gaming, want Console features - like Quick Resume and/or the option to turn off 'cross-platform' lobbies, and certainly don't the Hackers, modders, cheaters etc that PC has - those things NEED to be addressed.
I do understand as I can afford a 'high-end' gaming rig, could plug it into my TV and play from the sofa with my Xbox Elite Controller but I prefer the Series X/PS5 console experience. I have a Laptop and RoG Ally which I use occasionally but its not as 'plug and play', as instant as Console (especially with updates being handled in the background and/or overnight when switched off), but I also understand that Consoles are 'losing' their appeal, not very Consumer friendly and they are no longer that 'cheap' mainstream option at least half the cost of a PC. When the OG Xbox launched under £300, and dropped lower very quickly if I recall, you couldn't buy a 'gaming' PC that could play the latest releases for less than £1k - now you can buy PC's that will play the latest releases for the price of a Series X or PS5 with the biggest Library of games available and Online games are NOT hidden behind a Sub paywall. You may pay £500 for the 'Console', but you also have to pay a Sub fee to unlock the full Library and features which over time adds £100's over the years - the amount you spend on a PS5 and PS+ Essential or Series X and GPCore over 5 or 6yrs is as much as a decent gaming PC with MUCH bigger Library and cheaper games....
Yes its personal preference, which is why MS are working 'hard' on trying to bring the 'Xbox' Console experience to their 'Windows' platform as they know people just want that 'ease of use' and plug/play type simplicity, want their Library and profile to carry forward etc. But why build a 'console' that isn't going to sell well, if even in enough numbers to justify the cost because their games are Day 1 on PC and on Cloud enabled devices. The hardcore most deidcated gamer likely owns a PC gaming set-up as that has by far the biggest gaming library, best graphics/performance etc and the more Casual is likely to play on Hardware they already own - it makes more sense to return to PC where games are 'built' and save the cost on porting, optimising and supporting their Console version for the 'few' remaining gamers who buy the Console, save the R&D costs, save the manufacturing and distribution costs etc because they aren't giving up PC or Cloud day 1 which makes Consoles unnecessary for MOST gamers...
They are never selling PS numbers of Hardware when you can play ALL their games Day 1 on PC/Cloud and that's why their Consoles for the past decade have been 'sales flops'. Many gamers don't want or need to buy an Xbox to play Xbox games and better 'Hardware' exists if Graphics/frame rates are more important...
@OldGamer999 I too have owned EVERY Xbox console and been there since Day 1 with the OG Xbox having been 'sold' on Halo before the Console even launched. I left 'computer' gaming behind and been a 'Console' gamer since the N64 - but for the 80's and early 90's, I was a Computer based gamer - initially BBC Micro, Commodore, Amstrad etc and then IBM PC's until the 3D graphics cards were 'needed' in my £2k IBM PC to play gamesc like Tomb Raider and so many different brands etc that 'cheap' Consoles made much more sense.
It's that reason that MS needed to make a Console so that their 'games' would sell and not just be for the 'few' who could afford to game on PC's. Nowadays, you can game on PC's costing the same (or less in some cases) than a 'Premium' Console (less than a PS5 Pro or even Series X) at 'Console' like visuals/frame rates. You don't 'need' 4k when your PC is connected to a 1080p monitor for example and maybe get better Frame Rates than Series X/PS5 Pro offer too...
Point is, the whole purpose of MS making a Console is pretty much gone - PC's are more affordable, more accessible and as such, far more gamers are now choosing to game on PC, especially the 'younger' market - not us 'old' gamers who have been gaming for 20+yrs on Consoles.
Exclusives are NEVER going to sell Hardware when those Exclusives are only Exclusive to an Ecosystem, not a specific single Platform. 10yrs ago, when MS merged Xbox into MS and 'windows', therefore promising to release EVERY game day/date on PC too, the writing was on the wall - NO PC gamer will buy an XB1 (let alone the XB1X mid gen refresh) as they can play on their PC. It didn't matter what the Series S/X hardware specs were, PC gamers aren't buying that hardware - better to invest in a new GPU...
As for the future, maybe some will start 'fresh' on Playstation and are willing to give up their 'legacy' titles, their achievements etc but some, like we saw when a LOT jumped to PS4 at the start of the XB1 era, will buy whatever MS release as it carries forward their profile, friends, achievements and most important, their gaming Library. It doesn't matter if it sells as well as Series hardware because ALL PC brands (Asus, HP, Lenovo, MSi etc) all configurations regardless of AMD, Arm or nVidia GPU's etc will still be 'Windows' and still be 'Xbox'.
As for Day 1, as I said does it really matter if they are sold on Plkaystation with costs rising and of course having to pay a 'fee' to play many Xbox games (at least unlock most content) due to online aspects when you can play 'Anywhere' else for a 'small' monthly fee. By the time you've bought FH6, Fable, Gears etc and paid a year for PS+ to play most of these, its cost a lot more than a 'year' of Game Pass and you've had access to more games than you could afford on PS and certainly won't carry forward your existing Xbox library...
@OldGamer999 That may well be the ONLY traditional 'Console' way to play Xbox games in the future - buy a Playstation, pay Sony for the privilege of playing on their hardware ansd pay 'Sony' prices for your Xbox games whilst those on MS hardware pay PC prices, don't have to pay for 'Online Access' anymore, can also play their old Xbox games, and access Xbox services like Game Pass. Also not ALL games may release Day/Date on PS hardware.
MS could become a third party publisher in the Console space, but have their OWN PC and PC platform and Cloud Streaming service as the 'entry' point for their Ecosystem with access to games both New and old.
Microsoft started as a PC publisher - making games Solely for their 'Windows' platform but Gaming on PC was too 'expensive' to reach the mainstream population so they had to make a Console to not only establish themselves as a major gaming publisherx, but to establish DirectX as a major gaming API. That's why their OG Xbox was designed and built more like a 'PC' with internal HDD instead of the 'small' form factor and memory cards ALL other consoles were using. Its because PC games required internal storage at the time...
Now, 25yrs later, MS don't need the Console and PC's are now competing with them in terms of price and accessibility. Will you pay 800 for a 'Console' and another $10 a month just to play Online when a 1000 will buy a PC and play ALL the games, not just a select few that happen to release on that particular brand of Console, access to far more market stores instead of being held to ransom by a Monopoly store etc.
If you can't see that MS is more likely to be returning to its 'roots', the platform they Originally built games for, the place they've been known as a Software Publisher for since they formed, still have their own Platform and services without needing their own 'Console' which is often sold at a Loss and not that 'popular' when alternatives (like PC & now Cloud) offer Xbox games Day 1. Its only those who have 'history' on Xbox and therefore BC games and/or those whose 'budgets' suit the Cheaper console entry (although do pay more due to requiring Subs to unlock all features and Games).
At the end of the day, you may welll choose to 'jump' to Playstation. PS5 isn't the 'best' place to play Xbox games is, it may have more resources to bump up the graphical presentation a 'bit', but it doesn't get all games Day 1 and doesn't offer the FULL Xbox library/services etc so not the 'best' console for Xbox - good luck trying to play Starfield, Forza Motorsport, South of Midnight etc on PS5 and as 'cheaply' as you can on Xbox...
@swedetrap Nothing wrong with BOTH and I expect Microsoft to continue to offer Hardware in the 'near' future but Cloud is and will still be the 'ENTRY' point.
The Series S is NOT the entry point despite it being the cheapest hardware option. Series X is NOT the high end option offering theb 'Best' Graphics/Frame Rates - both still exist though as they suit certain budgets/preferences but you don't need either.
There is a lot of talk and expectation that MS's 'next' Hardware will essentially be a PC with Win11 OS - even if it boots to a more 'streamlined/optimised' mode specifically for gaming. That would still give you a Hardware option for those with the budget and/or dedication to gaming to 'justify' the expenditure, but for everyone else, Cloud (even on their Series S/X console) may well be their best/cheapest option, the 'Entry' point to next gen Games/Gaming.
I use Cloud myself - in a supplementary way - when its more convenient or quicker to play the games I want to play wherever I happen to be and want to game - in my lounge, I'm almost always choosing native on my Series X (unless an indie or large game I want to try before considering the 'long' download process) but in my bedroom its almost always Cloud on my XB1X because its 'better' than Native on last gen Hardware. On my RoG Ally, its mostly Cloud because I haven't downloaded and installed the game I want to play and only likely to be playing for 30-60mins.
Point is that Cloud is a viable option and 'Better' than some options - especially if you don't have the budget or can justify going out and spending at least 500 on Hardware just to play a game you can play on lots of devices, some you already have for a 'small' fee. I'd probably rather play Indiana Jones via Cloud than on Switch after all the 'compromises' and scaling down to run on that hardware.
I'd prefer to play FH5 on Cloud on my XB1S instead of playing the Native version as the Cloud version is higher res, higher graphical settings and higher frame rates too - much better than the 'ugly' 30fps Native version! Of course, the Series X version is better than those, but PC is even better so why bother with the Series Console if Graphics/frame rate is the ONLY thinng that matters.
There are still people that happily play the XB1S version, the native version, the 'Worst' version and arguably worse than the Cloud version (unless you are using the mobile Cloud version rather than decent Wifi version) and they haven't upgraded for '1080p' let alone up to 4k, haven't upgraded for 60fps gaming, let alone up to 120fps and those critical of Cloud aren't buying the latest PC Gaming GPU's/CPU's for the 'best' Graphics AND Frame Rates as well as Ray Traced features that consoles can't offer. Budget, preferences and whether or not you can 'justify' the cost for the amount of time you spend gaming will dictate on where you game. Cloud could well be the Entry point, even main choice for some, but for others, only Hardware will do and they'll find the cost regardless!
I think Cloud is 'acceptable' but I have the budget to invest in Hardware and spend enough time gaming to justify spending money on Hardware for a 'better' experience - but appreciate that others, especially 'globally' in a 'global' financial crisis where its getting harder to pay the 'bills' and put food on the table every month, may rely on Cloud and its 'low' entry cost for their Gaming - and that can be on a BIG Screen sat on the Sofa through their XB1S/X, through a Firestick USB plugged into their TV/Monitor etc - it doesn't just have to be hunched up over a tiny mobile screen!!!
@GuyinPA75 And again, that comes down to your preference and your budget - not everyone can justify spending $500+ on Hardware, or even $300+ on the Series S. Cloud isn't just on a mobile phone, its available on a Firestick they can plug into their 1080p TV or use a browser on their Laptop or desktop and monitor, don't need 'Gaming' specific Hardware.
Not everyone can afford (or justify) the cost of Hardware just for a bit better graphics and/or frame rate - that's why there is still a lot playing on last gen Hardware, haven't upgraded to PS5 or Series consoles. They are 'happy' to play the many games that have released on BOTH generations at the 'worst' quality rather than spend $500+ to get the 'best' quality on Console, let alone spend more on a PC to get the 'best' possible Visuall quality and ighest possible frame rates.
You maybe decided that a Series X provides the 'best' bang for buck, best visual quality and performance for the money, but there are others that would rather save $200 and play on a Series S or save even more and play on whatever device they have - inc Xbox One Hardware, not just their mobile.
The Cloud option is better than 'nothing' and better than 'Native' on some hardware. Forza Horizon 5 maybe better to play on Cloud on your XB1 at 60fps, 1080p and higher visual quality settings than the 'Native' XB1S version and Indiana Jones on a Mobile via Cloud maybe better than the Switch version when that releases.
My point still stands is that Cloud is still the 'cheapest' and ENTRY tier into the Modern/current generation of Games. Its a lot more flexible as it lets you play on countless devices - from Handhelds to tablets/laptops to big screen/monitor connected devices all for a 'small' monthly fee. If your budget or time can't justify the 'cost' of dedicated hardware, its a great Entry point and, like I said, doesn't require 'upgrading' to play a 'few' games if you are 'content' to play on last gen consoles as many still do.
Cloud and PC are the areas with the most 'growth' Record PC gamers in their 'Xbox' ecosystem and increasing Streaming Hours over Cloud whilst Xbox Console stats continue to decline.
Cloud certainly isn't 'good enough' for me to be my 'main' way to game, but its better than 'Native' on XB1S in many cases if that's ALL you have to game on, better than spending $$$'s on Hardware if your budget or time won't justify it, better than 'NOTHING' if that's the alternative etc. Kids don't earn money to buy Hardware and unlikely to have a 4k screen in their bedroom so Cloud may be a great option for them as an entry point until they can buy their own hardware.
I play on cloud in my Bedroom on my 55" 1080p TV because its a LOT easier than moving my Series X just to play for 30-60mins occasionally - my XB1X is connected to it. I also play on cloud on my Series X - mostly Indie games as I don't think they are worth downloading and waiting to install when I can jump straight in and play on Cloud on my RoG Xbox Ally X because I want to play 'instantly' and carry on my progression.
@TheGameThrifter Its not failed and its 'growing' in terms of streaming hours.
Of course most 'hardcore/dedicated' gamers with a reasonable income to spend on their Gaming may not choose to Stream as their MAIN option - but their are LOTS still on last gen hardware and can't afford/justify to upgrade fior example and happily play on Cloud as its better than their XB1S 'Native' versions (if it even released on Last gen hardware), lots that will happily play on cloud 'on the go' as the ONLY choice and better than 'nothing' and no doubt some 'Casual gamers' that will be happy to play on cloud - after all its BETTER than playing on Last gen Hardware in a LOT of cases - higher Res and/or Frame Rates and cheaper too. Of course its not up to the same 'standard' as Series S or X, but it's better than XB1S and even XB1X in some cases, better than NOTHING and 'cheaper' than buying Hardware they barely use as 'Casual' gamers.
The vast majority of gamers game on Mobile phones - not Console or PC - that's just the more dedicated gamer. There are approx 3bn gamers and the majority are playing on Mobiles - that's why MS want their games to be playable on Mobile too to reach gamers inc the Mobile/casual market where the Majority of gamers are playing worldwide... I bet China alone has more Mobile gamers than there are Console, cerytainly far more than Series S/X gamers worldwide...
Cloud may not be good enough for you and/or you have the funds to buy Hardware to play games at better quality, but there are still people who game on XB1S and find that 720/30fps blurry, stuttery game more than 'good enough' that they haven't bothered or seen the need to upgrade so Cloud at least lets them play games at higher res/frame rates and/or games not released on their hardware. There are still gamers who game on PS4 too as their main console and haven't upgraded to PS5 yet and that's not 'better' than Cloud in many ways.
Point is, not everyone is that bothered about the 'best' graphics or frame rates, just being able to play and at 'low' cost suits them. Hence they game on Mobiles, on last gen consoles and don't own a 'Current' gen Console or Gaming PC and these are the 'majority' that MS are targeting to play on Cloud as their 'main' choice rather than as a 'supplementary' choice to Console/PC gamers....
@Gabrie PC and Cloud is why the Console is completely unnecessary and sales are so weak. The 'cheapest' way to play Xbox games isn't the Series S, its 'Cloud' and that can be accessed on multiple devices, many of which gamers already own. Its not just 'mobile phones', but TV's/Firesticks, Student/old Laptops etc hardware not built for 'gaming' but can still let you play the latest Xbox releases for a 'small' monthly fee.
PC gamers don't need to spend money on Xbox hardware and a 'subscription' fee just to play games socially, just to unlock online modes/games etc as these are available as standard on their PC. You don't 'need' a very expensive PC to play Xbox games either and can play at 'console' like visual settings and/or similar Frame rates on relatively affordable or 'older' gaming PC rigs. Of course you can also beat any Console (inc PS5 Pro) if your willing and/or able to invest in the Hardware.
Point is, the only people who'll buy an Xbox console is those who either want the Console 'plug and play' experience specifically and/or they have a history of BC games they want to play. Otherwise the PC and/or Cloud offers access to all the Xbox games and different price points to suit any budget and with PC, have a much bigger Library, potentiall to play at much better Frame Rates and/or Graphics, no need to keep paying a subscription 'just' to play with friends and even Game Pass with Day 1 is much cheaper too...
So why buy the Console? Which I assume many are asking themselves and deciding that PC and/or Cloud is the 'better' way for them to go - hence growth whilst Console 'collapses'...
Well they hope that Xbox gamers are now 'fans' so will buy it so they don't 'miss out' of playing the latest version. They used Game Pass to build up a fanbase and now expect that fanbase to buy after being granted access through their Subscription.
This doesn't impact me though as I wouldn't play it on Game Pass for free so I would never be buying it regardless. I always expected it to be offered for the first few years at most to try and establish a playerbase and then remove the Game Pass option so they have to buy or 'miss out'.
I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers drop drastically as Xbox gamers play one of the older iterations, at least until the newest is on sale - but then I'm often surprised by the fact that annual minor iterations of a sports franchise (MLB, Fifa, Madden etc) sell as well as they do on release with minimal change to the actual game-play loop/mechanics etc
@Fiendish-Beaver Not necessarily - Publishers may well consider MS's store if its PC based and don't have to port to console and supoort a Console build post launch too.
It could work out better for MS as they are a 'big' PC platform along with Steam, Epic, GoG etc and its not 'just' the PCXbox customer base that would/could buy that version as any PC gamer could - unlike the few million only that can buy an Xbox Console version and would require its own port too.
As far as costs go, it wouldn't cost them anymore than it would cost to release on Steam for example, even any post launch support (DLC, Patches/updates etc) wouldn't incur additional costs as its the same 'PC' build so they have more incentive and a LOT LESS to lose.
When console hardware sales are 'weak' and it costs money to port and support a game on a Platform, if they don't believe it will sell enough, not enough 'interest/hype' etc to sell enough copies to be profitable, then it makes sense to cancel.
A 'lot' of Xbox customers are now on PC anyway as PC gamers don't need to buy an Xbox console to play Xbox games Day/Date, to play via Game Pass etc so their console is not required or wanted - hence 'low' sales figures. From the publishers perspective, they also probably can't compete with Game Pass so feel that sales will be minimal on the Xbox Console and not worth the 'cost' and project a big loss if they do spend the time/money on porting/supporting on that hardware.
@OldGamer999 All that means to me is that don't need to 'rush' and/or release it before its ready to release. There are plenty of games - more than enough to release their '1 per quarter' they were promising as a minimum for Game Pass and it doesn't 'need' to release in 2026 to give Microsoft (or us Gamers) a decent year of releases - Just go back to 2022 and see compare that year.
The only aspect that does kind of annoy is the fact they annnounced it (and others like State of Decay 3, Fable etc) quite a while ago and it still seems no closer to releasing whilst other games have come and gone whilst we are waiting for even some 'news'.
If it doesn't arrive in 2026, which seems like it could be quite a stacked year anyway with Fable, Halo, Gears, Forza, CoD etc, 2027 could be equally stacked too - which is what we should expect and want from a BIG Publisher with MANY Studio's - I'd rather they released a BIG game every 2-3 months than release a lot of games in a few months then nothing for 6months+ and especially if that also takes the pressure off to release and the opportunity to ensure its as polished and ready as it can be when it does release.
With the games we 'expect' this year, as much as I am intrerested and looking forward to Clockwork Revolution, I don't think I will be bored, disappointed or waiting impatiently for something to play...
See a lot more through this year to release 'next' year as this year will be stacked with Fable, Gears, Halo, Forza etc so I doubt they'll be 'pressured' to rush to release this year...
And I bet some of it comes down to the costs incurred during development as Fable has been in development a LONG time and they need to recoup that cost as quickly as possible so release EVERYWHERE where as Forza 6 hasn't taken as long and also FH5 released recently on PS5 so they can be a bit more relaxed on the release.
Lets be honest, Fable will likely be played by a LOT of people via Game Pass so they won't make that much in terms of Sales revenue to recover those costs on Xbox/PC. By releasing on PS5 simultaneously, that will boost sales figures and revenue immediately and start recouping that investment.
Personally I have NO issue with ALL Xbox games releasing Day/Date on ALL hardware - it won't affect where or how I choose to play their games. If/when I do decide to buy, I'm also much more likely to purchase through a Microsoft store so I get 'Play Anywhere' to be able to play on either my Xbox Console or PC's (inc RoG Ally and gaming Laptop) seemlessly with my progression across both platforms - although I'm much more likely to play via Game Pass initially anyway and again, my progress across all the Platforms (Cloud, Console and PC) is important and another big reason I'd only consider 'buying' where my 'Save' and progress is.
The Format itself is great, but Fable was the only game I was really interested in seeing and actually exceeded expectations - considering the IP's history and the fact its being made by a different development team.
Forza Horizon 6 did look good, but also didn't surprise. It seems like a typical sequel with typical game-play loop just in a new/different setting. I don't feel like I needed to watch this to know what the game would be, what it would offer etc. Of course that's not necessarily a 'bad' thing when Horizon is arguably the 'best' racing games series on the market right now but I had hoped they had surprised me with 'something' that freshened up the Game-play loop.
The other two games I have zero interest inn and won't even bother trying for 'Free' on Game Pass. If it wasn't for Playground Games, then this would have been a complete wast of my time, but I gave it a 'C' on the strength of Fable alone as FH6 was pretyy much predictable (but that isn't 'bad' in this case)
@ElectricWizard Whilst it may seem like a 'good' deal, in general these deals often end up seeming like you should have waited a week or two as they go on sale individually and work out cheaper to have bought them that way.
They may only be about £15-£20 for '3' games, but they'll likely be on sale for less than £4 each so you could buy 4-5 games for that price if they follow the 'normal' pattern for these type of deals.
Even if that doesn't happen 'this' time, I wonder if many will expect that to happen as that is what has happened frequently - the Games are often much cheaper when sold individually on Sale - assuming you can even find '3' games you actuially want rather than picking a '3rd' you don't care about just to get the deal. That's another way these deals don't tend to 'appeal' to that many because they only want 1 or 2 games and those 1 or 2 will also be on sale for a LOT less in the very near future.
Of course its a great deal compared to buying them 'new' and paying the full price at that time, but compared to the price they are often sold for individually in sales, this format (Buy 1 get 2 Free) often is the more expensive way and/or makes people buy more games than they want (or will actually play) just to get the deal...
@OldGamer999 The difference is with Sony and Nintendo is that they make money from selling 3rd Party (inc Ubisoft) games on THEIR platform. Ubisoft would only take 70% of the sale price and have all the costs to cover whilst Sony/Nintendo/MS take 30% as retailer and platform holder.
Nintendo and Sony can 'afford' to invest more time/money into projects as they get 100% of the sale price as they also are retailer and platform holder and of course have the safety ne of those 3rd Party sales through their store.
Ubisoft would need to sell a LOT more games to recuperate the same costs than Sony/Nintendo because they receive less money per sale back. If they don't think they'll sell enough copies to recuperate costs, it's often better to cancel than keep ploughing money into something that will end up being a big loss. With Sony/Nintendo, they don't need to sell as many and even if they don't get the sales they expect, can offset those losses with some of the money they receive from sales of 3rd Party games/DLC etc through their store, sales of Hardware/Peripherals (inc Controllers), sales of Subscriptions and PS+ is 'required' for some 3rd Party games - so not only are they making money from sales of those 3rd Party games but also from the Subscription required to play them too...
That's why you can't really compare what Sony or Nintendo do compared to those Publishers that ONLY make games to sell on others Platforms...
@Fiendish-Beaver I'm kind of in the same boat - except I don't have a Gaming PC hooked up to my TV and I am much more likely to game outside of my house IF I end up in Hospital again (not unlikely as I almost ended up being rushed in a few weeks ago...)
However, I am 'sometimes' confined to the bedroom and have a Gaming Laptop and RoG Ally for that situation - I also have my XB1X and PS4 Pro connected to the Bedroom TV, but the vast majority of my gaming is done on the big screen TV on a Console in the lounge and Play Anywhere is great for those odd times when I can't game on the TV and certainly don't want to have to buy games for my PC's (handheld/Laptop) or have to rely on Streaming to my XB1X.
I have Game Pass Ultimate and Play Anywhere games so I can play at no extra cost on my PC's if/when the circumstances dictate. I can carry on playing the games I want to play even if I can't use the TV/Consoles in the lounge. Play Anywhere lets me play games not on Game Pass PC and natively too. Saves me having to buy a game 'twice'.
Take Indiana or Doom for example, it doesn't matter if I can't play on my Series X on the Big Screen because I'm in Hospital or unable to use my TV in the lounge, I can play on my Laptop or Handheld natively in Bed, continue 'seemlessly' and earn achievements. Games like CoD too are playable on my RoG Ally, but aren't on a Steamdeck because of Anti-cheat requirements.
So between Game Pass Ultimate and Play Anywhere, I don't need to spend ANY money on games for a Handheld or any PC for those 'few' occasions I have no/little choice on where I game. I can carry on playing the games I want or would be playing if I could play on my Console. If I owned a Switch/Steamdeck, then I'd also have to buy 'games' and in most cases, they wouldn't allow me to continue my progress.
I much prefer the Console experience in general, the ease of use, the plug/play nature etc, but with Microsoft likely to 'merge' their Console and PC platforms much more in the future - their next Hardware seems like it will be a 'Windows PC' in a Console like box - Game Pass Ultimate and Play Anywhere have added value to me as they work well with my Windows Handheld/Laptop as well as my Series X enabling me to play 'seemlessly' whereever I end up having to play....
@Fiendish-Beaver If you have a decent gaming PC, the you probably don't game on an Xbox - or if you do, its most likely legacy titles that you already own. All the games are released on PC anyway so your 'Main' platform is most likely steam - although Steamdeck is somewhat more limited than a Handheld PC and certain games won't be playable at all on it.
However, if your MAIN gaming Platform is Xbox - certainly for the Big Screen experience, then Play Anywhere is far better than buying on Steam or buying without Play Anywhere, maybe even better than buying on PS5 if you also own that because the added benefit of being able to play on ANY PC - not just a Handheld and not just the 'near' future, but long term, adds more value to the package. You might not have a decent gaming PC today, but maybe invest in one or choose to buy a Handhald PC in the near future and you already have a few games...
Of course if you already have a Gaming PC and Steamdeck, then chances are you'll buy it on Steam as its your 'main' Platform - but if you also game on Xbox too, then it may make more sense to buy on Xbox and Play on BOTH your PC and Console without having to buy it twice and your progress, achievements, friends etc is seemlessly synced across both platforms too.
As someone who 'mostly' games on Xbox as it's my 'Big Screen' gaming platform of choice - not a Gaming PC Rig, but also own Handheld and Laptop Gaming PC's, I'm much more likely to buy it on Xbox now - even if it is a bit more expensive, because of Play Anywhere that enables me to play this seemlessly on my 'preferred' hardware and continue progress. It may also let me Stream it to many other devices (Stream your own game) so basically playable on ALL hardware (except Switch/Playstation/Steamdeck).
Imagine having a Series S/X in the Bedroom/lounge, a Gaming PC set-up in the Office and a Handheld PC/Laptop for on the go - wherever you choose or happen to be, you can play your game on your 'preferred' hardware....
I have a 5TB HDD plugged into my Series X for all my XB1 and older games that don't require SSD storage to run. I also have a 1TB and 2TB Expansion card and use them a bit like like Compilation Cartridges - swapping between them depending on what games I want to jump into and my Internal Storage is about 80/90% full and that's for the current Games I play at least Daily.
Still on Game Pass Ultimate and still taken advantage of the fact I game on multiple Systems and get extra Reward points as a result too.
I mainly use Game Pass to play close to, if not on release and still end up buying the few 'Play Anywhere' games when they crop up in sales at a decent price point. I recently purchased both Doom: TDA & Indiana Jones despite being able to play on Game Pass on my PC, Series X and various Cloud enabled devices.
I still like the fact though that I can play Day 1 (or anytime I want) at no extra cost, play or even at least try games via Cloud wherever I want - my Xbox Ally X is great to play games anywhere and don't have to wait for it download and install, just to try a game - also with a 1080p small display, streaming visuals are much more acceptable than on a 4k Large screen TV to me. So having the 'best' streaming Quality is very useful to me too as I can play numerous games I wouldn't 'bother' waiting hours to download to 'try'...
Doom, as also DF stated, is arguably the 'best' visually and runs flawlessly at a high frame rate on consoles (inc the Series S) with Ray Traced Global Illumination as standard. That, from a technical perspective as well, should be taken into consideration but then Visuals alone can be subjective.
I don't like certain artstyles that others will highly rate, maybe even be convinced they are 'Game of the Year' worthy so I can never predict the winners. I do think though that Visuals should be considered in 'motion', how 'fluid/smooth' they are as well as how good they look in a single frame. Visuals should be the way the game looks when you are 'playing', not how good it can look in a 'single' frame/photo mode in my opinion.
Halo: CE was the reason I bought an OG Xbox and my earliest memories are seeing and reading about it a Games magazines before Xbox and Halo released. I was caught up in the pre-release hype and must admit, it didn't disappoint me...
@BacklogBrad Well its not all 'Competitive' and there is more Casual and co-operative modes nowadays than actual competitive PvP.
Both Campaign/End-Game and Zombies can be played Solo or co-operatively but have no 'competitive' mode. Even Warzone has Casual BR/Resurgence with mostly Bots and it only really gets competitive in the final stages as the final few squads/players are left to 'compete' for the win.
Multi-player is really the only mode where you can argue that it is 'competitive' - but considering some can play on Mobiles via Streaming or on last gen Hardware with frame drops below 60 and much 'blurrier' visual presentation, whilst modern consoles offer upto 120fps with VRR and of course potentially PC gamers too, there is such a diverse range of Hardware, input devices, displays etc that there is always someone with more of an advantage/disadvantage than others. Some may not even set their TV up optimally for gaming, prefering the 'look' and options of Movie mode so end up with far more input lag/latency so its not just about the hardware the game is running on...
Until its 'officially' revealed and/or they give us details on what exactly they are releasing, their targets (60fps or 30fps for example) and /or content (Warzone, Black Ops 7, both?), we don't know how 'competitive' it will be to play on that system...
Well they signed a document to bring CoD to Nintendo - it was only a question of When. Of course I won't be playing it on Switch 2 as I don't own one and my 'portable' handset of choice is a PC. With Play Anywhere as well as Game Pass, It wouldn't make sense to 'buy' on Switch 2 just to play 'on the go'
I'd hope NOT. I've started both Hellblade games and whilst I do appreciate they are more 'experiences' to demonstrate what living with Psychosis is like, how those voices keep 'talking' and react to the situations Senua finds herself in, as 'Games', they are exceptionally dull and uninspiring that I cannot bring myself to return to try and finish...
I'd rather have an upgraded or reboot of Enslaved - but I really don't want another 'Mental Health' experience designed around its Audio and 'graphical' immersion but game-play is purely tokenistic to 'feed' the Audio reaction
I stil have my Project Scorpio XB1, my Gears XB1S and a XB1X - but I haven't used or even switched any on for at least 4yrs. I personally couldn't recommend a console that is no longer being manufactured, even if it is still usable/functional. I know you can stream games (like Indiana Jones or Starfield for example) if you have Game Pass and they aren't released for your Hardware, but if you are 'buying' a Console, a Series S is the much better option and I'd recommend that over ANY XB1 hardware.
If you want the 'best of the best', then PC is the way to go. MS has their own 'Xbox' Platform on PC and of course you also have access to Steam, GoG etc. You can also build a PC that easily beats any current-gen Console and with DLSS, run games at much higher graphical settings and frame rates. You'll also be set for the future as MS will continue to support their PC platform after the XB1 is 'dead'.
Buying a Series S/X in 2026 isn't something I'd recommend unless its suits your budget and existing game library - as in you already own a decent collection of Xbox Console games and/or a Game Pass subscription. Its already over 5yrs old and not cheap either. I've had 1000's of hours of use out of mine over those years but I also paid 'less' for a Day 1 release console and don't expect it to be around for that much longer - a year or two more before it to is 'discontinued' (from Manufacturing).
Each to their own of course, but I really don't understand why people would consider an XB1 in 2026 when you don't even need a Series console....
Makes sense - Microsoft have multiple 'Physical' Platforms (Console AND PC) and it makes much more sense to 'merge' them into one if possible to save having to spend all that time and money porting, optimising, supporting etc the game at least twice.
MS started by making Games for their Windows PC platform first, but as Gaming PC's and the 3D GPU market was extremely expensive, PC games were very 'niche' and not mainstream - so MS felt they had to build a 'PC' like box at a 'low' cost to bring their Games to a 'Mass' market.
25yrs later, PC's and Consoles are not that different in Price - in fact you can buy PC's that run modern games at 'Console' like settings for less money than the 'Premium' Consoles and with Streaming, don't need Hardware at all to play games. Obviously some gamers will prefer to 'buy' hardware for certain standard of graphical or performance settings, but cost of Hardware is NOT a barrier to playing, just like cost of software isn't a barrier anymore with Sub services...
I know most here will be Gamers that expect or want a certain 'standard' of gaming quality so 'Hardware' will likely be required, but I expect a LOT will likely play on hardware they have, happy to access via Cloud. There are still gamers who game on 'last' gen Hardware, content with Last gen Hardware Graphics/Performance and/or access games not released on their hardware natively via Cloud.
Of course the more they can optimise Windows, which is designed for multi-tasking and running multiple 'Apps' simultaneously, to being better for running a Single Game/App as easily and as 'conveniently' as Console, the better too - but most crucial is enabling their Console library to play seemlessly on PC for complete BC
Lets be honest, we know that MS has more than just Halo, Gears, Forza and Fable - despite Cancellations and studio closures they could 'surprise' us with.
Clockwork Revolution, Blade, State of Decay 3 etc have all been revealed/announced and we could hear about or even see 'Project Mara' (or whatever Ninja Theorys next project is called).
We also know they are working with Toys for Bob and Kojima too so several options we could be surprised by from 3rd Parties too.
@Decoy_Snake Regardless - they were both still offered Day/Date on Game Pass for ALL subscribers. Its not just 'first' party releases that you get 'Day 1' or just 'Xbox' published but those are often cited as the main draw, the reason to sub to Game Pass ignoring all the other releases - some of which are 'Game of the Year' nominee's/winners that also add to the 'value' of the service.
As for 'wins' for Xbox, I don't think they are claiming it as wins for Microsoft, more wins for the service itself and/or customers of that service. The fact is that two of of the 'best' and/or highest critically awarded games were both on Game Pass Day/Date is a 'win' for that service and customers of it and that's the point...
I don't have a minimum or a maximum budget in mind for ANY Hsrdware - it really depends on specs, how it compares and competes with alternatives and/or whether or not I actually want, require etc to enable me to play the games, access the content etc I want or already own.
The reason I bought 'Consoles' in the 90's, after being a 'Home Computer' gamer throughout the 80's, was purely down to Cost vs continuing to game on 'PC's' as the GPU minefield and costs were escalating. It made more sense to spend a few hundred on 'Simple' Plug and Play Hardware and, for several generations, the 'Bang for buck' favoured Console Hardware.
Now, with MOST games also playable 'Everywhere' as most are Multi-platform (or end up on PC eventually), I can't say that I will buy a 'Console' again if it also requires a Subscription just to play the vast majority of games I want to play. I don't think a 'PS5' or 'Series X' cost around £500 to play ALL the games they advertise, all the games in their Store/Library etc and can cost another £500+ over the lifetime just to play Battlefield, CoD, GTAO or many of the biggest games/IP's you buy hardware to play.
Therefore I may decide not to buy another Console - even if it is 'cheap' - because the additiional costs (due to Subsidised Hardware) are 'high' and/or will add-up over time. But if MS build a 'PC' Console that not only competes with other Gaming PC builds on the Market (cost/spec etc), but also isn't Subsidised so is over £1k and/or more expensive than a PS6, it could well be the 'best' hardware choice for me - I just won't know until we have the information to actually assess and make an 'informed' choice. I chose to buy a RoG Xbox Ally 'X' - even though I own an OG RoG Ally as well as a Gaming Laptop and despite its 'cost', it was the 'best' value Handheld PC with those Specs. Others cost more...
Until its specs, costs and how those compete with the alternatives at the time, even whether I need to buy Hardware (or can continue on current Hardware, maybe even Cloud is more viable as infrastructure improves etc), I don't have a 'minimum/maximum' budget I'd be willing to pay
Depends the Game, genre, competition etc etc. I don't believe there is a 'perfect' time for ANY game - sometimes you have to be lucky to release at the right time and others, it maybe doesn't matter what you do, how much time, effort, planning, marketing etc, you can also be unlucky too.
There is so much 'outside' your own control, so many other Publishers, Devs etc or even just the 'rapidly' changing market itself can dictate how successful or not your game maybe. For example, you get lucky and release a new 'Live Service' game at the right time and suddenly everyone is playing it or the market decides its one live service game to far and decide to boycott it regardless of how good/bad it is - release a week or two earlier and it may have been a very different story...
Sometimes I think you just have to release and, if the game is as polished and complete as possible, hope that Gamers want to embrace it regardles of the 1000's of other Games (new, old/sale, backlog etc) that are competing for their time and money.
I bought all my games this year Digitally and/or those with Play Anywhere - at least 2 or 3 them were/are still on Game Pass. I also 'pre-ordered' a couple of 'Premium' upgrades via Game Pass - either 'complete editions' (with post-release DLC included) or seasonal content as DLC/Season Passes isn't often discounted and there were other cosmetic or bonuses too
I made a conscious decision to move to Digital Only as it offers so much more Flexibility and versatility to me - able to download and play games NATIVELY on both Console and PC platforms (of which I own Handheld and laptop gaming PCs) and having my Library ready to access regardless of the 'type of hardware' matters.
I won't buy a game I can only play on 'one' device unless its dirt cheap, there are so many great games in my backlog, in Sub Services etc (at no extra cost) that I haven't bought a 'new' release at all and every game I have bought, has been because its been on Sale - Games like Robocop & Hogwarts Legacy (each Play Anywhere and less than £10 - that's 2 games for less than 'new' indie, let alone AAA new releases that will be under £10 in a year or so..).
I could argue Quite a few, but its also been a Strong year in general and numerous Strong games deserved more love and attention. If you have to reduce the Thousands of releases a year into just a 'top 5/10', or even worse, into just one 'Game' of the year, there are going to be 100's of Strong games that won't get the 'love' or attention they 'deserve' from anothers perspective...
Quite a few on Game Pass too - I've enjoyed the year of Games and to be honest, some of the games that 'critics' may have rated quite highly were not as enjoyable or even in my top 10 games of the year. Doom: TDA was one of my favourite and most enjoyed games of the year.
Aggregated scores can also be a bit misleading when comparing 'games' as they are NOT aggregating Scores from the exact same reviewers/sources and vary in quantity too. Some games may only get 10 reviews compared to 80+ with some others, how they score (5pt, 10pt, 100pt system) too affects the conversion and how each 'source/reviewer' scales it - a perfectly good 'average' game maybe an '8/10' with one set/source of reviewers and their 'guidelines' for scoring, with another, it could be as low as '6/10' because they want to be able to show a game has gone above 'average' in more areas for example...
I'm sure that no business can 'target' a specific Profit margin and expect to hit that with 'every' product/release. Some may well reach or even exceed a 30% profit, but there are also likely to be those that fall below the 30% profit and of course areas within Xbox that likely make NO profit at all but are required.
Backwards Compatibility is arguably a LOW, (if Any) profit endeavour - after all, its just letting you play games you bought 'years' ago instead of spending time/money on new products. I doubt that would or could operate at a 30% profit margin, but cancelling would likely be more detrimental in other areas.
No doubt, like ANY business, they are NOT going to provide Products (games, Hardware, peripherals etc), Services (Game Pass, apps/websites etc) or Support without making 'money', without trying to be 'profitable'. Supply and demand dictates profitability more than a Company can - all they can do is put their product on the market and hope demand is high enough to sell enough to cover the costs.
You can say you want to target a '30%' profit margin for example, but that's not something in their control - like targeting a 30 or even 60fps frame rate in THEIR product. The Market and public are not under their control and cannot predict or expect results.
Clockwork Revolution has perhaps the highest probability of winning but I think we could see a number of games being nominated and/or winning in some of the many other categories - like best Racing Game - FH6 for example... Of course I there are many of actual Awards as well as numerous big Publications etc nominating and awarding Games so if they don't win Geoff Keighleys or IGN's Game of the Year, they may win BAFTA's GotY instead...
@IronCrow86 As owners of the IP's, the Publishing Rights etc, from the moment MS took over, ALL ABK revenue - inc WoW Sales/Subs, sales of ALL their released games (prior to acquisition) etc are all 'delivering' for Microsoft.
Take a game like Black Ops 2 for example, an old game, not on Game Pass and released prior to the MS takeover - if you buy it or any of the DLC (inc Zombie Chronicles) as it is playable via BC today, its generating revenue for Microsoft. Every time someone spends 'money' on ANY ABK product/service, that's 'delivering' revenue to MS whether it was released/published prior to merging or not. Every time those old games sell, its delivering revenue to MS.
Diablo IV and its DLC, Overwatch 2 and its DLC/MTX, all those subscribers to WoW since the takeover etc are 'delivering' revenue for Microsoft - their 'legacy' products are paying back that investment.
Of course 'new' games and even giving away the legacy games on Game Pass maybe what the Gamers are hoping get 'delivered' to them, but its not as if MS 'needs' to push WoW to Console or to drop ABK Legacy games into Game Pass to start 'generating' revenue.
The second MS took over ABK, they took over ownership of IP's, Publishing rights etc so from Day 1, the Legacy content has been 'delivering' revenue to MS. Doesn't matter what Product or service, all that money goes to MS now. Buy Crash Bandicoot N-sane trilogy on PS5 'today', a big chunk of that goes to Microsoft, Sub to WoW today on PC, that's money to MS so those 'legacy' games, products, services etc are delivering - don't forget that MS own Battlenet too now as well.
Xbox Series X is certainly my main platform of choice with PC (primarily the Handhelds - like the Xbox Ally X or OG RoG Ally, but occasionally my laptop) are a 'distant' 2nd for those few occasions when I can't access the TV. My PS5 has become more a 'exclusive' only box and I let my PS+ lapse, so I find myself using it the least now.
My main 'ecosystem' is very much Xbox and whilst I do access that 'mostly' through the Series X that I've had since launch, I think that my PC and even Cloud use has increased. I was 100% a 'console' gamer only (Xbox and PS5) but over the course of this generation, my PS5 usage has declined the most and I've bought gaming PC hardware to access 'Xbox' primarily - often when I can't use the TV (therefore the Consoles). So my 'console' usage is perhaps down, but my Xbox Platform usage across multiple devices is up this year.
@Fishmasterflex96 From Jan 5th - Nov 29th, BO6 was the 8th biggest selling game in the US whilst BO7 was the 7th. So in 2025, it has 'outsold' what BO6 sold since Jan 5th in just 2weeks.
It was the best selling game in just those 2 weeks in November (in the US) than every other game on the market - many of which were available for the entire 'month' for people to buy.
Sales (in the US) is just one of the avenues of revenue and BO7 is also available on Game Pass, which is available on 2 of 3 platforms it released on. So of course Sales are 'hurt' by those choosing not to 'buy' but still play on GP.
So to top Novembers Sales chart and jump straight in at 7th, the ONLY new entry to make it into the top 30 in the month of November, to biggest 'selling' games in the US in just 2weeks is not a 'flop' or as much as a disaster as all the negativity and hate its received would like to believe. It may not be the 'biggest' sales in CoD history, but I'll doubt you'll ever beat the record now its on a Sub Service Day 1 regardless.
It can still be very successful and extremely profitable over its lifetime, even if it doesn't break records. The big difference between BO7 and MW3 is that MW3 had very little competition and a lot of Carry Forward to bulk out the 'weak' MW3 content - that Campaign was far worse than BO7's too but over the year, that was a 'success' and remembered more favourably than its predecessor...
Its still the 7th best selling game of the year in just 2 weeks - outselling ALL (but 6) games released and/or available to purchase since Jan 5th. That hass outsold all the games realeased by Microsoft, Sony etc this year and there were many BIG successful AAA games that didn't make the top 30 despite being available for months. So that's hardly a Flop or Disaster
@Fishmasterflex96 It's certainly down on last year, but lets be real, the game released literally 2 weeks and a few days and despite all the negativity and the fact that its also available on PC/Xbox hardware via Game Pass (which affects sales - especially 'early' sales), and with very STRONG competition for once (Arc Raiders as well as Battlefield), its still managed to the 7th 'biggest' selling game of 2025.
Outselling some of the biggest releases of the year 'critically' or maybe amongst certain gaming groups that ignore the fact they are so 'small' in comparison to the 'Gaming' market to realise that is still not a 'flop' or a 'Disaster' - it can still have a bigger install base due to all those using Game Pass to play for example so still making a LOT of money on Seasonal Bundles, Events, Passes etc.
There are 3 'long' running Sport IPs, BF6, B4 and MH (Big IP's in themselves) that outsold BO7 since the beginning of the year - all also on the market for longer and Game Pass too has a big impact on Sales on 2 of the 3 platforms its available on.
Of course it could be better - but the year isn't over yet, there is another whole month of Data to collect so you'll need to wait unil mid-Jan at the earliest to get a year 'view' but its already ahead of BO6 (which is still ahead of the vast majority of other games - despite it too being on Game Pass) and many that 'Gamers' will say where their or were actual Game of the Year 'winners' - so commercially more 'successful' in Sales terms than ALL but 6 other games in just over 2 weeks of sales.
That's not being 'defensive' or 'deflecting' - that's stating the obvious fact that despite all the negativity and the Game Pass 'robbing' Sales situation, its still managed to be the 7th 'best selling' game in just over 2 weeks as it only released mid-November.
As I said, in many comments, BF6 is the best BF game in years and the BF game that Fans should want, should buy because its the best since BF3/4 era which BF fans have been wanting since those. Its no surprise to see it doing well, but it had two weeks of sales in November alone before it 'competed' with BO7 and unlike CoD, far more people have to buy to play as Game Pass is far more popular and widespread than EA's Day 1 Sub Service on PC.
but the TLDR is that BO7 managed to outsell tthousands of other games in just 2 weeks so not a 'Disaster'
BF6 has been out longer and also not available 'free' on Game Pass so its likely to have sold more - especially as its returned to the 'Battlefield' experience that fans have wanted for a decade or more.
Black Ops 7, considering the amount of negativity despite the fact that it is the 'biggest' and arguably 'best' Launch package in years , the fact its 'free' on Game Pass and the amount of 'Hate' I see aimed at this, is still selling. It had only been out less than a month yet has already in the top 10 best selling games. I notice that quite a few of the Award winning games aren't even in the top 30 best selling for the year.
Personally I think an Arcade style FPS, even if it has a 'military' setting, should keep away from historical events. I don't think these shouldbe made light of with Arcade style fun Action etc.
If you base something on 'reality' - particularly dark or tragic events where thousands died in reality, then make it as 'realistic' as possible, to show the real 'horror', the reality of that situation etc. I really do think it is wrong to portray 'real' wars as some fun 'Arcade' action where death/injury is just minor set-backs.
Comments 4,047
Re: I'm Playing Fable 1 For The First Time, And Here Are Five Things That Have Surprised Me
@Darthcuddles90 Not mine or actually many others as you state - most polls and comments on the Fable main games would indicate that Fable 2 was the 'best' in the Series.
Fable, the first, was a good game and maybe seemed 'better' because it was the first, the first to introduce you to that world but I actually preferred the 2nd and its story way more - not just the combat which was aother area they improved on but that was just 1 of the areas I thought they actually improved on.
Like a LOT of games back then, Sequels took what they learned from the predecessor and built upon, improved areas that needed it, worked on and/or removed things that didn't work as well etc to make a 'better' game.
You are entitled to your 'opinion', as everyone is but I don't agree - and it would seem from the many conversations and polls about Fable over the years, Fable 2 is regarded as the better game, better story etc with Fable a 'close' 2nd - but it was the first Fable and that helps boost 'impression' when its 'new' and 'unique' - something a Sequel can't really offer, it can only build upon!
Re: I'm Playing Fable 1 For The First Time, And Here Are Five Things That Have Surprised Me
@Darthcuddles90 In your opinion!!!
Re: I'm Playing Fable 1 For The First Time, And Here Are Five Things That Have Surprised Me
Fable was and still is a 'good' game, I just think that Fable 2 is the 'better' game. I also think that a LOT of games from that era are actually better because they aren't so focused on the Graphics and/or performance but on the mechanics, story and Game-play loop. I think a lot of modern games would sacrifice Mechanics in order to bump up the Resolution/frame rate or add some extra Graphical effect (RT for example) or push the settings up a bit. First impressions matter and most peoples 'first' impression is the way a game looks when the watch a pre-release trailer.
Fable, or Peter Molyneux, promised a LOT from a game mechanics persperctive and under-delivered from that perspective but I think that 'focus' on Mechanics is what helps that game stand up today - especially as so many modern games are Sequels with the same game-play loop and general mechanics that you've played many times before with 'generic' and predictable stories but look more impressive than their predecessors thanks to RT or a 'new' engine....
Re: Talking Point: Are You Looking Forward To High On Life 2 Hitting Xbox Game Pass Next Week?
Couldn't stand the first - didn't play beyond the first Boss as I couldn't stand their 'humour' and the voices really irritated and annoyed me so I doubt I'll bother with the sequel.
Re: 'We've Been Talking To Microsoft' - Epic Games Wants Its Store On The Next Xbox Console
@BacklogBrad Exactly this - You might be able to install Epic or Steam 'apps' on your Ally or PCXbox, but it boots to Xbox FSE and that is promoting Games that are on Xbox and links only to the Xbox store versions - not Steam or Epic.
Of course if you have bought and installed games from those stores, you don't need to load up those apps to find them but you'll have to load up the Steam/Epic app to go browsing their store, purchase games and/or manage, download, install any games you own on that platform.
The 'point' about installed games (inc those from Steam/Epic etc) showing up in Xbox FSE is so you don't NEED to go to those Apps to access those games - it keeps you in the Xbox FSE which is linked to the Xbox store so if you 'search' for a new release or see it advertised on the Xbox FSE, it will take you to the MS/Xbox store to purchase.
If you want to 'compare' prices, you then have to go the Steam app and load that up, search for the game, do the same with Epic and most people will just buy from Xbox out of Convenience and only dipping into 3rd Party Platforms for the Games (like Sony's Spider-Man or God of War) that aren't sold on the Xbox store.
It also means that they are not running a 'Monopoly' on their Hardware - something the EU and EU law takes quite seriously. You as a consumer have more choice - yes you can buy from Epic or Steam, but that's Freedom of Choice. If its a MS produced game, they'll make money regardless, even though its likely available on Game Pass and get a decent 'Game Pass Subscriber' Discount. Other incentives, like adding to your Achioevement score, Xbox friends list, Streaming, Reward points etc, maybe will also factor in your decision as to which store and therefore platform you buy from...
Re: Microsoft CFO Admits Xbox Revenue Was 'Below Expectations' In FY26 Q2
@OldGamer999 There is always 'uncertainty', always has been uncertainty and even what they choose to 'share' about the future is always 'subject to change'.
Go back to ANY ERA and the period of time leading up to a reveal of Hardware - there was always speculation, rumours etc and even after some reveals, things would change. One of the most notable was the Xbox One that changed quite a lot between its 'reveal' and launch, and changed more in the first 6 months or so with the backtracking over DRM and Kinect being essential for operation - it also 'boosted' its CPU specs and freed up more CPU resources post launch.
No-one knows 'exactly' what a Company will do in the future or even if 'features' would be offered, let alobe how they may be implemented and/or how well they work. If you buy a PS5 expecting Xbox like Backwards Compatibility and equivalent VRR capability, then you'd be disappointed although if you're coming from a PS4, its great news and perhaps increased your enthusiasm for it. Even when they reveal the 'specs' the size/speed of CPU/GPU, that doesn't necessarily translatte to significant difference compared to 'alternative' Hardware.
I do get it, Microsoft look to be 'evolving' in a certain direction that 'traditional' consoles aren't. It looks like they are going to build a Win11 PC (even though you could probably replace Sonys or MS's console OS with Win11 and run PC games on their 'current' hardware - unlikely as performant as the 'optimised' OS console but the 'Physical' Hardware is still a PC like build) and that concerns 'Console' gamers because they want the 'simplicity' of a Console OS and hopefully their 'Library' to come forward - don't want the 'issues' associated with PC gaming, want Console features - like Quick Resume and/or the option to turn off 'cross-platform' lobbies, and certainly don't the Hackers, modders, cheaters etc that PC has - those things NEED to be addressed.
I do understand as I can afford a 'high-end' gaming rig, could plug it into my TV and play from the sofa with my Xbox Elite Controller but I prefer the Series X/PS5 console experience. I have a Laptop and RoG Ally which I use occasionally but its not as 'plug and play', as instant as Console (especially with updates being handled in the background and/or overnight when switched off), but I also understand that Consoles are 'losing' their appeal, not very Consumer friendly and they are no longer that 'cheap' mainstream option at least half the cost of a PC. When the OG Xbox launched under £300, and dropped lower very quickly if I recall, you couldn't buy a 'gaming' PC that could play the latest releases for less than £1k - now you can buy PC's that will play the latest releases for the price of a Series X or PS5 with the biggest Library of games available and Online games are NOT hidden behind a Sub paywall. You may pay £500 for the 'Console', but you also have to pay a Sub fee to unlock the full Library and features which over time adds £100's over the years - the amount you spend on a PS5 and PS+ Essential or Series X and GPCore over 5 or 6yrs is as much as a decent gaming PC with MUCH bigger Library and cheaper games....
Re: Microsoft CFO Admits Xbox Revenue Was 'Below Expectations' In FY26 Q2
@OldGamer999
Yes its personal preference, which is why MS are working 'hard' on trying to bring the 'Xbox' Console experience to their 'Windows' platform as they know people just want that 'ease of use' and plug/play type simplicity, want their Library and profile to carry forward etc. But why build a 'console' that isn't going to sell well, if even in enough numbers to justify the cost because their games are Day 1 on PC and on Cloud enabled devices. The hardcore most deidcated gamer likely owns a PC gaming set-up as that has by far the biggest gaming library, best graphics/performance etc and the more Casual is likely to play on Hardware they already own - it makes more sense to return to PC where games are 'built' and save the cost on porting, optimising and supporting their Console version for the 'few' remaining gamers who buy the Console, save the R&D costs, save the manufacturing and distribution costs etc because they aren't giving up PC or Cloud day 1 which makes Consoles unnecessary for MOST gamers...
They are never selling PS numbers of Hardware when you can play ALL their games Day 1 on PC/Cloud and that's why their Consoles for the past decade have been 'sales flops'. Many gamers don't want or need to buy an Xbox to play Xbox games and better 'Hardware' exists if Graphics/frame rates are more important...
Re: Microsoft CFO Admits Xbox Revenue Was 'Below Expectations' In FY26 Q2
@OldGamer999 I too have owned EVERY Xbox console and been there since Day 1 with the OG Xbox having been 'sold' on Halo before the Console even launched. I left 'computer' gaming behind and been a 'Console' gamer since the N64 - but for the 80's and early 90's, I was a Computer based gamer - initially BBC Micro, Commodore, Amstrad etc and then IBM PC's until the 3D graphics cards were 'needed' in my £2k IBM PC to play gamesc like Tomb Raider and so many different brands etc that 'cheap' Consoles made much more sense.
It's that reason that MS needed to make a Console so that their 'games' would sell and not just be for the 'few' who could afford to game on PC's. Nowadays, you can game on PC's costing the same (or less in some cases) than a 'Premium' Console (less than a PS5 Pro or even Series X) at 'Console' like visuals/frame rates. You don't 'need' 4k when your PC is connected to a 1080p monitor for example and maybe get better Frame Rates than Series X/PS5 Pro offer too...
Point is, the whole purpose of MS making a Console is pretty much gone - PC's are more affordable, more accessible and as such, far more gamers are now choosing to game on PC, especially the 'younger' market - not us 'old' gamers who have been gaming for 20+yrs on Consoles.
Exclusives are NEVER going to sell Hardware when those Exclusives are only Exclusive to an Ecosystem, not a specific single Platform. 10yrs ago, when MS merged Xbox into MS and 'windows', therefore promising to release EVERY game day/date on PC too, the writing was on the wall - NO PC gamer will buy an XB1 (let alone the XB1X mid gen refresh) as they can play on their PC. It didn't matter what the Series S/X hardware specs were, PC gamers aren't buying that hardware - better to invest in a new GPU...
As for the future, maybe some will start 'fresh' on Playstation and are willing to give up their 'legacy' titles, their achievements etc but some, like we saw when a LOT jumped to PS4 at the start of the XB1 era, will buy whatever MS release as it carries forward their profile, friends, achievements and most important, their gaming Library. It doesn't matter if it sells as well as Series hardware because ALL PC brands (Asus, HP, Lenovo, MSi etc) all configurations regardless of AMD, Arm or nVidia GPU's etc will still be 'Windows' and still be 'Xbox'.
As for Day 1, as I said does it really matter if they are sold on Plkaystation with costs rising and of course having to pay a 'fee' to play many Xbox games (at least unlock most content) due to online aspects when you can play 'Anywhere' else for a 'small' monthly fee. By the time you've bought FH6, Fable, Gears etc and paid a year for PS+ to play most of these, its cost a lot more than a 'year' of Game Pass and you've had access to more games than you could afford on PS and certainly won't carry forward your existing Xbox library...
Re: Microsoft CFO Admits Xbox Revenue Was 'Below Expectations' In FY26 Q2
@OldGamer999 That may well be the ONLY traditional 'Console' way to play Xbox games in the future - buy a Playstation, pay Sony for the privilege of playing on their hardware ansd pay 'Sony' prices for your Xbox games whilst those on MS hardware pay PC prices, don't have to pay for 'Online Access' anymore, can also play their old Xbox games, and access Xbox services like Game Pass. Also not ALL games may release Day/Date on PS hardware.
MS could become a third party publisher in the Console space, but have their OWN PC and PC platform and Cloud Streaming service as the 'entry' point for their Ecosystem with access to games both New and old.
Microsoft started as a PC publisher - making games Solely for their 'Windows' platform but Gaming on PC was too 'expensive' to reach the mainstream population so they had to make a Console to not only establish themselves as a major gaming publisherx, but to establish DirectX as a major gaming API. That's why their OG Xbox was designed and built more like a 'PC' with internal HDD instead of the 'small' form factor and memory cards ALL other consoles were using. Its because PC games required internal storage at the time...
Now, 25yrs later, MS don't need the Console and PC's are now competing with them in terms of price and accessibility. Will you pay 800 for a 'Console' and another $10 a month just to play Online when a 1000 will buy a PC and play ALL the games, not just a select few that happen to release on that particular brand of Console, access to far more market stores instead of being held to ransom by a Monopoly store etc.
If you can't see that MS is more likely to be returning to its 'roots', the platform they Originally built games for, the place they've been known as a Software Publisher for since they formed, still have their own Platform and services without needing their own 'Console' which is often sold at a Loss and not that 'popular' when alternatives (like PC & now Cloud) offer Xbox games Day 1. Its only those who have 'history' on Xbox and therefore BC games and/or those whose 'budgets' suit the Cheaper console entry (although do pay more due to requiring Subs to unlock all features and Games).
At the end of the day, you may welll choose to 'jump' to Playstation. PS5 isn't the 'best' place to play Xbox games is, it may have more resources to bump up the graphical presentation a 'bit', but it doesn't get all games Day 1 and doesn't offer the FULL Xbox library/services etc so not the 'best' console for Xbox - good luck trying to play Starfield, Forza Motorsport, South of Midnight etc on PS5 and as 'cheaply' as you can on Xbox...
Re: Microsoft CFO Admits Xbox Revenue Was 'Below Expectations' In FY26 Q2
@swedetrap Nothing wrong with BOTH and I expect Microsoft to continue to offer Hardware in the 'near' future but Cloud is and will still be the 'ENTRY' point.
The Series S is NOT the entry point despite it being the cheapest hardware option. Series X is NOT the high end option offering theb 'Best' Graphics/Frame Rates - both still exist though as they suit certain budgets/preferences but you don't need either.
There is a lot of talk and expectation that MS's 'next' Hardware will essentially be a PC with Win11 OS - even if it boots to a more 'streamlined/optimised' mode specifically for gaming. That would still give you a Hardware option for those with the budget and/or dedication to gaming to 'justify' the expenditure, but for everyone else, Cloud (even on their Series S/X console) may well be their best/cheapest option, the 'Entry' point to next gen Games/Gaming.
I use Cloud myself - in a supplementary way - when its more convenient or quicker to play the games I want to play wherever I happen to be and want to game - in my lounge, I'm almost always choosing native on my Series X (unless an indie or large game I want to try before considering the 'long' download process) but in my bedroom its almost always Cloud on my XB1X because its 'better' than Native on last gen Hardware. On my RoG Ally, its mostly Cloud because I haven't downloaded and installed the game I want to play and only likely to be playing for 30-60mins.
Point is that Cloud is a viable option and 'Better' than some options - especially if you don't have the budget or can justify going out and spending at least 500 on Hardware just to play a game you can play on lots of devices, some you already have for a 'small' fee. I'd probably rather play Indiana Jones via Cloud than on Switch after all the 'compromises' and scaling down to run on that hardware.
I'd prefer to play FH5 on Cloud on my XB1S instead of playing the Native version as the Cloud version is higher res, higher graphical settings and higher frame rates too - much better than the 'ugly' 30fps Native version! Of course, the Series X version is better than those, but PC is even better so why bother with the Series Console if Graphics/frame rate is the ONLY thinng that matters.
There are still people that happily play the XB1S version, the native version, the 'Worst' version and arguably worse than the Cloud version (unless you are using the mobile Cloud version rather than decent Wifi version) and they haven't upgraded for '1080p' let alone up to 4k, haven't upgraded for 60fps gaming, let alone up to 120fps and those critical of Cloud aren't buying the latest PC Gaming GPU's/CPU's for the 'best' Graphics AND Frame Rates as well as Ray Traced features that consoles can't offer. Budget, preferences and whether or not you can 'justify' the cost for the amount of time you spend gaming will dictate on where you game. Cloud could well be the Entry point, even main choice for some, but for others, only Hardware will do and they'll find the cost regardless!
Re: Microsoft CFO Admits Xbox Revenue Was 'Below Expectations' In FY26 Q2
I think Cloud is 'acceptable' but I have the budget to invest in Hardware and spend enough time gaming to justify spending money on Hardware for a 'better' experience - but appreciate that others, especially 'globally' in a 'global' financial crisis where its getting harder to pay the 'bills' and put food on the table every month, may rely on Cloud and its 'low' entry cost for their Gaming - and that can be on a BIG Screen sat on the Sofa through their XB1S/X, through a Firestick USB plugged into their TV/Monitor etc - it doesn't just have to be hunched up over a tiny mobile screen!!!
Re: Microsoft CFO Admits Xbox Revenue Was 'Below Expectations' In FY26 Q2
@GuyinPA75 And again, that comes down to your preference and your budget - not everyone can justify spending $500+ on Hardware, or even $300+ on the Series S. Cloud isn't just on a mobile phone, its available on a Firestick they can plug into their 1080p TV or use a browser on their Laptop or desktop and monitor, don't need 'Gaming' specific Hardware.
Not everyone can afford (or justify) the cost of Hardware just for a bit better graphics and/or frame rate - that's why there is still a lot playing on last gen Hardware, haven't upgraded to PS5 or Series consoles. They are 'happy' to play the many games that have released on BOTH generations at the 'worst' quality rather than spend $500+ to get the 'best' quality on Console, let alone spend more on a PC to get the 'best' possible Visuall quality and ighest possible frame rates.
You maybe decided that a Series X provides the 'best' bang for buck, best visual quality and performance for the money, but there are others that would rather save $200 and play on a Series S or save even more and play on whatever device they have - inc Xbox One Hardware, not just their mobile.
The Cloud option is better than 'nothing' and better than 'Native' on some hardware. Forza Horizon 5 maybe better to play on Cloud on your XB1 at 60fps, 1080p and higher visual quality settings than the 'Native' XB1S version and Indiana Jones on a Mobile via Cloud maybe better than the Switch version when that releases.
My point still stands is that Cloud is still the 'cheapest' and ENTRY tier into the Modern/current generation of Games. Its a lot more flexible as it lets you play on countless devices - from Handhelds to tablets/laptops to big screen/monitor connected devices all for a 'small' monthly fee. If your budget or time can't justify the 'cost' of dedicated hardware, its a great Entry point and, like I said, doesn't require 'upgrading' to play a 'few' games if you are 'content' to play on last gen consoles as many still do.
Cloud and PC are the areas with the most 'growth' Record PC gamers in their 'Xbox' ecosystem and increasing Streaming Hours over Cloud whilst Xbox Console stats continue to decline.
Cloud certainly isn't 'good enough' for me to be my 'main' way to game, but its better than 'Native' on XB1S in many cases if that's ALL you have to game on, better than spending $$$'s on Hardware if your budget or time won't justify it, better than 'NOTHING' if that's the alternative etc. Kids don't earn money to buy Hardware and unlikely to have a 4k screen in their bedroom so Cloud may be a great option for them as an entry point until they can buy their own hardware.
I play on cloud in my Bedroom on my 55" 1080p TV because its a LOT easier than moving my Series X just to play for 30-60mins occasionally - my XB1X is connected to it. I also play on cloud on my Series X - mostly Indie games as I don't think they are worth downloading and waiting to install when I can jump straight in and play on Cloud on my RoG Xbox Ally X because I want to play 'instantly' and carry on my progression.
Re: Microsoft CFO Admits Xbox Revenue Was 'Below Expectations' In FY26 Q2
@TheGameThrifter Its not failed and its 'growing' in terms of streaming hours.
Of course most 'hardcore/dedicated' gamers with a reasonable income to spend on their Gaming may not choose to Stream as their MAIN option - but their are LOTS still on last gen hardware and can't afford/justify to upgrade fior example and happily play on Cloud as its better than their XB1S 'Native' versions (if it even released on Last gen hardware), lots that will happily play on cloud 'on the go' as the ONLY choice and better than 'nothing' and no doubt some 'Casual gamers' that will be happy to play on cloud - after all its BETTER than playing on Last gen Hardware in a LOT of cases - higher Res and/or Frame Rates and cheaper too. Of course its not up to the same 'standard' as Series S or X, but it's better than XB1S and even XB1X in some cases, better than NOTHING and 'cheaper' than buying Hardware they barely use as 'Casual' gamers.
The vast majority of gamers game on Mobile phones - not Console or PC - that's just the more dedicated gamer. There are approx 3bn gamers and the majority are playing on Mobiles - that's why MS want their games to be playable on Mobile too to reach gamers inc the Mobile/casual market where the Majority of gamers are playing worldwide... I bet China alone has more Mobile gamers than there are Console, cerytainly far more than Series S/X gamers worldwide...
Cloud may not be good enough for you and/or you have the funds to buy Hardware to play games at better quality, but there are still people who game on XB1S and find that 720/30fps blurry, stuttery game more than 'good enough' that they haven't bothered or seen the need to upgrade so Cloud at least lets them play games at higher res/frame rates and/or games not released on their hardware. There are still gamers who game on PS4 too as their main console and haven't upgraded to PS5 yet and that's not 'better' than Cloud in many ways.
Point is, not everyone is that bothered about the 'best' graphics or frame rates, just being able to play and at 'low' cost suits them. Hence they game on Mobiles, on last gen consoles and don't own a 'Current' gen Console or Gaming PC and these are the 'majority' that MS are targeting to play on Cloud as their 'main' choice rather than as a 'supplementary' choice to Console/PC gamers....
Re: Microsoft CFO Admits Xbox Revenue Was 'Below Expectations' In FY26 Q2
@Gabrie PC and Cloud is why the Console is completely unnecessary and sales are so weak. The 'cheapest' way to play Xbox games isn't the Series S, its 'Cloud' and that can be accessed on multiple devices, many of which gamers already own. Its not just 'mobile phones', but TV's/Firesticks, Student/old Laptops etc hardware not built for 'gaming' but can still let you play the latest Xbox releases for a 'small' monthly fee.
PC gamers don't need to spend money on Xbox hardware and a 'subscription' fee just to play games socially, just to unlock online modes/games etc as these are available as standard on their PC. You don't 'need' a very expensive PC to play Xbox games either and can play at 'console' like visual settings and/or similar Frame rates on relatively affordable or 'older' gaming PC rigs. Of course you can also beat any Console (inc PS5 Pro) if your willing and/or able to invest in the Hardware.
Point is, the only people who'll buy an Xbox console is those who either want the Console 'plug and play' experience specifically and/or they have a history of BC games they want to play. Otherwise the PC and/or Cloud offers access to all the Xbox games and different price points to suit any budget and with PC, have a much bigger Library, potentiall to play at much better Frame Rates and/or Graphics, no need to keep paying a subscription 'just' to play with friends and even Game Pass with Day 1 is much cheaper too...
So why buy the Console? Which I assume many are asking themselves and deciding that PC and/or Cloud is the 'better' way for them to go - hence growth whilst Console 'collapses'...
Re: MLB The Show 26 Releases This March, No Sign Of Xbox Game Pass
Well they hope that Xbox gamers are now 'fans' so will buy it so they don't 'miss out' of playing the latest version. They used Game Pass to build up a fanbase and now expect that fanbase to buy after being granted access through their Subscription.
This doesn't impact me though as I wouldn't play it on Game Pass for free so I would never be buying it regardless. I always expected it to be offered for the first few years at most to try and establish a playerbase and then remove the Game Pass option so they have to buy or 'miss out'.
I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers drop drastically as Xbox gamers play one of the older iterations, at least until the newest is on sale - but then I'm often surprised by the fact that annual minor iterations of a sports franchise (MLB, Fifa, Madden etc) sell as well as they do on release with minimal change to the actual game-play loop/mechanics etc
Re: Two Games Have Quietly Been Cancelled For Xbox Over The Past Week
@Fiendish-Beaver Not necessarily - Publishers may well consider MS's store if its PC based and don't have to port to console and supoort a Console build post launch too.
It could work out better for MS as they are a 'big' PC platform along with Steam, Epic, GoG etc and its not 'just' the PCXbox customer base that would/could buy that version as any PC gamer could - unlike the few million only that can buy an Xbox Console version and would require its own port too.
As far as costs go, it wouldn't cost them anymore than it would cost to release on Steam for example, even any post launch support (DLC, Patches/updates etc) wouldn't incur additional costs as its the same 'PC' build so they have more incentive and a LOT LESS to lose.
Re: Two Games Have Quietly Been Cancelled For Xbox Over The Past Week
When console hardware sales are 'weak' and it costs money to port and support a game on a Platform, if they don't believe it will sell enough, not enough 'interest/hype' etc to sell enough copies to be profitable, then it makes sense to cancel.
A 'lot' of Xbox customers are now on PC anyway as PC gamers don't need to buy an Xbox console to play Xbox games Day/Date, to play via Game Pass etc so their console is not required or wanted - hence 'low' sales figures. From the publishers perspective, they also probably can't compete with Game Pass so feel that sales will be minimal on the Xbox Console and not worth the 'cost' and project a big loss if they do spend the time/money on porting/supporting on that hardware.
Re: Clockwork Revolution Dev Talks Choice & Consequence In Its Upcoming Steampunk RPG
@OldGamer999 All that means to me is that don't need to 'rush' and/or release it before its ready to release. There are plenty of games - more than enough to release their '1 per quarter' they were promising as a minimum for Game Pass and it doesn't 'need' to release in 2026 to give Microsoft (or us Gamers) a decent year of releases - Just go back to 2022 and see compare that year.
The only aspect that does kind of annoy is the fact they annnounced it (and others like State of Decay 3, Fable etc) quite a while ago and it still seems no closer to releasing whilst other games have come and gone whilst we are waiting for even some 'news'.
If it doesn't arrive in 2026, which seems like it could be quite a stacked year anyway with Fable, Halo, Gears, Forza, CoD etc, 2027 could be equally stacked too - which is what we should expect and want from a BIG Publisher with MANY Studio's - I'd rather they released a BIG game every 2-3 months than release a lot of games in a few months then nothing for 6months+ and especially if that also takes the pressure off to release and the opportunity to ensure its as polished and ready as it can be when it does release.
With the games we 'expect' this year, as much as I am intrerested and looking forward to Clockwork Revolution, I don't think I will be bored, disappointed or waiting impatiently for something to play...
Re: Xbox Studios Boss Shares Update On Progress For State Of Decay 3
See a lot more through this year to release 'next' year as this year will be stacked with Fable, Gears, Halo, Forza etc so I doubt they'll be 'pressured' to rush to release this year...
Re: Xbox Exec Explains Why Some Games Are 'Day One' For PS5, And Others Aren't
And I bet some of it comes down to the costs incurred during development as Fable has been in development a LONG time and they need to recoup that cost as quickly as possible so release EVERYWHERE where as Forza 6 hasn't taken as long and also FH5 released recently on PS5 so they can be a bit more relaxed on the release.
Lets be honest, Fable will likely be played by a LOT of people via Game Pass so they won't make that much in terms of Sales revenue to recover those costs on Xbox/PC. By releasing on PS5 simultaneously, that will boost sales figures and revenue immediately and start recouping that investment.
Personally I have NO issue with ALL Xbox games releasing Day/Date on ALL hardware - it won't affect where or how I choose to play their games. If/when I do decide to buy, I'm also much more likely to purchase through a Microsoft store so I get 'Play Anywhere' to be able to play on either my Xbox Console or PC's (inc RoG Ally and gaming Laptop) seemlessly with my progression across both platforms - although I'm much more likely to play via Game Pass initially anyway and again, my progress across all the Platforms (Cloud, Console and PC) is important and another big reason I'd only consider 'buying' where my 'Save' and progress is.
Re: Poll: How Would You Grade 2026's Xbox Developer Direct?
The Format itself is great, but Fable was the only game I was really interested in seeing and actually exceeded expectations - considering the IP's history and the fact its being made by a different development team.
Forza Horizon 6 did look good, but also didn't surprise. It seems like a typical sequel with typical game-play loop just in a new/different setting. I don't feel like I needed to watch this to know what the game would be, what it would offer etc. Of course that's not necessarily a 'bad' thing when Horizon is arguably the 'best' racing games series on the market right now but I had hoped they had surprised me with 'something' that freshened up the Game-play loop.
The other two games I have zero interest inn and won't even bother trying for 'Free' on Game Pass. If it wasn't for Playground Games, then this would have been a complete wast of my time, but I gave it a 'C' on the strength of Fable alone as FH6 was pretyy much predictable (but that isn't 'bad' in this case)
Re: Microsoft Is Hosting A Huge 'Buy One, Get Two Free' Sale Featuring Lots Of Xbox Indies
@ElectricWizard Whilst it may seem like a 'good' deal, in general these deals often end up seeming like you should have waited a week or two as they go on sale individually and work out cheaper to have bought them that way.
They may only be about £15-£20 for '3' games, but they'll likely be on sale for less than £4 each so you could buy 4-5 games for that price if they follow the 'normal' pattern for these type of deals.
Even if that doesn't happen 'this' time, I wonder if many will expect that to happen as that is what has happened frequently - the Games are often much cheaper when sold individually on Sale - assuming you can even find '3' games you actuially want rather than picking a '3rd' you don't care about just to get the deal. That's another way these deals don't tend to 'appeal' to that many because they only want 1 or 2 games and those 1 or 2 will also be on sale for a LOT less in the very near future.
Of course its a great deal compared to buying them 'new' and paying the full price at that time, but compared to the price they are often sold for individually in sales, this format (Buy 1 get 2 Free) often is the more expensive way and/or makes people buy more games than they want (or will actually play) just to get the deal...
Re: Ubisoft Cancels Multiple Games, Closes Studios, And Unveils New Strategy For The Future
@OldGamer999 The difference is with Sony and Nintendo is that they make money from selling 3rd Party (inc Ubisoft) games on THEIR platform. Ubisoft would only take 70% of the sale price and have all the costs to cover whilst Sony/Nintendo/MS take 30% as retailer and platform holder.
Nintendo and Sony can 'afford' to invest more time/money into projects as they get 100% of the sale price as they also are retailer and platform holder and of course have the safety ne of those 3rd Party sales through their store.
Ubisoft would need to sell a LOT more games to recuperate the same costs than Sony/Nintendo because they receive less money per sale back. If they don't think they'll sell enough copies to recuperate costs, it's often better to cancel than keep ploughing money into something that will end up being a big loss. With Sony/Nintendo, they don't need to sell as many and even if they don't get the sales they expect, can offset those losses with some of the money they receive from sales of 3rd Party games/DLC etc through their store, sales of Hardware/Peripherals (inc Controllers), sales of Subscriptions and PS+ is 'required' for some 3rd Party games - so not only are they making money from sales of those 3rd Party games but also from the Subscription required to play them too...
That's why you can't really compare what Sony or Nintendo do compared to those Publishers that ONLY make games to sell on others Platforms...
Re: Xbox Play Anywhere Is Convincing People To Buy Their Multiplatform Games On Xbox
@Fiendish-Beaver I'm kind of in the same boat - except I don't have a Gaming PC hooked up to my TV and I am much more likely to game outside of my house IF I end up in Hospital again (not unlikely as I almost ended up being rushed in a few weeks ago...)
However, I am 'sometimes' confined to the bedroom and have a Gaming Laptop and RoG Ally for that situation - I also have my XB1X and PS4 Pro connected to the Bedroom TV, but the vast majority of my gaming is done on the big screen TV on a Console in the lounge and Play Anywhere is great for those odd times when I can't game on the TV and certainly don't want to have to buy games for my PC's (handheld/Laptop) or have to rely on Streaming to my XB1X.
I have Game Pass Ultimate and Play Anywhere games so I can play at no extra cost on my PC's if/when the circumstances dictate. I can carry on playing the games I want to play even if I can't use the TV/Consoles in the lounge. Play Anywhere lets me play games not on Game Pass PC and natively too. Saves me having to buy a game 'twice'.
Take Indiana or Doom for example, it doesn't matter if I can't play on my Series X on the Big Screen because I'm in Hospital or unable to use my TV in the lounge, I can play on my Laptop or Handheld natively in Bed, continue 'seemlessly' and earn achievements. Games like CoD too are playable on my RoG Ally, but aren't on a Steamdeck because of Anti-cheat requirements.
So between Game Pass Ultimate and Play Anywhere, I don't need to spend ANY money on games for a Handheld or any PC for those 'few' occasions I have no/little choice on where I game. I can carry on playing the games I want or would be playing if I could play on my Console. If I owned a Switch/Steamdeck, then I'd also have to buy 'games' and in most cases, they wouldn't allow me to continue my progress.
I much prefer the Console experience in general, the ease of use, the plug/play nature etc, but with Microsoft likely to 'merge' their Console and PC platforms much more in the future - their next Hardware seems like it will be a 'Windows PC' in a Console like box - Game Pass Ultimate and Play Anywhere have added value to me as they work well with my Windows Handheld/Laptop as well as my Series X enabling me to play 'seemlessly' whereever I end up having to play....
Re: Xbox Play Anywhere Is Convincing People To Buy Their Multiplatform Games On Xbox
@Fiendish-Beaver If you have a decent gaming PC, the you probably don't game on an Xbox - or if you do, its most likely legacy titles that you already own. All the games are released on PC anyway so your 'Main' platform is most likely steam - although Steamdeck is somewhat more limited than a Handheld PC and certain games won't be playable at all on it.
However, if your MAIN gaming Platform is Xbox - certainly for the Big Screen experience, then Play Anywhere is far better than buying on Steam or buying without Play Anywhere, maybe even better than buying on PS5 if you also own that because the added benefit of being able to play on ANY PC - not just a Handheld and not just the 'near' future, but long term, adds more value to the package. You might not have a decent gaming PC today, but maybe invest in one or choose to buy a Handhald PC in the near future and you already have a few games...
Of course if you already have a Gaming PC and Steamdeck, then chances are you'll buy it on Steam as its your 'main' Platform - but if you also game on Xbox too, then it may make more sense to buy on Xbox and Play on BOTH your PC and Console without having to buy it twice and your progress, achievements, friends etc is seemlessly synced across both platforms too.
As someone who 'mostly' games on Xbox as it's my 'Big Screen' gaming platform of choice - not a Gaming PC Rig, but also own Handheld and Laptop Gaming PC's, I'm much more likely to buy it on Xbox now - even if it is a bit more expensive, because of Play Anywhere that enables me to play this seemlessly on my 'preferred' hardware and continue progress. It may also let me Stream it to many other devices (Stream your own game) so basically playable on ALL hardware (except Switch/Playstation/Steamdeck).
Imagine having a Series S/X in the Bedroom/lounge, a Gaming PC set-up in the Office and a Handheld PC/Laptop for on the go - wherever you choose or happen to be, you can play your game on your 'preferred' hardware....
Re: Talking Point: Xbox Series X|S Owners, How's Your Storage Looking In 2026?
I have a 5TB HDD plugged into my Series X for all my XB1 and older games that don't require SSD storage to run. I also have a 1TB and 2TB Expansion card and use them a bit like like Compilation Cartridges - swapping between them depending on what games I want to jump into and my Internal Storage is about 80/90% full and that's for the current Games I play at least Daily.
Re: Poll: Ahead Of Developer Direct 2026, Which Is Your Favourite Fable Game On Xbox?
I've played Fable 1-3 and of those, I did think the 2nd was the best of the trilogy.
Re: Talking Point: How Do You Feel About Xbox Game Pass In 2026?
Still on Game Pass Ultimate and still taken advantage of the fact I game on multiple Systems and get extra Reward points as a result too.
I mainly use Game Pass to play close to, if not on release and still end up buying the few 'Play Anywhere' games when they crop up in sales at a decent price point. I recently purchased both Doom: TDA & Indiana Jones despite being able to play on Game Pass on my PC, Series X and various Cloud enabled devices.
I still like the fact though that I can play Day 1 (or anytime I want) at no extra cost, play or even at least try games via Cloud wherever I want - my Xbox Ally X is great to play games anywhere and don't have to wait for it download and install, just to try a game - also with a 1080p small display, streaming visuals are much more acceptable than on a 4k Large screen TV to me. So having the 'best' streaming Quality is very useful to me too as I can play numerous games I wouldn't 'bother' waiting hours to download to 'try'...
Re: Two Xbox Game Studios Titles Will Compete For The Same Outstanding Visuals Award At VES 2026
Doom, as also DF stated, is arguably the 'best' visually and runs flawlessly at a high frame rate on consoles (inc the Series S) with Ray Traced Global Illumination as standard. That, from a technical perspective as well, should be taken into consideration but then Visuals alone can be subjective.
I don't like certain artstyles that others will highly rate, maybe even be convinced they are 'Game of the Year' worthy so I can never predict the winners. I do think though that Visuals should be considered in 'motion', how 'fluid/smooth' they are as well as how good they look in a single frame. Visuals should be the way the game looks when you are 'playing', not how good it can look in a 'single' frame/photo mode in my opinion.
Re: Talking Point: As Xbox Celebrates 25 Years, What's Your First Ever Xbox Memory?
Halo: CE was the reason I bought an OG Xbox and my earliest memories are seeing and reading about it a Games magazines before Xbox and Halo released. I was caught up in the pre-release hype and must admit, it didn't disappoint me...
Re: Call Of Duty On Switch 2 Looks Imminent As 'Nintendo' Files Appear In COD App
@BacklogBrad Well its not all 'Competitive' and there is more Casual and co-operative modes nowadays than actual competitive PvP.
Both Campaign/End-Game and Zombies can be played Solo or co-operatively but have no 'competitive' mode. Even Warzone has Casual BR/Resurgence with mostly Bots and it only really gets competitive in the final stages as the final few squads/players are left to 'compete' for the win.
Multi-player is really the only mode where you can argue that it is 'competitive' - but considering some can play on Mobiles via Streaming or on last gen Hardware with frame drops below 60 and much 'blurrier' visual presentation, whilst modern consoles offer upto 120fps with VRR and of course potentially PC gamers too, there is such a diverse range of Hardware, input devices, displays etc that there is always someone with more of an advantage/disadvantage than others. Some may not even set their TV up optimally for gaming, prefering the 'look' and options of Movie mode so end up with far more input lag/latency so its not just about the hardware the game is running on...
Until its 'officially' revealed and/or they give us details on what exactly they are releasing, their targets (60fps or 30fps for example) and /or content (Warzone, Black Ops 7, both?), we don't know how 'competitive' it will be to play on that system...
Re: Call Of Duty On Switch 2 Looks Imminent As 'Nintendo' Files Appear In COD App
Well they signed a document to bring CoD to Nintendo - it was only a question of When. Of course I won't be playing it on Switch 2 as I don't own one and my 'portable' handset of choice is a PC. With Play Anywhere as well as Game Pass, It wouldn't make sense to 'buy' on Switch 2 just to play 'on the go'
Re: Rumour: Ninja Theory's 'Project: Mara' Was Just A Concept, Hellblade 3 Could Be Their Next Game
I'd hope NOT. I've started both Hellblade games and whilst I do appreciate they are more 'experiences' to demonstrate what living with Psychosis is like, how those voices keep 'talking' and react to the situations Senua finds herself in, as 'Games', they are exceptionally dull and uninspiring that I cannot bring myself to return to try and finish...
I'd rather have an upgraded or reboot of Enslaved - but I really don't want another 'Mental Health' experience designed around its Audio and 'graphical' immersion but game-play is purely tokenistic to 'feed' the Audio reaction
Re: Is It Worth Buying An Xbox One In 2026?
I stil have my Project Scorpio XB1, my Gears XB1S and a XB1X - but I haven't used or even switched any on for at least 4yrs. I personally couldn't recommend a console that is no longer being manufactured, even if it is still usable/functional. I know you can stream games (like Indiana Jones or Starfield for example) if you have Game Pass and they aren't released for your Hardware, but if you are 'buying' a Console, a Series S is the much better option and I'd recommend that over ANY XB1 hardware.
If you want the 'best of the best', then PC is the way to go. MS has their own 'Xbox' Platform on PC and of course you also have access to Steam, GoG etc. You can also build a PC that easily beats any current-gen Console and with DLSS, run games at much higher graphical settings and frame rates. You'll also be set for the future as MS will continue to support their PC platform after the XB1 is 'dead'.
Buying a Series S/X in 2026 isn't something I'd recommend unless its suits your budget and existing game library - as in you already own a decent collection of Xbox Console games and/or a Game Pass subscription. Its already over 5yrs old and not cheap either. I've had 1000's of hours of use out of mine over those years but I also paid 'less' for a Day 1 release console and don't expect it to be around for that much longer - a year or two more before it to is 'discontinued' (from Manufacturing).
Each to their own of course, but I really don't understand why people would consider an XB1 in 2026 when you don't even need a Series console....
Re: Report: Xbox Working On 'Major Updates' To PC App For Next Console's Dashboard
Makes sense - Microsoft have multiple 'Physical' Platforms (Console AND PC) and it makes much more sense to 'merge' them into one if possible to save having to spend all that time and money porting, optimising, supporting etc the game at least twice.
MS started by making Games for their Windows PC platform first, but as Gaming PC's and the 3D GPU market was extremely expensive, PC games were very 'niche' and not mainstream - so MS felt they had to build a 'PC' like box at a 'low' cost to bring their Games to a 'Mass' market.
25yrs later, PC's and Consoles are not that different in Price - in fact you can buy PC's that run modern games at 'Console' like settings for less money than the 'Premium' Consoles and with Streaming, don't need Hardware at all to play games. Obviously some gamers will prefer to 'buy' hardware for certain standard of graphical or performance settings, but cost of Hardware is NOT a barrier to playing, just like cost of software isn't a barrier anymore with Sub services...
I know most here will be Gamers that expect or want a certain 'standard' of gaming quality so 'Hardware' will likely be required, but I expect a LOT will likely play on hardware they have, happy to access via Cloud. There are still gamers who game on 'last' gen Hardware, content with Last gen Hardware Graphics/Performance and/or access games not released on their hardware natively via Cloud.
Of course the more they can optimise Windows, which is designed for multi-tasking and running multiple 'Apps' simultaneously, to being better for running a Single Game/App as easily and as 'conveniently' as Console, the better too - but most crucial is enabling their Console library to play seemlessly on PC for complete BC
Re: Xbox Reporter Teases What Might Be Shown At Developer Direct, Including A Potential Surprise
Lets be honest, we know that MS has more than just Halo, Gears, Forza and Fable - despite Cancellations and studio closures they could 'surprise' us with.
Clockwork Revolution, Blade, State of Decay 3 etc have all been revealed/announced and we could hear about or even see 'Project Mara' (or whatever Ninja Theorys next project is called).
We also know they are working with Toys for Bob and Kojima too so several options we could be surprised by from 3rd Parties too.
Re: Two Xbox Game Pass Titles Lead The Way In Eurogamer's Best Games Of 2025
@Decoy_Snake Regardless - they were both still offered Day/Date on Game Pass for ALL subscribers. Its not just 'first' party releases that you get 'Day 1' or just 'Xbox' published but those are often cited as the main draw, the reason to sub to Game Pass ignoring all the other releases - some of which are 'Game of the Year' nominee's/winners that also add to the 'value' of the service.
As for 'wins' for Xbox, I don't think they are claiming it as wins for Microsoft, more wins for the service itself and/or customers of that service. The fact is that two of of the 'best' and/or highest critically awarded games were both on Game Pass Day/Date is a 'win' for that service and customers of it and that's the point...
Re: Talking Point: How Much Would You Be Willing To Spend On The Next Xbox Console?
I don't have a minimum or a maximum budget in mind for ANY Hsrdware - it really depends on specs, how it compares and competes with alternatives and/or whether or not I actually want, require etc to enable me to play the games, access the content etc I want or already own.
The reason I bought 'Consoles' in the 90's, after being a 'Home Computer' gamer throughout the 80's, was purely down to Cost vs continuing to game on 'PC's' as the GPU minefield and costs were escalating. It made more sense to spend a few hundred on 'Simple' Plug and Play Hardware and, for several generations, the 'Bang for buck' favoured Console Hardware.
Now, with MOST games also playable 'Everywhere' as most are Multi-platform (or end up on PC eventually), I can't say that I will buy a 'Console' again if it also requires a Subscription just to play the vast majority of games I want to play. I don't think a 'PS5' or 'Series X' cost around £500 to play ALL the games they advertise, all the games in their Store/Library etc and can cost another £500+ over the lifetime just to play Battlefield, CoD, GTAO or many of the biggest games/IP's you buy hardware to play.
Therefore I may decide not to buy another Console - even if it is 'cheap' - because the additiional costs (due to Subsidised Hardware) are 'high' and/or will add-up over time. But if MS build a 'PC' Console that not only competes with other Gaming PC builds on the Market (cost/spec etc), but also isn't Subsidised so is over £1k and/or more expensive than a PS6, it could well be the 'best' hardware choice for me - I just won't know until we have the information to actually assess and make an 'informed' choice. I chose to buy a RoG Xbox Ally 'X' - even though I own an OG RoG Ally as well as a Gaming Laptop and despite its 'cost', it was the 'best' value Handheld PC with those Specs. Others cost more...
Until its specs, costs and how those compete with the alternatives at the time, even whether I need to buy Hardware (or can continue on current Hardware, maybe even Cloud is more viable as infrastructure improves etc), I don't have a 'minimum/maximum' budget I'd be willing to pay
Re: Talking Point: If You Were Releasing A Game, Which Month Of The Year Would You Pick?
Depends the Game, genre, competition etc etc. I don't believe there is a 'perfect' time for ANY game - sometimes you have to be lucky to release at the right time and others, it maybe doesn't matter what you do, how much time, effort, planning, marketing etc, you can also be unlucky too.
There is so much 'outside' your own control, so many other Publishers, Devs etc or even just the 'rapidly' changing market itself can dictate how successful or not your game maybe. For example, you get lucky and release a new 'Live Service' game at the right time and suddenly everyone is playing it or the market decides its one live service game to far and decide to boycott it regardless of how good/bad it is - release a week or two earlier and it may have been a very different story...
Sometimes I think you just have to release and, if the game is as polished and complete as possible, hope that Gamers want to embrace it regardles of the 1000's of other Games (new, old/sale, backlog etc) that are competing for their time and money.
Re: Poll: How Many Xbox Games Have You Actually Bought In 2025?
I bought all my games this year Digitally and/or those with Play Anywhere - at least 2 or 3 them were/are still on Game Pass. I also 'pre-ordered' a couple of 'Premium' upgrades via Game Pass - either 'complete editions' (with post-release DLC included) or seasonal content as DLC/Season Passes isn't often discounted and there were other cosmetic or bonuses too
I made a conscious decision to move to Digital Only as it offers so much more Flexibility and versatility to me - able to download and play games NATIVELY on both Console and PC platforms (of which I own Handheld and laptop gaming PCs) and having my Library ready to access regardless of the 'type of hardware' matters.
I won't buy a game I can only play on 'one' device unless its dirt cheap, there are so many great games in my backlog, in Sub Services etc (at no extra cost) that I haven't bought a 'new' release at all and every game I have bought, has been because its been on Sale - Games like Robocop & Hogwarts Legacy (each Play Anywhere and less than £10 - that's 2 games for less than 'new' indie, let alone AAA new releases that will be under £10 in a year or so..).
Re: Talking Point: Which Xbox Games Deserved More Love This Year?
I could argue Quite a few, but its also been a Strong year in general and numerous Strong games deserved more love and attention. If you have to reduce the Thousands of releases a year into just a 'top 5/10', or even worse, into just one 'Game' of the year, there are going to be 100's of Strong games that won't get the 'love' or attention they 'deserve' from anothers perspective...
Re: Here Are The Top 10 Xbox Games Of 2025 According To Metacritic
Quite a few on Game Pass too - I've enjoyed the year of Games and to be honest, some of the games that 'critics' may have rated quite highly were not as enjoyable or even in my top 10 games of the year. Doom: TDA was one of my favourite and most enjoyed games of the year.
Aggregated scores can also be a bit misleading when comparing 'games' as they are NOT aggregating Scores from the exact same reviewers/sources and vary in quantity too. Some games may only get 10 reviews compared to 80+ with some others, how they score (5pt, 10pt, 100pt system) too affects the conversion and how each 'source/reviewer' scales it - a perfectly good 'average' game maybe an '8/10' with one set/source of reviewers and their 'guidelines' for scoring, with another, it could be as low as '6/10' because they want to be able to show a game has gone above 'average' in more areas for example...
Re: Microsoft Says It's 'Incorrect' That Xbox Division Is Now Targeting 30% Profit Margins
I'm sure that no business can 'target' a specific Profit margin and expect to hit that with 'every' product/release. Some may well reach or even exceed a 30% profit, but there are also likely to be those that fall below the 30% profit and of course areas within Xbox that likely make NO profit at all but are required.
Backwards Compatibility is arguably a LOW, (if Any) profit endeavour - after all, its just letting you play games you bought 'years' ago instead of spending time/money on new products. I doubt that would or could operate at a 30% profit margin, but cancelling would likely be more detrimental in other areas.
No doubt, like ANY business, they are NOT going to provide Products (games, Hardware, peripherals etc), Services (Game Pass, apps/websites etc) or Support without making 'money', without trying to be 'profitable'. Supply and demand dictates profitability more than a Company can - all they can do is put their product on the market and hope demand is high enough to sell enough to cover the costs.
You can say you want to target a '30%' profit margin for example, but that's not something in their control - like targeting a 30 or even 60fps frame rate in THEIR product. The Market and public are not under their control and cannot predict or expect results.
Re: Talking Point: Will Any Of Xbox's 2026 Releases Become GOTY Contenders Next Year?
Clockwork Revolution has perhaps the highest probability of winning but I think we could see a number of games being nominated and/or winning in some of the many other categories - like best Racing Game - FH6 for example... Of course I there are many of actual Awards as well as numerous big Publications etc nominating and awarding Games so if they don't win Geoff Keighleys or IGN's Game of the Year, they may win BAFTA's GotY instead...
Re: Blizzard President: Microsoft Expects High Standards, But We Feel 'Valued' In The Xbox Portfolio
@IronCrow86 As owners of the IP's, the Publishing Rights etc, from the moment MS took over, ALL ABK revenue - inc WoW Sales/Subs, sales of ALL their released games (prior to acquisition) etc are all 'delivering' for Microsoft.
Take a game like Black Ops 2 for example, an old game, not on Game Pass and released prior to the MS takeover - if you buy it or any of the DLC (inc Zombie Chronicles) as it is playable via BC today, its generating revenue for Microsoft. Every time someone spends 'money' on ANY ABK product/service, that's 'delivering' revenue to MS whether it was released/published prior to merging or not. Every time those old games sell, its delivering revenue to MS.
Diablo IV and its DLC, Overwatch 2 and its DLC/MTX, all those subscribers to WoW since the takeover etc are 'delivering' revenue for Microsoft - their 'legacy' products are paying back that investment.
Of course 'new' games and even giving away the legacy games on Game Pass maybe what the Gamers are hoping get 'delivered' to them, but its not as if MS 'needs' to push WoW to Console or to drop ABK Legacy games into Game Pass to start 'generating' revenue.
The second MS took over ABK, they took over ownership of IP's, Publishing rights etc so from Day 1, the Legacy content has been 'delivering' revenue to MS. Doesn't matter what Product or service, all that money goes to MS now. Buy Crash Bandicoot N-sane trilogy on PS5 'today', a big chunk of that goes to Microsoft, Sub to WoW today on PC, that's money to MS so those 'legacy' games, products, services etc are delivering - don't forget that MS own Battlenet too now as well.
Re: Talking Point: How Much Time Have You Spent Gaming On Xbox Consoles This Year?
Xbox Series X is certainly my main platform of choice with PC (primarily the Handhelds - like the Xbox Ally X or OG RoG Ally, but occasionally my laptop) are a 'distant' 2nd for those few occasions when I can't access the TV. My PS5 has become more a 'exclusive' only box and I let my PS+ lapse, so I find myself using it the least now.
My main 'ecosystem' is very much Xbox and whilst I do access that 'mostly' through the Series X that I've had since launch, I think that my PC and even Cloud use has increased. I was 100% a 'console' gamer only (Xbox and PS5) but over the course of this generation, my PS5 usage has declined the most and I've bought gaming PC hardware to access 'Xbox' primarily - often when I can't use the TV (therefore the Consoles). So my 'console' usage is perhaps down, but my Xbox Platform usage across multiple devices is up this year.
Re: Black Ops 7 Was The Best-Selling Game In November, But Battlefield 6 Remains Top For 2025 (US)
@Fishmasterflex96 From Jan 5th - Nov 29th, BO6 was the 8th biggest selling game in the US whilst BO7 was the 7th. So in 2025, it has 'outsold' what BO6 sold since Jan 5th in just 2weeks.
It was the best selling game in just those 2 weeks in November (in the US) than every other game on the market - many of which were available for the entire 'month' for people to buy.
Sales (in the US) is just one of the avenues of revenue and BO7 is also available on Game Pass, which is available on 2 of 3 platforms it released on. So of course Sales are 'hurt' by those choosing not to 'buy' but still play on GP.
So to top Novembers Sales chart and jump straight in at 7th, the ONLY new entry to make it into the top 30 in the month of November, to biggest 'selling' games in the US in just 2weeks is not a 'flop' or as much as a disaster as all the negativity and hate its received would like to believe. It may not be the 'biggest' sales in CoD history, but I'll doubt you'll ever beat the record now its on a Sub Service Day 1 regardless.
It can still be very successful and extremely profitable over its lifetime, even if it doesn't break records. The big difference between BO7 and MW3 is that MW3 had very little competition and a lot of Carry Forward to bulk out the 'weak' MW3 content - that Campaign was far worse than BO7's too but over the year, that was a 'success' and remembered more favourably than its predecessor...
Its still the 7th best selling game of the year in just 2 weeks - outselling ALL (but 6) games released and/or available to purchase since Jan 5th. That hass outsold all the games realeased by Microsoft, Sony etc this year and there were many BIG successful AAA games that didn't make the top 30 despite being available for months. So that's hardly a Flop or Disaster
Re: Black Ops 7 Was The Best-Selling Game In November, But Battlefield 6 Remains Top For 2025 (US)
@Fishmasterflex96 It's certainly down on last year, but lets be real, the game released literally 2 weeks and a few days and despite all the negativity and the fact that its also available on PC/Xbox hardware via Game Pass (which affects sales - especially 'early' sales), and with very STRONG competition for once (Arc Raiders as well as Battlefield), its still managed to the 7th 'biggest' selling game of 2025.
Outselling some of the biggest releases of the year 'critically' or maybe amongst certain gaming groups that ignore the fact they are so 'small' in comparison to the 'Gaming' market to realise that is still not a 'flop' or a 'Disaster' - it can still have a bigger install base due to all those using Game Pass to play for example so still making a LOT of money on Seasonal Bundles, Events, Passes etc.
There are 3 'long' running Sport IPs, BF6, B4 and MH (Big IP's in themselves) that outsold BO7 since the beginning of the year - all also on the market for longer and Game Pass too has a big impact on Sales on 2 of the 3 platforms its available on.
Of course it could be better - but the year isn't over yet, there is another whole month of Data to collect so you'll need to wait unil mid-Jan at the earliest to get a year 'view' but its already ahead of BO6 (which is still ahead of the vast majority of other games - despite it too being on Game Pass) and many that 'Gamers' will say where their or were actual Game of the Year 'winners' - so commercially more 'successful' in Sales terms than ALL but 6 other games in just over 2 weeks of sales.
That's not being 'defensive' or 'deflecting' - that's stating the obvious fact that despite all the negativity and the Game Pass 'robbing' Sales situation, its still managed to be the 7th 'best selling' game in just over 2 weeks as it only released mid-November.
As I said, in many comments, BF6 is the best BF game in years and the BF game that Fans should want, should buy because its the best since BF3/4 era which BF fans have been wanting since those. Its no surprise to see it doing well, but it had two weeks of sales in November alone before it 'competed' with BO7 and unlike CoD, far more people have to buy to play as Game Pass is far more popular and widespread than EA's Day 1 Sub Service on PC.
but the TLDR is that BO7 managed to outsell tthousands of other games in just 2 weeks so not a 'Disaster'
Re: Black Ops 7 Was The Best-Selling Game In November, But Battlefield 6 Remains Top For 2025 (US)
BF6 has been out longer and also not available 'free' on Game Pass so its likely to have sold more - especially as its returned to the 'Battlefield' experience that fans have wanted for a decade or more.
Black Ops 7, considering the amount of negativity despite the fact that it is the 'biggest' and arguably 'best' Launch package in years , the fact its 'free' on Game Pass and the amount of 'Hate' I see aimed at this, is still selling. It had only been out less than a month yet has already in the top 10 best selling games. I notice that quite a few of the Award winning games aren't even in the top 30 best selling for the year.
Re: Rumour: COD 2027 Will Be A New Sub-Series With 'Completely New Characters' On Xbox
Personally I think an Arcade style FPS, even if it has a 'military' setting, should keep away from historical events. I don't think these shouldbe made light of with Arcade style fun Action etc.
If you base something on 'reality' - particularly dark or tragic events where thousands died in reality, then make it as 'realistic' as possible, to show the real 'horror', the reality of that situation etc. I really do think it is wrong to portray 'real' wars as some fun 'Arcade' action where death/injury is just minor set-backs.