BAMozzy

In such a dynamic industry, plans are always Subject to Change regardless. It makes no difference what they could say today, tomorrows situation/circumstance will force plans to change.

It may not be their own making, take the RAM shortages for example or the Pandemic a few years back, those situations forced 'changes' to Plans made. The Pandemic for example would have affected the plans around release schedules, the events (like E3) etc and maybe the RAM shortage has changed plans over Hardware and/or Pricing.

You cannot expect something to remain 'true' indefinitely so what maybe was true for the situation/circumstances yesterday could be different today and very different tomorrow. In the easiest way, they can 'plan' to release a game in June, and yesterday, everything was still on course to release in June, but then something happens today that now causes them to change their plans, change what was stated and now plan to release in say September, but tomorrow they have to change their plans again due to something else impacting on the Plan.

As for Exclusives, they could say that 'some' will be Exclusive (others won't like Minecraft, CoD or Doom for example) but then that doesn't sell enough Consoles or Subs so they have to release this on other platforms or risk losing so much money, risk closing Studios and/or selling IP's just to break even etc.

In a very Dynamic industry, future plans will ALWAYS be subject to change. Companies will 'try' and be reactive, although not easy with such long development schedules and changing trends - just ask Sony who went 'all-in' on Live Service a few years - that was their 'Plan', that's what they communicated they would be delivering yet those plans changed.

Xbox 'Console' as a separate MS Platform from 'Windows PC' may already be dead - the next may well be a fixed spec Windows PC in a Console like box designed to sit under a TV and be used primarily with a Controller - but its still a Windows PC and plays ALL Windows PC games (inc those sold by Steam or Epic) and so Devs don't need to port to yet another platform - they can just build their PC version and the default settings are 'optimised' for the fixed spec of the Xbox PC for simplicity. It would be better and cheaper for Devs - inc MS who currently have to build every game for multiple platforms - even if 'Exclusive' to just their own Ecosystem - adding more cost and time to its development.

None of their 'big' IPs - like Gears or Halo ever need to release on PS Day 1 - even if the older titles are remastered and do release Simultaneously. Those OLD games are not selling Hardware or Subscriptions and a LOT of Xbox gamers aren't buying yet another 'remake' so why not sell EVERYWHERE day 1 to cover costs and bring in Revenue that keeps Xbox as one of the biggest Games publishers in the world, ahead of Sony and Nintendo, as a rival to TenCent...

@kmtrain83 That isn't capitalism - capitalism is the system of Exclusives and forcing consumers to buy their Products/services or 'miss out' entirely, locking them into that 1 platform/ecosystem so that Company can 'exploit' the Consumer, have a monopoly in its store etc.

I grew up in the 70's - when every console would have its Pac-man or variation on Space Invaders. I was playing Donkey Kong on a BBC Micro B before Sega or Nintendo 'Consoles' existed. During the rise of Sega and Nintendo, I was too old for a 'kids' gaming device, Computers (Sinclair, Commodore, Amstrad etc) was more for teens/adults. Playstation made Consoles 'acceptable' for teens and young Adults whilst Nintendo/Sega were still seen as being for the 'young' kids.

I know that Sega and Nintendo basically started that Capitalistic way of Games in order to get you to buy 'their' hardware and then you are locked in to their Hardware. You could only buy/play the games Nintendo or Sega made, the only games they would allow and Nintendo would censor some things - like Mortal Kombat for example.

Its capitalist to have Exclusives to make you buy their Hardware so you then have to buy their Subs to unlock Content/Features, have a Monopoly Storefront etc for their 'Profit' over Consumer choice/freedom, control what Consumers can 'buy/play/see' on their Hardware...

I have NO issue with those Publishers releasing their games on other Platforms to SELL, I have more issue when they choose not to so Gamers/consumers have no choice but to buy their Hardware or miss out entirely.

@kmtrain83 That just means you have a preference - which may well be the 'ease' of which you can play a Nintendo game on Nintendo Hardware compared to how easy it is to play it on a PC via 'other means'.

I'm more for giving gamers the freedom to choose. I think it would be far better if EVERY gamer had the option to play a game like Tears of the Kingdom on whatever Hardware they would prefer to play it on legally, freedom to use whatever hardware they want/have using whatever control method they prefer etc. If they want to play on a 'Sony' Playstation with a Sony Controller, that should be an option.

I'd much prefer a world where you can buy ANY game for whatever Hardware you prefer to play that game on and you bought Hardware because it suited your preference, budget etc - not because it was the ONLY option to play that game. You should buy hardware because of its Unique Selling Point (such as its a Handheld that docks to a TV, the UI, the Services, the Controller, the aesthetics, the Specs etc) and then not 'miss out' on games because all games are multi-platform.

If you 'prefer' to play Tears of the Kingdom on a Hybrid Handheld and that's Nintendo's USP, that's your choice, your preference but someone else may prefer or want to play on their Xbox or Playstation, don't want to have to buy a Switch just for that game so miss out on playing it because they aren't willing to spend that much money just to play that 1 game.

Unless you are doing something 'illegal', which I assume playing Tears of the Kingdom without purchasing a Valid/legal licence to play on PC would likely be, then whatever 'choice' you made, where ever your 'preference' to play lies would never make you the 'bad' guy.

@Doomcrow And not one of those quotes are saying Games don't sell Consoles.

If Starfield had been an 11/10, Playstation gamers aren't trading in their PS5 to jump to Xbox, aren't selling their entire library of Playstation games (inc their PS4 games), aren't losing all those Digital games they can't trade, leaving their Friends, their Trophies and all that digital history they now have to start from scratch on Xbox because of 1 game.

That's also the point he was making with the other quotes you mention. People have history and accumulated a lot of Digital Content. They also have friends and trophies going back generations now that gamers aren't going to throw away just because Microsoft are now making 'more' games thanks to the acquisition of Bethesda.

That 'digital' history is going to outweigh anything that Microsoft does. They aren't throwing away generations worth of history and that includes all the Friends they've made, Trophies they've earned, all the Digital games (inc the 'Free PS+' games) they've accumulated etc to 'start' fresh and have to start building up their own Digital libraries, Achievements etc on a new platform.

It doesn't matter what Microsoft does, they aren't suddenly going to catch up to Playstation or Switch numbers in Console sales. Doesn't matter if EVERY game they release is an 11/10, they'll never be able to replace all that History and libraries the other Consoles have built up over the decades. Sony still has Spider-Man, Bloodborne, Uncharted, Last of Us, God of War etc so New gamers will still buy Playstation over Xbox because they have more history, and Nintendo has even more - which is why Xbox can't 'out console' those.

None of that states that Games don't sell Consoles - at best its saying that their games won't suddenly see the Xbox Hardware selling so many units that they'll not only catch up with Sony/Nintendo Hardware sales figures but overtake them, that their games won't suddenly see sales of Sony/Nintendo Hardware 'stop' as their gamers trade them in to buy Xbox hardware.

Its 'obvious' really but then if you cherry pick some quotes and misuse them for your own agenda, to suit your own argument rather than that of the person/company who said them, that's incredibly unfair - especially as those aren't here to correct your misinformation...

@kmtrain83 The reason I bought ANY Console was because it had Games I really wanted to play and had little/no choice but to buy that hardware or miss out.

If Halo: CE was not 'exclusive' on the OG Xbox, I don't know that I'd have bought an Xbox. I left PC gaming when gaes like SM64, ISS64 etc were only on N64 and on a device that cost less than a decent 3D Graphics card that would be required to play '3D' games. It was 'exclusives' and the fact that they were releasing on relatively cheap hardware that made me buy those Consoles but it ALWAYS annoyed me that I had to buy several Consoles just to play the few 'exclusives' that released every year that appealed - the Majority of games were multi-platform.

That became even more of an annoyance when you had to pay a Subscription fee to unlock the full range of games and modes offered. I had no interest in 'Gold' during the OG Xbox era, but the 360 era was when Online Social gaming really took off and it became 'essential' and now there are some games you can't play at all - even Solo/Single Player modes - without a Sub. Owning multiple Consoles, each requiring a Sub adds up. Buying a PS5 and Series X, paying for both PS+ Essential and Game Pass Core for maybe a dozen or so 'Exclusives' is ridiculous. The money I've spent on Hardware and the Sub fees over 5yrs+ is more than a high end gaming PC would have cost and PC's have a significantly higher Library as well as offer better Graphics/Performance than a Console can. Consoles aren't that cheap anymore. My £2k PC wouldn't play 'Doom' or Tomb Raider without buying a 3D Graphics Card so I switched to Consoles as they cost less than £300. Now a Console priced PC can play the latest games at console like specs with a bigger library and Online Social Gaming isn't locked behind a sub paywall.

I don't care about Hardware - I'd rather buy a single device that enables me to play EVERY new release. PC's also let me play with a Controller too these days and with more storefronts, no monopolies on digital purchases. The ONLY point of Exclusives is to force the gamer to buy that Hardware, lock them into buying from that 1 storefront and paying a Sub fee for all the Content/features.

Xbox Console hasn't had 'Exclusives' for a decade - so PC Gamers don't need or want to buy weaker hardware for the 'few' Xbox games they maybe bought an Xbox for in the past and the Casual gamer may not need to buy hardware at all, happy to play via cloud on their XB1 (or other existing hardware/devices) so the Console isn't that 'popular' compared to Consoles that are using Exclusives to make you buy that hardware specifically.

I've never cared about the brand on the box, I've only cared about the Games and its the Games (like Halo, Gears, Fable, Forza etc) that made me buy an Xbox Console, not the Hardware - same with Nintendo or Sony Hardware too. Exclusives stop Hardware from 'competing' like different brands of TVs, Mobile Phones, Bluray Players etc...

Games are what matter most to Gamers - get that right and Gamers will come to you. If you churn out 'slop' whether AI or Human created, you'll lose whatever trust and gamers you had. That also goes for all the IP's owned by MS - they may well be a strength now, but they could easily destroy their reputation and lose their Loyal fanbase if they don't treat them with the respect they deserve.

If they want to have a successful gaming business, then they need to ensure that their games are not 'slop', that they are games that gamers want to play and that the games are complete, well made and don't try and milk the gamer for every penny they have.

I personally don't care if AI is used in some capacity in the development of games and 'AI Slop' in a game in my opinion is a Human failure as a Human decided to use that 'slop' in their game. Its a tool, not a 'developer' - a human has to use that tool and a human also decides to put AI (or Human) Slop in their game. If a game has any 'Slop', that's down to a Human, down to the Human developer that put that slop in their game, didn't check it to see if it was of the standard required/expected regardless of who made it...

@GamerScore200K @Globo Couldn't agree more with @Globo - the reason we still have Xbox today is because of Phil Spencers management because after Don Mattrick, Microsoft were very very close to pulling out of the Gaming business altogether. If Phil 'failed', Xbox would have died.

However, under Phil Spencer, they've massively increased their Studio count and IP portfolio, made Backwards Compatibility an 'industry' Standard we all now expect (don't forget the XB1 and PS4 both launched with NO BC) and made Xbox available basically 'everywhere' - whether you 'like' that or not. The only gaming Hardware its not 'readily' available on is Sony and Nintendo hardware - but its available on Every PC (not just gaming ones), Mobile and even some TV's etc. You can even play games like Starfield or Indiana Jones on your old XB1 consoles so don't need to upgrade. Xbox is now significantly bigger, with significantly more staff employed in just making games and pushed Microsoft to be one of the 'biggest' Gaming companies in the world - bigger than Sony and Nintendo.

Of course if you only want to focus on 'Console' Hardware, then of course Xbox isn't as popular as Sony or Nintendo Hardware, but then so many Gamers don't 'need' to buy the Console because they access Xbox on PC where they can play at much higher Graphic settings and/or frame rates - get the 'best' version (better than PS5 Pro too could ever offer) and never have to pay for the ability to play online with Friends and Family. They aren't spending money on 'unnecessary' hardware or sub fees when they have a gaming PC.

Xbox is not just the Console, its the entire Microsoft Gaming division which includes PC and Cloud too. That's also why they were able to buy Bethesda, ABK and all those Studios since 2018 as well as added Mojang under his management. Yes some haven't quite worked out and with the industry in crisis as it has been, some have disappeared (but that's happened with basically every Publisher as Gamers aren't spending the money on Games so haven't got the revenue coming in but costs keep rising - Sony recently shut Bluepoint having closed quite a few studios themselves over the past few years as well)

Point is, if you look at Xbox as a whole, not just a 'small' fraction, Xbox under Phil has grown massively. Their games are generally well received and winning awards - FH5 is one of the best selling games and one of the most popular, it also won best Racing Game too, Indiana Jones and Doom were both nominated and for some people, their game of the year. South of Midnight won awards too and many received great reviews leading to an 80+ Metacritic Score - 8/10 is a Great Game score btw!!!

@kmtrain83 No doubt it will be 'interesting' but its not the first and won't be the last time we see managerial changes. Yes Phil Spencer was in charge for quite some time, but MS and Xbox has had a few changes over the years.

MS has the strongest Portfolio of IP's in their history and also the most Studios and employees they've ever had in the gaming. As has been said, Microsoft Flight Simulator is older than Xbox - they have more years making games than they have gaming hardware. Whilst technology is always advancing, its Games that matter, Games that will sell Hardware (if they continue to make their own - they could licence 3rd Party PC builders to make 'console' styled fixed spec PC Hardware) and Games that will make or break their Gaming division - although selling their games and services (inc Game Pass) on as many Platforms as possible is likely to be more successful than limiting everything to a single Hardware device they alone built.

The more games they sell, the more gamers they have engaging with their products, the more eyes they have in their Games stores, the more revenue they can make, the more successful their gaming division will be. Games are what Gamers want and Gamers will buy and go where the Games they want to play are. MS have strong IPs - much stronger than when they launched ANY of their previous Consoles...

@datamonkey If you are 'pushed' that usually means being paid to leave as soon as possible - taking voluntary redundancy or retirement is where you get 'payouts' for the years of service. Unless they offered her voluntary redundancy, I doubt she'd have been in line for a payout.

@kmtrain83 the 'title' may have changed but the fact is that someone else is being 'promoted' as a replacement to the retiring Phil Spencer instead of Sarah - it doesn't matter what the job title is, they've still promoted Asha into the role that everyone expected Sarah to have taken.

The fact is, everyone thought that Sarah would be the natural successor to Phil and now he is retiring, they've replaced him with Asha - either because Sarah herself has chosen to leave or because they didn't feel Sarah was 'right' for that job and therefore Sarah felt compelled to leave.

I wouldn't say it indicates she was 'pushed' but maybe does indicate that she thought she would get Promoted and when it was clear she wasn't, she decided to leave herself believing its the 'right time' to take the next step.

Nothing indicates she was pushed, having decided to remain on to help with the transition. I think if she had been pushed, she'd have left pretty quickly and certainly wouldn't stay around in any capacity.

She may not have been 'happy' to have missed out on Promotion, but it doesn't seem like she was pushed either. She may believe she was 'ready' for that Challenge and therefore feels that she has to move to get that, doesn't want to remain for another 'decade' or so waiting for another opportunity to arise to step-up another rung of the corporate ladder...

The ONLY thing I care about are the games. I bought an OG Xbox because it was the only place to play Halo and bought subsequent Xbox hardware because it offered the Games I wanted to play and was 'affordable' - same reason I bought Playstations and various Nintendo Consoles.

I couldn't care less if MS doesn't make another Console, as long as I can still play their games, their IP's etc - as long as their Games/IP's remain worth playing that is.

As a 'gamer', the games matter, not the Hardware, not the 'brand' on the hardware. I'd prefer to buy any 'Hardware' and be able to play ALL games, regardless of who published it or what Studio made it. As long as MS focus on the Games first and foremost, they'll have a successful future because gamers will spend their money and time in their products where ever they are playable, where ever they release.

MS has been on a 'decent' run with their releases in recent years. After 2022 when we basically had the most disappointing year for releases, we have seen numerous big releases every year. Gone is the 'MS has no games' meme and its Games that Gamers want, Games that will attract gamers to spend money, Games that will determine if they are successful in the future or not...

To me, that statement is pretty much staying on track with the direction and plans we all expected from MS before this Managerial change. She mentions that Gamers will continue to play across multiple devices and not within the 'limits' of a Single piece of Hardware - and that they want Developers to 'build once' which would indicate they perhaps are going the PC - PC Hybrid format so devs can build for Windows without having to port/build a Console specific version too.

At the end of the Day, Games matter the most and people will go where the games are. The Hardware is more just a means to play the games you want. I expect many MS games will be released on Playstation as well as be playable on many divices thanks to Cloud and of course, PC's too so if they do make their own Hardware, I doubt it will sell like the 360, keep up with the PS6 because Gamers may well choose to play on PC, Cloud or Playstation instead. For MS, you are still engaging with their Product, their Game wherever you choose to play, but anyone expecting MS to make a 'Console' with 'Exclusives' to sell Hardware (like Sony and Nintendo do - and that includes excluding the PC so PC gamers have a reason to buy the Console) will be disappointed.

From my perspective, I care about the Games, many of the IP's that MS owns and not about the 'box' required to play them. As long as I can play the Games I want, when I want and preferably 'Where' I want - that's all that matters. I don't care if they 'screw-up' with the Hardware - I just play on PC's - but as long as they don't screw up the Games and IP's they have, that's all I really care about....

Part of the issue for me was that it felt incredibly dated and looked that way too - the animations, the interactions etc. It looked like they'd taken Fallout 3 and just changed the setting, the characters and clothing style etc but kept the Animations, the structure etc. The fact that it takes place on MANY planets is what killed this for me despite the Combat being improved from the Fallout games.

With Fallout and everything being on one big Open map, it meant I would make my way to an Objective and stumble on other missions/side quests etc but with Starfield sending you to different Planets, wandering and discovery got replaced by Fast Travel and nothing is more tedious and annoying than getting little side missions that send you to different corners of the galaxy to deliver/pick up something only to be sent back to the original planet straight after to 'speak' to the Mission giver and claim rewards. I much prefer EVERYTHING to be possible without having to go through the Tedium of jumping to your ship, then jumping to a planet, do a simple quest only to have to return back to the planet you were on.

The interactions, animations etc too all looked like they were cut/pasted from Fallout which 20 years ago was cutting edge, but with modern RPG's doing interactions, lip synch animations, mission/game structure etc so much better, I hoped Bethesda would have Evolved with the industry, but it seemed like they had success with F3 and been copying that format/style ever since with minor upgrades to polygon counts and increased procedural generated environmental details.

To me, Bethesda need to move to a new Engine and/or evolve their RPG formula as it feels very Stale and dated to me...

I'm somewhere between Not planning to buy it, but you never know and Definitely Not, No interest at all.

GTA4 has basically put me off the Franchise - seemingly forever and I have absolutely zero interest in GTAO. Therefore its the single player campaign that has to convince me its worth buying and better graphics isn't going to convince me to purchase.

GTAv didn't convince me to purchase (I feel like I am the only one, if not 1 of a select few) despite releasing on three Gens of Hardware and a few sales so I doubt that GTA6 will convince me at all, but there is that very small chance we get a 'blue moon'' and all the stars align in a specific way that I do end up buying it at some point - but it won't be at Launch as NO game is worth the Launch Price to me...

Glad I picked up mine at launch...

@Gemini53 But 7th Gen Hardware is no longer Manufactured so basically obsolete and irrelevant for modern games. That doesn't change the fact that for the past 2 generations of Consoles, that Physical Media is nothing but a Distribution device so NO GAMES RUN FROM DISC.

yes you may still own or be able to buy some old hardware and games no longer in print that will run from the Disc, but that is ancient history in gaming terms. For games, like this or the Ubisoft Rayman one, they don't and won't run from Disc regardless - they'll need downloading and installation.

You can of course go back to obsolete Hardware and games - both of which are no longer manufactured so relying on used or at best, unsold items that have been hanging around a warehouse for years. But I don't really consider products that are no longer being made (Hardware or games) as being 'relevant' today - other than for Historical records.

Games released on Last Gen (even though that Hardware is no longer manufactured so not relevant now) and Current Gen both require Downloading and installation so for the past decade, all games released required downloading from a delivery system - whether Physical or Internet and so Physical became (and still is) just a Delivery method as NO GAME RUNS FROM DISC anymore.

@Gemini53 Well then you don't need an Xbox Console at all as you already have Xbox on your PC!!! The whole point of MS joining the Console market was to bring PC games to the mass market with 'affordable' hardware and now PC's can be as affordable as a Console - especially if you look at the 'premium' end of the Console Market.

Therefore, the sole purpose of MS joining the Console market is 'obsolete' - they have an 'entry' tier level with their Cloud Streaming option on whatever hardware you already have - inc last and current gen Consoles so don't even need to upgrade or miss out on games.

This is why its more likely that whatever Hardware comes next, whether its Microsoft built or not, it will have access to other Storefronts - like Steam, Epic etc. The EU laws have concerns about these Companies having a monopoly storefront - which they 'just about' get away with due to having a Physical Disc Drive which gives consumers a bit of choice and competition on pricing - but an ALL-Digital device without access to other Storefronts could be an issue and Physical is JUST a delivery system - NO GAME RUNS FROM DISC!!!

The ONLY people able to buy Physical on Xbox are those that bought the Series X - which is fewer than those that bought the Series S. Not only is the Series X likely to have the 'smallest' numbers of hardware that could buy this game, of those, the majority would likely not be buying this game anyway - I doubt it will sell more than a few million Globally across all platforms in the first few months or so and those that do buy are much more likely to buy digitally these days.

So you have the least amount of Hardware, the least popular media in physical and a game that's not likely to be a 'massive' seller that the cost of manufacturing and distributing Physical media would be more likely to lose money.

Physical is just a distribution method as games don't run from Physical media and haven't done since the 360 era. Every game must be downloaded and installed onto the SSD to actually run - the only reason you have to insert the disc is to confirm you still own a Valid Licence to access the Game stored and running on your SSD. Whether you choose to download from Disc or Internet, you still have to wait for it to be installed and updated (via Internet) to be able to play it anyway. I wouldn't call it Physical 'Media' when unlike CDs, Vinyl, Blurays etc, the game doesn't run/play from that media...

@Gemini53 They haven't strictly confirmed anything, but then no Company has ever confirmed anything priior to launch. Even when they revealed the XB1 the year it actually released, a LOT of the things they said in that reveal were Subject to change and subsequently did - the DRM, Reliance on Kinect, even the CPU spec was 'changed' (bumped up) so nothing is ever Confirmed and/or Subject to change.

That being said, with PC's a Microsoft Windows product, being as cheap as they are, made by multiple companies (Asus, HP, Lenovo, MSi etc) they can always have them make a 'licenced' PC (similar to the Asus Handheld PC) thats designed more to sit under the TV, as a 'fixed spec' device with an AMD APU and of course Microsoft Windows OS rather than build their own 'PC' with Microsoft Windows OS that may not boot to the full Windows but still offer Steam, Epic, GoG etc.

The 'Console' isn't that popular because its NOT required - PC gamers already have Xbox on their PC so aren't buying an inferior Console to play games at more limited frame rates or graphical settings, having to buy 'Game Pass' just to play with friends etc and those with Series S/X consoles may not choose to spend $500+ on a 'new' Console when their Current Console will still let them play EVERY Xbox game - even if they eventually have to rely on Streaming it via Game Pass as it doesn't release on their hardware - but most games for the first few years at least will release across both generations.

Point is, just because they haven't confirmed it, its much more likely than not - due to the fact that PC's (their own Platform too with Microsoft OS powering it) are much cheaper, not locking Social gaming features behind a Subscription Paywall which adds $100's to the price (it maybe $500 for the Hardware, but an additional $400+ over the next 5-6yrs just to play the games you want on that hardware because they require GP Core or PS+ Essential to play) so PC's (inc 3rd Party licensed PC builds) will be available and far more popular than a 'locked' MS Console so MS is unlikely to want to build/sell a 'locked' console - unless its catering to the 'budget' end, the 'entry' hardware tier who will sacrifice versatility and game library for the cheapest, most affordable hardware SKU. Most Gamers though will likely opt for the best Hardware and library capacity they can afford.

They've basically confirmed they'll work with 3rd Parties to make Licenced Hardware so maybe Expect an Asus Xbox PC in a Console style box designed to sit under the TV as well as Lenovo, MSi etc equivalents that msybe aren't licenced but essentially the same Product and OS (like Lenovo Go or MSi Claw are to the Asus RoG Ally handhelds).

MS may not even make their own Hardware, opting for 3rd Party Licensing deals and of course selling Microsoft Windows licences with EVERY PC sold too.

Don't need to spend money Porting it natively to 'Xbox' when Xbox gamers will likely be able to play it on their next Xbox via Steam and as its an old release, likely to be cheaper on sale on Steam than a 'new' release would be on Xbox.

You can play Sony games in the Xbox FSE on Handheld PC's and sits alongside Xbox games - the only difference in reality is the Store you bought from at that point. Yes it may require Steam to load up to run it, as its bought on their Platform, but its still accessible through the Xbox FSE and no doubt will be accessible (via Steam) on Microsofts future Hardware.

@Savex Couldn't agree more - I'd argue that Spider-Man 2 (Activision game) is also a better Spider-Man game. The Insomniac one took a Ubisoft Open World Template and dumped a Spider-man Skin over it - it has Towers you unlock to reveal the map and everything on it, Enemy Bases to defeat waves of Enemies, pointless Collectables and repetitive Side Missions, repeated activities in EVERY region and some banal game-play tropes - quite a few QTE's too that you have to repeat 'multiple' times to progress. Swing some debris into something 3x using QTE's to move the boss fight into the next phase but have to 'dodge' or beat up grunts in between each QTE. Insta-fail Stealth missions too just ruin the pacing and flow - and don't forget the incredibly repetitive 'puzzles' as research.

Each to their own, but I'd rather play Arkham Knight despite the Batmobile missions - let alone the other Arkham games.

@themightyant The problem is that those 'popular' Live Service games have established themselves with a large playerbase that has invested a LOT of time and often money too. They aren't likely to 'jump' to 'clone' that just launched, albeit with some subtle difference that avoids copyright laws, a game that is light on content because it hasn't had 'seasons' of drops, a game that's not that optimised/polished because its not had years of developer tweaks and of course changes based on Community feedback to make it the players most played game.

As for Single player games, the games that most gamers say they really want Devs to focus on - these often have very limited amount of 'time' because Gamers play through them and then move on to something else or return to their 'Live Service' games until the next big Single Player game that appeals to them releases. So of course they can't compete with Live Service on hours or even on post launch monetisation options, ways to make even more money from the game.

Its both the engagement and lack of monetisation options, people aren't buying Cosmetic bundles or in-game Currency if their Character isn't being seen by their Friends online and not replaying a 10hr campaign they've just finished but they are returning to 'Live Service' games - even if they only play an hour a day to complete some Daily Missions, play a few matches with friends etc which soon adds up over the month. They have spent 20hrs in one week on a Single Player game, another 15hrs the following week on a different SP etc and then not touched any again as they've 'finished' them - maybe playing 80hrs that month on SP games, but 50hrs on a single Live service over the whole month and bought a Cosmetic Bundle or new season pass, jumped in and played some event or two for the rewards. Overall spending more time in Single Player games, but none individually that compete with the time spent in just the 1 Live Service game they play...

If you look at 'engagement' only, Live Service games will dominate because they don't have an 'end point' and always can play another match, complete some event etc where as a Single Player game often 'ends' after finishing its Campaign. If you look at monetisation, then Live service again dominates so Publishers will 'ignore' what gamers really want in the hopes that they can 'compete' if not steal players away from other Live Service games.

Doom: TDA was probably my GotY last year, but I had finished it within a week and probably wasn't my most played that month and I'd rather see more releases like Doom: TDA than another Battle Royale clone that's not going to replace the established BR's I play with Friends and have invested time/money. However, Publishers will still see the time/money spent in BR's and force a Dev to try and make their own BR in their own IP or artstyle instead of a Single Player despite the fact that MANY others have tried to make BR games and all Failed as players keep playing their favouritte established and now massive in terms of content BRs which also makes 'new' BRs look incredibly light and very limited by comparison....

@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!

@Darthcuddles90 In your opinion!!!

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....

@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...

@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.