BAMozzy

I've played Fable 1-3 and of those, I did think the 2nd was the best of the trilogy.

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.

@somnambulance Games like Fortnite, CoD etc often feature a diverse range of character models with Disabilities etc and many games these days do allow you to create characters with disability.

Look at Hellblade 2 as a great example of a AAA developed 'experience' that put a bigger emphasis on the Psychosis and dumbed down the 'Game-play' so as more people would actually be able to 'reach' the end and potentially understand what living with Psychosis is really like. However, there are some that think they should have toned down those annoying voices and focussed more on the Game-play element as its sold as 'Game'.

I have no issue with games like HB2 or this existing, that 'some' gamers may benefit from the 'experience', but that doesn't mean that everyone should buy regardless. People will vote for the games they 'WANT' to play with both their Wallet and Engagement.

You could argue HBii was dumbed down to get more 'people' to engage to the end instead of giving up on a Puzzle or Combat sequence and that Psychosis aspect was the 'important' aspect they wanted gamers to experience with the Game-play merely the 'trigger' to the voices.

I wouldn't waste money on something I don't enjoy just because its trying something different, trying to represent those living with Health conditions, disabilities etc- it has to compete on a Game-play level, has to compete with all those thousands of games ANY can choose to buy/play every day. People support the games they 'enjoy' - even if its not that unique, built for a mainstream audience etc.

You might not agree with their 'choice' to support the games THEY want and/or Enjoy. I doubt many will buy a game that has NO appeal, games they don't or won't play, buy just because its unique or 'represents' something. And even if they do 'buy' they aren't going to engage for long, if it all before moving on to something they do enjoy - therefore both Sales and/or Engagement is 'low' which is indicative of how 'niche' or how unappealing the whole 'package' is - and by Package, I mean the Artstyle/graphics, performance, game-play loop, mechanics, Story, Genre etc etc.

@somnambulance Support the games that you want to see more of - Vote with your Wallet. That being said, I vote with both my wallet and/or 'time' engagement on the games I want to play, I want to see created, I want to 'inspire' other Devs with and this has ZERO appeal to me on any level - Game-play, concept, Art-style/Graphics etc.

People will be having some 'fun' if they are 'engaging' with a product. They have chosen to support the Devs that make the type of games they want to spend their time in and if games have little/no appeal - regardless of how 'unique' they maybe, then People are voting they don't want to see games like that.

I won't buy anything, just because its 'unique', it has to at least interest me in some way. Being unique doesn't necessarily make it 'more' fun or enjoyable to play, therefore engagement is impacted. I doubt people will 'engage' with something they don't enjoy/want/like regardless of how 'unique' it is and if the don't 'like' something, why support it? You don't want 'more' games you dislike, you 'vote' with your Wallet and/or your Engagement time.

If games aren't successful, they are either too niche in their appeal or that the thousands and thousands of other Video games are far more interesting, fun etc, that gamers 'vote' with their Wallet, vote with their 'Engagement' (as in the 'Games' they choose to spend their time playing).

I would say Kojima is a AAA developer who creates 'unique' ideas and doesn't chase trends - so its not just about being 'unique', its about creating 'unique' ideas that resonate with their audience, not creating something different just for the sake of it or to 'appeal' to a very 'niche' market. If anything 'resonates' with people, then it can inspire other Devs...

It makes sense to offer it now with the Holiday season and a lot of industries shutting down over the festive period. A Lot of people may well have the opprtunity to play a range of games.

I doubt it will be for existing customers - some of whom had already benefitted from introductory offers and/or exploited loopholes all whilst also getting all the benefits of Game Pass. Its not as if they are being 'introduced' to Game Pass for the first time with a 'trial' offer to see if you like the service.

Either its 'worth' it to you or not depending on individual preferences, budgets, gaming time etc so it will be 'great' value to some or very expensive to another. Trying it yourself maybe the only way to assess if its 'right' for you/your situation.

@smoreon I don't know about 'rights' and/or them changing significantly between generations, I think its more down to Hardware design and Software. The games for XB1 would likely still be Licenced for XB1 and thinks its running on XB1.

However, I do think that we have seen a 'decline' in 3rd Party Licences - particularly 'popular' music. You go back to the 360 era, so many games had famous pop songs licenced in their game and Car games from the XB1 era are 'delisted' after their licences expire - whilst still playable to those that 'bought'.

There is a difference between Backwards Compatibility and selling 'old' gen games to 'new' customers. For example, Forza Horizon 2 maybe BC on Series console to those that bought the game, but if you 'missed out' or bought Physically on 360 but own Digital only hardware, its not available to you at all due to those Car Licences expiring.

Its 'Possible' that with some form of emulatiion ALL games could run if they think they are running 'natively' on the Hardware they were built for, but its no point checking them and verifying them as 'safe' if its just for the 'few' that still own a copy they bought a decade+ ago, they can't sell it in their store for 'new' gamers to experience, can't put it in Game Pass etc because of licences and 'profiting' from anothers IP.

I think the mindset changed more than the Licencing laws or usage. During the XB1 era, as that Console was flopping hard and with 'few' studios to make games, BC was introduced and we've seen a LOT less '3rd party' Licences - AI too may well be involved in that - creating art, music, etc. Both Sony and MS designed their Hardware to switch between a BC mode which runs like their former hardware and current gen mode.

Backwards Compatibility was a mindset change for Console Manufacturers who also want to sell you new gen versions of their 'Old' games. Go back to the start of the XB1 era, even if you bought BF4, CoD Ghosts, AC4 etc on XB360, if you upgraded to XB1, you had to rebuy - but increasing Digital sales and fear of losing customers on a 'reset' changed mindsets during that era - so less 3rd Party Licences (unless 'expected/crucial' like Sports teams, Car Brands etc), Hardware designed to run like previous Hardware and users with big Digital Libraries etc that would be lost with a Hard Reset have driven that change.

@smoreon The recent approach to BC on Consoles - as in PS4 to PS5 and XB1 to Series was by design at the Hardware Level as well as the Software (OS/API's) to run previous gen Hardware at the same or better quality.

That's quite a different task when jumping from 'Bespoke' Hardware to a wide range of PC hardware - even if you can use or at least update the 'Software' to run the games properly. You need the OS/API to 'interface' between the game code and hardware effectively. Xbox games may well be coded to use Hardware features or Specific areas of the Console (Custom APU and/or RAM for example) that whilst maybe 'compatible' with PC isn't registering as compatible so needs 'Software' to handle things like that - but maybe they have to 'emulate' something in GPU/CPU that takes up too much resources for certain PC builds...

Its not as simple to bring games forward when you swap from Console to PC, from Bespoke designed Hardware/Software etc to something that has to work for everyone, not just gamers. You can design your Hardware and its OS a specific way to run exactly like a previous gen Console, build in upscaling and auto HDR video Hardware etc - or go for a 'clean' break if you want to as well and then remake or find some way to bring some games forward...

I hope they fnd a way to 'emulate' their Series Hardware/OS etc for PC and that can play EVERY game the Series S/X can inc those on BC. I'd hope more for the 'X' so you'd get all the 'X' upgrades - including those XB1X.

However, the code may send the Audio to an Audio Processor built into a Consoles chip, where as on PC, that maybe processed by GPU or CPU so that may not work as expected - unless they come up with a solution.

Its a 'difficult' one because MS don't own the rights, licences etc to a LOT of those games and people purchased a Licence to play on 'Specific' Hardware. You bought a licence to play 'Mass Effect' on Xbox 360, not PC or other platforms. Its an EA/Bioware game so MS has no 'right' to bring that game forward or even sell it without EA's permission. Its not an 'Xbox' game, its an EA game.

Licences also may well limit BC - its not worth renewing some Licences if the game isn't selling anymore to recoup that investment - 3rd Party music, branding (like Ford, Ferrari etc) won't let you sell their IP's and not get money and therefore those games may not be brought forward...

Halo Infinite was 'better' than I expected after the showing before it was due to be released and then subsequently delayed for a year and arguably the best 'Campaign' that 343i had developed. Of course it didn't live up to expectations and certainly a long way from those set by its initial 'in-engine' reveal but from a purely game-play perspective, I thought the campaign was fun and more interesting than previous 343i games but I also think it was set-up for additional Story DLC.

The fact that they never added more to the story now does make that 'weaker' because it led to 'expectation' that was never met. However, in that first week when I completed everything in the Campaign, I thought it was setting up something that would 'expand' over time and it felt like 343i had actually played and was inspired by Bungies 'Halo:CE'. But it seems Campaigns are secondary to the MP now as 'engagement' and post-launch MTX money making schemes is the priority to Publishers and Campaigns are beginning to feel 'tacked' on like many MP's were during the OG and 360 era as Online and the opportunity to make additional money made Publishers switch priorities...

I couldn't care less about the MP - It was the Campaign, the story etc that appealed and made me buy an Xbox to play it - the tacked on MP was just to sell 'Gold' Subs and too floaty and spongey for my preference.

A Lot of Halo MP fans though weren't 'unhappy' with the MP mode itself, more the lack of post-release content, features etc to keep up with the demand. Things like Forge not being there at launch 'hurt' as that limited Content, instead players burned through what they had and frustrated 343i weren't bringing more content quickly enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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