BAMozzy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have the Original, the 10th Anniversary edition and the MCC so I don't think I'll bother buying it again - at least not until its on sale and under £10, if not less than £5 for a game that's essentially 25yrs old now - even if it has yet another fresh coat of pain and some expanded story missions which to me would be the only bit I should be paying for. I'd pay £5 to upgrade my MCC Halo:CE to this version - which is about 10% of the cost of what a full brand new game built from scratch should cost imo.

I must agree a lot with the sentiment behind this.

We as Gamers care about the Games first and foremost. Its Games that brought us into Xbox - not the Hardware, not the fact its owned or published by 'Microsoft' or the organisation structure 'above' the Studios that make the games. The Developers are far more important than the idiots above them who don't play games, take home massive salaries and only see those games as 'product'

Without Studios, you don't have products to sell anyway, don't have products to bring people into your ecosystem and with fewer products to sell and less reason to be on 'Xbox' specifically, the future is looking worse and worse for the future of Xbox. The gamer can go to Playstation or PC for example to buy and play games and that includes all the games from those Studios MS let go - if they survive.

There was a point when the narrative was Xbox had 'no' games and then we saw investment into games - which made the future look 'strong' for Xbox, that if they could get through this 'tough' moment, they'd have the IP's and the Studio's to capitalise, to bring the gamers into their Platform but its looking like they'll only have a few IP's as Exclusive and maybe will end up either selling their Gaming division or just becoming a 3rd Party publisher because their Hardware won't sell 'enough' units with barely any Exclusives and relying on the likes of Forza, Gears and/or Halo to sell that Hardware is part of the reason XB1 and Series X didn't compete with Sony. It took far too long for those Studios to release games to bring people in to Xbox. Most gamers had already bought their 'next gen' Hardware and Playstation had the games from Day 1.

Point is, you need games at the start of a generation to bring Gamers in and without Studios making games, you have far less games to entice gamers - even if that 1 game isn't a 'big' seller, it maybe enough to bring some people in who also buy other games through the store - thus contributing to the revenue - but without those games, will go where the majority of 'exclusives' release and know that they can play a 'few' MS games that may release there at some point...

Its so frustrating when you see or hear how much people like Satya Nadella is making a year and yet they can't afford to keep their studios that actually make the Products that sell to the Consumer open. I wonder how many millions of dollars in bonuses etc he'll make this year???

Never like it - It felt like it should have been a new IP but they had no faith in making a Pirate game so pushed AC into it to sell. I never liked the ship combat and the main character didn't feel like he was part of the guild of Assassins or would belong to it.

I'd started losing interest in AC after they tried to put unnecessary features like MP into the AC2 direct Sequels and by AC4, that was the game that just about killed my interest in the Franchise until Origins brought me back. Odyssey almost killed it with some design choices - inc the ship combat again. In any case, I won't be buying AC4 or going back to the OG via BC.

@kmtrain83 I know - but if you are playing a Microsoft game made by a Microsoft Studio you are still 'engaged' with a Microsoft product regardless of whether or not you don't think of it as a MS product - same with Blade too.

You can of course decide where you want to 'engage' and whether or not that is on a Microsoft Console, bought from a Microsoft store etc or prefer to play elsewhere.

My point was more that they are culling a lot of the reasons you may choose to engage via their Hardware, buy from their store and/or even require their Sub fee to play games online with friends - all of which also would count to their 1bn engagement if you are using their Software, Hardware or Sub service to play Games.

If you choose to only engage with their Software on PC or PS for example, the fewer games they release, the less likely you'll be engaging 'frequently' let alone daily compared to someone who's switching on their Xbox everyday to play games.

I was trying to say that with fewer studios and fewer IP's, there is less reason to 'engage' with Microsoft or buy Microsoft Hardware as their games are all on PC anyway and a lot of the others will be on PS too so you won't be engaging with their hardware, Store or Sub services and I doubt you'll play their software every day to 'engage' with their products.

@carlos82 It's not just about the hardware and if you are using Candy Crush, Minecraft, Call of Duty etc on your Playstation, PC and/or Mobile phones, you are still 'engaged' with a Microsoft gaming product. Obviously the revenue stream would be better if you are engaging on their Hardware as you'd likely also buy through their store and/or require Game Pass Core at least to play with friends - even with 3rd Party Games.

But if the vast majority choose not to buy the next Xbox, opt to play the 'few' Xbox games they have left after culling all those studios on PC/PS, whilst you are engaging with a MS product, their revenue is significantly lower - especially if you choose to wait for sales too, their revenue won't be maximised. They aren't getting money for the Hardware, for the sales through their store, for the Subscription to play online, for the peripherals (extra/spare controllers, headset) etc and certainly lost reach/engagement with a MS product/service. Buying/playing 3rd Party on a MS console is still engagement with a MS product and likely requires Game Pass Core, a MS service too which would be 'lost' if you choose to play the few 1st Party games elsewhere.

I find that more difficult o believe when Microsoft culls the Studios and the IPs that they had with those studio's. Without games to bring the people in, without the IP's that people use to engage with an Xbox product, It seems less likely than before.

At this point, I doubt I'll be buying an Xbox Helix as I'll use that money to invest in my PC and maybe will buy the PS6 for Exclusives. 3rd Party PC Software won't necessarily be 'bought' through he MS store or played on a 'Xbox' product that 'used' to. Its not just the 'few' MS games, but their Store, their hardware etc too that 'contributes' to their reach and engagement. If you are buying and playing games, inc 3rd Party, on their hardware, that's 'reach' but buy them on Steam, PS6 etc, the 'only' reach they may have is the 'limited' first party software you may choose to buy/play.

Playing on PC or PS for example, also means that their revenue is significantly lower - you don't need Game Pass Core to play with friends, not buying 3rd Party through their Store so they don't get their '30%' cut and obviously not buying their hardware either - plenty of great Alternatives to an Xbox controller for PC too if you prefer that layout....

Without the 'first party' software to bring people in to your ecosystem, then how do you expect to reach 1bn gamers per day - I guess Candy Crush, Minecraft and CoD will have a LOT of daily users even if most aren't on MS hardware using them...

@Mr-Cage It wasn't just covid, its the way the world went crazy coming out of the pandemic that was 'unpredictable' and is ultimately what is hurting the gaming industry - not just because Leisure suffers in economically difficult times, but also the fact that its tech based and the need for tech for both defence and attack has driven demand and costs.

Coming out of the Pandemic, Gaming was in a strong position and Publishers were investing in gaming. That's why we saw MS acquire Bethesda and announce buying ABK, but then Russia invaded Ukraine so that entire market got shut off and Fuel/energy costs rose. As that conflict has dragged on, the need for silicon, RAM, AI etc for drones and missiles has pushed prices up as well as other conflicts and trade 'wars'.

Whilst prices as gone up - especially as Studios rely on 'energy' to develop games, the market has shrunk due to sanctions/conflicts closing off areas and limiting reach/sales and the markets that remain have a lot less 'disposable' income to buy 'new' releases. They are opting to be very selective over what games they do buy and gamers have their Backlog, Free to Play (Sub games as well as Fortnite, Roblox, Warzone, Apex etc) and 1000's of cheap 'sale' games inc older gen games thanks to BC. Therefore revenue to cover the cost of those 'new' releases has dropped significantly.

Its not just AI for leisure, but AI for military defence, RAM too is required for Military defence equipment as is silicon chips etc etc

No-one predicted that the world would go this crazy coming out of the Pandemic and most predicted that gaming would either return to 'pre-pandemic' levels or be stronger as those who discovered gaming during the Lockdowns would carry on gaming after. No-one predicted that the market would shrink due to conflicts and those would have a big impact on Energy costs on a global scale which not only leaves gamers with less money to spend but also increased the costs to make games too significantly.

I know we try and escape the real world with gaming, but the real world has had a big and very negative impact on our favourite hobby.

@Mr-Cage And don't forget, you can multiply that management structure by 3 as each of the major Publisher they acquired (Bethesda and Activision) also had their own Managers for each department - like HR, Payroll, Advertising, Social Media, hospitality etc etc.

I don't really think they are targeting the right areas myself although I don't really know how they are structured - but you also have managers of Xbox who don't really use their own Products or services and the one thing that a gaming company 'needs' is games.

You can argue about how those studios were managed and how financially successful they were - considering that they also sacrificed 'sales' in favour of ongoing Subscription fees to 'pay' for those games as they were being made - but at the end of the day, its the Studios that make the games, its the studios that make the Products that Gamers want and if you reduce the amount of products you are offering, then gamers won't want to buy the Hardware. They don't 'need' to buy a Microsoft box, whether that's a Series console or 'Helix' - because ALL the games are on PC and a lot on Playstation too. It makes more sense for PC gamers to buy a Playstation or Switch for Exclusives and play everything else on their PC. It makes more sense to buy or play Xbox games - like CoD, Forza, Gears, Halo etc on PC too because PC doesn't charge you to play with friends online and you won't lose access to your Games you've paid for just because you decide to cancel Game Pass Core. Most PS exclusives are Single Player anyway so maybe don't need to pay for PS+ Essential to keep playing the games you own.

When the people at the top of MS are on massive salaries with big bonuses they are looking to keep regardless, not willing to take a pay-cut or not receive their bonuses and pay rises - Satya Nadellas Salary alone is ridiculous and enough to keep several studio's open and these also don't really use their own 'gaming' products - its just financial and a way to extract money from Consumers, people that would rather invest in AI and Data centres, rather have AI 'staff' so their salaries will go up and up as the human staff count drops lower and lower, I'd think it makes far more sense to not become attached to a 'specific' brand of Hardware but to be prepared to jump ship, to maybe invest in a PC as its an 'Open' platform and has the biggest gaming library of all or even stick with what you have and vote with your wallets - not buy any 'new' release and wait for sales - unless you want to support an independent Studio...

I think probably the OG Xbox but it could be the 360 too as I bought a lot of games for both those platforms and none were Digital. If I had to guess, I'd say it was the OG Xbox but I bought a similar amount for both.

I started off with buying Physical on XB1 too but I also started to buy more and more games Digitally in sales as it was far more convenient to browse the Digital store for games on sale. In fact I stopped going to Stores or browsing Online stores for Physical games on sale and replaced those all with Digital. That was where my Digital purchases started to replace the Physical so i doubt my XB1 Physical library is as large as my OG or 360 Physical games just because it was a mixture of both.

I don't have many 'Physical' Series Xbox games at all by comparison and most of my games are Play Anywhere which I wouldn't get if I bought Physical. As discs became just a delivery method, just the key to unlock the software you have to download and install on to your hardware even if its fully delivered on disc, the advantages of Digital have outweighed the Physical for me.

I have over 320k points so far and very occasionally spend then for Xbox Credit to buy a game or two.

@NeoRatt Whilst I disagree about the fact that Music, Movies and Books are now Digital Only, I do agree that Discs are complete inadequate for gaming in the modern era - a big difference from CD's, DVD's, Blurays etc with other media.

If you want to listen to music or watch a film from a disc, you put the disc in the appropriate hardware and the content plays directly from disc. There is no waiting for something to install, no downloading or internet access required and it fits on the media - the media is more than adequate in capacity.

When it comes to modern games - games since the PS4/XB1 generation, Games have required downloading and installation to the Hardware to run because the Disc is too slow, not able to play the games directly. With games now designed around SSDs and their Data Transfer speeds, the disc is ONLY required to deliver the software in the first instance and from that point on, ONLY to prove you still own that 'Physical' bit of plastic - the game (whether it was supplied in full or not) on the disc is 'obsolete'.

They could sell you a tiny piece of plastic with just the Licence embedded in it so you have something 'Physical' to sell, something Physical for your money, something Physical you have to put in a slot to prove you still have the Key to access software downloaded on to your Hardware, software that otherwise won't play until you do put the key in the slot.

Discs these days are also not Adequate as a Delivery method - particularly on Xbox as they have the more limited capacity version of the Bluray system compared to Sony, but even those are not adequate for games 100GB or more in size - that's why you see games with internet required to download 'some' content.

So in essence I do agree that Discs are not going to last in gaming as they are not adequate for actually playing games - you don't play games from disc and the ONLY reason you need to keep putting that disc in every time you want to play is to prove you still own that Physical bit of plastic, not because the game is on it and/or runs from it, its simply to unlock access to the software on your Hardware. Its also inadequate as a delivery method too as games exceed its capacity...

@EVIL-C there is a big difference between a phone and games - although there is a similarity that you can own the 'physical' item, but doesn't mean you OWN the software on it. So you can own the plastic disc, just like you can own the phone, but you don't own the software.

As I said, the ONLY advantage to Physical is that the 'licence' you purchased to access the software can be sold, traded or loaned to a friend. Its more that you've purchased a 'Physical' key to access the Game, the software that you want to play.

The misinformation is not just about some misguided thought about what they purchased and/or own, Its other things too like preservation or using 'delisting' as an example of them taking away a game from you when that's no different from stopping manufacturing so NO ONE can now buy it - but existing owners still get to 'play'.

If you still want to own a Physical licence key, that's different from thinking you own the game - you own 'access' to software. But the fact is that discs themselves are nothing but a 'plastic key' you have to insert into your hardware to unlock access to software installed and stored on it.

When you buy a phone, you also purchase a licence for the 'software' but you don't buy the software. That Phone has many functions and useful because of the software installed on it but a disc is basically a plastic 'key' to unlock the software on your Console and not adequate as a 'distribution' method for that software - getting it to the 'customer' who purchased a key to access it.

They could literally send out a tiny piece of plastic with your licence key embedded in it that you need to put into a little slot to prove you bought and still own that bit of plastic to access software on your Hardware. It doesn't need to be a 'disc' or a disc drive -just a slot and cheap plastic 'key' - but if they did that, the people who are crying over Physical would still be upset because the software isn't included on that bit of plastic. They still own something 'Physical' though...

Discs are pretty much obsolete for gaming and its just an unnecessary expense for both customer and company.

Games don't run from disc because discs are too slow - that's why you need to install the games onto your SSD Storage on your hardware because it has the required Data Transfer speeds for modern gaming. That makes them just a delivery method to get the Software from the Publisher to the Customers Hardware so they can Access it via the licence they purchased.

Discs are barely adequate as a delivery method today as the size of games has increased beyond the capacity of the Disc - this is why we see games requiring some downloads from the internet during installation. You can't fit a 120GB game on a disc so you have to split the delivery between disc and internet anyway.

The ONLY advantage of discs today is that you can sell/trade the licence that's embedded on it - sell your 'key' to access the software to recuperate some of your costs or lend it to a friend to play because that 'license' isn't locked to your digital account like a Digitally purchased licence is.

As for MS clinging on to an antiquated format that is worse than Sonys Bluray which they helped develop with Panasonic, the PC (which is also a Microsoft OS powered Box with Direct X APIs and their Platform too) and Series S are Digital Only and the Series X is their 'smallest' market. The Series S outsold the Series X so the majority of their games are sold Digitally and lets not forget that Game Pass owners access the digital store version too. Most (if not all) MS Physical games require access to the internet to download some of the game because its not supplied on the disc.

MS too aren't going to fund all the Physical media costs, the manufacturer and distribution to a shrinking market just to pacify the vocal minority making noise and spreading misinformation about 'ownership' when they are buying a 'license' to access the software owned by the Publisher/developer and never read the small print. They'll drop physical too - but at least will try and find away to bring your 'legacy' Physical games forward by converting your Physical Licence into a Digital licence in some way.

Physical has pretty much been obsolete for years - only hanging on because the sales made sense to keep the cost of production and cost to put a disc drive into a console but games haven't played from a disc for several generations and don't have the capacity to deliver the whole game on plastic coaster.

Games have required downloading and installation to the Hardware since the XB1/PS4 generation. You haven't been able to buy a game, put the disc in the console and load straight into the game because the Disc Drive is too slow for modern gaming. It doesn't have the required data transfer speed - hence you have to install to the Internal SSD. Discs too also have limited capacity so you often have to download some of the software from the internet.

The ONLY reason you need to put the disc in the drive is to prove you still own it, to unlock access to the software you have downloaded and installed on your hardware - the game is on your system, runs from your system but you need a plastic key to access it.

The only advantage that Physical offers is the ability to sell that license, sell your plastic key to access the game so someone else can use it to play - but whether you buy Digitally or buy Physically, the game still has to be downloaded and installed on your hardware before you can play it because games require faster data transfer speeds than discs provide - hence the SSD's in modern Consoles.

Basically the disc drive adds a LOT of cost to hardware for the consumer and its really just for delivering games to your hardware, a slot to put the license key into so you can unlock the game on your SSD, a way to play your 'legacy' physical media

I've been saying for years the disc and disc drive is 'obsolete' for gaming - its not adequate for playing games as data transfer speed is too slow for modern games and not even adequate for delivering games as games are exceeding the capacity of those discs - you have to download some of it from the internet anyway so its basically obsolete for modern gaming.

I get that people want the option to sell/trade in their license to recuperate some of their costs back to invest in maybe other games - but from a 'gaming' perspective, its not even adequate as a delivery system to get the software onto your SSD to run.

It will also reduce the cost of hardware and enable gamers to access their digital library on Handheld systems too without having to buy games multiple times. Sony have a rumoured Playstation Handheld in development too so your PS digital games will likely be available to download and play on that but your Physical games will be locked to PS5 as PS6 will likely be All-digital - similar to Play Anywhere on Xbox where digital purchases work on my RoG Ally as well as my Series X but Physical games would only work on a Series X - not a Series S or PC.

It may well be the 'rage' right now, but so many of these are and you'll see a lot of Social Media Streamers also jumping in which inflates the figures. then after a week or two, it's 'hype' phase is over almost as quickly as it arrived as all the streamers that jumped on as the hype phase arrived, left and moved on or back to their regular content.

I can't imagine it getting better as the demand will only increase - not necessarily for gaming hardware or AI, but so many devices will require chips, RAM and some solid state storage which will increase the demand for the raw materials to manufacture.

Factor in the rising cost of shipping, so the cost of buying the components and shipping them to the factory to be installed in their Console hardware will only increase. The fuel to distribute 'physical' product around the world adds to that cost and then gets multiplied up and up the more steps in the chain as each adds their percentage profit margins on top.

The fact is that even a Series S, the weakest 'current' gen hardware on the market, isn't cheap, risen in price since its launch and that's designed for 1080-1440p displays, not 4k premium displays. That was designed as the 'mass market' hardware, the modern equivalent of the ~$300 Xbox One/PS4 level hardware where as PS5 and Series X were the ~$500 'Premium' 4k tier hardware and yet all of these haven't become 'cheaper' over time as you'd expect with ageing technology.

With the current prices of PS5 Pro and Series X, there is no way MS and Sony could sell a higher spec device with more RAM, more capable CPU/GPU and at least the equivalent Storage for the same price or less. Their new hardware will cost more and as their old hardware has risen in price fairly recently, that indicates that they won't be able to build their next Hardware cheaper.

Whether people will buy or not will likely depend on whether or not it fits in with their budget and how much they 'value' what it offers over their current hardware. Just like many probably didn't upgrade from their last gen hardware as many new games also released on that gen Hardware, or didn't upgrade to Pro/X versions of Hardware as the cheaper hardware suited their budget and requirements better, you may be content to stick with your current Xbox/PS5 hardware because the games you want to play are still releasing on that hardware too...

I'm not buying - the last GTA I actually liked was GTA3 and its spin-offs. I hated 4 and that put me off completely and so I never bought 5 and have zero interest in 6 - besides I won't pay that much for ANY game regardless and these don't tend to go on sale either.

Pre-order my Series X to arrive Day 1 so paid launch price for a Brand New Console - I don't know what that was in $'s but as the UK includes Tax where as the US prices didn't, it would seem like a higher price if I converted the UK price tax to $'s and compared that to the US price without tax...

Whilst job losses are never a 'good' thing, maybe Fanboys will stop attacking their direct rival as the entire industry, inc the big third Party Publishers that don't have their own hardware, have all cut staff, closed studios, cancelled games in development, reduced their size and development costs to be in the 'best position' for their long term survival.

Whilst we all use Games to try and escape the 'real' world, the politics and whatever else is going on, that all is having a major impact on the everyone. Gamers don't have the money to spend and are being far more selective, playing F2P, Subscription service, backlog and/or cheap sale games instead of buying the new latest releases in general so the revenue the Publishers get is lower whilst the costs to them are increasing as the market shrinks due to sanctions and conflicts. The cost of energy has shot up so the Studio costs have increased above inflation as well as the costs of fuel to distribute Physical games/hardware.

In other words, this 'leisure' industry is being hit hard by rising costs and a market that's shrunk and spending less. The revenue is shrinking and as more and more gamers are impacted, have less disposable income to spend, the Publishers panic that their revenue will not exceed their costs, that they'll be committed to too many games and Studios for the amount of Revenue they are receiving.

Covid may have seen a 'boom' in their revenue, but since coming out of that, we have seen numerous conflicts, sanctions closing down entire market to sell content/services to and rising costs for everyone. With no end in sight to many of these 'external' issues they have no control over, this is the result - that's why its affecting MS, Sony, Ubisoft, Warner Brothers, TenCent etc, why many Studios in recent years have closed and why Publishers keep making cuts.

@Balaam_ I doubt that EVERYONE who is paying for Game Pass Ultimate - the 'tier' required to play games like this instead of buying it - would have bothered buying it anyway. You can never say that for every person that played the game on Game Pass, that's 1 'lost' sale, that's 'lost' revenue because that person may never have bought the game anyway or at least not at full price - maybe waited a year or more and picked up with 80% or more savings.

As you say, they are paying money 'every' month and you could argue that they 'paid' for the game to be developed every month for years. That's money that Microsoft wouldn't have received at all to help finance these games in development, a revenue stream they could use to keep those Studio's open, keep paying the staff team every month etc - basically pay for the game as its being made.

I doubt it would have been a 'big' seller regardless - not only do they have the smallest install base of the consoles, games like this may only sell to a very small percentage. It may only have sold a few hundred thousand copies for something that's been developed over many years.

Go back to 360/PS3 gen, and games like Gears of War or Uncharted could be made over a couple of years and not just have a well written campaign with actual voice acting, an original music score and even an online multi-player suite so the gamer had a great value package and hundreds of hours worth of playability for around £40 - Games are no better today when you think of the writing, the stories, the voice acting, the musical scores, the content, the game-play loops etc etc and yet they are taking 3 or more times as long to make and the ONLY thing that's 'better' is the Graphics, but the hardware they are running on is vastly superior - far more RAM, GP and CPU resources to push more polygons out, run at higher resolution and/or frame rates.

Games like BioShock, Mass Effect, Gears of War, Last of Us etc still hold up today in terms of story telling, game-play loops/systems, Acting, audio etc and in many cases, modern games may have much better 'graphics', but don't do anything that new, that different to compete with the 1000's of games we can play thanks to Backwards Compatibility, sales and freebies on even the most basic Sub tiers - why spend that much on something that seems more like an 'Xbox Arcade' game just with AA or even AAA graphics, some little 8hr experience that will be under £15 within a year on sale anyway - if you are 'interested' in playing it all. Game Pass may just let them play for free, but they perhaps wouldn't have played at all without it

So a LOT more and lacking GTAO.

Good job I had no interest in it as that price point would certainly kill any interest - pure GREED as far as I am concerned. I won't pay more than £50 for ANY game and I doubt GTA will be so innovative, never been done before game-play mechanics etc. I bet it will be extremely similar to its predecessor, just spent all that time and money on Graphics.

As there are superb stories, games with great Game-play and many many hours worth of entertainment value available in sales, in my backlog etc, no game is worth paying that much just to play it at/near launch. For $80, I can buy 4 or more games in the sales...

Just look at PS5/Series X prices as well as the all digital PS5 Pro with its 6yr old Chip. SSD storage and RAM have gone up and I doubt the chipp will be 'cheaper' with a more powerful CPU/GPU built in to it. Shipping and distribution costs too are escalating so I'd be surprised if it was 'much' cheaper - and I can't imagine Sony selling a PS6 either for 'less' than a PS5 Pro costs either.

The raw materials aren't any cheaper, if not actually more expensive as they too likely incur additional shipping costs to get them to the factory for assembly into the Console.

The demand for Silicon, for RAM, for storage etc is increasing which is why the costs are escalating. Add in the rising cost of fuel that affects shipping the hardware around the world and we are more likely to see prices going up and up through the generation if they try and undercut, subsidise and/or take a loss on it...

Xbox only picked it up because its got Kojima's name attached and only got that opportunity as no other Publisher had any faith or belief in the project.

Having a Kojima Game on Xbox probably meant more for Microsoft than having that exact same game without his name attached would have. I bet it having his name on the project will boost its review score by a few extra points it otherwise wouldn't receive and of course help Microsoft a bit in Japan too...

I really don't care s I don't have any interest in GTA and haven't had any interest since GTA 3. Therefore I don't have any expectations at all but I can make an educated prediction.

Consoles are the 'budget' option, literally the lowest priced Hardware designed to allow gamers to play games at a 'reasonable' frame rate. I wouldn't expect '60 fps' unless they are targetting last gen Hardware and 30fps for that hardware. The reason we have a LOT of 60fps games this gen is primarily because those games were designed and/or released on last gen hardware. If its running (or designed to run) at 30fps on last gen Hardware, it will likely scale up to 60fps on current gen.

Cutting edge games for the current gen tend to target 30fps and 60fps (or better) requires PC level CPU's and a lot more power consumption. You may be able to sacrifice quality and/or features somewhere to free up resources to push for 60fps on the Series X - like dropping the resolution, lowering the visual quality settings (shadow quality, draw distances, object density etc ) but I doubt you'll have a 60fps mode on Series S.

Consoles tend to offer 30fps because they are designed to be 'affordable' for mass market appeal - not the 'best' hardware on the market designed for optimal performance, competing with high end PCs. They are designed to 'compete' with budget end Gaming PC's and enable you to play these games on hardware that cost's 'less' than the 'minimum' spec PC required to play those games and often does so at a equivalent or better graphical quality albeit at half the Frame Rate - although generally more stable too...

You either settle for a game that's not exactly pushing the hardware, designed to also run on last gen hardware or to run at 60fps and anything that impacts that will be 'cut' or you want a game that is the pushing the hardware to the very limit with cutting edge features and designed with one eye on future, one eye on next gen Consoles and the high end PC's of tomorrow so 30fps is the 'best' a mass market 'budget' hardware can expect.

I know Series X, PS5/Pro aren't 'cheap' but they are 6yrs old in their CPU and still cheaper than a minimum Spec PC expected to run these games would cost, still the 'budget' mass market hardware option that Consoles have always catered to which is why the 'cutting' edge and most ambitious games have always been 30fps so I doubt GTA will be any different!

I believe that Fortnite Crew is the reason that Game Pass jumped up so much in Cost and that they took the WRONG product out! I don't think it was CoD, but they know the fan base will still buy CoD and probably pocket the money for all those paying for Fortnite Crew but don't play Fortnite, don't have to give Epic their cut...

Game Pass is about Games, its a Game Library service and Microsoft promised ALL their Games Day and Date in Game Pass - that promise has been broken and now I don't trust Microsoft or that they won't decide to keep other games from the Service in the future, maybe Elder Scrolls 6 or some other expensive game to make that won't get the sales they want/expect.

Call of Duty doesn' just make its money from 'sales' of the base game, it makes money from Blackcell Season Passes, CoD Points and Customisation bundles - and more gamers in, more buying those extras. No-one will buy in a 'year' when the Seasonal content is gone and it actually cost 'more' to Sub for a year than buy anyway.

Fortnite crew doesn't add Games to a Game service, doesn't enable you to play a Game you couldn't play 'Free' without Game Pass and added a LOT to the price - CoD was in Game Pass before they added Fortnite Crew (a $12 Premium sub) and Ubisoft+ and raised the price by $10 - a 'bargain if you consider Fortnite Crew and Ubisoft+ would cost around $17 separately but only raised GPU by $10 - but it was that $10 price rise that forced many to quit and dropping CoD and the Price back down won't bring me back at all.

I subbed to GPU because ALL MS games, now and future were expected to be Day 1 but now they aren't. It may only be CoD (an Annual release I enjoy and usually end up buying anyway) but its the principal and I'm not paying for 'other' Subscriptions (Fortnite, Ubisoft etc) that I don't use - its now 'cheaper' to buy the 1 or 2 MS games a year I'll play - especially as I don't need to play Day 1 than Sub. I won't miss not trying games that I probably wouldn't have bought just because they were in Game Pass - even if it did lead to a couple of purchases I wouldn't have made without trying but I'm also not paying for a Subscription that I'm only playing 1 or 2 games

It was nice to play some games Day 1, instead of waiting for sales, but I'm happy to wait for sales and save my Subscription fee to buy an extra game or two...

If true, that would be a new 'low' for MS who has a history of low points. Its one thing to try and find potential buyers for your Studio's that you no longer deem feasible in the current market place - at least for your plans going forward, but to advertise a Product to your Customers that you don't expect to be delivering, don't expect to make and/or release is unbelievable.

That game was being advertised to sell 'Xbox' - either hardware, Services (Game Pass Subscriptions) or the software itself as well as what your existing Customer base can expect in the coming years. Just like we expect Gears of War or Modern Warfare 4, we expect to see Senua arrive. If the 'intention' is to sell Ninja Theory and you are seeking potential Buyers, then that should have been kept separate from the showcase, and certainly not for 'public' viewing.

I do think its incredibly bad practice, maybe even False advertising as these are a 'promise' of what you can expect to come in the future if you buy into their System today. I've said MANY times that Games shouldn't be revealed, publicly confirmed etc until they are certain it they will release. That's a promise of the 'content' we expect to come to our Hardware in the near future, a promise of what we can expect 'inside the box'. Its bad enough when delays occur as the date they give is a 'promise' to the customer when they can expect to receive the content they promised.

In other words, NO game should even be revealed to the Customers or publicly confirmed until its guaranteed to release - can't be 'too' disappointed if they cancel - its not as if you knew and were expecting to play it - not as if you pre-ordered or bought hardware to play it if you didn't know it existed (until after it was cancelled anyway). Once revealed, that is a 'promise' to your customers of the Content they can expect and ONLY give it a Date as to when they can play it when they 99.999% sure it will release then. I know you can't account for unforeseen problems and/or issues outside your control, but gamers would be far more forgiving with Transparency in your communication and delays would be extremely rare - if you haven't announced a release date, you haven't made a 'promise' to your Customers, set their expectations.

Microsoft does own a lot of great IP's and that means they have a lot of potential for success in the future but as was also pointed out, you need 'Studios' to realise the potential, to make the Games to 'sell' to Gamers. It doesn't matter if you own the IP's but not using them.

Of course they can use Studios for hire to make games for them instead of owning the Studios but if they can't afford to keep their own studios, how are they going to pay a 3rd Party to make them with similar costs and overheads?

When CEO's and Managers are making Millions every year, maybe they should take a pay cut, not award themselves pay rises and bonuses instead of closing down the Studios that are actually making the Products you sell to your customers!!

I understand that the market is tough and gamers in general aren't spending what little money they have on 'new' video games, choosing to wait for sales whilst playing their backlog or free to play games like Fortnite or Roblox. Therefore their revenue is shrinking whilst their costs are rising and market is shrinking because of Global unrest and resulting sanctions etc.

Its never great to hear that jobs are going to be lost and as Gamers, its the loss of Studios that hurt the most as they are the ones that make those games, make the products we want to buy, make the products that keep us engaged - even if you don't like their games, ,you don't really want to see them closed and ultimately 'less' games from a Publisher.

We all know that if they sacked some of the higher ups, they could keep these studio's open because of saving the obscene salaries the CEO and top level managers get but its people like Nadella and Sharma that don't play games, being paid an obscene amount of money making decisions that ensure they'll keep getting their Salaries whilst hoping to reduce the amount of Products they sell and likely raising the costs too.

I know the Market has been tough and its affected EVERY publisher. They have ALL closed down very talented Studios, even some that never got the chance to make a game for their 'Publisher' after being acquired, some after releasing a game so the Publisher makes money and isn't going to be paying the Studio to make another game.

Its a shame that Developers can't 'self' fund and 'self' publish so they don't need to be owned by Publishers and are 'free' to release their games on ALL platforms for maximum reach without interference from Platform manufacturers. I've said for years, ALL games should be playable on ALL Hardware so ALL gamers can access them, that ALL games can reach their Audience and that NO hardware manufacturer should have the right to limit content or Reach. I'm sure that MANY developers would be far more Successful and Secure if they only had to cover 'their' costs and not the Salaries and overheads of the Publishers, not have to make them a Profit too...

@themightyant It may not have been 'wise' to buy ABK in hindsight, but they were available and offered MS something they truly needed back then - IP's, Studio's and Games for their Game Pass service. They also had expertise in Mobile Gaming - something MS had struggled with.

Buying ABK also gave them Publishing rights to ALL of the CoD games and previous releases so instantly started making money back - every game, DLC, Cosmetic bundle etc sold, MS made money. They didn't need to wait for these studio's to make a Game they could Publish and sell to start earning money back.

But they also had to honour agreements - like Deathloop and Ghostwire, like Marketing rights on CoD for Sony and no doubt haven't really had the 'opportunity'' to have the control as owners you would expect as the Games released would have been greenlit and started development under Koticks management.

By the time they had taken over ABK, things had drastically changed in the market. From coming out of that Pandemic boom when they announced the Purchase, when Game Pass was very much on the 'up' and being held back by lack of First Party IP's/Games, the costs of putting third Party games in was escalating so they needed their own instead, being 'hurt' by the 'lack of games' that had plagued Xbox for the past few years and even the 2018 Studios had yet to really deliver, they needed Big IP's (and CoD is arguably the biggest) and more IPs. ABK wasn't interested in 'Game Pass' and Kotick himself stated he would not put games into a Sub service.

Xbox was at its most Successful when it had CoD and that sold Xbox Gold far more than Halo ever did, that sold hardware and actually gave them that market lead that Sony eventually caught up and probably overtook in the end - but I'd argue ABK needed MS (if not for the staff and working practices, to stop the 'rot' and decline, for getting rid of Kotick and/or stopping them being owned by a Chinese Company) as much as MS needed ABK and its Global circumstances that has (currently) impacted them - but maybe in 5 or 10yrs, things could look very different. EA were once the 'worst' company in the world yet today aren't viewed that negatively.

I don't want to bring Politics and Wars into the discussion, but the reality is those things have had and continue to have a MAJOR impact on our Hobby and unfortunately, the lack of revenue, from a shrinking Market space as well as people spending less but escalating costs is the cause and why EVERY Publisher is suffering - MS perhaps more so because of the size of the 'Xbox' group and the fact they merged 3 'publishing' divisions into 1 - that meant that there are a LOT more staff doing exactly the same job - effectively 3 managers where only 1 is required. You don't need 3 separate PR teams, each having to organise their OWN group of studio releases, the PR schedule, organise the events (E3, Gamescom etc) and their groups timetables - that can ALL be handled by one 'MS' team with 1 manager. Yes studios are individual and required for the development of games, to make a sellable product - but there is also a LOT of Publishing staff at MS, at Zenimax and at ABK that are doing the same job. There is likely to be rationalising as those teams 'merged' and some would be surplus to requirements.

@themightyant MS bought Zenimax and ABK hbecause they were BOTH struggling and on the decline - Fallout 76 was a disaster, Wolfenstein Youngblood flopped and they were forcing Arkane to make a Live Service game that MS basically killed the 'Live Service' part when they took over. ABK shares were crashing and Kotick had basically killed most studio's he could to ensure CoD would release annually on time every year regardless - even if that meant NO other releases. Blizzard too had studio's merged into it and I bet both would have suffered massive culls too in the current climate if no-one had bought them - just like EVERY other Publisher.

TenCent potentially would have killed ABK altogether - maybe even destroyed CoD if they took over as they were interested in doing so. Sold off aspects, closed down others and kept the IPs to be made by their Chinese studios where costs are cheaper.

Sony too invested and has had quite a few rounds of 'restructuring' and Closures with the likes of Bluepoint Studios closing in March 2026 after only joining a few years prior and Dark Outlaw Games - the Jason Blundell Studio that never made a game for Sony also closed too. Bungie has been culled and its future uncertain and there was rumours that Housemarque could be in trouble too after both Marathon and Saros failed to hit the Commercial success expected.

When you take over a MASSIVE Publisher- there are also MANY jobs that are duplicated, unnecessary and therefore need to be rationalised. You don't need 3 separate PR teams, 3 separate HR teams, 3 Separate 'Publishing' teams - each with their own managerial structure etc - they can be rationalised into 1. ABK alone more than doubled the MS Xbox Game staff when they joined - ABK alone was 'bigger' than Xboxx and Zenimax combined in staff numbers - despite its LOW output of games in recent years.

Point is that MS may have had to Cull more, but they also had much more staff, much more overhead, much more reason to 'cull' and just because they may have done it a few times already, doesn't mean that others haven't 'culled' multiple times or maybe weren't more Ruthless earlier on. Just because MS acquired Zenimax and ABK doesn't mean that those Publishers wouldn't have been affected, wouldn't have culled staff etc with recent global events. In fact I would expect Kotick to have been more Ruthless and much more likely to replace humans with AI for bigger Profit margins and I would expect Zenimax to have continued to push games out far too soon so those broken, unready messes would have flopped harder leading to even more financial problems leading to a harsher 'cull'...

@themightyant very different world to the one that we 'thought' it would be when MS bought Zenimax in March 2021 and committed to buying ABK in January of 2022.

Yes the Pandemic was basically over and that of course meant that the 'boom' of people having a LOT of Leisure time and having to spend that all indoors/at home, but no-one predicted that Ukraine would be invaded and the resulting sanctions stop them from accessing a MASSIVE market whilst also raising the costs of shipping. 4 yrs later, that market is still closed off. The cost of things like Electricity, required to develop games has also risen above inflation and so the 'cost' to produce their products has escalated whilst the market to sell those products has shrunk. That 'smaller' market is also being hit by rising costs leaving them with less money to spend on their 'hobbies and leisure activities'.

Whilst some countries and areas may not be impacted that much, some regions, so some gamers are struggling to put food on the table after paying their bills and putting fuel in their car. The games they are playing are their Backlog games, free to play games and/or cheap sale games - not buying new at full price so all Gaming Publishers are being affected. MS perhaps more so because they 'invested' more.

Every Publisher has been affected - they have all closed studios, all cancelled games, all cut jobs etc and the more the world is unstable,, the more likely that the 'global' market for leisure/entertainment products will struggle to sell. Its not just AI for 'entertainment' purposes that are requiring Silicon, chips and RAM, but also drones and missiles for 'defence' too.

5yrs ago, we were coming out of a Pandemic and expecting the World to return to the status it had pre-pandemic, maybe even some of those who had discovered Gaming due to Lockdowns would become gamers, spend their free cash on Gaming products and services, but the reality is that some markets were 'blocked' from selling to, thus seeing a drop off in revenue and costs rose more than expected leaving ALL those Companies to re-evaluate and restructure to the 'new' reality they hadn't predicted, expected or planned for...

Caught between trying to move forward whilst many still want to cling to the past and by that I also mean the 'Hardware' and Exclusives model. MS can NEVER truly offer Exclusives anymore - partly because of the rising cost of Game development and the time it takes to make games as they don't sell enough Hardware units to sell enough games to cover the costs and they won't sell enough Hardware because NO PC gamer requires an Xbox to play those Exclusives. Instead of buying an Xbox for the exclusives, they'll buy a Playstation and/or Switch and play ALL the Xbox 'exclusives' on PC. Because they release on PC too, they are never truly 'exclusive' to the Xbox Console unlike both Nintendo and Sony Exclusives.

Back when MS decided to get into the Console business, they basically abandoned their PC customers who they had been making games for prior. They also 'bought' a lot games aand 'acquired' those IP's. They had very few studios and paid third Party Studios to publish and in some cases acquired the IP too. But the hardware wasn't that expensive and most games would be developed over a couple of years - hence you could see 3 or more games from a Franchise over a generation. Gears 1-3 and Judgement on 360, Uncharted 1-3 and Last of Us on PS3 yet now you'd be lucky to get more than 1 game per gen from a Studio and costs of Hardware are going up and up too.

So they are caught between those that 'demand' exclusives which limits their reach, their revenue, their 'business' just to sell a few more units of Hardware or find more avenues to sell their products/services to bring in more revenue that justifies the investment costs they put in. One way may well be to 'license' the Hardware manufacturing to the likes of Asus or Lenovo for example and effectively be just the Publisher - like they were before they got into Hardware. Consoles aren't super affordable compared to a 'basic' Gaming PC capable of running the latest games at 'console' like performance and graphics. The difference in cost 25yrs ago between a Xbox and a gaming PC was much larger than it is today which is why MS got into the Console business in the first place - to bring PC games to an 'affordable' mass market audience as PC's were too expensive - now kids are playing games on PC's, on cloud or mobiles whilst its the 'older' gamers who grew up playing on consoles that still want that 'traditional' Console experience...

A massive purchase for ALL those Studio's making just a couple of games at tremendous cost as Kotick had pushed all those Studio's into those few IP's. With 'Activision', that meant every Studio was eventually pulled away from making the games they 'wanted' into making or assisting with CoD. Studios were also folded into others - Neversoft for example to ensure CoD's annual cycle.

ABK was on the verge of Collapse because it ONLY relied on a few Games whilst employing MANY people. They were putting all their eggs in one basket and hoping that the Basket would continue to hold - that (along with the poor reputation and work environment) had seen the Share price crash, until MS offered a 'high' price per Share to buy them ALL. Shareholders saw their shares dropping and dropping, MS offered above Market price so they ALL accepted.

Now they have ALL those Studios making the 'few' games they did without restructuring and inherited the same issue ABK had - many Studios, but very few releases to show for it...

For me, it was what they 'added' to increase that price - Ubisoft+ (which makes some sense as it brings more Games to a Games Library service) and a Premium $12 Premium Subscription for a FREE to Play game which isn't required at all to play the game and doesn't bring ANY games to a Game Library service at all. The Price may have only increased by $10 compared to the price of Ubisoft+ and Fortnite Crew combined, but that pushed the price beyond acceptable.

Because they took the 'wrong' thing out, didn't remove a Subscription for a FREE to Play game but decided to take their OWN game out which breaks their 'promise' that ALL their games would be in Game Pass day and date, I won't resubscribe to ultimate.

If they'll take CoD out, their OWN product but leave in a Premium Subscription to an Free to Play game by 'Epic', then what next? Elder Scrolls 6 too expensive to put in Game Pass Day 1? Fallout? Doom? The whole point of buying ABK was to put GAMES in Game Pass, put CoD in Game Pass to sell Subscriptions!!!

Its not just the 'Price', its the games, the 'content' and if you are taking one of your BIG IP's out - knowing it will sell regardless - but leave in a Subscription to a Game you can play FREE without Game Pass anyway, then I won't be resubscribing. I'll just wait for sales to play the games I want and won't bother with the rest if I can't try them via GP first.