BAMozzy

I've used my Elite V2 since Day 1 so was using it on my XB1X before getting my 'day 1' Series X - in fact, the standard controller that came with it has never come out the box...

However, if it ever needs replacing, I would look for TMR controllers but I won't use 'standard' controllers with the potential for stick drift. Whole reason I switched to Elite controllers back when MS released their first was because of going through Controllers (left thumbstick drift the culprit) and even if it lasts just 2yrs, it would work out cheaper than buying a new Controller every 4-6months....

Xbox 360 was dominated by CoD and I think far more 'important' to Microsoft and their 'Gold' tier pass for online access - much more than Halo was.

Its no wonder MS was very interested in both Bethesda and ABK - although both were also very big PC developers before bringing games to consoles and as we know, MS have their OWN PC platform too.

3 of the 5 games are Rockstar games (GTA 4 & 5 and RDR) with Rock band and BF3 the other two not owned (now) by MS.

But of these 20, only 4 are Exclusive - 2 Halo and 2 Gears games, Forza doesn't make the top 20.

I can't remember which games I got at launch or soon after but I did play Condemned, Gun, Need for Speed, PGR3 and Perfect Dark Zero.

Of these, Condemned probably stands out most in my memory today but I couldn't say it was my favourite as I feel they were just different and would depend on which I happened to be playing at the time.

@kmtrain83 To be honest, I have no idea - its pretty much going to depend on the games and whether or not there is enough on a Platform to justify the costs of porting that game to. If it costs $100k to port, but maybe only get $80k in sales, it doesn't make sense.

Microsoft started in gaming developing games for their Windows PC platform exclusively, choosing to neglect that to chase 'Mainstream' Console success and establish Direct X as the Gaming API of choice on Windows as well as Devs would have to use it for their Console. 25yrs later, PC's are more mainstream now and DX is well established, as is their Xbox brand. Their MS OS's (Windows and Xbox) are driving the vast majority of gaming Hardware and it would seem that the next Xbox will be a Windows based device so that it will play 'Windows PC' versions of games - meaning that NO publisher 'needs' to port and optimise for 'anotherr' platform - inc MS who currently need at least an Xbox PC and Xbox Console version.

Would anyone have accurately predicted when cross-gen releases will end on ALL last gen Hardware? I think most expected 2-3yrs at most, but as games are very scalable and enough people remain on last gen hardware to make it financially viable to port games to, then Publishers will release games to increase their sales revenue.

Even if a game can't be ported, or runs so badly on Last gen hardware, you can still play their games via Cloud Streaming. Take FH5 which does run on an XB1S, but at less than 1080p and only 30fps, but Streaming it maybe 1080/60 and higher graphical settings too making it look and play better than native. So even if ES6 doesn't release on Series Hardware for example, you don't 'need' to upgrade, just like XB1 owners can play Starfield. Its not as if you will be 'forced' to upgrade (unless of course you want to play 3rd Party Published games not available on Game Pass to Stream).

The point is that the next Xbox will be a 'PC' platform and so ALL 'Windows PC' games, past, present and future, should run on it so that Publishers only need to make a PC version for their 'Xbox' Platform. Whether they also decide its 'worth' porting to last gen depends on the 'market' on last gen and Series Hardware isn't the most populated. There has to be a financial benefit to releasing on that system, potential to make enough revenue to justify the cost first and foremost. So it depends on how 'popular' last gen Hardware remains as much as it does that games will scale down to that hardware...

I have a Series X and a Xbox Ally X (as well as a gaming Laptop too) so I will only buy games that Support Play Anywhere so I can literally play Anywhere on whatever hardware - both now and in the Long term too as PC's will continue long after 'Consoles'.

I think the next Xbox will be a 'Windows PC' with built in Xbox Series Backwards Compatibility. Every game will essentially be 'Play Anywhere' - inc 3rd Party Published games as they'll just be the PC version sold on MS's 'Xbox' store anyway. There probably won't be Xbox Console version made so I'd rather start building up my 'PC' Library.

The next Xbox will likely play last gen 'Xbox' Console games (and all the BC games on Series Hardware) via some form of emulation so it can bring that history forward, but I'd still rather have a 'native' PC version than play an 'emulated' Console version.

It makes sense to focus on one Platform for game development - and PC makes the most sense. Therefore MS will only need to make the game for 'PC' as it will be playable on their next Hardware and at most, port down to Series Hardware or to 3rd Party Consoles. Their 'PC' game would be the same game on their own platform or sold on 3rd Party Platforms like Steam - but as their hardware will likely be fixed Spec, will have optimised settings for their PC hardware.

It may ot be 'useful' if you ONLY play on Console today, but if the next Xbox is a PC, its much more useful...

I am sure Valve cannot subsidise their Hardware to the same degree that MS, Sony or Nintendo can with their Console. Valve don't lock content/features behind a paywall which can add up to another $600 over 5years (up to $10 a month for PS+ or GPC) just to unlock the entire Library of games (inc ONLINE only).

Also, Steam isn't the ONLY storefront - although it is the most prominent and easiest to access out of the Box so they can't guarantee that EVERY gamer will be spending money and their time in the Steam ecosystem.

If they sell their Hardware at a small loss, they can't guarantee they'll 'make' money back through Sales of services, accessories and/or games/content. That's the difference between a Single Platform and Multi-platform Box. Both can have exactly the same (or equivalently spec) Hardware inside but cost quite different and/or be more/less 'restrictive' on the Games you can play.

What people forget is that a $500 PS5/XSX is extremely limited without the 'Core/Essential' tier Subscription unlocking all Games, Content and Features. Whilst you may save money buy buying 'months' in bulk, like a year's Subscription in Advance, but that adds up over 5-7yrs of a Console life and costs 'up to' $120 a year on Sony/MS consoles (an additional $600 over 5yrs) just to have access to Social Gaming in games you've already paid a 'premium' for on Console...

The Game Awards isn't really an Awards show - its more an Advertisement for the Games industry. The games aren't selected on merit by a professional jury so I don't take the 'Awards' part seriously and, if anything, its the worst part about the 'Game Awards' Shows which are really about showing off upcoming games in a 'celebratory' way and giving some of the industry a 'pat on the back'.

Calling this an 'Award' Show is a misnomer as its not really about Awards, but celebrating the past year and looking ahead to the future of the Games industry. The Awards and Nominations are just the games that some people mentioned more than others in their 'top 5' or so in any category. Its more a popularity contest than anything else...

@Krzzystuff I never liked the Small maps anyway - most are 'too small' - I hate Shipment, Rust etc and even Nuketown gets too much. I play Hardcore mostly and I want to at least live more than a second or two from spawning before I end up in combat.

BO7 Maps feel much better over all and the flow is much better too so I think its a much better designed MP - its like they took what many criticised about BO6 - inc the lack of Medium/Larger maps and 'corrected' and refined it into a better overall package. Of course BO6 has benefitted from 6 seasons of content, lots of Patches and tweaks since it launched, but the 'core' BO6 package you would have played in the first 'week' of release wasn't as 'good' or as filled with Content/Modes etc as BO7 is.

For me, the Gun-play and Movement is far superior to other 'options' on the market. That makes the game a lot more 'fun' for me to play - even if others have similar modes. The very act of shooting and moving around the maps can feel quite different and I much prefer the solid, consistent and smoothness of CoD over the competition - that's the main reason why I prefer to play CoD over BF, Fortnite, Apex or the vast majority of other FPS games. BF6 may well be the best BF game since BF3, but its still feels like a BF game with its inconsistencies and frustrating moments - even if some aspects 'look' impressive.

Each to their own, but I find small maps are just Chaotic messes with people running around like headless chickens and its basically just spawn and die. I thought it was 'popular' just because Matches are over so quickly and its the quickest way to Grind Camo's - not because its the 'best' way to play the Game.

Each to their own, I only liked the Big Map modes in BF because their infantry only modes feel like a 3rd rate attempt to 'steal' CoD gamers away.

Everyone was very negative about MW3 - worst/Laziest campaign in History, MWZ was set on a F2P Warzone Map and not what the Zombies community want/expect. MP was just the OG MW2 maps remade and bulked out with MW2's maps weapons etc and seems like the vast majority are jumping on that 'bandwagon' of hate without ever even playing the game, then criticising or belittling those that have and do play for not being negative about something that is fundamenality 'better' than the last 2 (or more) CoD releases

Personally, I prefer BO7 in every way to its predecessor. The campaign story maybe less grounded, but I think its more Fun to play and its structure and End-game at least offer more options on how you want to play, level up and/or earn rewards.

Multi-player is so much better than BO6 because the Map design is so much better too making game 'flow' more predictable and much less frustrating/annoying. Zombies too is so much better than BO6 zombies - even though in both these cases, there is a LOT of Similarities. It feels like a more 'refined' and overall bigger/better package than BO6 was at the same point in their life cycle.

PGR2 was the pnnacle of the series for me and thought PGR3 and 4 were awful ste backs by comparison. PGR3 felt like a much smaller game - even if it looked prettier...

I enjoyed the Campaign - beat everything and collected all skulls too . I've never enjoyed the MP so couldn't care less about that aspect.

Whilst I will say that the Campaign wasn't a great 'story' and narrativey was more 'functional' to serve the Game-play - give some context as to why you needed to be somewhere or do something to progess through the game, the actual game-play and moment to moment action was fun and solid. I had a lot of fun just running around and destroying groups of enemies.

For me, this was the closest that 343 have got to understanding what 'Halo' is and Bungie created - their first looked good, but Campaign was very short and felt more 'inspired' by Halo and they followed that up with a game that barely featured Master Chief and that campaign is arguably the worst in the franchise.

It feels like Halo has become Multi-player focussed with a tacked on Campaign when the OG Halo's were Campaign first and Foremost with a 'bonus' MP mode. There are so many FPS MP games that have very similar modes, mechanics that you have so much choice to find the ones that you prefer but a Campaign can tell a unique story and far more interesting and/or exciting unique moments - if they 'bother' or tend to go for generic plots to serve the game-play structure and move the player 'forward' through it.

I stopped buying games day 1 when the price jumped up beyond £50. Now I buy games in sales only or make do with my Backlog and Subscription games. I refuse to pay more than £50 just to be one of the 'first' to play when iit will be MUCH cheaper in a few months or so - also likely to be more polished too.

I don't care who Publishes a game, the Studio that made it etc, I won't pay what I consider over-inflated prices just for a Licence to access some Software in my Leisure time. Its not as if I don't have 100's of games I could play at NO extra cost - either because I already bought them or they are accessible because of a Sub. If I didn't have those options, I'd probably jump into a F2P game until the games I want to buy are lower in cost to consider..

I won't buy games unless they are Play Anywhere now too so I can play them natively on my PC hardware.

@Medic_alert And as a Platform holder - Microsoft have several Platforms that ALL contribute to their Success and only '1' of those is their own Hardware.

They have their OWN cloud and PC platforms selling Products/services too - just like their Console Platform. It doesn't matter if you choose to buy a Microsoft made Hardware or have a PC you built yourself, as long as it has a Microsoft OS, you have a Microsoft Platform. They have 'virtual' Xbox platforms built into servers for cloud, only accessible through Microsoft owned Apps and Subscriptions.

All I said is that they do NOT need to sell their OWN Hardware to still have their OWN Platform - Steam had a Platform before they released Hardware, Battlenet is a PC platform too (owned by MS) so they have more than 1 platform - the Console just so happens to be their Hardware too but not their ONLY platform.

If you don't want to buy the 'next' Xbox because its not Subsidised as much as Sony's PS6 or because its 'full fat' Windows based hardware instead of being a 'limited' Windows based OS locked to just MS, that's up to you, but that doesn't mean that 'Xbox' has no 'Platform' as Microsoft have their own PC Platform and Cloud based Platform with their own Storefront selling first/3rd Party developed Games.

Xbox and PC 'merged' a decade ago and PC s where they started Game development, only making the Console to make 'DirectX' a core gaming API and become 'mainstream' as PC Gaming was only for the rich. Xbox was built as a PC to bring 'PC' games to Mainstream - games that weren't popular or common, dumbed down for Console versions but 'affordable'.

25yrs later, you might not want a new PC or spend $1k+ on Hardware (you'd rather spend $500+ and then spend another $500+ on just Subs to unlock Social gaing and other features instead??) but you can always 'keep' your series hardware and rely on Cloud for the games you want to play but don't release on last gen hardware.

You could go to PS6 too but then won't bring your Xbox history forward or guarantee you'll get the Xbox games you may want to play Day 1.

At the end of the day, you as a Consumer will make the choice that suits you best and I will to. I am NOT buying another Console that blackmails me into buying a Sub to play the Games I have bought - I can't play some games at all even after spending $70 to play without a Subscription to the Platform holder just because its a Single Platform device and they can do that. I'd rather have Full Fat Windows than be held to ransom, but I can see MS having a 'Limited' function Windows (similar to the Asus Ally) for Gaming and a more 'console' like experience, but the option to go full fat Windows too if you want...

@Weebleman Whilst exclusives sell Hardware, at the end of the day, those games are still Microsoft owned games, still Microsoft Products an even if you buy on Steam or Playstation, still a Microsoft Consumer/Customer too.

Yes they make a bit more money selling their own games on their own platform, but can still make a LOT of money by selling their Products on more Platforms and make more Fans of Microsoft owned Products/IP's etc, make money from licensing and merchandising, make money from other Platforms/gamers.

Of course you may 'prefer' people to play on your Platform so you make the 'most' money per person, but that could leave a LOT of customers and potential revenue from coming your way. They have 'incentives' to play on their Platform (Game Pass, Day 1 releases, Play Anywhere etc) and if you want to play 'Xbox' games Day 1 in the future or bring your Xbox library forward, you'll need a Microsoft driven device. You could play a few Day 1 on PS but if/when you do, you'll still be buying a Microsoft Product, spending time in their creation and contributing to their revenue as a Microsoft consumer...

People buy Hardware because of Games they want to play - want to play Uncharted or God of War, you buy a Playstation even if just for games you can't play elsewhere. With Xbox, you don't 'need' to buy a Console, but its 'cheaper' than PC and/or better than Cloud streaming - but if you have a decent PC already, you don't need to buy hardware to play the 'Xbox' games you want.

I've basically stopped buying games that aren't Play Anywhere because I have a Series X, Xbox Ally X and a Gaming Laptop too. I don't know that I'd buy the 'next' Xbox - I might invest in a Gaming PC I am happy with under the TV instead - but if the next Xbox is more like the Ally X than the Series X, I would consider it. I won't consider it IF its just a Console with a Sub fee for Online Social Gaming etc. I can still be on Xbox, just Xbox PC.

I'm far more interested in the future if MS can successfully merge their 'Console' History into their PC ecosystem. Fact is that EVERY first Party Game is still a Microsoft product generating revenue and helping Microsoft be the third Largest Gaming Company ahead of their 'Console' only rivals, that merging enabled MS to grow their Gaming library and Studios, grow their Output, and have some of the Biggest selling games/IPs of all time in their portfolio, all helps Xbox and their revenue.

Console owners are far too blinkered, narrow minded or selfish to not see that Games are what is 'most' important and you'll buy Hardware purely based on Games, not its specs or who manufactured it - if the next Xbox is a PC but still brings your entire Console history forward, you'll buy it - or another PC that has a Microsoft OS for 'Xbox' compatibility.

Feedback from 'just' the Console fanbase is not necessarily 'good' or useful Feedback at all - especially not if it impacts all their other Fans on PC or their Cloud platforms, fans of their IP's etc and those are also paying Microsoft Customers too buying Microsoft Products (Games, DLC, Accessories, Merch etc) or Services (Game Pass) - even if they buy on another Platform, they are still buying a 'MS' product and a MS consumer too...

@Medic_alert Hardware is 'irrelevant' - is just a 'tool' to which you are able to do what you really want, which is to play the Games and Content you want.

It doesn't matter if the next 'Xbox' is a PC or a single Platform Console - what matters is whether or not your Library of Games/Content, your Profile, friends, achievements etc are also carried forward or if you have to start from scratch again.

You may not wantt a Cloud enabled device to play games, but if its that or nothing, you'd play on Cloud because you want to play that game. If you want to play a Sony game, you'll buy Hardware that runs it if its not available on Hardware you already own. If you already own a PC, you aren't buying an Xbox because all the games are playable on your Hardware, where you 'prefer' to play.

MS aren't releasing 'everything' day 1 on 3rd Party Platforms so I wouldn't buy a Playstation expecting to play Fable or Clockwork Revolution - even if they do eventually release. Their Platform (regardless of PC or Console) is still the ONLY platform with ALL Microsoft First Party releases guaranteed to release, the only platform with Game Pass and Day 1 MS First Party games, the only platform that MS can bring your existing 'Xbox' Library to.

Yes you may also get Steam on a PC, but you could also get your Xbox Console history on MS's Xbox PC Platform in the future. You may not 'need' to buy a 'Microsoft' built PC - although it could still be 'subsidised' as MS have their own Platform (unlike Asus, Lenovo, MSi etc) so the best 'bang for buck' PC - but its still part of the Xbox family, still has a Microsoft OS and storefront, still has their Games and Services - just the hardware is assembled by another company and MS got money for selling them a Windows Licence too...

@Medic_alert Depends on what you determine success as - they are now the third largest gaming producer in terms of Revenue across all their gaming Products (Games, Hardware, Accessories, Merchandising etc) one of the bigest names in Gaming and of course have some of the biggest selling IP's too.

Even if games like CoD or Minecraft are sold on Playstation or Steam, MS are still 'successful' if they sell well on those Platforms, still making money, still have gamers choosing to spend their time in their Products. Their console may not have sold as many as Sony or Nintendo, but that doesn't mean it was a 'flop' either if it makes money and its not the 'ONLY' platform you own. They may have expected to only sell 20m units knowing that their own hardware is optional, a 'fraction' of their Playerbase and selling 30m exceeded that and deemed successful.

Success is relative and cherrypicking say 1 aspect of the entire 'Xbox' Gaming Brand is not that indicative. Considering where Xbox was a decade ago, I'd say that Xbox has succeeded in fighting back from iminent collapse and disappearance. Yes Merging into MS impacted the 'Console' and its Sales, but have grown from 5 Studio's to over 30, given gamers far more places to play their games, made Backwards Compatibility a 'must have' and Xbox has grown massively.

In some areas, they are perhaps not as 'Successful' as others, but more successful in others. There is talk of Sony wanting to make their own PC platform/Launcher with 'Play Anywhere' too.

Success can often be relative but at its most 'basic' its whether its generating enough revenue or losing money and I wouldn't say Xbox isn't successful as the 3rd largest Gaming Company in the world - ahead of Sony and Nintendo - even if those two are more 'successful' in a specificc area...

@Medic_alert I do agree that MS's biggest mistake in their Gaming History was probably neglecting their Windows Platform to push and establish their Console which enabled 3rd Party Platforms - like Steam and Battlenet (although Battlenet is now MS owned) - to not only 'establish' themselves, but also focus on 'Gaming' specifically and what 'gamers' want.

But they do still have their OWN platform on PC which is more than Sony do for example (at the moment). Their Game Pass Service is LOCKED to their Platform and all games are 'Microsoft Store' games that will sell you DLC/MTX's etc so MS get their Cut - even on PC. Cloud may well be available on iOS/Android, but you have to use a Microsoft owned App that's also locked to their Platform and can sell you games and content as well - stream your own.

When Sony sell their games on PC, they are using Steam/Epic etc where as MS could make some games 'exclusive' to their PC store if they wanted - but maybe 70% from Steam and all the other retailers means they get more sales of not just the game, but DLC and MTX than they would if 'exclusive' so make less money overall. Being able to make 100% and/or encourage people into their Services so they make 'more' on each game, DLC or MTX is obviously making 'more' per person than those on 3rd Party for sales revenue, although sales revenue on their own platform could be hurt by their own Sub service.

Its 'possible' that they make 'less' per person on their Service (Game Pass) than selling the game and extra content on 3rd Party and only getting 70% - but they also get 30% from 3rd Party Published content too.

All I was trying to show is that Hardware and Platform are not the same thing. A PC is a multi-platform gaming device - it has Xbox, Steam, Battlenet, Epic and other Platforms too. A console is just a Single Platform device locked and controlled by the Platform holder - even if the Hardware is 'identical' to a PC and/or could run PC games if you could swap the OS.

Single Platforms use 'exclusives' to get you to buy their Hardware and 'lock you in' to their Platform so they make money off every purchase, not just their own content. MS have more than 1 Platform and one of those is on a 'Multi-platform' device so Exclusivity is no incentive to buy their Hardware - even if Exclusive to Xbox Platforms/Game Pass, you don't need the Microsoft Console - you can play on iOS/Android and Windows based hardware too. MS can still make 100% from sales of DLC/MTX through their Store but as a gamer, with a decent PC, you aren't buying an Xbox.

Owning your OWN Platform - especially if that also entails selling 3rd Party Games built for your Platform (Xbox or Windows OS - both use MS DX API's) is still different from being a '3rd Party' Publisher with 'no' platform or at most, just their own first Party only offerings like EA, Sega or Ubisoft. Even if MS quit making their 'own' hardware, they would still have their own 'platforms/store fronts' etc - unlike Sony/Nintendo who'd lose their ONLY platform should they quit the Hardware business - unless they create their own on a multi-platform gaming device like a PC.

@Medic_alert How do other Game providers make money without any Hardware of their own? In the past, Hardware wasn't a 'money' maker, certainly not in the first few years as they sell at a 'loss' to get you in buying games through their Store and having to pay a Subscription because some Content/features are hidden behind that paywall.

Sell just 10m Consoles with a just a $10 loss, that's a $100m deficit they have to make up in 'sales' of Software/Services. If you take a $500 console and add 5yrs of Game Pass Core/PS+ Essential (both $10 a month if you pay monthly - although I know can be purchased cheaper if bought in bulk), that can add up to another $600 so you've paid out $1.1k just to have the same Online Social gaming content that is 'FREE' on PC's.

Whilst they aren't making as much money by selling their games on 3rd Party Platforms, like Steam or Playstation, they are still making Money and will still make money on 3rd Party content they sell through their store too. Ubisoft and EA both have Sub services offering their First Party releases Day 1 as well.

Microsoft don't actually 'need' to sell their 'Own' Hardware as they have their OWN platforms on PC and Cloud, have their own Storefront and so can reach EVERY gamer with their Products - of course they make 'more' on their own Platform/store but they don't need their 'own' Hardware to access their Platform - unlike Sony (who uses 3rd Party on PC currently) and Nintendo who only have their 'OWN' platform on their OWN hardware. MS Window is a 'multi-platform' OS but is a Microsoft gaming Platform too.

Hardware (as in just the box that plays games) may not be that profitable at all, although maybe could Break even or even make some money, but they'll also make accessories (like Controllers, Headsets etc) that will contribute to profitability and Xbox Controllers are also 'popular' on PC.

Arguably, the more 'screens' Xbox/MS have either their OWN platform (to maximise profitability on their OWN content) or 3rd Party is a potential market to sell MS Products and services which is where they 'make money'. A lot of Publishers only make money on 'Software' released on others Hardware.

Hardware doesn't necessarily need to be profitable to be considered Successful. If they lose money on each, but that means they sell far more Games and Subscriptions that over time makes them far more money than they would have...

Considering some Handhelds are Streaming ONLY devices, I think that an 'Online Only' game is not that big of a deal.

Of course you can't play 'Online Only' Games in certain situations - like on a Plane for example, but you can play 'other' games which you can't on a Streaming only Handheld. I wouldn't expect to play Destiny 2, Battlefield 6 or other Online based modes/games but at least they run Natively in other situations.

I doubt you could play BO7 on a Plane on ANY device and won't play Natively even with a decent Internet Connection on some Gaming Handhelds/Devices regardless.

You also can't play a LOT of other games/modes because they rely on an internet connection. Some may have an 'offline' option, but that can be very limiting or missing 'something' from the online experience, feel a more basic/stripped out package.

Most don't bother with CoD's Campaign anyway and the minority who do, most don't even finish it despite it only being around 8hrs long. I've beaten BO7's Campaign entirely Solo and enjoying End-Game too (playing Solo with Squad Fill off) and didn't 'feel' like I was playing it 'wrong', that it was meant to be played co-operatively. I think its possibly the Strongest CoD since they changed to the New Engine and Format in 2019 - certainly better than BO6!!

8/10 for me - completed the Campaign (Solo) and quite enjoyed several matches of End-game, Played a few matches of MP and its better than BO6 and even Zombies is a bit more expansive than BO6's launch. So not only does it feel like a bigger game than BO6 with more options. modes, ways to play etc, the gun-play and movement are both superb and solid.

The Only real negatives from my perspective is the Narrative which is not grounded in any way but it does serve the game-play and context. The other is arguably the lack of any real innovation. Both Zombies and MP feel a LOT like BO6 - albeit slightly refined/developed etc and whilst the Campaign is 'experimental' compared to traditional Linear SP campaigns, you won't remember it narratively!!

@Fiendish-Beaver I've beaten the campaign now - entirely Solo aand found the entire Campaign to be quite enjoyable overall - the narrative is 'functional' if somewhat out-there, not grounded at all, but it leads you through the missions.

I quite liked Titanfall 2 - even though its Mission Structure was 'repeated' - Foot sections with Combat and Platforming areas as you have to separate from BT only to meet up at the end for a Boss fight before the next mission would follow a similar structure.

CoD, with its more 'out-there' story, does enable most (if not all) to end in a Boss Fight and not just be some Human or AI controlled Tank/Mech (Robot). Yes they are not what you'd expect from a 'Grounded' Military Shooter even one set in the near future, but Game-play - the feel of the Combat and movement combined feels really Solid and Consistent, which just makes it 'fun' to play and shoot whatever 'enemies' the game throws at me - regardless of what they 'look' like (Human, Zombies, Robots, vehicles, mechs etc).

I played 1 match, just to see what End-game was like, and it was much like MWZ - other Humans are running around too but its PvE only. I did some activities and exfiled but with different Zones of Difficulty, you can decide if you want a 'easy' time or push yourself.

I don't expect anything - that way I can't be disappointed if my expectations are not met. Of course I expect them to release games in the run up to and post their 25th Birthday, but exactly what IP's are ready to release, I don't know.

Its possible AL 4 of those Main Xbox IP's will release within a year either-side of their Birthday, possible all 4 could release in 2026 but if not, they do have other games like CoD 2026, Clockwork Revolution etc and updates/DLC for their recent releases as well as 3rd Party partnerships etc to make it a 'good' year for Xbox gamers...

@You-come-to-me Some people will always want to hate the most 'Popular' and want the 'underdog' to beat the champion. The more popular, the more they hate and often try and seem superior because they don't like the most popular option.

CoD has almost always had negativity - W@W was hated because it felt like a step back after CoD4 on release, MW2 was hated for all the bright colours and pop-up notifications, changing points too - too 'arcadey' now etc yet today are considered the golden era of CoD.

Each to their own off course, but I'm too old to care about popularity, I'm just interested in the Game-play and CoD's is extremely Solid and the movement feels slick and responsive too. It won't win Best Narrative or most innovative game, but I think its the best CoD since they changed engines and format back in 2019...

@Fiendish-Beaver At the end of the day, I don't think its any worse than some of the other 'experiments' in campaign - the weird 'optional' Strike Force missions in BO2 or the 'simulated Memories' you play through in BO3 for example to me were worse - but at least Treyarch have that history of doing less 'grounded' and more experimental takes on a 'Military' based shooter campaign.

It feels, plays, sounds and looks like a CoD game - but unlike a standard CoD game, you could spend ALL year playing Campaign to reach Max Level and rank up all your guns in strictly PvE content and End-game is a bit like MW3's MWZ mode - but you need to complete the Campaign first. Point is, unlike traditional linear CoD campaigns, they are trying to give more value than just an '8hr' campaign you never return to once finished.

At least you (or anyone) can try it with their GamePass Sub and decide if its worth your time, let alone your money. If you have GPU, it

@fatpunkslim I see the Steam Machine as the 'big screen' option for those who bought a Steamdeck. Whether that's for their Kids who may 'share' a Family PC or someone who wanted a 'cheap' gaming device to rival Consoles but without the charge for Features like Online Gaming.

It could be for Series/PS owners too as their '2nd' Console as they branch out to more 'PC' games but without the cost of a typical Gaming Rig, something they can simply plug into their TV and have a 'console-like' experience. I doubt those with Gaming PC's would be interested - just like they won't likely buy an 'Xbox' - even the 'next' Xbox because they already have Hardware and both Steam and Xbox have their own PC based platform on their Hardware so pointless to buy.

If Sony make their own PC platform with their own Launcher too, then no PC owner would need to buy a Console at all. The only people buying Consoles are those that prefer that ease of use and/or suits their Budget better. Steam Machine looks to be wanting to offer that Console like experience at Console like prices for those that want or only have the budget for. The 'big screen' version of Steamdeck Handheld Consoles...

@Fiendish-Beaver I felt it was about 'normal' - not too easy, especially some areas with enemies coming from all around, but with methodical positioning and using a Sniper to clear ahead, its about where I'd expect a CoD game.

I don't know if they have more enemies for more players, but it seems like you can take a few hits before going down so its not as brutal as Veteran. Some enemies take a lot more hits to kill and most missions (so far) end in a Boss Fight. There are often Ammo/Plate Caches around and a self revive or two, opportunities to find/loot/upgrade weapons etc too.

I'd say probably the Difficulty is closest to 'Normal' whilst playing Solo. A few enemies can be a bit tougher to take out but nothing I've felt was unmanageable solo yet

I've really enjoyed the open 3-4 missions of the campaign so far. I've played it entirely Solo thus far and its a lot of fun with Solid Combat and slick movement. Yes the Story is't very 'grounded' at all, but that doesn't mean the moment to moment gun-play, Action etc suffers. It feels like a CoD game.

I haven't reached 'End-game' yet, but I've enjoyed the Campaign and a few Survival rounds on Zombies. Personally, I'm having more fun than I did with BO6, MW3 and MW2 before that...

I can understand the problem from a commercial perspective - shrinking 'technology' helps when you want to make something 'smaller/lighter/cheaper' to make and ship in massive quantity. Even going from 90nm process to 45nm would save a lot of space and cooling requirements to make consoles cheaper a few years later.

Nowadays, you can't really get 'smaller' to shrink the Hardware to save money. When you are already at 6 or 5nm, dropping to 4nm is not much of a difference and cost per yield goes up as well as demand for 4nm chips. RAM too and Storage hasn't really decreased much in price and again demand is raising prices as AI demands grow too.

Take into factors like growing global economic unrest, A LOT of Competition for what little leisure time and money people have and certain markets closed for business, then you can maybe understand why their 'revenue' isn't growing and prices increasing. More and more are playing F2P games like Fortnite and Roblox , fewer and fewer are buying NEW 'games' not to say they don't buy ANY games, but aren't buying games in the first few months and in general, buying fewer games a year.

Of course there are still a core group of Gamers who are still buying games and spending just as much (if not more) on Gaming but a lot are engaging with 'free/low cost' entertainment - inc Social media instead of buying the new products from these big companies...

Can't say I like the situation, but I can understand it

Its possible that GTA6 could well be a Launch title in 2026 or at least launch day 1 on that hardware too if its out prior to the Game releasing - doesn't mean it won't release on current gen hardware too. It could very well be a motivator to 'upgrade' to next gen hardware for improved visual or frame rate performance.

The fact is that GTA is now not expected until mid-November 2026 shouldn't impact the release schedule for Hardware. Maybe the Delay was incurred to ensure they can release on Next-Gen Hardware too in a polished state if any release beforehand.

Delaying 'next' gen hardware just because a Game was delayed a bit is pointless. Chances are that GTA is built to run on Current Hardware anyway so 'next' gen should have no issue running it. If it can't run on 'current' Consoles, it would make sense to delay the game until Next gen Hardware arrives to maximise sales potential - not delay 'next' gen Hardware because a game is releasing....

It means nothing - MS has its OWN 'Xbox' Community, History and Library of games on both PC and Console gaming platforms. If they 'merge' that into the 'PC@ Platform, bringing their 'Console' History (at least all the games, inc BC Games, playable on Series Hardware) forward.

Your Xbox Profile/Achievements/Friends etc are on both and your digital licences are on both so hopefully they find some way to enable you to play the 'console' version via some Back Compat layer.

Just bringing your History forward is a big incentive - especially if you have no or little history with other Platforms. The Steam Machine seems more for those with Steamdecks and want a cheap 'console' to rival PS5/Xbox for the TV space or for those that maybe want to get into Steam but don't want a 'PC' and the Cost of buying a 'decent' PC Rig.

If the next Xbox is PC based, brings your Xbox Library forward (not just your Play Anywhere Library) and runs games better (as well as maybe enjoy Game Pass as a Service), there are many that will prefer to stick with Xbox and maybe start building up a Steam Library there for the games you can't play on Xbox - inc Playstation games.

Game Pass maybe an incentive to some - especially with rising costs and its not 'just' MS's releases you get to play - and whether or not Valve sort out some of the issues with Games not working on 'SteamOS' as they require Windows TPM Secure Boot can all play a part.

It seems like Valve are trying to make an affordable 'entry' level Gaming PC with their OS to compliment the Steamdeck for some. Others will no doubt have a Gaming PC that surpasses the Steam Machine, but they are targeting 'Console' owners specifically so I'd imagine it would be priced similarly to other consoles - it maybe as 'expensive' as a Series X as its not as 'locked' as a typical console so maybe not subsidised as much.

I much prefer Persistent Lobbies which I feel is more important than SBMM. I don't really have an issue with SBMM until it really impacts on my time. If its too 'strict', it can take a while tofind 'equal' skilled players and put them all into the same Lobby - which can also impact on Ping.

Obviously a 'bit' of SBMM can help to balance each team and match - distribute the 'skill' evenly so that matches are much more evenly contested - in theory as not every player is using Meta weapons or trying to 'win', their priority might be a Camo or challenge.

I do think that SBMM has a place - EVERYONE should have the same opportunity to 'enjoy'. Protecting lower skill players so they don't feel like Cannon Fodder, that their 'time' isn't being respected etc is important too otherwise you end up pushing the majority away leaving only the High Skilled players anyway.

You can make a case for each - Ping should be 'king' for the best gaming experience, but if you are being killed every 5-10s and not getting kills or Killstreaks yourself, you aren't having the best experience either so SBMM should 'balance' matches.

Persistent Lobbies are where I think the most fun and friendships can be made. If you play with the same person for a few matches, you are more likely to know whether or not you'd want to 'party up' and play regularly together so persistent Lobbies are great. You can leave and search again if you don't want to play with someone or you can try and get revenge.

I think SBMM is 'essential', but I also don't think it should be 'too' strict and certainly not at the cost of Ping. Priority to Skill matching up to say 40ping and then if spaces, fill with those under 40 ping with 'priority' to those closest in Skill.

@FraserG They already have a £600 Handheld PC - the White Xbox Ally.

The Xbox Ally X has a Z2E chip and is the 'cheapest' Z2E based Handheld PC's. If, however, you want a Bigger Screen, then MSI Claw A8 has a 8" screen and Lenovo Go 2 has a 8.8" OLED Screen, but also cost the most - over £1k.

There are cheaper options and more expensive options and some with Bigger Screens too if you prefer. They are all Handheld PC's so all offer the same Platforms, Libraries etc

@dodgykebaab Microsoft have their own Console Platform and Hardware and also sell 3rd Party Published games in their own Store.

Companies like EA and Ubisoft, whilst they may have their own platform on PC, its pretty much just their own Published games and rely solely on 3rd Party Platforms and hardware.

Microsoft, Steam, Sony etc also make a LOT of money by selling 3rd Party Published games from the likes of EA, Ubisoft etc. The main difference is whether you have your own Hardware/Platform that also sells 3rd Party Published games or predominently a 3rd Party Publisher with at most, their own first party PC platform/launcher.

MS has more than 1 gaming platform - Console and PC - both of which sell Ubisoft and EA games and make money for MS. That is the big difference - otherwise they are ALL very SIMILAR in that they all own a bunch of Studios making games they Publish to sell to consumers for their entertainment.

Even if they don't compete 'directly', they are still competing and as such, some will always come down on a side.

Xbox may NOT be competing in the 'Console' Hardware sector, but that doesn't mean 'Xbox' as a Platform is losing - Xbox is not just their Console, but includes both their OWN PC platform and of course their Cloud based service streaming Games from 'virtual' Xbox hardware. Its not 'just' the 'X' million you have buying, playing and/or subbing on your Console, but also the 'Y' and 'Z' players who are using your PC and Cloud platforms too.

Yes Sony may release games on Steam or Epic for their PC releases, but on those platforms, Sony is a '3rd Party' Publisher and releasing on Steam or Epic platforms, like MLB or Helldivers on Xbox. Sony may well develop their 'own' PC platform/launcher and offer 'Play Anywhere' in their OWN platforms. That too will 'hurt' their Console Hardware, but not necessarily harm their Playstation Platform or User base. Playstation, like Xbox gamers, would just have a choice.

Platform and Hardware aren't necessarily the 'SAME' thing. PC isn't a Single Platform device (like a Console) but has MANY gaming Platforms - inc Xbox, Steam, Epic, Battlenet etc - all competing on a Single piece of Hardware. That's why Xbox Hardware isn't 'competing' with the other Consoles, because the Xbox Console is NOT the ONLY Microsoft owned Gaming Platform.

I can see Sony moving the same Direction, having their own '3rd Party' Platform on Microsoft Windows PC's - like Steam, Epic etc. Instead of releasing games on '3rd party' platforms, it will be more like hardware is Multi-platform and you just play the games on whatever Platform they release or you prefer - like watching Netflix, Amazon and Disney+ on the SAME TV.

I'm sure some games will come eventually, but we don't know the reasons why its been 'slow' so far. It could be any number of reasons, from lack of Dev Kits, their own Handheld plans to the costs involved and 'projected' revenue. MS don't forget won't get the 'full' price as Nintendo will take a cut as its their Platform/store etc.

If they think it won't sell to more than 5-10% of the Audience, bear in mind that few games do exceed that, it may not be worth the costs of porting, optimising, advertising, distributing and releasing on Switch at the moment. In a year, they could double their user base and maybe re-evaluate.

They could bring FH5 to Switch 2 as Xbox/PC get FH6 for example and with PS5 being far more similar to Series, porting and optimising is not labourious and with more users, its arguably going to be their 'first' option. Most Ports to Switch often come months, if not years after they've been released on much more power driven hardware. It takes a lot more 'work' to get games running on power starved devices with much lower cycles and tick rates. Sometimes requiring modifications to the game/environment and/or have to create new settings/techniques to give a 'similar' enough look.

I wouldn't say Switch 2 has been that well supported by the Modern AAA Publishers/Developers 'yet', but that doesn't mean they don't have plans. Sales too will dictate whether or not they truly embrace Switch 2 - they won't bother if they don't make 'enough' money or think they won't...

I'm sure that this gen will hang around longer than last gen as the cross-over, diminishing returns of upgrading and costs of Hardware will have an impact on next gen sales.

As we saw from this gen, MANY games can and did get released on last gen hardware and I think that devs will continue to target both current and last gen hardware.

MS may well have a USP in that its next gen hardware is more a 'Win11 PC' and allows other gaming Platforms (like Steam, Epic etc) but their Series hardware could still 'exist' alongside for years to come as the 'budget' option with Native and/or Cloud support for all their releases.

I enjoyed the Trilogy and apart from some minor bugs, I thought Andromeda was decent too. Yes the Animations in cut-scenes sometimes weren't the best, but I found them more amusing than annoying. I completed all 4 games and each with everything I could complete, all side missions etc.

I can't say that I'd buy another Mass Effect game, but I also can't say that I'm not interested. It really will depend on the game itself and whether or not it appeals when it finally releases. Its too far off and not enough known yet to have any feelings towards it and I probably won't have any until its nearly due to release.

I think that the 25th Anniversary of a Major gaming brand is bigger than the release of a single IP. It's not as if you can 'delay' or change the fact that 'Xbox' launched 15/11/2001 rregardless of whatever happens 25yrs later.

No doubt MS will celebrate over the course of the year, not just that 1 day, but that 1 day will be the 'Official' 25th Anniversary of the release of Xbox. Whether we will have commemorative 'events' based around the first reveal or first official public use of 'Xbox' in the build up to 15/11, time will tell, but regardless of what releases in that week in November, they can't change that anniversary date.

I wouldn't be surprised that 'no' plans for an OW3 exist yet as they have only just finished the releasing the 2nd and no doubt still have plans for this.

Avowed is now an 'old' game and no doubt that team are more advanced in planning their next project. Just because OW3 isn't 'planned' yet, doesn't mean it won't be at least considered - especially if OW2 is a popular success.

And it could slip further in that time - that's 12mths away. It was delayed from releasing around this time, Holiday 25, for 'polishing' causing several others annoyance who'd moved their release to avoid clashing - then annoyed again because that got delayed moving GTA close to their new release window.

I don't think any Publisher should give release dates out until 6-8mnths before release at the very most - and onlyy then if they are 99.9% sure that the game will be polished and ready to launch on all Hardware its planned for. Unless some 'dramatic event' happens that should impact that date significantly, one that 'Gamers' would understandly accept, the game should be basically finalised and into the polishing stage when its date is 'confirmed'.

I don't mind teasers, Studio's keeping us up to date with what they are working on - work in Progress, some background or concept art with some idea of the game-play loop, Asset and Environmental snippets etc over time etc and then about 6mnths out, put out a trailer with its release date and open up pre-orders, ramp up marketing from 2mnth out...

If it wasn't a 'Halo' game, maybe I'd score it at a 6 at most, but considering the history and predecessors, it was a big disappointment and left me very concerned about the future of the IP and 343 Studio's.

I'd think Fable would release first - just becausse it seems to have ben in development and even showed some game-play quite some time ago.

I think FH6 will be a September-ish release and Halo probably on the 25th Anniversary of Halo in November. Gears is the one that I think will either release around E3 time or slip out of 2026.

Of course, I'm only basing that on when we first knew these games were in development and history of those IP's and previous releases. But until they have official dates and they are the 'next' big game to release, I won't get excited or hyped for any of these.

Seems like Sony are creating their OWN PC Platform to compete with Steam, Xbox PC, Epic etc. At the moment Sony are using 3rd Party Apps to release games on PC but I can't see them giving away games on Steam for example.

I expect that they will launch their own 'Playstation PC' Platform that's linked and synced with Playstation Console and if you buy 'digitally' on Playstation Platforms, you get both Playstation PC and Console versions as the Licence is locked to your Playstation account - Pretty much the same as with MS.

@Fiendish-Beaver That is exactly why the Xbox Console has NOT been competitive in terms of sales with Sony or Nintendo Hardware. A decade ago, with the XB1 flopping, all momentum and trust lost after its disastrous E3 and subsequent release, the cost with insistence of bundling Kinect whilst the cheaper PS4 was superior gaming hardware, Microsoft were in a difficult' position. They only had a handful of Studios too so couldn't suddenly churn out Exclusives to 'fight' back.

They merged Xbox into Microsoft and since then, even if games were 'exclusive' to Microsoft, they still released on their PC platform and Cloud too. You don't need a Series S/X to play Starfield/Indiana etc, you can play them on your old XB1 or mobile, play them on PC.

Since about 2016, The ONLY reasons to buy an 'Xbox' Console is because you either prefer that 'Console' style curated games library with the ease of use Consoles offer - that or it suits your financial situation and quality/performance metrics. Maybe you choose a Series S because its cheap and plays all games well enough for you - and bigger/better library than the cheaper cloud options.

PC gamers, even those on low/mid tier hardware, aren't spending money on Xbox Console hardware when all those games are released on their Platform too. Don't need to buy an Xbox for Game Pass either as they can get Game Pass PC to get the Xbox games Day/Date. They are already on 'Xbox' with their Microsoft OS powered PC anyway...

I do wonder though if Sony are preparing to Launch their OWN PC platform instead of relying on 3rd Party Platforms like Steam/Epic and therefore able to give you both their Playstation Console and PS PC platform versions with the Licence locked to your 'Sony Playstation' Digital account...

@Tasuki It isn't just their Software though is it, its 'their' platform so every game sold - even Physical - contributed to their ecosystem so it is all about 'numbers' in your Ecosystem shopping at your store for ALL your gaming needs. They make so much money because you are 'locked' in to their Console that they'll take a loss on hardware to compensate - also know that most will pay for at least 'Essential' tier Subscriptions to play with their friends.

It makes sense if that's your 'ONLY' platform, but not if you also want to try to compete on your own Open Platform - because now PC gamers - even if they ONLY buy 1st Party Releases because they are only exclusive on MS's store, would still not need a sub or generate as much revenue - hence Game Pass PC. For MS now they can't rely on a 'captive' audience as their 'sole' money maker in gaming which they kind of did themselves by merging with their PC Platform and killed off any 'exclusivity' reason to buy and will choose PS/Switch instead if there is some games they want to play but can't on their PC.

Mobile is another big area they want to 'sell' to and stream your own 'helps' and since 'merging' Xbox has been 'everywhere' except Playstation/Switch, but as you say, that's the 'only' market MS has 'left' to sell to?

It's just these 'single platform/locked boxes' with just a single Storefront that rely on Exclusives to get people 'locked' in with subsidised hardware (low upfront cost) but higher avg running costs (subs, game prices) for a smaller 'curated' library that the Platform holder has vetted...

@Tasuki Couldn't agree more - its Selfish and ignorant. Gamers should be uniting to want to play EVERY game on whatever hardware they 'prefer' to play on. The ONLY reason 'exclusives' exist is to force you to buy their Platform so they can lock you in, extract money from you, keep features/modes etc behind a paywall.

What I find weirdest though is that they can't see that modern consoles are just PC's with a bespoke OS/API's. Its just the OS/API's that the Game Code has to interact with to get the Hardware working to run the game.

I'd much prefer it if EVERY game was on EVERY platform so EVERY gamer gets the same chance to enjoy the same games I enjoyed. We should be uniting to try and make that happen instead of dividing gamers - sometimes even Fans of the SAME Game/IP because of unfair treatment on 1 or more platform - getting 'more' content for the SAME Price for example.

I will accept that a Platform holder (Microsoft, Valve, Sony, Nintendo etc) that also Publishes their own games should be able to release them 'earlier' on their OWN platform to incentivise buying/playing their, but should aim to release within a year on ALL platforms it can run on.

@Cakefish Matter to MS - maybe, but again with context to the entire situation, not 'isolating' it to a single Product. Microsoft may have some resources and licensing tied up with this Collaborative build, but its still within the SAME family as all the other Handheld PC's - inc the OG non Xbox branded Ally's.

The Xbox FSE isn't limited to just these Devices either and EVERY one can and/or will get the upgrade to the revised Windows11 at some point - its already rolling out to MSi Claw and Lenovo Go 2 will get it soon. Its still just a Windows1 PC, like a Laptop/Desktop and PC is much more 'mainstream' than it was 25yrs ago for gaming.

Microsoft are more likely to scrap their Xbox Console Platform than scrap their Xbox PC platform built into windows. The 'merger' is more likely to be finding a way to play your OLD Xbox Console Library on 'new' hardware because 'NEW' releases will be Windows PC versions anyway and for the First Party games, they have Play Anywhere. 3rd Party 'Published' games on 'Xbox' are NOT Xbox Console games, they are 3rd Party Multi-platform releases that you bought a licence to play on the Xbox Console ONLY. AC: Shadows is an Ubisoft owned game - not an Xbox game even if you buy on Xbox. Therefore, MS can't give you a PC version but maybe they can make their PC platform run them.

If you'vee been paying attention, Windows and Xbox OS teams are working together and the success of 'Handheld PC's' in general, not just the Xbox branded one, is equally as important to MS because that too is their OS, their customers etc. The Asus lets them perhaps get more data and feedback than a Lenovo/MSI but ALL PC's, Handheld, Laptop or Desktop, are all part of the SAME family of Platforms.

Sales figures of these don't matter to consumers at all and are meaningless. The fact is that it, along with the first wave of Handheld PC's and current alternatives to the Xbox Ally are basically the same 'Platform' - just slightly different specs or manufacturers. Its exactly the same as playing on a Laptop or desktop PC....