BAMozzy

It only needs to be a PC hardware with BC to Series S/X as that brings your Consoke games forward and all 'new' releases will be PC games anyway so MS doesn't have to make their games for two different Hardware platforms.

PC and Console share the same account and Profile so all your Console games from the Past generation (inc the BC library on the Console) just need to be playable on their next hardware and all their 'next' gen games will just be PC versions. They'll run on the 'Console' anyway but also on ANY PC too so will still be Play Anywhere' but with less costs and work involved as they aren't having to port and try and get a different Hardware version running too..

Its about being on the side of the OWNER of the software, the creator not the 'entitled' person who thinks they deserve 'more' than what they actually paid for.

I as a consumer am totally aware of what I am 'purchasing'. I've know for years and years that you don't 'own' software, just a licence. I've seen many Devs/Publishers try to protect their property - mostly from Piracy back then.

Games like this you didn't even pay a Licence fee, they are 'Free to Play' so you certainly can't say you've bought a Licence let alone paid for the 'Game'. If you bought Cosmetics, that's like Donating to a streamer and then demanding your donations back when you find out that streamer no longer wishes to stream anymore.

But like I said, I do expect that things will change, that Publishers will be forced to make things a LOT clearer about what you are actually purchasing so you don't 'think' you've bought the Game and then feel 'entitled' to it, that you are only purchasing a Licence and that the Licence (and/or access to the Software) can cease at some point. At most, I think you can argue they've misled gamers and the Laws would likely agree.

its not 'anti-consumer' to sell a License to use their Products/services and I really do side with Creators who own their art. Its their Product, their IP, their creation so up to them to decide if they wish to remove it/shut it down. As consumers, you should have a right to proper notification and opportunity to claim refunds if certain criteria are met - but not a right to keep accessing if the owner doesn't want that...

@Jenkinss At most, EU Law will make it MUCH clearer that you are NOT purchasing a Game but a Licence to access the Software that is OWNED by the Creator or Publisher. Whether you or I as consumers like that or not, you have NEVER owned a Game, just a Licence to access the software. Whilst you can sell/trade the Physical copy - whether on Disc or Cartridge, you have only sold your Licence.

I don't think that EVERY game should be kept 'alive' and that's not Anti-consumer, that's coming down on the side of the 'OWNERS' of their Software. I do think though that as a Consumer, you should be better informed of what you are purchasing and that if games are to be shut down, that you as a Consumer should have proper notification and in a reasonable amount of time. I also think that 'refunds' should be available too under certain circumstances - for example no more than 5hrs playtime.

Devs won't stop making Online games because the most likely outcome is that Publishers will have to be more transparent on what you are buying. Its your 'Entitlement' attitude that thinks you have a right to keep playing/accessing something you don't OWN, that's not yours. You bought a Licence only - which is why those games require you to sign in to your Digital account or put a disc into your drive - where your Licence key is stored. Without a valid licence, the Software is not playable.

Like I said, its ignorant entitlement that some gamers think they 'own' the game and therefore should have Access indefinitely. The reality is that you ONLY own a Licence and that Licence can be revoked by the Devs at anytime - break their Terms of Service and you can lose your licence - cheating or using inappropriate language can result in bans, temporary or permanent blocking your Access.

They won't stop making games, but then I can't see them being 'forced' to include some 'end of life' thing that keeps the game 'alive'. Offline Bots is not the SAME game/experience at all and team games (like Horde modes) won't work 'offline' and certainly not with AI team mates instead of Humans. Whilst I don't think they'd 'stop' making them entirely - at least not unless entiitled gamers aren't 'happy' with just being able to load up the game and wander around the map on their own - no 'game-play', no XP, just to 'comply' with keeping it accessible..

The point is the game is OWNED by the Creator and its their RIGHT as creator, as owner to decide if they want games to have an END, not be forced to add something (which does cost and take time to add in on top of developing the game as they want) just because some entitled gamers think that games shouldn't 'end'. It's their product, not yours, their creation, their legal property by LAW hence you can get into trouble or lose your licence by breaking Terms of Service - something you AGREED to when you accepted the ToS before you even played.

They won't stop making games because they won't have to change, at most I can see the Law forcing them to make it much clearer that you don't OWN the game, that you ONLY purchased a Licence and that Licence can be removed at anytime - so buyer beware!!!

He would leak that certain guns or maps would be coming and whilst he may of been correct about the majority, there would be several additional ones that weren't part of the update.

Apart from 'spoiling' what was coming, he'd also indicated that more content was coming than was delivered so the Community were led to believe they were getting more than they got as well as spoiling the content they did get - a double whammy.

Whatever you think of CoD, I do think that leakers should be silenced and I don't just mean those that leak Call of Duty content. Unless they are whistleblowing bad practices like crunch culture or mistreatment of staff, I think that devs/publishers should have the right to legally block and even prosecute leakers - not only does it spoil the 'official' reveals, it can lead to greater expectation and leave the community 'disappointed' and even angry that 'leaked' content isn't coming.

@Jenkinss Again, you paid for a Licence to use those games whilst they were Active, you don't OWN them. That's always been the case and you also agreed to the terms and conditions of Access - failure to do so can get you banned (indefinitely in some cases) regardless of whether you paid or not. That's all because you don't OWN the games and the Devs/Publishers do.

Social games require Online for Social features to work and with NO servers, NO matchmaking, NO online infrastructure (the Company aren't paying for it anymore if no income is coming in to cover those costs), then the 'Game' is not the Game you bought a Licence to 'play'. Being able to walk around empty maps or even play against Bots for example is NOT what the Game was meant to be, its not the SAME game people spent money to play.

Its that 'entitled' behaviour that is the problem - you think you are entitled to play something that you don't own, that the 'licence' you do own is for a product that has expired. It's like buying a Season ticket to watch your favourite sports team and expecting it to last forever.

Yes some licences don't 'expire' because the Product doesn't - although Publishers/Developers can still remove that 'product' so no more Licences can ever be sold, therefore that game is basically dead. Games like Marvels Spider-Man 2 published by Activision can no longer be purchased so NO-ONE can play it - unless you bought and still own a valid licence and suitable hardware to play it - but they also don't incur any cost.

How do you know how much it would cost to build in some way to keep the game 'alive' in some meaningful capacity that entitled gamers would consider acceptable and why you think Devs/Publishers should even pay anything? But as I said, its their game, their code, their assets, their trademarks/IP's and Copywrited content and you 'paid' for a Licence to play it, not paid for the rights to it, not paid for them to hand it over to the 'Public' or those that maybe paid for a Licence key.

The Laws do protect both the consumer and the company - it will protect their rights as the OWNERS of the game code and all its assets, like they would protect the Artists and/or Publishers of Musicians. I expect that they'd either not make these games if forced to keep them active or 'hand' them over - but what I really expect is that the EU will force Publishers to be a lot clearer in what you are 'paying' for and that you aren't buying a Game, you are paying to access their Software, their game they made and OWN. Whether that impact sales, I don't know, but that's how Games work - you don't buy games, you buy a Licence to access the software ONLY. That game belongs to the Devs/Publisher, its their Property - not yours. You are paying the 'entry' fee to theme park that maybe one day will close....

@Jenkinss And then you don't understand economics and business - no Business will keep something going if its losing them money and if they have spend a LOT of money designing and/or building in some end of life plan, that discourage if not stop Devs from making those games in the first place.

As others have said, even if you can still access the game, even if it's just against AI bots because NO online servers, support, anti-cheat etc exist, that is tokenistic and them using a 'loophole' in the law to avoid consequence. The point of online games is not to play with and/or against Bots. They are 'social' experiences and designed for Social play - either competitively or co-operatively.

The point of some is to 'team' up with friends and play together - whether that is against other Humans or take on challenging modes like Destiny's Raids which are purely PvE only.

You can't replace that Social aspect with 'bots' - just to keep a game 'alive'. Not EVERY game should be kept alive in my opinion. There are numerous games - like Killzone for example, that had its 'online' modes killed and I have NO issue with all the Annual sports releases having their Servers being shut down 'regardless' of how much people may have spent on Cosmetics or DLC map Packs.

You only had Legal Access whilst you had a Legal Licence to access those games - the Game, the worlds they created etc all belong to the Developer/Publisher that created them - it's their 'creation', their 'work', their 'copywrited' material inc their Assets etc. You only have a Licence to Access.

As I said, if Devs/Publishers feel 'forced' to keep games alive, they will either stop making those games or what you can 'play' is so shallow, so pointless that people won't bother accessing anyway.

Publishers/Devs can also issue take downs and block people from using their game code. their assets etc. Just because they can, doesn't make it Legal or ethically right to do so...

A live service game relies on its user base to keep paying to keep it going and a Free to Play game also needs to make back the money that's already been invested.

Games that lose players aren't going to have the user base to 'buy' cosmetics etc to keep the developers employed on making more content to keep the game alive so it makes sense to 'kill' them before they lose much more money.

@Jenkinss If that does become a Law, you just won't get F2P live Service games being released - maybe no Online Multi-player games at all because they aren't going to keep games active that cost them money or can be detrimental to them/their reputation if the game is a 'broken' mess, no working anti-cheat or updates, no safe servers or anything.

Chances are, Devs/Publishers would just choose not to make online games if they are expected to keep them 'alive', costing them more money per day than they get back in revenue or maybe find some loophole, like the game is active, but only if you buy your own server or via LAN because they aren't paying for servers, anti-cheat, ongoing support etc etc. It may not be 'official' shut-down but basically unplayable.

@Fiendish-Beaver Well they will all share the Microsoft OS that Games require in order to communicate with the Hardware but I can see them having a Fixed Spec design specifically so that Devs will provide a 'Optimised' game by default and if you play on any other PC, you may have to tweak the settings to get a consistent performance like a Console.

I can see them licencing Xbox but only for Fixed Spec 'Console' style builds made by Asus for example. Instead of MS maybe making a 'mid-gen' upgraded version, that's now licensed out to a different manufacturer - but it must be a fixed Spec Chip that Devs will optimise and provide a 'XB1X/Series X' like upgrade over the base fixed spec Hardware.

Despite the RoG Ally being a PC, MS are still checking games and verifying them for that spec Hardware - its also a Fixed Spec Handheld so they can provide a default setting that is optimised specifically for that Hardware. Games they (or others) make can use that as say the 'minimum' spec Hardware to consider if they wish to target 60fps for example - knowing that if they can get 60fps on that, then everything else (Series S, Series X etc) can scale up from that.

Of course if you really want to, you could of course buy ANY PC (like you can today) and play EVERY new Xbox game released but may have to tweak the settings to optimise the game specifically for your Hardware and preferences. The difference is that the 'default' is set for their Hardware, not bespoke hardware - pretty much how the situation is today. The ONLY difference is that Devs won't have to port their build to the Xbox Console platform, they can build for PC and just optimise that, provide a default setting specifically for that 'fixed' spec AMD Chip and I doubt the 'Xbox PC' will be built with separate CPU, GPU, RAM etc that can be swapped out like most Gaming PCs and I would expect that 'licensed' Hardware would use that Chip (or the 'X' version - like Xbox Ally and Xbox Ally X, Series S and X etc).

The point is that those 'settings' and fixed spec hardware still provide that consistent Console like experience and Devs a 'fixed' spec to build for, to optimise to - and lets be honest, third party Publishers don't always 'optimise' for the Consoles today as they aren't consistent and drop frame. Series X and PS5 often share the 'same' settings too and/or rely on dynamic resolution scaling to try and maintain a consistent Frame Rate.

Arguably, the weakest PC on the market will be the Handheld and Xbox/MS certainly do consider it as they are checked and verified. If Dell made a 'budget' Xbox, it would likely be using a fixed spec AMD Chip that MS would allow their Xbox brand to be associated with or Dell could just build a cheap PC with MS Windows without the Xbox brand licence anyway...

@Fiendish-Beaver I don't know that they'll stop supplying them that soon after release - but I can see them potentially licencing so other PC manufacturers will make PC Xbox hardware in the future - much like they have done already with the Asus Ally.

They still continue to make 'Surface' hardware so why not make a Surface Xbox for example?

I think the point of them doing their own 'fixed' spec Hardware is more about Devs having that as a guide to target when building their game, whether that's ensuring that it will run smoothly at say 60fps and 4k with med-high settings and that is the 'default' and everything scales up/down from that.

Personally I have NO issue with Microsoft bringing a 25yr old game to Playstation. The majority of Xbox gamers aren't buying a 25yr old game and more likely to play it on Game Pass if they play it all and even Halo fans are likely to play it via Halo:MCC than spend money on it yet again. Point is, Xbox gamers have likely bought it, maybe twice already so maybe won't be willing to spend money on a 25yr old game they can and have played multiple times.

Its not like they are selling a brand new game that's never released before Day and Date. I bet few bought Gears of War yet again - I know I wouldn't having bought the OG 360 version and the XB1 version the remaster and PS5 version is remastered from as I could play them via BC or via Game Pass - MS knows that and so to get any revenue, the only option is to sell on Platforms like Playstation (and/or Switch) - the only Platforms they haven't released those 'old' games on before.

Its not like they are releasing (or should release) the 'next' big main release - certainly not Day 1. These should remain Exclusive if MS wants to sell Hardware and/or Subscriptions, get players into their ecosystem. They can release on PS5 once the sales dry up on their Hardware to extract what revenue they can from those who wouldn't buy their Hardware or Subscribe to Game Pass anyway.

Old games, remastered or just released a year or more later, aren't really hurting Xbox - if people really wanted to play, they'd have bought an Xbox, subbed to Game Pass and/or already played before. These are all on Game Pass, playable via BC and/or been on sale for years so if people wanted to buy an Xbox to play, they'd have done so.

Xbox is not just the Console - yet there are many that still think that it is. Xbox became MS's entire Gaming 'brand' having an established Console with that branding. It gets its name from being a Microsoft Direct X product in a Box a 'DirectX Box' which became 'Xbox'.

I can see that Xbox hardware, as a traditional 'Console' product, may well be over but that doesn't mean that I think Microsoft will no longer have Hardware or pull out of the gaming market. Microsoft have invested heavily in Studios and IP's over the past decade after merging their Console gaming division into their main Microsoft business and Windows - hence Day 1 releases on PC and the 'end' of Exclusives.

Xbox ceased being just their Console and became their entire Gaming brand across PC, Cloud and Console - rebranding their Studios too as Xbox Studios.

That's why I don't believe Xbox will end soon - even if the Traditional Console Hardware ceases. Xbox will still continue across PC and Cloud, Xbox Studios will still continue to make Xbox Games because 'Xbox' is Microsofts Gaming brand.

We all expect MS to make at least 1 more Hardware device as they have planned and openly discussed their Partnership with AMD to supply chips for their hardware. Its 'rumoured' to be more of a PC hybrid than a Taditional console with access to other platforms/storefronts like Steam and Epic - thus not a 'Traditional' Console which has now 'ended' but Microsoft still continues to bring Xbox games to market, Xbox brand continues...

I''m in the middle - not optimistic, but not pessimistic either. MS has a LOT of Studios and IP's and if they use them by making great games, their future will be OK - gamers will play them which will ensure MS's future is 'successful'.

I don't know that ALL aspects will be successful, particularly Hardware and/or the future of their 'Console' Library. I don't really want 'AI' involved bringing my old Library forward to PC's for example or making slop that 'humans' allow into their Games.

As a Gamer first and foremost, MS has a Strong Portfoliio of IP's and Studios so their future should be secure too - but I don't know that the leadership will handle those well and may 'force' Studio's to cut corners and in doing so, allow slop to ruin them...

@Cakefish

I guess the difference will be that the hardware is designed in-house and with OS-level modifications to have a controller friendly UI, as opposed to any other bog standard PC.

That's basically what the RoG Xbox Ally's are - Not 'solely' designed in-house as such as its merged the Asus RoG Ally's with an Xbox Controller - but to be honest with you, if MS were to build their own Handheld, fully themselves, it would basically be the same design - a screen inserted between both sides of an Xbox Controller. Internally, I doubt it would be much different - an AMD Chip, RAM & Solid State Storage.

The booting Direct to Xbox FSE and work MS has done to optimise Windows for Handheld Gaming also includes making that UI controller friendly as that was a big issue with the Windows 'Desktop' on the first wave of PC Handhelds and having to use those little 'touchscreen' keyboards wasn't the easist.

So whilst its not 'technically' a first party Hardware because its made in Partnership with Asus (who don't make Games to sell the Hardware) who obviously can't use MS's Xbox logo/button and Controller design. They also rely on MS to provide the OS and worked with MS based on Feedback they'd received on their 'first' Handhelds.

As I said, technically games like Crackdown, Gears of War and even Flight Sim are NOT made by a First Party/Microsoft owned Studio in the same way this 'Hardware' has MS owned branding, Custom MS OS and even an Xbox Button (something no other Handheld PC has). Its part of their Hardware line-up much like those games were part of their Software line-up so whilst technically 'not' a first Party hardware as it wasn't made/assembled by MS, its still very much a MS product.

I believe that 'other' Handhelds, like MSi's and Lenovo's, can now install the Same Custom Windows OS so they too can boot to the Xbox FSE. That too makes it more 'Xbox' as you are booting directly into the Xbox ecosystem, not the full Windows. That has a MS UI designed for Controller Navigation and locked to the MS store - yes you can play Steam Games (as long as you've installed them) but the store tab is MS ONLY. To browse, buy or even install Steam games so they'll show up in the 'Xbox' FSE, you have to load up the Steam App.

Point is, the OS is custom, Controller Friendly and is designed to keep you in the Microsoft 'Xbox' Ecosystem. Unlike the Console though, you can access 3rd Party Apps and even load up the full MS Windows too if you want but Hardware is pretty much useless these days without an OS and Gaming Hardware is very generic, its really just the OS, which Games communicate with that separates them

@Cakefish I'm agreeing that its not quite First party in that its fully made and assembled by Microsoft - but that its STILL an Xbox abnd part of the Xbox Family.

Its not quite the same as your iPhone or iPad as they weren't built in partnership with Microsoft, don't have the 'Xbox' branding/License and certainly don't come with a Microsoft OS and run their Games Natively. Microsoft also isn't 'passive' and actually is verifying games for the Hardware so buyers will know if they are optimised for their Handheld.

Just because they didn't make the Hardware, its their OS and part of their Hardware line-up. Its like Flight Sim - That's not made by a First Party Studio yet its still part of the Xbox Library if you want to be technically correct (and Pedantic about who made something). It's certainly not '3rd Party' and certainly not some 'stream' only Android/iOS powered device that can't run Xbox games natively.

The fact is both the Console and the Handheld have a Microsoft OS which also controls the Hardward and runs Xbox Games natively so they are both Microsoft based products. Microsoft is building their Games for their OS's.

Cloud games run on a MS OS too and you use a Microsoft owned App to 'stream' them to whatever device you can access their App from.

The most important aspect is the OS. Sony's games are built to use Sony's OS to utilise whatever 'Hardware' its on - just like Windows games rely on Windows to utilise the PC hardware (why SteamDeck has a ProtonLayer to simulate Windows and won't run games that require Windows TPS Security). Point is, the OS is the 'important' part of ANY Hardware and its Microsofts OS at the heart of both the Console and Handheld.

Its not quite 'First Party' in the sense that Asus built it having the factory and tooling in place to do so as well, but its still part of the Microsoft Family of Hardware, still has a Microsoft OS and Xbox Controller feel/layout.

@Cakefish Made in Partnership with Microsoft and running a Microsoft OS. It's basically using Microsoft's Controller design as part of the 'hardware'.

A Console is basically assembled by Microsoft but has a Chip by AMD at its core. The various components are made by various other Companies - the SSD, the Disc Drive, the RAM chips, the Wifi component etc - none of that is 'made' by Microsoft.

The Xbox Ally has Xbox branding and made under licence - the next Xbox too could be made by Asus under Licence.

Xbox isn't 'just' the Console Hardware - its the ENTIRE Gaming division and includes PC and Cloud. PC and Console hardware both have a CPU, GPU and RAM and both run games from its Internal Storage, both also have Microsoft OS's. MS could have made the Hardware (maybe could do under their 'Surface' PC line for example) using tthe same AMD Z2E chip, same quantity of RAM and Storage, even use the same Screen and Windows OS and sell that as an 'Xbox' handheld - but instead licenced that out to Asus...

The 'Console' is only 1 part of the Microsoft Gaming Ecosystem and Hardware is pretty much universal - its the OS that really makes the Hardware and both PC and Series hardware has Microsoft OS at its heart. Sony has Sony's OS despite it too having a CPU, GPU, RAM etc that if you 'could' install an MS OS (like Windows) would still play games.

I'd say that the Asus RoG Xbox Ally's are NOT 1st Party Hardware but they are still part of the Xbox family, the Xbox ecosystem - its just not 'locked' solely to Microsoft so have access to 3rd Party Apps like Steam or Epic, like you do on any other Microsoft Windows PC!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glad I picked up mine at launch...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Darthcuddles90 Not mine or actually many others as you state - most polls and comments on the Fable main games would indicate that Fable 2 was the 'best' in the Series.

Fable, the first, was a good game and maybe seemed 'better' because it was the first, the first to introduce you to that world but I actually preferred the 2nd and its story way more - not just the combat which was aother area they improved on but that was just 1 of the areas I thought they actually improved on.

Like a LOT of games back then, Sequels took what they learned from the predecessor and built upon, improved areas that needed it, worked on and/or removed things that didn't work as well etc to make a 'better' game.

You are entitled to your 'opinion', as everyone is but I don't agree - and it would seem from the many conversations and polls about Fable over the years, Fable 2 is regarded as the better game, better story etc with Fable a 'close' 2nd - but it was the first Fable and that helps boost 'impression' when its 'new' and 'unique' - something a Sequel can't really offer, it can only build upon!

@Darthcuddles90 In your opinion!!!

Fable was and still is a 'good' game, I just think that Fable 2 is the 'better' game. I also think that a LOT of games from that era are actually better because they aren't so focused on the Graphics and/or performance but on the mechanics, story and Game-play loop. I think a lot of modern games would sacrifice Mechanics in order to bump up the Resolution/frame rate or add some extra Graphical effect (RT for example) or push the settings up a bit. First impressions matter and most peoples 'first' impression is the way a game looks when the watch a pre-release trailer.

Fable, or Peter Molyneux, promised a LOT from a game mechanics persperctive and under-delivered from that perspective but I think that 'focus' on Mechanics is what helps that game stand up today - especially as so many modern games are Sequels with the same game-play loop and general mechanics that you've played many times before with 'generic' and predictable stories but look more impressive than their predecessors thanks to RT or a 'new' engine....

Couldn't stand the first - didn't play beyond the first Boss as I couldn't stand their 'humour' and the voices really irritated and annoyed me so I doubt I'll bother with the sequel.

@BacklogBrad Exactly this - You might be able to install Epic or Steam 'apps' on your Ally or PCXbox, but it boots to Xbox FSE and that is promoting Games that are on Xbox and links only to the Xbox store versions - not Steam or Epic.

Of course if you have bought and installed games from those stores, you don't need to load up those apps to find them but you'll have to load up the Steam/Epic app to go browsing their store, purchase games and/or manage, download, install any games you own on that platform.

The 'point' about installed games (inc those from Steam/Epic etc) showing up in Xbox FSE is so you don't NEED to go to those Apps to access those games - it keeps you in the Xbox FSE which is linked to the Xbox store so if you 'search' for a new release or see it advertised on the Xbox FSE, it will take you to the MS/Xbox store to purchase.

If you want to 'compare' prices, you then have to go the Steam app and load that up, search for the game, do the same with Epic and most people will just buy from Xbox out of Convenience and only dipping into 3rd Party Platforms for the Games (like Sony's Spider-Man or God of War) that aren't sold on the Xbox store.

It also means that they are not running a 'Monopoly' on their Hardware - something the EU and EU law takes quite seriously. You as a consumer have more choice - yes you can buy from Epic or Steam, but that's Freedom of Choice. If its a MS produced game, they'll make money regardless, even though its likely available on Game Pass and get a decent 'Game Pass Subscriber' Discount. Other incentives, like adding to your Achioevement score, Xbox friends list, Streaming, Reward points etc, maybe will also factor in your decision as to which store and therefore platform you buy from...

@OldGamer999 There is always 'uncertainty', always has been uncertainty and even what they choose to 'share' about the future is always 'subject to change'.

Go back to ANY ERA and the period of time leading up to a reveal of Hardware - there was always speculation, rumours etc and even after some reveals, things would change. One of the most notable was the Xbox One that changed quite a lot between its 'reveal' and launch, and changed more in the first 6 months or so with the backtracking over DRM and Kinect being essential for operation - it also 'boosted' its CPU specs and freed up more CPU resources post launch.

No-one knows 'exactly' what a Company will do in the future or even if 'features' would be offered, let alobe how they may be implemented and/or how well they work. If you buy a PS5 expecting Xbox like Backwards Compatibility and equivalent VRR capability, then you'd be disappointed although if you're coming from a PS4, its great news and perhaps increased your enthusiasm for it. Even when they reveal the 'specs' the size/speed of CPU/GPU, that doesn't necessarily translatte to significant difference compared to 'alternative' Hardware.

I do get it, Microsoft look to be 'evolving' in a certain direction that 'traditional' consoles aren't. It looks like they are going to build a Win11 PC (even though you could probably replace Sonys or MS's console OS with Win11 and run PC games on their 'current' hardware - unlikely as performant as the 'optimised' OS console but the 'Physical' Hardware is still a PC like build) and that concerns 'Console' gamers because they want the 'simplicity' of a Console OS and hopefully their 'Library' to come forward - don't want the 'issues' associated with PC gaming, want Console features - like Quick Resume and/or the option to turn off 'cross-platform' lobbies, and certainly don't the Hackers, modders, cheaters etc that PC has - those things NEED to be addressed.

I do understand as I can afford a 'high-end' gaming rig, could plug it into my TV and play from the sofa with my Xbox Elite Controller but I prefer the Series X/PS5 console experience. I have a Laptop and RoG Ally which I use occasionally but its not as 'plug and play', as instant as Console (especially with updates being handled in the background and/or overnight when switched off), but I also understand that Consoles are 'losing' their appeal, not very Consumer friendly and they are no longer that 'cheap' mainstream option at least half the cost of a PC. When the OG Xbox launched under £300, and dropped lower very quickly if I recall, you couldn't buy a 'gaming' PC that could play the latest releases for less than £1k - now you can buy PC's that will play the latest releases for the price of a Series X or PS5 with the biggest Library of games available and Online games are NOT hidden behind a Sub paywall. You may pay £500 for the 'Console', but you also have to pay a Sub fee to unlock the full Library and features which over time adds £100's over the years - the amount you spend on a PS5 and PS+ Essential or Series X and GPCore over 5 or 6yrs is as much as a decent gaming PC with MUCH bigger Library and cheaper games....

@OldGamer999

Yes its personal preference, which is why MS are working 'hard' on trying to bring the 'Xbox' Console experience to their 'Windows' platform as they know people just want that 'ease of use' and plug/play type simplicity, want their Library and profile to carry forward etc. But why build a 'console' that isn't going to sell well, if even in enough numbers to justify the cost because their games are Day 1 on PC and on Cloud enabled devices. The hardcore most deidcated gamer likely owns a PC gaming set-up as that has by far the biggest gaming library, best graphics/performance etc and the more Casual is likely to play on Hardware they already own - it makes more sense to return to PC where games are 'built' and save the cost on porting, optimising and supporting their Console version for the 'few' remaining gamers who buy the Console, save the R&D costs, save the manufacturing and distribution costs etc because they aren't giving up PC or Cloud day 1 which makes Consoles unnecessary for MOST gamers...

They are never selling PS numbers of Hardware when you can play ALL their games Day 1 on PC/Cloud and that's why their Consoles for the past decade have been 'sales flops'. Many gamers don't want or need to buy an Xbox to play Xbox games and better 'Hardware' exists if Graphics/frame rates are more important...

@OldGamer999 I too have owned EVERY Xbox console and been there since Day 1 with the OG Xbox having been 'sold' on Halo before the Console even launched. I left 'computer' gaming behind and been a 'Console' gamer since the N64 - but for the 80's and early 90's, I was a Computer based gamer - initially BBC Micro, Commodore, Amstrad etc and then IBM PC's until the 3D graphics cards were 'needed' in my £2k IBM PC to play gamesc like Tomb Raider and so many different brands etc that 'cheap' Consoles made much more sense.

It's that reason that MS needed to make a Console so that their 'games' would sell and not just be for the 'few' who could afford to game on PC's. Nowadays, you can game on PC's costing the same (or less in some cases) than a 'Premium' Console (less than a PS5 Pro or even Series X) at 'Console' like visuals/frame rates. You don't 'need' 4k when your PC is connected to a 1080p monitor for example and maybe get better Frame Rates than Series X/PS5 Pro offer too...

Point is, the whole purpose of MS making a Console is pretty much gone - PC's are more affordable, more accessible and as such, far more gamers are now choosing to game on PC, especially the 'younger' market - not us 'old' gamers who have been gaming for 20+yrs on Consoles.

Exclusives are NEVER going to sell Hardware when those Exclusives are only Exclusive to an Ecosystem, not a specific single Platform. 10yrs ago, when MS merged Xbox into MS and 'windows', therefore promising to release EVERY game day/date on PC too, the writing was on the wall - NO PC gamer will buy an XB1 (let alone the XB1X mid gen refresh) as they can play on their PC. It didn't matter what the Series S/X hardware specs were, PC gamers aren't buying that hardware - better to invest in a new GPU...

As for the future, maybe some will start 'fresh' on Playstation and are willing to give up their 'legacy' titles, their achievements etc but some, like we saw when a LOT jumped to PS4 at the start of the XB1 era, will buy whatever MS release as it carries forward their profile, friends, achievements and most important, their gaming Library. It doesn't matter if it sells as well as Series hardware because ALL PC brands (Asus, HP, Lenovo, MSi etc) all configurations regardless of AMD, Arm or nVidia GPU's etc will still be 'Windows' and still be 'Xbox'.

As for Day 1, as I said does it really matter if they are sold on Plkaystation with costs rising and of course having to pay a 'fee' to play many Xbox games (at least unlock most content) due to online aspects when you can play 'Anywhere' else for a 'small' monthly fee. By the time you've bought FH6, Fable, Gears etc and paid a year for PS+ to play most of these, its cost a lot more than a 'year' of Game Pass and you've had access to more games than you could afford on PS and certainly won't carry forward your existing Xbox library...

@OldGamer999 That may well be the ONLY traditional 'Console' way to play Xbox games in the future - buy a Playstation, pay Sony for the privilege of playing on their hardware ansd pay 'Sony' prices for your Xbox games whilst those on MS hardware pay PC prices, don't have to pay for 'Online Access' anymore, can also play their old Xbox games, and access Xbox services like Game Pass. Also not ALL games may release Day/Date on PS hardware.

MS could become a third party publisher in the Console space, but have their OWN PC and PC platform and Cloud Streaming service as the 'entry' point for their Ecosystem with access to games both New and old.

Microsoft started as a PC publisher - making games Solely for their 'Windows' platform but Gaming on PC was too 'expensive' to reach the mainstream population so they had to make a Console to not only establish themselves as a major gaming publisherx, but to establish DirectX as a major gaming API. That's why their OG Xbox was designed and built more like a 'PC' with internal HDD instead of the 'small' form factor and memory cards ALL other consoles were using. Its because PC games required internal storage at the time...

Now, 25yrs later, MS don't need the Console and PC's are now competing with them in terms of price and accessibility. Will you pay 800 for a 'Console' and another $10 a month just to play Online when a 1000 will buy a PC and play ALL the games, not just a select few that happen to release on that particular brand of Console, access to far more market stores instead of being held to ransom by a Monopoly store etc.

If you can't see that MS is more likely to be returning to its 'roots', the platform they Originally built games for, the place they've been known as a Software Publisher for since they formed, still have their own Platform and services without needing their own 'Console' which is often sold at a Loss and not that 'popular' when alternatives (like PC & now Cloud) offer Xbox games Day 1. Its only those who have 'history' on Xbox and therefore BC games and/or those whose 'budgets' suit the Cheaper console entry (although do pay more due to requiring Subs to unlock all features and Games).

At the end of the day, you may welll choose to 'jump' to Playstation. PS5 isn't the 'best' place to play Xbox games is, it may have more resources to bump up the graphical presentation a 'bit', but it doesn't get all games Day 1 and doesn't offer the FULL Xbox library/services etc so not the 'best' console for Xbox - good luck trying to play Starfield, Forza Motorsport, South of Midnight etc on PS5 and as 'cheaply' as you can on Xbox...

@swedetrap Nothing wrong with BOTH and I expect Microsoft to continue to offer Hardware in the 'near' future but Cloud is and will still be the 'ENTRY' point.

The Series S is NOT the entry point despite it being the cheapest hardware option. Series X is NOT the high end option offering theb 'Best' Graphics/Frame Rates - both still exist though as they suit certain budgets/preferences but you don't need either.

There is a lot of talk and expectation that MS's 'next' Hardware will essentially be a PC with Win11 OS - even if it boots to a more 'streamlined/optimised' mode specifically for gaming. That would still give you a Hardware option for those with the budget and/or dedication to gaming to 'justify' the expenditure, but for everyone else, Cloud (even on their Series S/X console) may well be their best/cheapest option, the 'Entry' point to next gen Games/Gaming.

I use Cloud myself - in a supplementary way - when its more convenient or quicker to play the games I want to play wherever I happen to be and want to game - in my lounge, I'm almost always choosing native on my Series X (unless an indie or large game I want to try before considering the 'long' download process) but in my bedroom its almost always Cloud on my XB1X because its 'better' than Native on last gen Hardware. On my RoG Ally, its mostly Cloud because I haven't downloaded and installed the game I want to play and only likely to be playing for 30-60mins.

Point is that Cloud is a viable option and 'Better' than some options - especially if you don't have the budget or can justify going out and spending at least 500 on Hardware just to play a game you can play on lots of devices, some you already have for a 'small' fee. I'd probably rather play Indiana Jones via Cloud than on Switch after all the 'compromises' and scaling down to run on that hardware.

I'd prefer to play FH5 on Cloud on my XB1S instead of playing the Native version as the Cloud version is higher res, higher graphical settings and higher frame rates too - much better than the 'ugly' 30fps Native version! Of course, the Series X version is better than those, but PC is even better so why bother with the Series Console if Graphics/frame rate is the ONLY thinng that matters.

There are still people that happily play the XB1S version, the native version, the 'Worst' version and arguably worse than the Cloud version (unless you are using the mobile Cloud version rather than decent Wifi version) and they haven't upgraded for '1080p' let alone up to 4k, haven't upgraded for 60fps gaming, let alone up to 120fps and those critical of Cloud aren't buying the latest PC Gaming GPU's/CPU's for the 'best' Graphics AND Frame Rates as well as Ray Traced features that consoles can't offer. Budget, preferences and whether or not you can 'justify' the cost for the amount of time you spend gaming will dictate on where you game. Cloud could well be the Entry point, even main choice for some, but for others, only Hardware will do and they'll find the cost regardless!

I think Cloud is 'acceptable' but I have the budget to invest in Hardware and spend enough time gaming to justify spending money on Hardware for a 'better' experience - but appreciate that others, especially 'globally' in a 'global' financial crisis where its getting harder to pay the 'bills' and put food on the table every month, may rely on Cloud and its 'low' entry cost for their Gaming - and that can be on a BIG Screen sat on the Sofa through their XB1S/X, through a Firestick USB plugged into their TV/Monitor etc - it doesn't just have to be hunched up over a tiny mobile screen!!!