BAMozzy

@Fiendish-Beaver It's never as high as £30 for a brand new AAA game - maybe in a sale it is, but then sometimes in a sale, I can find some games cheaper on Xbox than on PS5 by more than £30 and vice versa.

The point is that most people WON'T go to check if some game is cheaper on Steam - especially not those invested in the 'Xbox' ecosystem and have all their Friends, Achievements etc on Xbox. They aren't buying a Steamdeck, its an 'Xbox' that also lets you open up a Steam App and play Steam games. But with Game Pass and ALL your Xbox/PC games to play, most will 'buy' from Xbox and maybe only buy a few games Xbox doesn't offer (like Spider-Man or Last of Us) to play - its additional/supplemental to their Big Screen gaming and want it to 'carry on' playing on their Console or whatever device without losing progression, without needing to buy a 'different' version, that freedom to play where they want and take their 'Xbox' experience with them...

All of Xbox games will be on Game Pass and promoted on their OS/UI you sign into on Launch!! You have to really want to buy from Steam over Xbox to do so which makes it more 'inconvenient' for the majority. If you want a Steam Handheld buy the Steamdeck - you may not have access to GoG or other retailer selling 'steam keys' on your 'Xbox branded' device - locked to the 'steam' app on that device which may not have the SAME pricing on Xbox branded products - like Apple Apps because its 'their' product...

@Kaloudz Its not a 'bad' thing as such, its more about what the Hardware is being used for - if its just for pushing out more frames per second at the highest resolution and settings, then its likely easy to scale down to weaker hardware - it just depends on whether its 'worth' it it terms of sales because it still costs them money. If it won't make enough back, its not worth doing and 'last gen' is often a 'shrinking' market too.

Of course with newer hardware becoming Popular, you also saw numerous ports of games that required more 'work' than tweaking a few settings to lower res, frame rate caps and gmuch lower graphical quality settings, some requiring bespoke settings or even tweaks to the game itself to reduce Graphical load to run - but often release much later and handled by a specialist Developer to bring that game to such 'weak' Hardware it was never built/designed for - some of the Miracle Switch Ports for example.

Point is, it really depends on the Game, its design and/or reliance on features that only certain Gen Hardware can offer - but with Current Gen games targeting 4k and 60 fps as a minimum and Medium/high quality settings, 1080/30 or even 720/30 with low/medium settings could be possible on last gen hardware - so it comes down to whether or not enough will buy to make it worth releasing more than a 'technical' reasonas to whether or not it does release - some also 'try' just to maximise their sales/reach when the sacrifices to get it running are far too much for gamers to accept...

Point is, When you can do 'Everything' on Current gen, next gen hardware only ever iterates on it, does it better, faster, prettier etc so can be scaled down. If it relies on some built in feature that only newer hardware offers like SSD or some RT/AI Processing Cores, then it becomes an issue to release on older systems...

The first one was supposed to release 'Day 1' on Xbox too but until it does, there is still a LOT of time (in gaming terms) when a few months is quite some time.

Of course they may have learned from developing their first game and what these Consoles are capable (or not) of doing. They may design the game differently, cut out a feature that proved problematic on Series S for example and/or design areas knowing what 'budget' they have to stick to for a successful port. It could be a LOT smoother this time around...

Then again, maybe next gen hardware is out and its only releasing on that era if it takes them quite a few years and a few delays to get to release.

Its too far away and too many things can happen, it may 'never' release at all due to some circumstances or be here before we thought possible for a AAA game in this day and age. Until its released, this will just be 'project', a 'future' game but right now, 'nothing' to me right now. Until its 'due out' next or at least in the next month or two, It's not a 'Game', a Product for a Gamer to worry or get excited about.

@Fiendish-Beaver There has been hands-on with the RoG Ally Xbox X and of course there is the Early Access on PC thing too which had Spider-Man on an 'Xbox' based App/UI - again that App/UI only linked games INSTALLED to that Hardware, not their entire Steam Library. To get Spider-man to show up, they had to open up the Steam app, go to their Library (or search for the Game) and Download it to Hardware. Then when the Xbox App or you Boot up your 'Xbox' Ally (not to Windows but to the Xbox PC UI, it will now show Spider-Man.

The Home Screen is basically Microsofts Home Screen - you sign into your Xbox/MS account on Boot up. That's where you see your 'installed' games to play, but you are in your Xbox account not Steam!!

Yes you can open up Steam and manage your library, buy games etc. As someone with over 700 Steam games, you'd have to go to the App Section (same as you would for Netflix or Amazon Prime or whatever other Media Apps Xbox allows) and open up Steam, sign into your steam account and go to your Library and install the games you want to play.

That's the point I'm trying to make here - Steam is more like an App that you have to go to, have to load into to even see that Library of games you own. You can't see those from your Xbox UI/Dashboard but your UI/Dashboard can detect what games and from which platform they are for installed onto your Storage - that's why they appear on your 'Home' Screen - then you can tab to Xbox Library and Game Pass Library, and them whatever Steam games installed Library then 'apps' like Steam, Netflix whatever to access 'other' media suppliers inc 'Games' - unlike Current Xbox.

The Question comes as to whether or not the 'next' Console will be locked - although have 3rd Party Apps, Can't boot into full Windows like a PC for example and go to some 3rd Party retailer not on their list (GoG. games didn't show in the PC 'app' version - but I don't know if anyone tried on the RoG due to not installing their GoG games onto a 'test' device they don't own.

Anyway, I think I've explained now that this isn't a 'PC' - its an Xbox PC not running the Full Windows Desktop, but an Xbox/Windows team version that enables you to play Windows PC games but without the 'bloat or versatility of 'Windows 11'.

@Kaloudz As they've probably not long started development - this was just an announcement of their next game they are going to be working on, it may not even release on 'Series' Hardware (even if it does get a PS5 release) because the next Gen Hardware will be out and/or not enough 'Series' gamers to port down and do all the 'extra' scaling work (as series X and PS5 would be similarly scaled) for Series S, extra optimisations and/or actual game tweaks to get it running at a level they are happy with.

They could also have learned a LOT from the experience and maybe drop some feature and design the game slightly differently because they will be releasing on Xbox and now have a much better understanding of the Series S hardware.

At this point, its so far off in the future, I couldn't care less about it. As a game, let alone a 'product' it doesn't exist yet and for us gamers won't exist until we can buy it. So much can happen between now and then, so in the mean time, I'm focussed on the next few months as those Games are almost certain to release and I have seen or heard enough to know I'll be playing. Anything outside the next few months is just one big jumble of titles that are all 'future' games I'm interested in but won't waste any 'thought' on until they are nearly out.

I don't feel like I've lost Perfect Dark or Everwild as I never had them to begin with, never had any hands on time with. Yes I may have been interested in the concept or IP but it wasn't a Complete game that I (or any real gamer) would want to play and was deemed too 'costly' and/or not worth continuing to get into a Final Product for me to Play. I'd rather that than they Try to rush what they do have to Market in as 'Polished' a state as possible or keep piling money into it and its still just a 'mediocre' or very 'niche' Product that will 'never' justify its cost.

@Weebleman Considering the Series S outsells the Series X, it would indicate that the 'majority' were more concerned about Cost than 'graphics' or 'Frame Rates' - just happy they can at least play the games they want.

The point is that it will sell and therefore increase the 'reach' of the Xbox brand. It may well be a 'PC' but its also much of a Collaboration with Microsoft. The OS is designed/built by MS - not a 'generic' Windows PC boot up, but a dedicated 'Windows Xbox' Boot that both MS's windows and Xbox teams created.

And yes you can play 'Xbox' games on it as Xbox games are pretty much ALL Play Anywhere and/or on Game Pass too to Download/install. Your Save and progress carries across. Yes a lot of 3rd Party Published Xbox games don't support Play Anywhere or not on Game Pass, but they aren't 'Xbox' games, they are Not owned, published or controlled by MS. Certainly games released in the last decade by Microsoft - since they introduced Play Anywhere.

You can play EVERY Xbox game you owned on your Device though via Streaming with Remote Play - exactly the same as Sony's PS Portal offers. So even if you can't play a specific game Natively, you can still play via Streaming - either from a server (Stream your Own Games) or directly from your Console with Remote Play.

Streaming may not be as 'ideal' as Local play, but its better than nothing and can be better than playing 'locally' on that Systems Hardware - the hardware too weak to run it at 720/30, yet you get 1080/60 when streaming...

The 'cheaper' Xbox Ally still offers the same Library and options to access the SAME games. You are only paying more for slightly better visuals/frame rates and/or minor differences like storage capacity and rumble triggers. The same as the PS5 vs PS5 Pro, PS4vs PS4 Pro, XB1S vs XB1X, Series S vs Series, the 'more' powerful and more expensive Hardware isn't as popular as the cheaper and many never bothered upgrading for more frames, more resolution etc. The more expensive versions are for the 'dedicated' Gamer that not only has the funds, but willing to spend it on their 'leisure' activity whilst the cheaper is the more affordable, more accessible option for the Majority who are happy just to be able to play the latest games on a dedicated Handheld, maybe don't expect to get enough usage out of to justify spending more on it etc...

@Fiendish-Beaver I was referring to the XBOX based Windows PC/Xbox Consoles - Steam May well be ACCESSIBLE - but it ONLY collects the games INSTALLED in to your Library. That's what the NEW RoG Ally Xbox PC does so why expect the NEXT Xbox to be different

The 'more' Generic PC's may well be 'different' with their full Windows boot up, BUT the NEW Xbox Ally Dashboard doesn't link to ANY Steam Games that are NOT installed in your Library on Boot up, the ones you can instantly Access to start playing (like on a Console) are just the 'installed' games. Steam is a separate Platform and must be loaded into before you can buy or install your 'owned' games through the MICROSOFT Dashboard/UI. You won't see 'Spider-man' in any tabs on the UI/Dashboard unless you've already gone to Steam, opened it up, purchased it and installed it - otherwise, you won't see it at all.

Whilst Steam may have a Handheld, it doesn't let you play on devices you may already own - like mobiles, TV's etc that Streaming allows. You want specifically curated experiences for the 'Xbox' branded Hardware that you won't get on Steam, just the generic PC version, won't get Play Anywhere in the Xbox ecosystem which is Cloud, PC and Console.

MS could have a '2 tier' next gen system - their Cheaper 'S' may not offer 'Steam' or other PC retailers - be more a 'traditional' Console sold Cheap but locked to MS with their 'X' being more a Console/PC hybrid, offering Curated Console versions tailored and Optimised for their 'S/X' hardware but the X also plays 'PC' games.

The User Interface on the Xbox Ally X isn't 'Windows' - its a Xbox Windows 'Hybrid' designed by Microsoft and Collects 'installed' games regardless of whether they are Xbox or Steam for 'instant' access - just like you do from the 'home' screen on Xbox - but your Steam Library of 'owned' games not installed can't be 'accessed' until you load up steam. However Game Pass Games, Xbox/Play Anywhere owned Games and even Microsoft Store games (Advertising new releases, coming soon etc) all link to the Xbox/Microsoft Store from their UI/Dashboard. Its far less Convenient to boot up, see the game on MS store, then decide to boot steam up to buy from them instead.

Unless MS drop the Online Fee for their Online games, I think that Convenience and ease will benefit MS. Of course 'some' may well choose to buy from Steam, but then may sell more 1st party as they go fully multi-platform making far more money than the '30%' they would have got if you bought 3rd Party from them.

If you were paying attention in yesterdays Xbox Podcast, you'd know that they will have 'optimised' versions for their Hardware (inc OEM Xbox branded). Gears has has a RoG Ally X certified version and devs will still 'optimise' games for 'Xbox' Fixed Spec Next Gen hardware. They say they are focussed on their Ecosystem and whilst you maybe able to buy/play from 3rd Partys, doesn't mean they are promoting, advertising, linking (other than 'installed' games) to Steam - they are advertising and promoting their Platform and 'allowing' you to 'access' 3rd Party too.

@Fiendish-Beaver I don't know if that will be the case. Steam games are locked to steam and won't be 'advertised' on Windows or Xbox based dashboards.Xbox also offers Play Anywhere, Game Pass (to play at even lower cost), Achievements etc.

The one thing that I think will make a BIG difference is what MS plan to do with Online/Social gaming charges - the Basic Game Pass Core tier. Why Buy Call of Duty on Xbox when it also forces you buy a Subscription to play Online and with Friends but Steam doesn't - Battlenet doesn't either of Course which is MS owned and maybe as cheap as Steam...

Game Pass is their 'key' platform as it will get people into their Xbox store, all the games are linked to MS store on their Dashboard etc. If you want to check out what steam has, you have to load up Steam specifically and games you own, but haven't installed, won't even show up on your Dashboard - you have to go to steam to download and only once installed, will appear in your Library.

MS are banking on Convenience and their own features (Achievements, Friends list, Libraries, Game Pass, Play Anywhere - and that includes 'Streaming' as Xbox adds more and more games to 'Stream your own'. You won't be able to stream other platform games.

Steam and Xbox/PC don't necessarily share the exact same features despite them being on PC. So in some cases, it may be better for the consumer to buy from a 3rd Party store (Steam for example) but for others, the Xbox/Windows version with Play Anywhere, Achievements etc maybe better for them

@RBRTMNZ That's the law of diminishing returns at play. Its not just 'resolution'' or 'graphics' but actual meaningful technological advances that allow Creators too do 'something' previous creators couldn't.

In the early days, going from 2 to 8 to 32 colours had quite a big impact as did going from simple beeps to synthesised sound/digitised speech were transforming games. Going from 2D sprites to 3D polygons a Game changer.

Now we have hardware that can have 3D Surround Sound as good as any Cinema, now we have billions of colours and much higher Dynamic Range, now we have virtually limitless Polygons and even real-time lighting etc etc - any additional upgrades are literally iterating - allowing for more use with less limitations/restrictions - whether that's to frame rates, resolution or graphical settings.

Point is, you'll never get that 'transformative' completely 'New' experience that ONLY a New Gen System will bring - it will ALWAYS feel like an iteration, a slight upgrade rather than a transformative upgrade because they already have had the technology to create any type of game/experience already. You can't suddenly hear crystal clear, CD quality Audio in a Game for the First time again, or go from only 2D to now having 3D worlds to explore, from Pixels to Polygons etc.

Therefore next gen hardware will be a lot like this gen - same type of games - albeit maybe looking and/or running smoother, less pop-in and/or more Real Time Lighting etc but nothing particularly revolutionary or never been possible before Game-play experiences,

@Millionski Also, if you want to 'boost' the Performance for playing on a big screen, you can buy an external GPU dock that also provide power to the Ally (so you don't need to plug that in as well) and run it at max power mode with boosted GPU resources and/or features too like DLSS for example if you connect to an nVidia GPU.

It's perhaps not worth the cost for many - especially not if they spend MOST of their big screen gaming on dedicated hardware - but you can kind of get the 'Switch' like Extra power boost if you 'dock' into an eGPU and they have HDMI out for connecting to a TVa couple of extra USB slots.

I have a RoG Ally (OG) but find it to uncomfortable and frustrating to use because its too 'small' in the grip and controls, so I'm certainly getting a RoG Xbox Ally X....

Watching some shows live, some after so I can skip through all the stuff I'm not interested in and the rest I'll probably read some articles and watch some trailers on youtube - pretty much the same as every year.

I can't say that many of the games at both Xbox shows really appeal enough that I want to watch the whole thing and I find Geoff Keighley to be annoying so I tend to watch these at least 30mins after they've started so I can skip past all the 'boring' (to me) bits.

@dathip There are a lot of reasons I don't play JRPG's, I think the last one I played was Goemon on the N64. I don't enjoy Zelda anymore either - Ocarina of Time was the last one I played any significant time on.

Anyway the point I was trying to make is that there is bound to be some Game mechanics/systems, Genres or even Graphical design choices you'd rather avoid than play. Those were examples of Mechanics/systems - just like Inst-fail Stealth sections, elevator sections that thankfully are no longer required to hide a loading screen, Games requiring online Only to play, so many reasons that some may choose not to play certain Genres or spend their time in the worlds they created - especially not when there are hundreds, if not thousands of games that do appeal but haven't yet had the time or opportunity to play.

I stopped playing Fighting games before Street Fighter and Tekken came along and never got the appeal when those games came out - never really wanted to 'fight' my friends - more beat them at Goldeneye or ISS64 or MarioKart.

After nearly 50 years of video gaming - ever since Pong became available to UK Homes, followed by Atari and the 80's 'Home Computer' (Sinclair, Commodore, Amstrad...), and every Playstation/Xbox console over the years, I've played pretty much every genre and/or style multiple times - some to know I really won't tolerate anymore - there is NO technological reason for Turn based (I can see why in a 'simulated' card/board game - like gwent, Uno, Poker, Monopoly etc) - just like I accepted 'text based' adventures because 2D sprites moving around a very limited screen space wouldn't work, I accepted that certain design choices, graphical as well as structural were of their time/technology of the Day - I played the Hell out of Dizzy on C64, Goldeneye on N64 too, but don't enjoy certain aspects of them today.

@Valhura Rechargeable battery packs were quite expensive - although they did last a week or more where my DS3's needed recharging everyday or wouldn't last a session.

However AA batteries themselves aren't expensive and a pk of 4 can last a couple of months or more. A pack of 4 AA Rechargeable Batteries are cheaper than a Rechargeable pack and would last a week - but you do need to add on a Charger to the cost. However Rechargeable AA Batteries themselves can still be useful to have around for other devices - although fewer and fewer these days. I used Rechargeable AA's in my Gameboy Colour LOL.

Point is, you have various options available and some are 'very' cheap (no big-brand multi-pack of disposable AA's could last you several years - maybe longer than the Controller lasts LOL) and even with Rechargeable options, you had Official, Licenced and even 3rd Party Rechargeable packs at various cost, as well as AA Rechargeable batteries which were cheaper than even the cheap 3rd Party Packs and more versatile too.

As a consumer, you have the Options and the ability to easily swap Batteries - and whilst I will say Disposable Batteries are the 'worst' idea - just because of the environmental impact if not the long term cost, you can still buy/use Rechargeable AA's - which still provides that 'Rechargeable' aspect to keep the Cost down but not quite as convenient as a Battery Pack that is charged in the Controller itself.

I'd still rather have the choice to swap the Battery for a Charged or fresh one or plug a Cable in to charge and keep playing than have no choice but to play wirelessly. It's better than buying a whole new controller and/or disposing of the old one...

@dathip I don't play any Turn-based video games and wouldn't play WoW (I don't like MMO's either) and certainly wouldn't play ANY Final Fantasy game regardless of whether it has real-time or turn based elements. I wouldn't even play Gwent in Witcher 3 because its a 'turn-based' and a 'card' game. I don't see the point in 'Single' player games at all. I can concede to taking it in turns to play games like Pac-Man or Space Invaders in two-player mode, but I play games to 'play', not select an option from a Menu and wait for things to play out before I select another option.

Cooldowns on 'special' attacks - like say Destiny or even CoD with Field Upgrades are not the same. Many games have some mechanic that requires you to charge some ability or attack before you can use it, but you use it when you want, not because its now your turn.

I want to be immersed and play in real time - as soon as I hear it has any Turn Based mechanics, I'm out, just like I'm out if its a MMO or Fighting game because I don't enjoy those. If I want a good story, I can read a book, watch a movie or play countless games thar have good stories with 'real time' game-play. Want a RPG, well there are numerous options with Real Time action - without Turn based mechanics, without Online and other real players, without looking ridiculous or like a Japanese Game show...

Each to their own, but I'm sure there are certain games or mechanics you really don't enjoy - QTE's or Live Service, Point & Click or Racing Sims for example. I'd rather spend my time playing the thousands of games I do enjoy and ignore the thousands I know that aren't for 'me' but could be 'great' for those that do.

AA Batteries are an awesome option and give people a choice. None of my DS3 (PS3) controllers are actually functional now wirelessly because the Battery is dead and cannot be replaced. All my Xbox 360 controllers still work fine - either with AA or Rechargeable Batteries.

The Advantage of AA batteries (or at least a Battery compartment that AA Batteries will fit in), is that you can easily replace with multiple options. Not only do you have the Disposable AA batteries (least recommended), but you can also buy rechargeable AA Batteries and use them in more devices than 'just' the Controller, but you can also buy Recargeable Battery Packs specifically for the Xbox Controller which makes it no different from a built in Rechargeable battery - just more accessible and easier to replace for a Consumer.

As I said, Having a AA Battery compartment is a GREAT option because it not only gives Consumers more choice, but also doesn't limit their Life Span as much. I can't use ANY of my PS3 controllers now because not one of the 5 I have hold a charge and I can't very easily replace. ALL my Xbox 360 controllers still work, even if my AA rechargeable batteries or Battery Packs stop holding a charge, I can easily buy more or use regular AA's until I can get replacement rechargeable batteries - much cheaper than buying a new controller!!

No - I already have the OG RoG Ally - that was my first Handheld Gaming PC - its the only Handheld PC I've owned but owned numerous PC Tablets and Laptops.

I've owned many Handheld gaming devices from Nintendo's Game & Watch games to a Gameboy, Gameboy Color, DS etc. I've had a Sega Game Gear too but I've not gamed on a handheld 'gaming' device for over a decade (not counting playing a few games on Mobile phones over the years) - at least until I bought my RoG Ally.

For me, the RoG Ally is 'decent' but just not comfortable or easy to use. The Controls and layout are Small so I struggle to intuitively hit the right buttons as my Muscle Memory is used to a full size layout. That's one of the BIG reasons I'm interested in the RoG Xbox Ally X - not just because it maybe a bit of an upgrade spec wise, but because I expect it to feel more like a Controller in my hands. I don't travel much, certainly not whilst I could game too, so its more for the Home use when the TV is being used. The ability to just carry on playing in comfort (on the Sofa with an Xbox like Controller) appeals greatly. Often I only have 30mins or so before something starts on TV and Don't turn on the Console, but turning on the RoG Ally allows me to play for as long as I want without having to move or cut the session short.

I don't buy any games at launch because no game is worth that much to me. It will be much cheaper after a while and there are MANY great games on Sale so I'd rather buy 3 or more AAA games for the price of 1.

Free to Play games these days are also an option. Games like Roblox and Fortnite as well as Halo:Infinite all offer creation tools to create different and/or unique experiences.

There are so many Games and Options that I don't need to buy ANY game when its at its most expensive. I have a Backlog of Games going back over 20yrs on Xbox to the OG Xbox with some playable on Series hardware, games that are less than £10 I could buy from the past 20yrs as well as all the FREE games from Gold/Game Pass that I could play so why pay more just because its a 'new' release. As an older release, it will still offer the SAME experience but at much more reasonable cost.

New games aren't just competing with other 'new' releases that week, but the massive Libraries of Games available on that hardware. Why spend money when I don't have enough time to play the games I already have or get access to...

When more and more people are turning to Free to Play Games like Fortnite and Roblox which offer a LOT of variety of Games too, and playing on Mobiles etc, when Publishers are putting up prices as well as selling so much content post launch which makes a 'complete' game even more expensive, Hardware too has gone up as cost of Living skyrockets, I wonder if the Sales alone will be enough. 10m via Game Pass or struggle to sell 1m in Sales in the first month and Game Pass does 'Pay' for the Games.

Game Pass isn't 'unique' as both EA and Ubisoft have Sub services for their Games too - highest tier offering their games Day 1. Playstation+ affects sales too as some will now opt to wait for them to come to that service than spend $40+ in a Sale, let alone buy it for $70 Day 1.

Game Pass is 'additional' no instead of - yes some consumers may ONLY Sub, never buy anything or spend any more money on gaming (inc MTX/DLC content), but others will use it to 'supplement' their gaming Library, will play games on Game Pass, choosing to buy a select few and/or DLC/MTX as well as buy the games that aren't on Game Pass. Instead of choosing which game to buy and play, and which to miss out on, they can play multiple games without going over-budget or missing out.

If Sony had created Game Pass (or decided that PS+ would offer Day 1), I bet the industry would be lauding Sony's 'innovation' and more Consumer friendly approach. Some games you may play multiple times, but most are not even finished or ever returned to - that's why they tried (and basically killed off) the Used market because that hurt Sales. You don't own Games (just a Licence to access the Software) and as we know, Companies can revoke Licences, shut down their Servers etc to make the game 'unplayable'. So why not 'rent' games - Blockbuster and Netflix used to rent games which 'hurt' sales - but could also generate sales if the person borrowing enjoys it enough they want to own it!!

Its Corporate Greed to say that anything that offers Value or more Consumer Choice (Choice to 'rent' or Buy) is detrimental to 'them' when its clearly benefitting a LOT of Devs, a lot of Projects and Consumers too. It doesn't work for Corporate Greed because they want to 'maximise' revenue from each Consumer - not give them a Choice - its Pay the $70+, pay the Sub fee to play Online with Friends or MISS OUT. The game will be half price in a few months as they panic and need to shift units to try and claw back more of the Costs they spent - but with Game Pass, most seem very happy to receive a big chunk of cash so that when it does go on sale Day 1, it's profitable within Days...

@carlos82 Yeah - PGR2 was my Favourite Racing game of that era - just enough reality with the right blend of Arcade as well Trying to earn enough Kudos or nail a perfect run to get the Platinum kept me playing and playing and it looked Great for its time too. Forza felt too 'Sim' like which to me takes some of the 'fun' of racing 'games'.

I think Horizon Blends Arcade into its Racing Game very well - even if it aims for Sim style Physics and realistic looking Cars (until DLC introduces toy brands) and Environments. That's why I think it also has wider appeal which puts more Pressure on the 'Flagship' which often sold as much because it was a 'Graphical Showcase' but also Runs well and bundled with Consoles at times too so 'inflated' sales. But its 'niche' - too Sim like and it becomes 'too serious' for gamers to want to play to relax - sometimes they want to go speeding through villages in expensive sports cars racing aeroplanes or seeing how far you can jump a Ferrari...

Point is Forza Motorsport maybe the 'best' Sim Racer on Xbox, it's not the best Sim Racer on PC and unlikely to make enough competing with GT on Playstation and their loyal fanbase. Horizon is different enough to be 'successful' and MS know it.

With so many Sim Racers in the PC space, some that are more accurate and so far less forgiving than Forza is, to them it still feels to 'gamey' but otherwise decent Racer. With MS opening up and/or exposing their Xbox Market to other Markets like Steam, Epic etc, they can basically keep 'Forza Motorsport' Relevant for years to come with updates, add new tracks/old tracks remastered, add new vehicles annually with each new 'year' of cars etc etc as long as people keep wanting that FM experience without necessarily needing to 'remake' a game again from scratch that may not compete with whatever else is available....

Already did! Horizon has been more successful and probably has a higher engagement too. I also think that Motorsport is not as commercially viable on other platforms - especially Sony hardware as they have a Loyal and dedicated Gran Turismo fanbase. Therefore I don't expect Motorsport to be worth porting which again limits its reach and profitability.

All that would indicate that Horizon is their top Racing game. I actually preferred Gotham Racing to Forza and Rallisport Challenge too - both of which I'd have preferred to see as MS's flagship Racer

I played it, enjoyed it and think its a great return to the traditional Battlefield experience in every way. I don't think it will 'sell' as well as the Beta - the Beta is Free whilst BF6 isn't and we don't yet know what EA are planning with their Monetisation of Post Launch content yet. EA ruined Battlefront 2 at 'launch' and how long has it been since Battlefield had a 'decent' launch?

Of course I expect it to succeed as its the Battlefield game that Battlefield Fans have been wanting for years, but I expect quite a few to wait for sales, wait for EA Access and/or wait for post launch content and/or patches.

Its what I expect from a Battlefield game, what they've excelled at in the past is here and feels like a Battlefield game too. It feels and plays like BF3 but with modern Graphics adding to the vibe/immersion. Delta Force is F2P so I wonder if that will be an 'alternative' until BF6 is cheap/free on EA Access.

In anycase, its still great to see that the 'fundamental' Battlefield experience is Back and reminiscent of the best years of Battlefield, going back to what made BF as popular as it was. Its the best BF game (imo) for a decade+ but whether that's 'enough' for EA, time will tell...

@ANJB78 CoD hasn't 'become' anything it wasn't already and ever since Black Ops 2, they introduced Cosmetic Customisation with 'ridiculous' skins - in fact more games have had customisation than not. Even before that, they had Gold Camo which is not something y soldier would equip going into battle.

Games like Ghosts, at the start of the XB1 era over a decade ago had Cosmetic Skins for Characters which was still 'unusual' for First Person Games at that time - After market Cosmetics were 'new' just a few years before. Then the RNG Loot era - the era of the loot box. That was also around the time Xbox lost marketing and Sony took over - but Skins were an established part of their business back then.

In the past 5 years or so, it has changed - but more because its now used to finance Warzone and Post launch Content - ALL F2P. The whole reason you get new maps, modes, weapons, Operators or ANY content Free is because its funded like a F2P game. Before that, Maps were sold as DLC and if you didn't buy, you missed out.

At the pure Game-play level, CoD hasn't changed at all - it was Always more 'arcade', more Hollywood's idea of War. Always the most responsive, smoothest and slickest feeling FPS. There is a reason its regarded as the 'best' in the FPS category despite the Cosmetics, SBMM complaints, Cheaters and whatever other 'negative' aspects.

Battlefield may have the right look, but its still feels like a BF game to play, feels a LOT like BF3 to play h maybe BFV tweaks to movement - it's not as responsive and feels more clunky, less precise.

Battlefield is very different to CoD and has far more in Common with Star Wars: Battlefront in the way the game plays and feels to play - the main difference is just the way the game is 'Skinned' with Battlefront replacing Modern Military with Star Wars Sci-fi aesthetics. That alone should be reason you consider it - not whether it has outrageous cosmetics or not.

Battlefield can't compete with CoD - not on the the Game-play feel and style. It may have similarities, but its competing more against Delta Force than Call of Duty because Call of Duty is like Forza Horizon is to Forza Motorsport in a way - one is the more arcade approach to FPS/racing whilst the other is going for the more 'realistic' BF but unlike Forza, the movement feels very different between the two - camping is far worse in BF for example.

I'm not saying BF is 'bad', I'm just saying that it is very different from CoD and if the only reason you don't 'enjoy' CoD is the Cosmetics, Battlefield won't replace that Game-play experience at all - the closest was probably Xdefiant but that's gone now...

Its like BF3/4 with updated Graphics and tweaks to Classes. It feels like a Battlefield game which should please Battlefield players and seems to be more polished than many BF games have been at launch (at least in this Beta).

To me it seems like the Strongest Battlefield game since BF3/4 days - just hope EA have learned from their previous games about post release Monetisation. Yes they may have 'appropriate' Cosmetics, but doesn't mean they will be appropriately priced and/or have expensive seasonal Battle Passes with 'little' of value.

But so far, the Beta feels like a Battlefield Game to me (for better or worse depending on your own preferences) and its visuals and audio combine well to create a 'battlefield' experience for the senses too.

It's not like CoD at all - its not the same pacing, movement or 'feel' to the gun-play and you don't have hitscan detection and have to deal with 'hipfire' type spread with Automatics and sustained fire - bullets don't hit 'dead-centre' of the sight as they 'bloom' from the barrel. So remember to tap-fire at range otherwise you'll be thinking the hit detection and gunfights feel very inconsistent if you are used to other FPS games.

I know that some will prefer that to more 'twitch' and fast-paced all action focused gun-play in relatively confined spaces where people are diving out of windows/doorways or sliding around corners and shooting accurately during those actions. You can slide/dive in BF, as humans can and do to get behind cover, but can't shoot too.

Battlefield 6 has a LOT more in common with Battlefront 2 than it does with Call of Duty - the only thing they share really is they both are FPS games with a 'military' setting - although CoD's is more Hollywood Action Movie idea of what Elite Squad vs Elite Squad of Stuntmen Soldiers would do in a more 'arcade' style Small Map arena with NO destruction. Battlefield want you to feel more like an everyday Soldier involved in a Large scale Combined Arms Battle in realistic destructible environments to show the 'impact' of Battle too.

That differences makes a huge difference in 'feel' so I don't think CoD players will get the same 'feel' or get the same kind of experience they want/enjoy from BF Sure, some FPS gamers will be ok with that, some may struggle to adapt and others will stick with CoD...

I don't consider this a 'Game' - its an 'Experience' that is designed to give the Player the 'experience' of living with Psychosis - not to 'challenge' their gaming prowess.

Combat and Puzzles prevented people from playing through Hellblade. Those got in the way of the 'experience' so stopped a LOT from experiencing and hopefully having a better understanding of Mental Health.

Combat and Puzzles are not their to drive the Story, but to trigger Psychosis, the voices in the head - sometimes positive/enthusiastic, other times can be Pessimistic/anxious and its 'dynamic' too - reacting to the 'situation'. That's why its highly recommended you play on a Headset - not use the TV's audio or even a Surround Sound HIfi System as Headphones put the sound 'in your head'.

This could be classified as more of an Educational Experience than a Game but Games are a bit more immersive than just watching a TV show or Movie. The whole game is designed to Show how Mental Health impacts a person, how situations, not necessarily 'life threatening' as puzzles are, impact Senua and the voices in her head - that is the entire point of the Game in reality - the rest of it serves that - the story, the cast, the setting and situations etc..

As an Experience, I'd rate it quite high - 8+/10
As a 'game'. I'd rate it more like 6/10 - but only because its not a buggy, broken mess and/or poor in performance/graphics. Game-play is weak but at least it 'works'.

I had no doubt that they would continue to support Motorsport but whether will get a sequel in a few years time or not, I don't know. I think they could just update and keep FM going for many years if the game stays popular enough to warrant that support.

They can add tracks, cars and update it for newer hardware almost indefinitely if they wanted...

@Kaloudz Nah - its Avalanche Studio as the developer (Just Cause, Mad Max) - but it was due to be Published by Microsoft and probably Publishing rights and maybe ownership of the IP.

Devs probably had an idea for a Game that other Publishers weren't interested in financing but Microsoft would. It was one of the first games announced under their Xbox Publishing partnerships that was supposed to help bring more 'risky' ideas/concepts to gamers instead of the Publishers demanding 'safe' bets, sequels and/or on-trend games.

It doesn't matter how much MS has written off, sometimes its better to cut your losses as soon as you can than keep ploughing money into a Project that will never be profitable. If they spent 40m On Contraband but believe it will only make about 50m back, you aren't going to spend another 40m+. That's money they can put into games like Fable or Clockwork Revolution to ensure they release on time.

If your costs are going up, Products are taking longer to release and costing more than they budgeted/planned, they have to 'reduce' those Costs otherwise they will end up Bankrupt - that's why EVERY Gaming Company right now has made cuts, cancelled games etc because the economic uncertainty of the future and certain markets no longer accessible due to Political events, that means they project their incomings to drop whilst costs rise. Therefore they need to reduce their own expenditure otherwise they'll spend more than they receive...

Whilst I hadn't forgotten about this, the Concept and certainly lack of any updates meant this had absolutely no appeal to me. Of course I could have changed my mind with more info and/or maybe some Game-play but as it stands now, I couldn't care less its cancelled.

Games are cancelled all the time - many before you even know they were being made. Companies may greenlight an idea, a 'concept' but as the Developer tries to realise that, it either becomes too difficult, too expensive or for whatever reason, it becomes no longer 'viable' or wanted.

Every Company has a large Portfolio of Games they've cancelled - Wonder Woman and Black Panther got cancelled recently and BOTH significantly higher profile IP's with a massive Fanbase (not just in Gaming).

@GuyinPA75 What NDA? Its the same Beta that's releasing this weekend and I never signed any NDA agreement. I got 'early access' to the Beta which started Today - the same Beta that's being streamed and played by thousands and I got an 'early access' Beta code by watching Streamers at the Reveal event who gave out codes for 'early access' - albeit 2 days!

Therefore I have NOT broken ANY NDA or stated something that many other Streamers themselves have said...

NDA was only for those that got to play prior to the reveal event but now its 'revealed' they are free to speak about the game (or at least their Early impressions of the Beta)

@FraserG In case you haven't heard, it seems that Contraband has been cancelled as well...

I've enjoyed the few matches I've played so far on Series X in Balanced mode. It looks impressive with the destruction, Audio is great and it feels like a typical BF game.

If you play BF3, then you pretty much know what BF6 feels like to play!

@Elbow I think the problem is that Japanese RPG's are 'generally' Niche outside of their market and certainly can't compete with Final Fantasy on a Global scale.

That tends to either keep them to a Asian Market or see Developers making more 'mainstream' appeal games to sell on a Global market. Some games do get ports eventually to the western markets - though I wonder if imports help. Persona you could say that Western sales on Playstation maybe helped persuade Sega it would be worth releasing on Xbox too.

If they only sell 200k in western markets on PS5 with 80m+ units, they may think its not worth bringing to Xbox for 60k when it will cost them money to port, support and release their game on that 'closed' platform with only 30m or so units sold. It costs them on Sony too, but sell enough in Japan alone to offset that.

@dathip @TrollOfWar Again look at the 'media' and unless you 'physically' fight your opponents in a Board or table-top game, you have to have a solution that has some randomness and chance for both sides, have to have some way to 'control' and/or dictate the way 'battles' play out regardless of whether its 1v1 or army vs army.

Games are more 'interactive' and they didn't have the resources to do Real Time Combat. The first Adventure/RPG's were text based because they couldn't build games that 'big' with the hardware at the time. Then you got more and more artwork for scene setting, then Point and Click until they could evolve into the RPG's that followed.

Turn based was a solution for the 'media' of the time and 'real' time combat is not an option - you can't really fight an Orc or Dragon so needed some way to have a 'battle' - often against another Human - without it becoming a real time fight.

Now you are basically relying on software, the same software that you are 'battling' (or controlling the opponents, controlling the roll of the dice, the AI, etc as these are 'Solo' games. Real time is far more immersive, no stopping to load into a 'battle' scene and pause waiting for you decide what 'move' you make, then wait for the turns to play out before repeating etc. It also gives the player full control throughout, no pausing/downtime, no just watching. If I miss or get hit, that's on me, not some software controlled random roll chance. If I aim for Critical spots, I hit critical spots no lucky roll of the dice I'm playing the Role and in a way far more befitting of that world and setting. I don't want to be 'kicked' out of the immersion to take turns at hitting each other and sitting there 'helpless' as they take their turn at dishing out damage. If I get hit in a RPG game, it's because I didn't react quick enough and aim to get through battles without taking damage.

So that includes ANY Western RPG - if they say it has Turn Based Combat, its an immediate NEVER playing - not even if FREE (and I don't just mean free behind a Subscription Wall like Game Pass/PS+ games are). If someone bought me a Copy, I'd still never play it.

It's not something I want, tolerate or expect in a 'modern' RPG - not to say that I don't think ANY Dev or Game should not use it to cater to those that want that, I'm just saying that if they 'choose' to go that route despite the technology enabling Real Time and that more immersive (to me) experience, I'll never support it in any way (financially or time).

I don't play any 'turn-based' video games - not just RPG's but also games like Marvel Midnight Sons, Gears Tactics, Xcom etc - even as a Fan of Marvel and Gears, as soon as I found out they had Turn Based mechanics, I lost all interest in them...

I never liked Turn-based combat and think it was ONLY necessary because of the limitations of that era of Hardware. RPG's were 'massive' games with more complex systems and dialogue that didn't leave a lot left for 'Real time' Combat - much like devs used Isometric design to give a '3d' like game - Fallout 1 & 2 for example before going '3D' with Fallout 3.

I hate the 'luck' involved and nothing irritates me more than the Randomness of whether your attack hits, misses etc and then having to 'wait' for your opponents move set to play out instead of being able to react in 'real' time, actually ensure the success of your attacks or defensive actions. Not feel like its left up to chance, luck or even worse, like you can't really influence the outcome because you can't 'avoid' (whether that's by dodging/blocking) their attacks and constantly chip away at their health with your own.

Now, I won't buy ANY game that doesn't offer Real Time Combat. Any game, regardless of the IP, the story, the quality of the rest of the experience, if its Turn Based Combat, then its a easy 'never Playing that' decision.

I have two Expansion packs (1TB & 2TB) as well as a 5TB external HDD of XB1 and older games and the internal storage of my Series X. I don't know how many games I have installed and don't really care - I have more than enough Storage space to play the games I may want to play and/or return to years later...

I don't think I've played more than a few races if at all. I really don't get a lot out of Sim style racing round very similar looking tracks and much prefer more Arcade style vehicular based games.

I think Sim racers were probably the most 'Realistic' and/or Graphically impressive games - probably because they are also not the most 'complex' from a Game-play perspective, Therefore were also bought to 'showcase' the Hardware. Games like Forza or Gran Turismo were also great to demonstrate the 'power' of the Hardware as these also ran very well (often 60fps too).

I think Horizon with its more Arcade style and emphasis on more 'fun' activities and unusual 'showcase' races has probably pushed Motorsport down in terms of the 'most' popular Racer on Xbox. Not only that, Motorsport probably won't 'sell' on Playstation either to try and get more 'revenue' as Playstation already has a Loyal Gran Turismo fanbase...

I just don't think Forza Motorsport is that popular. It seems it has its Niche Fan Base - those that enjoy Sim Racing, but whether it competes well with GT, Grid and any other Sim Racer, I don't know. I don't see the point in buying a new Forza Motorsport because I can play 'older' versions for the SAME basic game-play loop or play 'free' on Game Pass - not that I really want to play that loop for more than a race or two...

I have the Beta ready to go/install when its time and looking forward to returning to the BF3/4 type Game that for me is the pinnacle of the Battlefield Franchise.

It offers a VERY different FPS type experience - Combined arms massive teams (multiple Squads vs Multiple Squads) on large Maps with Destruction and long battles - compared to CoD which focuses more on intense Squad vs Squad Gunfights (with Arcade style rewards for streaks), Action Movie style movement for Action Movie style 'combat' and of course more Arcade/Game style aesthetics with no destruction on their small arena style maps.

I wouldn't want to play BF if I only have 30mins to jump on and play, not likely to play if I want that more Arcade style and fast-paced combat that CoD offers, but I'm not playing CoD when I want the Combined Arms and big scale Battles that Battlefield (and Delta Force) offer. BF is as different from CoD as Battlefront, Quake, Halo, Doom, Apex and Fortnite are too. Battlefront is more like Battlefield despite its Sci-fi setting than CoD is.

I'll likely end up with both BO7 and BF6 - I don't need to buy CoD to play Day 1 anyway as its on Game Pass but I haven't yet decided whether I'll buy BF6 at launch (let alone which version) or wait for Sales/EA Play access. I've been burnt by BF and their 'poor' quality at launch too many times so still may wait for reviews even after playing the Beta!

What's the point? Most have bought hardware that want hardware and others may trade their consoie for a limited' edition flooding the market with used and its not as if anyone 'needs' an Xbox to play Xbox games. They don't need to sell hardware to sell you games and services!!

Unless its a Day 1 'Limited Edition', Like Project Scorpio or perhaps as part of a 'game bundle', is it worth it? You still have custom and Ltd Edition accessories -and I think Controllers will likely remain popular...

@Decimateh Whilst Sony may not release their games Day 1 on Xbox, they will still likely release at 'Day 1' Prices because the Publisher will consider it as a 'brand new' release, the 'first' time that game has been available on that platform. They won't be sold as cheap as you could buy these on their own platform but on their, they are considered 'old' now.

Its the same with MS releasing FH5 at the same price on PS5 as it launched on Xbox years earlier. FH5 has been on sale numerous times since release and still probably 'cheaper' to buy on Xbox because its a lot older and more of the market has already bought/played. The point though is that the Publishers will likely release at the price they launched the game on their own, not cheaper. You may have to wait another 6m or so for sales to drop the price.

@Decimateh Its no different from Microsoft selling their 'old' games on Playstation - Xbox/PC gamers aren't buying FH5 or Sea of Thieves, not buying Hellblade 2 or Age of Empires 2 anymore so not generating revenue. People aren't Subbing to Game Pass or buying Consoles to play these - the 'Hype' and focus has moved on, they've been on sale too so exhausted their own market. Sea of Thieves can't 'grow' anymore, can't expand its Community unless it can 'reach' more people and those people bring 'revenue'....

Sony still want you in their Ecosystem on their Hardware so aren't suddenly going to release their IP's on Xbox 'Day 1' just because Xbox releases Some of their IP's Day 1. They want you buying their games through their store and on their platform preferably and so to do that, they release their games on their platform 'exclusively'.

That will continue, just like Microsoft will continue to launch games on their platforms (PC has a MS platform too - its not 'just' steam!) and into Game Pass Exclusively. After some time, when those games are maybe still 'relevant' whilst others maybe Classics remastered but still old on their platform, those can bring in a sizeable chunk of revenue if you port - you've exhausted your own ecosystem who've already bought (maybe multiple times with all the remasters) these games and already on your platform so won't suddenly leave now because the games they enjoyed months/years ago are now being enjoyed on 'other' platforms...

Unless it has a 'History' (like Destiny, CoD, Minecraft etc) of being Multi-platform Day 1 on that Hardware, a Community of Active Users existing, is a Licenced IP (like MLB) or will significantly 'benefit' both the Game/Game experience and the Publisher, not 'harm' sales of hardware/subs on their platform - reach being far more important than 'exclusivity' more limited numbers, It doesn't suit Sony to release their games Day 1 on Xbox - just like Xbox has Exclusives until they decide to maximise reach and revenue an port to the only Hardware they probably can, the Playstation - although Switch 2 may get some 'love' too.

Sony already releases on Steam/Epic so why not release those on Xbox now to maximise revenue and maybe consider those on Switch 2 as well. Playstation and PC aren't generating revenue on those assets anymore so that only leaves Xbox/Switch 2 - and yes that often means launching at a 'Day 1' price for that platform - unfortunately, not the current price or lowest price its been on other hardware...

@Decimateh @Kaloudz I doubt Sony will release games Day/Date on Xbox in general unless it benefits that game specifically - at least not for the Near future.

Sony, like Microsoft and other Publishers, are sitting on a LOT of Assets in their Back Catalogue. Those games are already on sale and available to 'buy' on their own Platform and most people won't buy the same game 'twice' - at least not without some remaster or upgrade. However, a lot of their playerbase, unless a BIG fan of the IP will bother buying/playing a remaster so the market 'shrinks'. There are fewer and fewer people that will buy their 'older' games.

That leaves publishers little choice, their games become part of their history but not generating 'revenue' in their own ecosystem. So either they do 'nothing', or they can port and release to 3rd Party Markets.

Microsoft already release Day/Date on PC - even if they are 'exclusive' to Microsoft (as in not available on Steam/Epic or other PC platforms), PC gamers can still play. That really only leaves Sony/Nintendo Hardware because Xbox is 'everywhere' else. For Sony, they've branched out to some 3rd Party PC Platforms already, and have several games on Xbox now too - games like MLB and Destiny so its not too much of a stretch to see older PS games releasing on Xbox to try and maximise their revenue whilst also not impacting on theirs.

With Microsoft also potentially allowing 3rd Party Platforms on their Console, Sony may want to port their games to Xbox as a Specific Xbox version with Achievements etc, sell it at 'Full Price' as a Brand New Release (for that Hardware) instead of losing a BIG chunk of revenue in Steam/Epic Sales. Xbox may allow you to play Steam/Epic libraries, but it will promote and focus on their OWN store. You'd have to load up the Steam app and go seek the game specifically on that where as MS will probably have it on their home screen to link to their store....

Sony must be looking at the merging of Xbox and their PC platform, the idea of Steam/Epic on MS hardware and their own PC strategy, their IP's on Xbox Hardware (even if they don't do anything) and potentially deciding whether they either have to quit their PC strategy to keep their games away from MS hardware or 'add' it to their '3rd Party' Strategy. They can charge 'Console' prices $70+ for Spider-Man or Last of Us or God of War despite these being on sale and/or cheaper now on Playstation/PC platforms.

Anyway, point is these Companies want to maximise revenue and with games taking longer to make as well as the games they have released have exhausted their own userbase , no longer bringing in much, if any revenue, then they will use these Assets to extract revenue from outside their OWN market because '70%' is better than Nothing. If you want to play their games Day 1, then their Hardware is still the only place you can guarantee - otherwise you will have to wait until they decide its now time to release elsewhere. Starfield still hasn't released on PS5 for example so would you wait more than 2yrs for a Game you really want to play? The platform holder hopes not...

BOTH!

They are both so very different games and Game-play that you can't get the same experience without buying both.

Battlefield is a large scale multiple Squads vs multiple Squads in Combined Arms (guns and vehicles) battles. Its much slower in Pace and are more a Cog in a big machine.

CoD is much smaller scale with individual Squad vs Squad in gunfights on small maps, Get rewarded for killstreaking in a more Arcade like way, Movement and pacing is much quicker and more Action Movie style movement. It doesn't really offer Combined arms - its just you and your weapons, no classes just perks.

You can't get the BF experience in CoD or vice versa and sometimes I prefer to play one of the other because they are so different. BF has more in common with sci-fi shooter Battlefront (unsurprisingly) than Call of Duty which has more in common with Doom and Perfect Dark in a more 'arcade' small arena style battles.

BF3 and BF4 were 'peak' Battlefield eras for me yet BF3/4 didn't 'kill' CoD despite games like Ghosts, Advanced Warfare etc as CoD was 'struggling' with its lack of innovation and repetitive Boots on the Ground 'limited' Combat compared to the Tanks, Jets, Destruction and large scale warfare BF offers.

Point is, CoD players play CoD because 'nothing' else comes close to that more fast paced and 'intense' (albeit intense in a different way) relatively close quarters battles with Killstreak rewards for doing well in short matches of ~10mins which maybe great for shorter or more limited Gaming time.

For BF players, nothing else comes close to playing a soldier in a large scale Combined Arms battle on massive maps. Tank and Air battles rage around you as these big battles rage on and on - lasting 30mins or more - great if you want to get stuck in and play for several hours or more.

Point is, they are both very different approaches to the 'FPS' genre. Yes they both maybe 'military' based with 'grounded' settings compared to Sci-fi or 'cartoon' style shooters. But they as as Different from each other as Halo is or Apex is too. Therefore I can see BOTH attracting their own fanbase of their style of FPS and for those of us who 'enjoy' both styles, will likely buy both and decide on the day, which FPS style I have the time or inclination to play that day.

I play CoD BO6 now - and its probably the most played FPS this year - but only because BF2042 isn't really what I want from BF and Battlefront 2 is probably 2nd - at least from an online multi-player perspective - Doom the Dark Ages is probably 2nd as my next highest FPS game in terms of time played.

As much as vocal internet gamers berate Streaming, they accumulated over 500m Hrs of streaming games so it seems its worth pursuing. Streaming only 'Game Pass' titles doesn't incentivise purchases on those Streaming only devices. Why Buy if you can't play?

By adding more and more games, there is more variety and incentive to buy - especially if those games aren't playable via Game Pass itself.

@WildConcept6 I doubt they'll count it as their 'own' hardware but that they'll know exactly how many are sold and that everyone who plays a Microsoft product or uses their services, they will still count as a Microsoft Active User.

It doesn't really matter how MS want to view these 3rd Party made licensed hardware - its no different from non-licensed Headsets and handheld PC's in reality and if you use Game Pass or play a Microsoft game, you'll count towards Microsofts Monthly Active Users.

MS may have a bit more 'insight' into how well these devices are selling as they have their Brand attached, may see it as their 'own' made by a 3rd Party or not, but really doesn't matter since 'everything' is an Xbox these days and anyone engaging with any Microsoft game is choosing to spend their time and money on Microsoft products.

It will also likely come with a month or 2 of Game Pass - a Microsoft Service to get you in...

Its a bit like games - some maybe made by Microsoft, Some maybe Xbox owned IP's but made by a 3rd Party studio (like Flight Sim) , Games made by a 3rd party but published by MS (like Sunset Overdrive) and totally 3rd Party. 3 of those would likely still be exclusive yet only 1 is made and owned by Microsoft. It doesn't really matter whether they classify some games (or Hardware) as their 'own' - even if all they did was be the Publisher (don't own the IP or Studio) if its making them money from sales. Its possible they could see it as 'joint-ownership' - their 'Xbox' and Asus 'Ally' - Asus the technical Hardware and manufacture, MS the ergonomic design and software, the 'games' for a gaming handheld as Asus don't do software.

MS won't care what hardware you choose to play Microsoft games on - just that you are spending time and money on their Products/services. It doesn't matter if you don't buy their own Hardware, let alone a 3rd Party made licensed product because you can play Xbox 'ANYWHERE' and wherever you play, you are still contributing to their MAU's and 'engagement' data. Its not limited to their own Hardware only...

@WildConcept6 They'll be getting revenue from it as it is a Licenced Product and will know how many units get sold and can probably track what 'hardware' you are using to play their games or use Game Pass on. They'll probably know if you buy any games/products from them and whilst they are playing any Xbox product/service that month, will still count as a Monthly Active User too.

The very fact it uses 'Xbox' in the name and has an Xbox button too means MS will get money from this - of course they get money from every Windows PC sold as you get a 'windows licence' included with it, but they have collaborated 'more' with this device so it feels more like an Xbox controller than any other handheld device, so I'd imagine that MS will be getting some of that cost back too.

How you want to view it may not be the same way Microsoft view it, or how some others view it - but it is an 'official' Xbox product made in collaboration with a 3rd Party hence its appearance at Xbox based events/shows - but Xbox doesn't 'JUST' mean their Console platform - its been their Gaming Brand for years across PC and Cloud enabled Devices - every device is an 'Xbox' in their messaging as it plays Xbox Games, if not 'natively', then certainly via streaming and that includes from your console if not available on their servers and their Platform - you need Game Pass a MS Sub to stream, their games are on their platform on PC just like Console so maybe do see this as more a '3rd Party' manufactured Xbox product as its mostly their design and Software mixed with a bit of Asus...

@Coletrain And again its NOT inflating Numbers at all. The WHOLE Point is this is the number of People who engaged with a Microsoft Game or Gaming Service every month. The fact you 'choose' or can afford to spend Money on Hardware for your Hobby is no more or less significant than someone choosing to spend their very limited leisure time on their Mobile phone, the only device they may have to play a MS game like Candy Crush.

You are still using a Microsoft Product to spend your leisure time engaging with. Just because you are extremely blinkered and/or completely ignorant/rude/obnoxious etc to 'dismiss' other Microsoft users, doesn't mean MS should or will.

As I stated, yet you completely go off from, Candy Crush is a Microsoft Product so ANY person that plays it will count as a Monthly Active User of a Microsoft Product, No different from you signing into your Xbox or playing an Xbox game on PC or Playstation - you are still using a Microsoft 'Product' in your Leisure time. You can't say that someone who chooses to play Candy Crush or maybe just play Halo: Infinite or Warzone Free on PC, or whatever other platform (not Xbox Console) Microsoft Products are on is NOT counting or shouldn't count as a MAU of a MS Product - just because you think Candy Crush is only for Casuals or not a 'proper' game to YOU, doesn't stop it being a Microsoft Product or a Game to those users!!!

I don't care and certainly Microsoft won't care about your opinions on this, the fact is that they are NOT inflating their figures because those people actually engaged with a Microsoft Gaming product or service at least once a month. Candy Crush, like it or loathe it, is owned by MS, is a Microsoft Product, classed as a game regardless of your opinions, so ANYONE that plays is counting towards their MAU - just like you do or I do or ANYONE else that chooses to spend time playing Microsoft games regardless of the Hardware you access those Microsoft products on.

You may hate Call of Duty, Candy Crush, Pentiment etc but they are MS product sand everyone that plays is just 1 MAU, like you! It doesn't matter if you play CoD on your Mobile, your Amazon Firestick or Playstation, you are still using a Microsoft product for your leisure time. 500m people use a Microsoft Game or Service at least once every month regardless of what that product/service is or how YOU rate it - its still a MS product that gamers (again regardless of how Hardcore or Casual YOU deem them) have chosen to spend their time with.

That is NOT inflating figures at all and makes no difference to you at all how they decide they want to present information that's not really meant for the likes of me or you, but the investors and shareholders. They want to see MAU's and revenue increasing, they don't care as long as you are choosing to spend your time in 'their' products/services and 500m people every month do!!

Take the stats regarding CoD 50m players over 2bn Hours which equates to just 40hrs per player, yet some have 100's if not 1000's of hours so some may only have 10mins or so. But it still equates to 50m different players and an 'average' playtime of 40hrs.

500m MAU's contribute to their Hours spent in their Products and revenue is averaged out too. 50m CoD players and say 20bn in revenue, just for illustrative purposes!!!!, doesn't mean everyone spent $400 on CoD. Some will have spent very little and others thousands on Bundles, season Passes etc. It still 'averages' around 40hours and $400 spend - its not broken down to show how many whales there are versus the no-spends.

Back when they announced that they had 35m+, they also said that Game Pass Revenue was around 4.2bn (net) - don't forget that you pay Tax on the price which goes to the Government - not MS so in the UK, 20% of the £15 for Game Pass is Tax, MS get 80% so you have to factor in Tax.

Lets say that 20% is tax and 35m Subs are all paying £10, so that is £350m Gross Revenue, but MS only get £8 so their Net Revenue is £280m. Instead of getting £4.2bn a year (35m x £10 x 12months), their Net Profit is £3.36bn (35m x £8 x 12months)

Tax varies from region to region and currency conversion too affects how much (in $'s) their Net revenue is - you can't do 5bn (net) / $20 and come up with a Subscriber figure because its more complex a situation than that. From my perspective, I looked back at their last comments of 35m and 4.2bn net revenue so now its up to nearly 5bn, it indicates that either 'more' subscribers have joined or that those Subscribing are paying more (either because intro deals have expired so now paying more or they've upgraded from a lower to a higher tier.

@Coletrain And again what YOU Want is irrelevant and of no importance to ANYONE other than yourself. The fact you call yourself a 'Hardcore' gamer as if that makes ANY difference whatsoever as you still only count as 1 Monthly Active User.

Playing on an Xbox doesn't make you any more 'superior' to someone playing on their Mobile or on a High end PC. You are still counting towards the MAU, still contributing a 'tiny, tiny almost imperceptible' difference to their revenue stream (not unless you are spending 'millions' every month)

Sales don't tell you if they are being used by casuals or not, don't even equate to individual owners as some may buy multiples, don't tell you whether they played 5mins or completed everything. You aren't important enough or significant enough to get a 'breakdown' of MS's (or any other big gaming company) stats in a way you want and besides which, its irrelevant to you.

All that matters to MS is that they have increasing numbers Actively engaging with their Products/Services to show 'growth' and Reach of their Products across all their Platforms service and you are just 1 of 500m, lose you and they'll still have around 500m MAU's. I'm not being rude, but you are just a gamer who has no idea of the business, the revenue generated, some Mobile Users may spend more than you do on MS products/services, and no more 'important' than ANY other user of a MS product/service. You count equally as 1 MAU just like the person who plays Candy Crush every month or only plays Warzone (F2P) on PS5 or only pays for Game Pass and never spends anymore on content.

Its no different from F2P games telling you they have 25m a month MAU's - which doesn't tell you if they spend ANY money or only tried it for 10mins, doesn't separate the ones that spend over $20 from those that spend nothing - you signed in that month, you count as a MAU.

The point is that everyone who chooses (as it is a choice) to use a MS Product or Service that month is equally a Microsoft User. 500m people use a Microsoft game or service every month which is a huge chunk of the gaming population.

It's a Kojima game so I expect to 'hate' it as I haven't liked or enjoyed any of his previous games. I'm sure others will Love it and think he can do no wrong and I'm sure it will look Graphically impressive.

@NeoRatt Of course MAU's matter more than focusing on one specific 'product' - whether that be Hardware, Software or a Service (like Game Pass).

It doesn't matter where you play, what games/services you use or what platform you prefer, it just matters that you are 'engaging' with a Microsoft Product. If you play Candy Crush on Mobile or bought a Series X, Game Pass Ultimate and spent 100's of hours playing on that console - you are still just 1 Monthly Active User, still choosing to spend your time and money using a Microsoft Product and/or service! It still brings in revenue for them...

@Coletrain But that is your 'personal' perspective but from a Company perspective, they are still interacting with, choosing to spend their time and money engaged with Microsoft products (as Candy Crush IS a Microsoft Product) and/or Services.

From a Microsoft perspective it really doesn't matter what product or service you engage with, you are still using a Microsoft product or Service. still contributing to their MAU's and Revenue!

Just because you think that some products or services are more important to YOU, doesn't make them any less a MS MAU using a MS product!

Just like you may want to know how many 'buy' a game on Xbox versus play it via a Subscription, that doesn't 'matter' to MS - you are still engaging with their Products and contributing to their revenue, their MAU numbers etc.

As long as you are engaging with a Microsoft product (regardless of Platform, Product or Service), you are going to count as a Monthly Active User of a Microsoft Product. The fact Mobile maybe far larger than all the Console market combined is irrelevant, they are still using a Microsoft Product so still a Microsoft Monthly Active User!!!

Its no different from Sony saying they've shipped 100m units, doesn't mean they've sold 100m or that those that did buy actually used the product and/or for how long. It doesn't tell you they even installed a game let alone played it for more than 10mins. Just like MAU's don't tell you whether they just signed into Game Pass that month or played 100's of hours - they are still a MAU