BAMozzy

@Coletrain And so was I - it doesn't matter whether they are playing on Game Pass via Cloud or playing a Microsoft owned IP like Candy Crush - they are still using a Microsoft Product or Service, still a Microsoft Monthly Active User of one of their Products/services and/or spending money on MS products.

It really doesn't matter if its 'just' Candy Crush or Call of Duty, doesn't matter if you bought or rent the game on Game Pass, doesn't matter where you 'choose' to play, its still engaging with a Microsoft Product/Service so still counts as a Monthly Active User regardless!!!

Xbox stopped referring to 'just' the console shaped box and became the Microsoft Gaming Brand name. Windows is their OS, Xbox their Gaming division/Platform so why not Xbox PC.

PC is a multi-platform device - Steam, Battlenet and Epic are examples of a PC gaming Platforms. Everyone knows that Xbox is MS's gaming platform and 'forget' they actually started on PC and only brought the Console to Market to get DirectX into mainstream Game development and bring PC games - like Morrowind, Halo, Mass Effect, Fallout 3 etc to the 'home' in an more affordable way, Now PC's can be Cheaper than a Series X and still play the games (maybe not as high res or frame rates but still playable).

Xbox PC indicates to me that it is the Microsoft gaming Platform on the PC and will have Game Pass and all their releases Day 1 - even if they release on Steam or other platforms too. Their shows are 'Xbox' shows whether the games are on Game Pass Cloud, PC or Console so Xbox makes most sense for people to understand that this is their OWN PC platform!

Rising costs (for everyone - inc us Gamers) and financial uncertainty due to global conditions (these 'Global' companies are affected by regional issues and politics - such as Tariffs, Sanctions etc and some regions are no longer accessible or have the cash to spend on 'leisure' activities) is likely to cause a 'slow down' in overall expenditure on Microsofts Gaming Products and Services.

I'm trying so hard not to mention Political events or decisions, but if you can't sell your products where you could before or your products are hit with Tariffs making them even more expensive, that is going to have an impact that Gaming companies will have to deal with, Its not their fault, but they still need to plan and or even restructure for, try to find a way to get through the tough times relatively 'unscathed'.

Its no point looking at just Gaming but trying to look at things more holistically. You lose a Market (regardless of the reasons), that has an impact, another region on the verge of economic collapse or rising inflation meaning all your free cash is needed on essentials (food, clothing, rent/shelter etc) so impact sales of Games. Despite the rationalisation across Microsoft, they still 'expect' their figures to drop which maybe more to do with the general state of the Global Markets than specifically MS or 'Gaming'.

Its likely why EVERY Big gaming company has made cuts, cancelled projects and/or sold off assets to get through these 'tough' times. Some in the west may well not be affected by events in the Middle East or Eastern Europe for example but Global companies are!

I hate to mention things outside of gaming on a gaming website that's focused on the Gaming bubble, but I also think it needs some acknowledgement as its clearly having an impact on the Global companies making, distributing and selling games/services.

A lot can happen in 6months, but if things don't improve Globally, then its likely this prediction will be accurate if not somewhat optimistic.

@Coletrain It only matters in the context that people choose to play on that device but it doesn't matter if they 'choose' to play on Mobile, Console OR PC - the 'device' doesn't matter as much as the Games/Services you access through it.

Microsoft are getting people to spend their time and money in their Products and Services - whether that happens to be on an 'Xbox Console/their PC platforms (their own) or any 3rd Party Hardware like Mobiles, other PC platforms (Steam, Epic etc) and/or other Consoles. Yes they may get a bit more revenue when selling through their own Store as the Retailer too, but if you choose to buy on PS, you are still playing a Microsoft Product, still a Microsoft consumer, still part of their MAU.

It doesn't matter if you choose to spend your time on Xbox playing Call of Duty or Candy Crush on Mobile or FH5 on Playstation or play an 'indie' on Game Pass, you are still choosing to spend your time in one of their products or services, still making money from you and you are still count as a Monthly Active User of a Microsoft Gaming Product/service.

What also seems to be forgotten is that Game Pass is just the open door - so to speak. If you start to play games like CoD, Doom, Starfield etc on Game Pass, you'll likely end up buying some Content and Games on that hardware. That's also why they want to build up the Stream your own Games to encourage those that 'only' stream to spend money on Games.

CoD for example has 6 seasons of Content, Cosmetic bundles releasing daily it seems, CoD points and even 'premium' Events (even if they have a 'free' tier) and the majority of money/profit is made from MTX. More players in, more MTX sold, more money to be made. You aren't buying on Playstation or Steam if you play via Game Pass, you are buying from MS who get 100% of the revenue - not 70% like on Sony Hardware.

Subs fees are just the start of the Revenue stream from Game Pass, the games themselves will generate additional revenue from sales of DLC, Seasonal passes, Cosmetic Bundles, in-game payment schemes like CoD points etc etc. They still get revenue from all Games/content not on Game Pass too of course, but Game Pass only gives you 'entry' into the base Game, none of the additional post launch content and MTX's sold after release which Game Pass subscribers still buy....

Only have 2m sales in the first few months, only sell up to 2m Season 1 passes, but get 10m+ in, even if only 1.5m bought in the first few months, they can sell 5x more Season Passes etc

Its more about getting gamers in their Products and services regardless of what 'hardware' they have or choose to access from. They are still a Microsoft Monthly Active User of one of their Products (hardware and/or software) or services!!

@themightyant 6bn was probably Gross and that equated to the 4.2bn 'net' they had quoted the last time they stated anything regarding game pass - its grown to nearly 5bn 'net' since.

@Coletrain As for MAU's it doesn't matter if its not just their Console Platform because Microsofts platform is not JUST the Console - it includes Mobile, Cloud, Consoles, PC and EVERY Game (as that is a Microsoft Product regardless of where you Play) - you are choosing to spend your time and money in their Products or Services wherever you 'choose' to access these.

Cloud may not be a dedicated gamers preferred choice to play, but maybe good enough for the casuals who still play on PS4/XB1S hardware and that is running on 'virtual' Xbox hardware. PC is not a Single Platform and MS has their own there too - inc Battlenet which is more popular for CoD than Steam. But CoD on Playstation/Steam still counts as MS's MAU using one of their Products...

MS can't 'compare' with Nintendo or Sony really because they only have their Console as their Platform but MS has multiple platforms now where their users are spread across. Consoles for MS are just 1 option but not the only or 'main' option. During the 360 era, they focussed solely on the Console and neglected all their PC players, neglected their own PC platform.

It doesn't matter to MS where you play, just as long as its in one of their Products or Services. If you want to play on their Hardware, great, but you can play on their Windows PC, their Game Pass App and Xbox servers etc - anytime you interact with a MS Product (and that includes their IP's/Games), you count as a Monthly Active User to MS.

@Simu001 Studios can also 'bleed' money with delays. How much money was spent on Perfect Dark for example over the 7yrs or so they kept the Initiative? Don't forget they also paid for 3rd Party Studio support and if they think its going to cost 'more' to actually get it to release, that game may never make its money back. Same with Everwild. They've written off a LOT of investment too with Cancellations and severance packages. Not just for those Studio based staff loses, but all the staff involved in HR, PR, Advertising, Publishing etc - as 3 Publishing Companies, each with their own Marketing teams, management etc merge into 1 more efficient company. You don't need 3 managers where 1 will do...

MS also bought in 'bulk, in a Bundle of Studios. They didn't just buy Studio's but also all the IP's, Publishing Rights and entire Publishing divisions. They may not have wanted EVERY studio - they own King now so don't necessarily need Bethesda's 'mobile' Development studio (so closed), maybe wanted Tango as a Horror developer, but the Studio changed direction to Hifi Rush.

The more Studios you have, the more games you have in development, the more 'issues' and 'delays', the more you need to invest to 'fix', where as if you get the 'Balance right, not spread yourself to thin, the quicker and easier it is to address issues and/or minimise delays.

Every Publisher has cancelled games and closed Studios. Bungie was hit hard and Sony closed Savage Games after only acquiring them in Aug 2022 - they didn't last 2yrs. Wonder Woman was cancelled and Monolith closed down by WB games, 2k reduced Crystal Dynamics team and now they are struggling with Tomb Raider, now behind on that...

Just go back through Gaming history and you'll see the same pattern - consolidation and/or restructuring during financially uncertain times whilst expansion and investment during booms. Go back to the XB1/PS4 era when we had Scalebound and Fable Legends Cancelled and Lionhead gone. The studio behind Motorstorm and Driveclub also got closed by Sony, EA once had the worst reputation in gaming for killing studio's, interfering with Games/developers to enforce anti-consumer practices, treating their staff poorly etc.

Point is, its industry wide, not a MS specific issue and Microsoft has expanded the most during the Boom, taken on the 'most' new Studios and Staff, with the most disorganised and poorly run Company (ABK) needing a MASSIVE overhaul after Koticks Management to bring it up to MS's standards so perhaps needed the most restructuring compared to others, but in terms of 'Game Studios/creators' MS hasn't lost 'more' than others as a percentage of their workforce.

@huroma Not at all - 30m is still a respectable number considering the Console is NOT required at all. PC gamers aren't buying an Xbox to play the few 'exclusives' not on their Platform because Xbox release everything on PC and you don't need to upgrade to a Series Console as Cloud streaming still lets you play games on old hardware.

The fact that the console is only one of Microsofts Platforms, not the ONLY platform (like it is for Sony/Nintendo) means that they don't need to sell hardware to get you into their Ecosysytem, their 'Platform' whether that's through Cloud, Console or PC. Microsoft have their own platform(s) on PC, Sony only uses 3rd Party Platforms like Steam & Epic.

Microsoft can sell you their Game Pass Service which is part of their Platform on far more devices than just the Console. Ok so you may have stream some/all games to your device if the game doesn't run natively, but that's still playing on a Xbox, even if Virtual.

They don't need to make 'PC's' but have their own Platforms on PC. Battlenet and Bethesda.net are now MS PC Platforms too. PC maybe an 'open' platform, but that just means that multiple Platforms can exist on one device compared to a Console that is locked to a Single platform, single store.

That means that Xbox are 'unlikely' to ever sell as many Consoles as Sony or Nintendo, never likely to hit the same numbers they did during the 360 era when they completely neglected their PC platform and all their PC gamers. That doesn't mean that they won't 'settlle' for 30-40m Consoles if they think that enough people still want to buy a 'Console' to play despite the 'options' so will continue to make Hardware, just not in the same quantity.

@Millionski My point is that from a MS perspective - which is exactly the reason I started the convo the way I did. From their Perspective, it doesn't matter where you choose to play - whether on Game Pass via Cloud, Console or PC, or choose to buy on whatever Platforms they release on, they still have money coming in from you, you are still choosing to spend time and money on a Microsoft Product or Service.

Its not about being 'team Green or Blue, its just a fact. Microsoft want people spending time and money on their Products and Services so this is 'winning' for them. Over a decade ago, they had no 'money' coming in from Playstation gamers, then bought Minecraft and kept that multi-platform - its the biggest selling game of all-time now. Now, they have more money coming in from Playstation coming in without releasing everything Day 1, more people in their products etc.

From my perspective, I don't care what 'box' I play on, just as long as the Controller feels Comfortable and instinctive to use and I can play the Games I want to play on it - I couldn't care less who Published it or whether its exclusive, I just care that I can play it if I want to and the most affordable, but high quality, ease of use and/or comfortable to use way possible.

I'm considering not getting the next Xbox or Playstation and investing more in a PC as it has the biggest Library and can play most of the Playstation games I play. The more Games that release Everywhere, the better as far as I'm concerned.

But as this is more Xbox centric, and some are annoyed that games are now not 'exclusive' to their little box, very Console blinkered and tribalistic over their box, I tried to point out that from a MS perspective, its maximising their Revenue on their Products and getting 'more' people spending time and money in their products/services - you might be playing on Playstation, but you've chosen to spend time and money on their Product, still a MS customer.

Their own Platform gets their own 'Service' (Game Pass) and timed exclusivity on a lot of games as 'incentive' but if you choose to play on PS5, MS still 'wins', gets revenue they otherwise wouldn't have and money they'll put into 'their' products/services...

@Millionski It doesn't really matter to MS - either you join Game Pass to get their games 'free' on Day 1 but we all know that requires paying MS a Sub fee or you buy their Games on Xbox/PC where they are predominantly developed and built for, the place you'll get to play 'first' in most cases or buy their games from whatever platform they release on - its still gamers spending time and Money on their Products (which includes Software, not just Hardware) and of course Services.

They don't 'need' Exclusives, they need successful IPs. They incentivise their own platform by offering a Service to play their (and some 3rd Party) games. Their games are guaranteed to release on their Platform yet very little is guaranteed on Playstation or Switch hardware. Some games may release day/date, others may only get ported after months or years of 'exclusivity' and others will remain exclusive indefinitely. I can't see MS releasing Redfall or Forza Motorsport on Playstation - Both because its not worth the effort and cost - not because Forza is Bad, but because Playstation has their own Sim Racer and its Loyal fanbase.

These are Microsoft owned Games so its making money for Microsoft, making money from Playstation gamers etc. Also, shouldn't Sony gamers be more concerned about the LACK of Sony games in the top 10 on their OWN platform, the lack of Sony first party releases on any platform instead....

Regardless of the IP's or how they were acquired, these are ALL Microsoft owned IP's, Microsoft Published and Microsoft funded too. At what point will you consider them as Microsoft games if you refuse to accept it now.

Microsoft will be the ones Greenlighting and/or deciding what their studio's make next. Doom may have been on PS, but Doom the Dark Ages had no 'History' on PS, was made and funded by an Xbox owned Studio and 'Doom' is an Xbox owned IP. ES6 is another game that's being funded by MS, another IP they own.

Sony own Destiny and released 'new' Destiny 2 content. If it sold enough, it would be another 'Sony' title in the list, if it makes the top 10 on Xbox, along with MLB, Sony could have a couple of Best selling games on Xbox. Destiny was originally an Activision Game and now its owned by Sony and Marathon too despite that IP never having ANY History with Playstation!!

I'm interested - but only because I find the OG RoG Ally somewhat uncomfortable to use with its much smaller and thinner profile so I'm very interested in something that feels more like an Xbox Controller with a Screen.

I know its still a PC and 'not' an Xbox handheld that will integrate 'perfectly' with my entire Xbox digital library (being all-digital) but Xbox is NOT just the Console - its their PC gaming platform too and Game Pass/Play Anywhere gives me a LOT of the Games I currently play and/or want to play on Xbox in the future - they are mostly Xbox Game Pass or Play Anywhere games anyway. There are so many games available to play on a RoG Ally that aren't on Xbox, its also a great way to play something different or something you only play on handhelds...

I was never hyped for this in the first place and even if it is available on Game Pass, there are a LOT of games I'd rather buy to play than play this. I'd have to be 'paid' to play it....

Whilst there are NO games I personally want to play on Xbox specifically as I have a PS5 and can (or have) played Playstation Exclusives I wanted to play, I still think they'll become more like Microsoft. I don't 'need' to rebuy and can play them on my PS5 if I wanted.

I don't see any reason they can't use their massive Back Catalogue of titles to bring in Revenue. They aren't bringing in Revenue on their own Platform anymore as their players have already bought so they just sit in their Archives.

To me, if they choose to release games like Spider-Man, Last of Us, Uncharted, Horizon, God of War etc on Xbox, these are games that are already multi-platform and already probably reached their 'max' revenue for Sony. The only way they can use these 'assets' to make 'more' money for them is to release on other Platforms. Its no different from MS choosing to release games like Hellblade 2, Sea of Thieves, FH5, AoE2 or even Gears of War. Games that have 'saturated' their own Ecosystems and no longer generating Revenue in that market. I bet FH5 will make 'more' money from just Playstation than FH4 did in its lifetime, let alone the Revenue it generates from Xbox/PC.

Why limit your resources to just the 'gamers' you manage to get into your ecosystem and leave all those other gamers 'untapped'. After al, no-one is really buying 'old' games so they are not generating revenue, not 'productive' anymore for their publisher Its the only way to 'maximise' revenue - especially in these 'tough' financial times.

Whether they charge $80 or $70, I won't be paying that much to play ANY game. I'd rather wait for a sale or miss out entirely regardless of the IP, Publisher or Developer!!!

Fortunately, there is an alternative to paying $70+ upfront to play Xbox Published games as they are on Game Pass day/date. That enables me to play games like the Outer Worlds 2 from Day 1 without paying anything more than I would already spent on my monthly GPU Sub fee.

That way I don't have to miss out on the Day1 experience or pay up front to find out whether the game is actually worth the money I paid or not, don't have to make do with my large backlog of unfinished or 'newly' purchased Sale games until this becomes a 'reasonable' price to me.

In a year or so, it will no doubt be much cheaper so if I decide I want to 'keep' it, I'll add it to my Digital Library, otherwise I'll likely be playing something else and waiting for other games to drop in price LOL

I think its great - you get the version for the Hardware you play on - regardless of whether its Current/Last gen Consoles or PC (with Play Anywhere too).

You buy a Game, you get to play the best version for whatever Hardware you have - which is a benefit if you are considering upgrading to better hardware. You don't want to be locked out of Performance or Quality modes because you bought a XB1S/XSS and now upgraded to an X for the upgrades.

With Discs, the ONLY current Hardware you can buy a Disc for is the Series X - the Series S and PC are all-digital platforms - so only need the XSX version on it - or at least the licence and a download key.

If a game is properly optimised for that version, it should be the 'best' way to play on that hardware. I know some games may benefit from playing 'older' generation code on newer hardware to ensure a smoother, or even perfect 60fps mode - but thats because the devs haven't 'optimised' it as well as they could or believe the Visual Quality difference is more important.

But in general I'd still prefer to get the version meant for whatever Hardware I play on - Another reason I've been 'converted' to Digital purchases - or in the case of Back Compat, that it runs the 'best' version for the Hardware - Series X version if as powerful or more so, Series S maybe for Handhelds, unless they get powerful enough to run Series X versions if no newer/better versions exist...

Meh!! Not Interested... Another MTX filled CRAP that if they don't sell enough, the game will 'disappear' so lets hope no-one buys any MTX/Battle Passes etc

to get a consistent 30fps, a locked 30fps, that means the game must run at 30fps at minimum in the most demanding situation, when the Hardware is being pushed the most. Therefore it makes sense that less demanding scenes will be above the 30fps. You need 'overhead' in some scenes because otherwise, the most intense scenes would drop below your target frame rate.

I don't think this game 'needs' a 60fps mode - but I also see that some gamers now are saying they won't buy or play games that run at less than 60fps and think EVERY game should be at least 60fps. Maybe that's why Devs continue to Optimise, wait for maybe engine updates etc that may help too to offer 'Performance' modes to get those that refused to buy/play at 30fps, an option to play at 60fps.

Sony Playstation owners can't exactly try it out at 30fps without paying up front to buy the game - at least on Xbox, you may opt to try it on Game Pass and see if 30fps is a dealbreaker or not...

I don't think I can vote on how long I think it will last because I don't have enough information to be able to even make an 'educated guess', let alone give it any real thought.

If EA and Microsoft are both 'pleased' with their partnership, after all EA is getting an increase in player counts in their IP's and/or maybe even additional sales of DLC/MTX as well as selling more games as the 'popularity' rises. These aren't 'new' releases, these are often games that have been on sale multiple times before coming to EA Access so maybe get revenue from people they otherwise wouldn't have. I'm sure Battlefront 2 has seen some increase in sales as well as increased numbers (some of whom are accessing through Game Pass) which is benefitting that game.

It could well be mutually beneficial for BOTH MS and EA so the partnership is extremely unlikely to end anytime soon. However, with the state of the industry, if either feels like its not working or not benefitting them as much as they hoped/expected, maybe even 'detrimental' to their core business model, then its much more likely to end at some point.

I can still see them cancelling the 'online/play with friends' charge - especially if they allow other platforms (like Steam/Epic) on their own Hardware as well as the fact that their own 'PC' platform, the 'Same game you bought on Console with Play Anywhere, doesn't require Game Pass Core - its just the Xbox Console version that does. Steam doesn't charge so if you buy Call of Duty on Steam, you can play online with friends at no extra charge but buy it on Xbox Console, you need a Sub to play it. If Steam is on that Hardware, why buy from Xbox and have to 'pay' to access the content in a MS game that you don't need to pay Steam to access on theirs.

If they remove that, I can't see GPU being cheaper because Online access is now 'free' - so its still an effective Price Rise. Then if they also remove EA Play too, that is a big chunk of value for Ultimate gone...

@FraserG My point still stands that its not just 'Live Service' games - although its rare, a Single Player player 'offline' game can be shut down too.

All I said is that I think that EVERY game should come with some Guarantee - much like buying any new product - that it will be supported and playable for a MINIMUM length of time - otherwise the Publisher has to refund EVERYONE to shut their game down earlier.

I don't believe that EVERY game should remain Playable, just that they can't be shut down within a year or two of release without refunding EVERYONE that paid any money towards it.

Games like Fifa, MLB or even games like Forza Motorsport doesn't need EVERY release preserved and Playable. Who is going to play Fifa 09 or Fifa 12 when you have much more modern versions, up to date Players/teams etc. As long as the latest 1 or 2 are still available/playable, then you have the same game-play loop and/or experience the older games offered.

My point was that I don't believe EVERY game should be Saved, that NO game should be 'killed'. However, I do expect that if they do release a Game, that it is supported and playable for a 'Minimum' length of time - whatever the Law deems 'Fair' and that if these Publishers wish to close down games before that time, they have to issue FULL refunds to EVERYONE - regardless of who Publishes or which developer made it.

Gamers need some Guarantee that the product they purchase cannot be closed/shut 'prematurely' with no obligation to issue refunds or compensate those who did purchase. Maybe some Law that states if they close within 2yrs its 100% refunds for ALL, close between 2-5yrs, they have to pay 50% back (you've had 2yrs+ of time to play and do 'everything' in the game) and after 5yrs, well that's deemed a 'fair' amount of time to 'support' that product and for users to get their 'money's worth' from it.

Its not just 'Live Service' games but any game with an Online Component can essentially be closed down. Numerous games are now only playable if they have a Single player or offline mode because you can't play 'online' anymore. Original Xbox Halo games are not playable online yet they weren't 'live service' games.

It's mostly games with some 'online' feature/mode, no doubt still need to pay money for servers or support inc anti-cheat monitoring, and/or general maintenance etc. Stuff that costs them money to keep open but not receiving enough revenue to justify.

That being said, I still think that Publishers/Devs should have to support their Product for a 'fair' amount of time OR Issue FULL refunds (inc any additional DLC/MTX/In-game Currency purchased) if they decide to close a game 'earlier'. I don't know what a 'fair' time should be in a very quickly evolving Landscape. I'd think at least 1yr from release (like getting 1yr Guarantee on buying other products), but I think a 'minimum' of 2yrs from release should be in place and if they close or fail to live up to 'promises', gamers can get a full refund.

I don't agree that EVERY game EVER made has to be 'preserved' and/or Playable on current hardware or that Companies should be 'forced' to keep paying for servers etc to keep their game going when no-one is playing it anymore.

To play every game I want to play, I have to buy some games as well but I'd say the BIGGEST impact to me as far as buying games is concerned are the rising costs. As the price has gone up and up for Day 1 purchases, I have bought less and less 'new' games - opting for games on Sale or playing games in my Backlog, inc those 'free' games with Gold/PS+ until I can buy in Sales. The fact I now have Game Pass Ultimate hasn't changed anything. I doubt I'd have bought or played Doom, Starfield etc until they were 'bargain bin' pricing in a Sale so those Companies haven't 'lost' a sale just because I played Day 1 via Game Pass and gained some 'revenue' and a LOT of engagement stats.

All Game Pass does is let me play a Handful of Games without waiting for a Sale (or not bothering if it doesn't drop low enough in price) - Games the Publisher would likely get minimal to zero revenue from me towards. But if I enjoy the Game, I'm much more likely to buy in a Sale and/or pay a bit more than I would have.

Like Robots replaced factory workers or Farm Machinery replaced Labourers and industrial looms replaced the weavers so the production of tools, machinery, food, cloth etc could be done on a much cheaper and more efficient manner.

Throughout History, man has created tools to make work/chores more efficient, requiring fewer manhours or even people. Whether its making clothes, cultivating Food or making games, technology has been created to make it easier, quicker and/or with fewer people.

I bought Robocop when it was only £5 or thereabouts but I haven'y got round to starting it yet. I don't regret buying it just because it's now coming to Game Pass, I will still be able to play when it leaves, and if its as much fun as the OG movies are, I don't mind supporting it with a Sale.

@somnambulance Exactly and if you look at their messaging, virtually every device is an 'Xbox'. Whether its just Streaming from Xbox servers, playing on Xbox Hardware, on their PC platform and/or signed up to Game Pass - and if those 'platforms' aren't where gamers choose to play, they can buy and play Microsoft Xboc games and play on Microsoft servers if online, buying Microsoft DLC/MTX etc - that's just in the gaming side - let alone their Business Software and military software and technological R&D they are involved in.

They still have a Strong line-up of Studio's - many of which for years have needed restructuring or investment to get games out on time and at the quality expected - but their IP's are strong too. How many times have people said 343 should be closed and Halo given to another Studio for example and Activision & Blizzard were (and probably still are) in a mess under Kotick's management, 8 Studios on CoD, Neversoft and others closed and/or merged into Studio's making CoD. Blizzard have so many employees making Diablo IV it's ridiculous...

Point is, everywhere you can sign into your Xbox account, the same account you have for Game Pass, same account you have on your Windows PC, you are signed into the 'Microsoft' Ecosystem. Of course on PC you have a choice to load up Steam and play games there, or maybe Epic, but even if they don't make their 'own' hardware, they are STILL Making Games primarily for their Platform. Some games will release on 'other' platforms but ALL Xbox games are on Microsoft platforms 1st/foremost, developed for primarily as the 'lead' platform with DirectX API's and features.

MS know its more about the Games than the Hardware and some people will prefer or already have a history with 'other' platforms that would rather 'miss out' on playing (no revenue for MS) so release some games to generate revenue they otherwise wouldn't and/or grow their 'online' communities of fans of their IP's which usually leads to increased revenue in MTX/DLC content.

They can do all that without having to take a Loss and then blackmail their customers into paying for Online access, the ability to play with friends and even some Single Player Content is locked behind that paywall. That $500 Console ends up being $1000 with 'full access' to the Library of games, content and features over the 5-6yrs you own it, before the next console replaces it....

I can see MS dropping that charge - especially with Steam on their device. Its not required for Steam so why buy any Online game from MS when the content is locked behind that paywall but if they drop it they'll also lose a 'chunk' of Subscribers - assuming they still sell their console at a 'loss' - maybe keep it for Series gen hardware and older? Who knows, but something has to change and maybe they are planning now for it...

@somnambulance They'll go back to their software only roots and Cloud based Subscription access before they 'disappear' from gaming and close down completely - Microsoft are a Major company dealing in a lot more than just games. They also have military contracts too so if they go 'under', its a major shift in structure - don't forget they also have their Windows PC Platform and could decide not to sell everything on Steam/Epic etc (Epic has Exclusives not on Steam for example and vice versa no doubt) - only their PC/cloud platform(s) exclusively instead of a Console - and leave hardware to those that partner with MS to use the Xbox branding and MS can offer a month or 3 of Game pass with it to get them into the Xbox PC ecosystem...

Even if that partners Hardware is just a Gaming PC (Handheld, tablet, laptop or desktop), its still getting them into their ecosystem - only available on Game Pass or to buy through their store - maybe for 6 months or more before releasing on other PC platforms and/or consoles to maximise sales/reach. Point is they don't necessarily need their hardware to 'sell' to get people to buy Subs and/or buy games through their store and if you give them Game Pass, even for a month and they play games, those games are Microsoft store linked so it will take you to their store to buy the game should you wish to keep playing once your free game pass lapses or resubscribe to keep playing on Microsofts platform despite not their own Hardware. Their own hardware could fail leading to all the job losses behind their 'console' hardware division, maybe impact Surface too of course. Despite such a turbulent and ever evolving technological market, they've all restructured and the strongest survive - MS are well placed to 'survive' with their Studios, IP's and multi-platform approach - cloud, PC and Console (currently) but things can evolve, change etc that Companies need to also change, adapt, react to projected futures when considering their next 5-10yrs.

Also, they didn't just buy Studios, they bought their entire Publishing and marketing teams. Bethesda and Activision had their own managers and teams to organise E3 shows, Games com shows, Booths, marketing and release schedules etc - all the same job so can be 'merged into one maybe larger team with one manager instead of 3. There are so many areas of cross over when you merge like businesses into one bigger business - a lot of managers end up going along with junior staff as they rationalise 2 or more 'teams into 1 cohesive unit that also makes it more efficient and improves their product/service - far easier to ensure everything is co-ordinated and ready if you only have 1 team handling it rather than 2/3 and hoping it comes together cohesively. Same PR/Customer service, is it Microsoft or Activision/Bethesda to blame for poor customer response time or games not being delivered at the quality expected? The team behind Publishing it under Bethesda/Activison or MS as the owners?

@somnambulance I'm not happy to see any games cancelled or Jobs lost - I have seen it over and over and over again - Microsoft cancelled Scalebound, Fable Legends and closed Lionhead at one point to, Activision have closed down and/or restructured numerous times over their history before MS acquired them, Zenimax group too.

Throughout time, Companies expand and grow when demand and affluence allows sand then rationalise and restructure when times are tough and uncertainty lies ahead. They 'could' feel their next project has a chance it backfires and they lose a LOT of money or maybe feel that money spent on projects still years away and already not going to make money are better spent on ensuring the games that are 'closer' to the finish line get finished and polished in time rather than delay. I look at the 'Global' state of the world where areas that may have had some revenue from are now mot accessible, other areas of the world are seeing rising costs and lowering profit margins and its harder and harder for 'new' games to compete with growing Libraries and increasing Free games (not just those on Sub Services) like Fortnite, Apex, Roblox.

Just think outside of that 'console gaming bubble' and look outside at the 'global' condition - not just your little corner or even just USA/EU/UK, things are 'very' different to the time the 'committed' to buying ABK - just after the Gaming boom of 2020 had a bit of a drop But then 2022 onwards has been economically unstable with geo-political events occurring that are going to impact their costs and their projected incomes from a few years ago - hence its not just MS but MS expanded the 'most' during that Boom - ABK more than doubled their staff team - and that included after building up Xbox Studios and acquiring Zenimax.

They can't fire or make these top people in charge redundant and then replace them with someone else, not unless they fundamentally broke their rules/code of conduct etc - otherwise you have a big severance pay after all those years and current salary. Its better to keep them, their knowledge, experience and make cuts else where.

As for why I think MS are getting so much 'hate' is because they are MS and a mega corp and because its just the straw that breaks the camels back. After so many job losses across the industry, there was 'hope that maybe the culling had finished, then we saw a few others (like WB make cuts) and now MS making cuts 'again' after already making cuts, it hurts more. Tango and Arkane Austin are still 'fresh' and Perfect Dark was only shown last year, everwild's been dragging on and on... but kept us hoping...

Maybe if the Global economy was table and the future looked more secure, people having increasing 'free' cash to spend on gaming, some of these games/studios would have survived and I don't just mean those owned by Microsoft lost in the past couple of years. Half, if not the vast majority of games I played 30 or 40 yrs ago were Published by companies that no longer exist, bought studios, sold them selves into another publisher with their IP's, studios sold or closed, Codemasters are a LONG way from their original roots, Dizzy dayz LOL

Point is, history is repeating and maybe will look a bit different into the next gen onwards...

As for Costs of Digital vs Physical - Physical doesn't make as much because of the costs in manufacturing and distribution. The reason its often cheaper is because the retailers compete for customers and instead of taking their '30%' as retailer will settle for 20% or 'less' per copy sold just to sell more than other physical retailers - if Amazon sells it £/$1 less than Game/Gamestop, they hope to sell more but then another company decides to go £/$0.50 lower and they see more sales - until the 'big' companies who buy in massive quantities all end-up on a 'lower' but same price because they can't take lower than say 18% profit per copy sold.

The rising costs as well as the environmental impact of being Plastic and fuel to distribute, dwindling sales as Digital is the most popular choice now as well its its limitations (its just a Distribution method in their eyes - they sell the 'key' to access the Software, the software is NOT yours so the Key is embedded in the Physical), so capacity is a limitation, having to 'prepare' the software or limit games to fit on Physical adds to the cost, so I can't see discs lasting much longer. This could be the last gen to have a 'Physical' media drive.

Consoles only have 1 store so they sell at retail - no competition, no need to sell lower. The more competition the better - assuming they 'sell' the same version as you buy 'multiple' versions (Xbox Console and PC version) with Xbox Play Anywhere for example but Steam or Physical copies are locked to a single platform.

PC games are Digital and often cheaper than Console despite offering potentially much higher quality graphics and Frame rates. No £10 up charge for the new 'generation' visuals that a PC beats. They are cheaper because more competing platforms/stores on PC....

@dskatter It wasn't just the downloads with MS, it's a combination of factors - My Digital PS4 games are ready to download as soon as I signed into my PS5 too and will likely be playable on PS6 because PS5 games will be carried forward - Sony would really struggle - but no guarantee your Physical library will, no guarantee Sony will make a console with a Physical Disc Drive in the future as discs are somewhat limited on capacity, cost money and are an environmental hazard.

I don't see any difference from keeping a disc and the hardware safe/maintained and keeping a digital game saved on my internal SSD for example if its that important. Its not as if Companies suddenly decide to shut off the Game/Console after 20yrs so there is often Months to redownload anything and or make back-ups.

I can't play Mario 64 on any current hardware because I still own the Cartridge, but I can play Gears of War 360 version on a Series S because I own a Digital licence for it. The Only way I can play the Mario 64 cart I have is on a working N64 with working N64 controllers - assuming the Cart still works after all this time. Only way I can play a LOT of my OG Xbox or PS3 games is on that Hardware - assuming the Hardware works - none of my DS3's 'work' - at least not unplugged so that makes my PS3 library 'difficult' to play.

All my Digital OG Xbox, 360 (All Games with Gold I claimed as I didn't buy Digital back then) and XB1 games were all there waiting when I set-up my Series X Day 1, ready to download and play - I could set a few up to install overnight but couldn't do that with my Physical games. With Xbox, I may have bought a game on XB1S, but on Series X, I get to download and install the Series X version and its always the latest version not an old pre-release version that's had countless updates and patches so now a completely different build.

I see it no different to Steam on PC for example - they sell Digital and all your games are locked to Steam so as long as Steam continues, you have your Games Library and access. You can't go to MS, Epic or GoG and download from their because you own a Digital PC copy. MS is more like Steam in that regard but have the 'legacy' of physical distribution as well.

Games haven't run from disc since the 360/PS3 gen so really since then, I've gradually gone from Physical Only to Digital as I think that's the future. Wherever/whatever Sony/MS go/do for their future platforms, your Digital profile and library will be too. Whether is a Physical box or Virtual hardware in the cloud, if you sign in, your digital library is there too. I can sign in on ANY Playstation 5 or Series Xbox and my Digital library is available to download...

@dskatter I doubt they'll do a 'double-disc' package either - they didn't with Indiana Jones.

I don't think discs or Disc drives will be around much longer so if you want to be able to redownload and play the game in 20yrs time, you may need to keep your Series X hardware. You won't be able to use it for Backwards Compatibility - although Game Pass and Cloud Saves may help, but I don't think you'll get disc drives or games releasing on disc because of the limitations of discs and the costs - games aren't going to reduce in size as Asset Quality and scale of the games aren't shrinking and so fewer games will fit on a Disc - especially on Xbox as they can't use the 100GB discs. New releases too are NOT Complete or necessarily even the 'Day 1' version that everyone who played Day 1 will experience, let alone the features, content and improvements they add over time - all 'digitally' distributed.

Of course, Oblivion is somewhat different in a lot of ways - its not 'New' as such so should be feature and Content complete, but whether its the latest 'patched' version or Day (or earlier) code being printed, I don't know. At least its not 'Cyberpunk' bad on disc that 'needs' to downloaded from the internet to be playable!

Buying on Disc may not 'preserve' your ability to play on future hardware where as buying Digital is much more likely - and enable you to play on PC too in the future (if not today). Buying Digital means the game licence is locked to your Digital Profile, one thing that will carry forward regardless of the 'generation' or Distribution method. All my Digital 360 BC games and XB1 games are available on a Series S (and X of course) but only my Series X plays my BC disc games, which still has to download the 'digital' version of to work - games don't run from disc.

Point is, Preserving the piece of plastic and Hardware to enable you to play 20-30yrs later if no way to download on current hardware exists, no way to play 'disc' on current hardware either because you 'bought' for Series X, means you have to look after your own stuff to do so. Buying Digitally may mean that I can't redownload a Series X game on a Series X Console in 20-30yrs time, but it may still let me play on Current hardware as my Digital profile gives me access to Xbox/PC versions...

@Ernie Drop the Online charge completely but offset that with Game Pass Subs at the SAME price - Ultimate costs $20 and includes the Online fee - it will still be $20 without - same with the standard version that currently includes Online in its price too. Cloud and Streaming requires a Subscription (Game Pass Cloud) so it will only impact those that pay for Game Pass Core just for Online.

@Fiendish-Beaver I never said it had to be 'comparable' in specs to deliver games at the same resolution and or frame rates on a 'big' screen - a Handheld gaming PC costs around the same price as a Series X/PS5/PS5 Pro but comes with a Screen included and a MUCH larger library of games. You can buy a decent PC for the price of a Console AND the 5-6yrs of Sub fees to play the Content in games you own. PS+ Essential/Game Pass Core can add another $400+ on top of the Cost otherwise it really limits the Games/Content you can play on your $500 console. A $800-$1k PC can probably Compete with a Series X - - with DLSS, maybe even beat a Console in performance.

All I said was that you can buy a PC today to play the games that the Xbox will play and a whole lot more games too for around the same cost - 25yrs ago, you couldn't get ANY PC, let alone one with a Gaming Graphics card to play games for Console money. You needed a $2k PC just to play Doom but can play the newest doom on a Handheld PC - maybe not at exactly the same res/frame rates, but the Console is no longer the 'cheapest' option, cheapest hardware to play the latest games at ANY level.

@somnambulance Interpret the situation how you want, but they only started acquiring Studios in 2018 and most had either multi-platform games in production or 'just' released. So when they released the Series S/X in 2020, they still had the same issue as the XB1 - few Exclusives. Obsidian, inXile, Double Fine, Compulsion, Playground and Ninja Theory have all released games since they joined in 2018. Only the Initiative and Undead Labs (who released SoD2 in 2018 - just before joining MS) haven't released something.

Zenimax joined in March 2021 and, like the ABK purchase, they didn't 'just' buy Studios, they bought ALL the IP's, all the Publishing Rights (why they can release on Game Pass and make money on sales of those games), all the sales, PR, HR, Advertising/marketing and all the OTHER staff that are not employed at a Studio or working on the development of Games. They don't need their own Staff teams to do E3, Gamescom etc (that's now all under MS), don't need 3 separate Publishing Divisions (Bethesda, Activision and Microsoft) don't need managers for all those etc.

As for Studio Closures, you don't know whether MS really wanted them (may have wanted Id, Bethesda and Machinegames, all the IP's, the Publishing rights and of course the id tech engine, but had to take everything or nothing. Tango lost the creator behind RE, Evil Within etc and didn't want to make Horror games anymore - maybe why MS discarded them.

Since around 2016, MS merged Xbox into Microsoft and Xbox 'ceased' to be just the Console - that's where Game Pass, Play Anywhere and PC Day 1 support started. Game Pass is a Microsoft Platform as is their Microsoft Windows PC. PC are multi-platform devices - Steam, Microsoft, Epic, Battlenet etc are all separate platforms on PC - you buy from Steam or Battlenet, your game is locked to that Platform requiring Steam/Battlenet to launch. The messaging has been relatively 'consistent' but console gamers seem to blinkered to see that Microsoft Xbox is their 'multi-platform' gaming brand. PC doesn't mean Steam, it means their 'Xbox/PC' Platform. Buy on Xbox with Play Anywhere does not get you the Steam/Epic version, just the Microsoft PC version.

They've had to react to a LOT in the past 5yrs - Pandemic and Boom, followed by a Crash and Global Economic uncertainty, losing trade in various regions due to sanctions, cost of living or their own countries crisis'. MS Expanded more than most, and its not just MS that closed Studios/cancelled games. Sony killed off Savage games (acquired Aug 2022, killed off less than 2yrs later) and Firewalk (acq 2018 - closed 2024) and culled a LOT of Bungie Staff - games like Concorde was cancelled only 2wks AFTER release and games like LoU: Factions was cancelled too.

WB cancelled Wonder Woman (and other games_ and closed Monolith Studios, Square Enix sold off a bunch of Studios/IP's Ubisoft have closed Studios and cancelled games. How many studios and games have EA cancelled over the years???

MS have stated numerous times they are still making a 'Console' and AMD reiterated they were partnering with MS to provide Silicon for their Consoles - plural!

I can see them dropping Game Pass Core (or at least the Online charge) if they do allow Steam just because Steam doesn't charge for Playing online with friends. Why buy from MS when half or more of the content is locked behind a paywall that Steam versions don't have.

Cost is the big thing and I can see MS maybe trying to do a 'budget' Console and a more Premium box (or OEM Xbox branded PC). MS made the Xbox to bring PC games to a more Budget friendly audience and now 25yrs later, Consoles are around the same price as a Decent Budget Gaming PC that gets 90% of the same games (or 100% of Xbox games).

I reckon it will be around the same price +/- $50 as that price doesn't include Tax like ours will.

@Fiendish-Beaver Their prices are $70+ tax which may only be ~10% whilst our prices include 20% Tax - £14 of the £70 charge is Tax which puts our price at about £56 + Tax. It's still a bit more but its far more comparable IF you compare the prices equally. Its unfair to include the Tax on UK/EU prices with the Price excluding Tax in the US.

The Tax in the US isn't as high - maybe 8-12% ish but that's not the point. No company has control over another Countries Taxation levels so they can't totally control the whole price.

That's why I think its better to take the Tax off UK pricing rather than try and work out what they pay with Tax as that will also vary from State to State. Companies will use the fact we are an Island that makes Shipping costs more - you can't just drive to the UK (not without incurring ferry/channel crossing charges to.

I know we pay more but our Currency is stronger at the moment too which adds to the difference.

@Lrapsody They aren't necessarily remaking for their long term Xbox gamers, they are more likely making it for those that never played Halo: CE before - either because you are too young or maybe only had a Playstation console.

Its similar to Gears of War: reloaded and we know that is definitely coming to Playstation - but on Xbox, a LOT of Xbox gamers are getting 'free' upgrades if they owned Gears of War/GoW: Ultimate - I got a free code.

These games aren't likely to sell well at all - on Xbox at least. Not only will many already have played this, they probably own BC versions - inc Masterchief Collection or will play via Game Pass. These games are as you quite rightly point out, OLD, and as such are NOT selling anymore, people aren't signing up to Game Pass to play, so they have these 'Assets' that aren't bringing in Revenue. They've 'exhausted' their own User base - everyone that would buy, has so the only option is to sell 'outside your platform.

I don't think they'll give it away 'free' on Xbox to existing Halo owners - like Gears without an MP. I think they did that so that the Lobbies are not filled by mostly PS5 gamers as Xbox gamers have Gears 5 and of course Backwards Compatible titles they can play.

If its exactly the same, just given yet another 'facelift', then I have absolutely zero interest in Halo:CE.

When I first played Halo:CE, there wasn't anything else like it - not in terms of the scale. However, when I played the 10th anniversary edition, it felt very dated and felt like a lot was cut or just not made in time for release.

I don't want another 'remake' of a game that was extremely limited by the Hardware of the Day (and I don't just mean Graphically). I want them to remake 'Halo' from Scratch as if they were making it for the First time for current gen hardware without the limitations Bungie faced.

Halo's MP is too Arena like for my tastes and I was never a fan of Floaty jumps, Overshields and the Arena style shooter. I don't think it 'needs' MP if they bring their Free to Play MP to other platforms. I'm sure most of the Maps, if not all are in that and you'll get Forge too.

I think it probably makes more sense to release Halo: Infinite as a Free to Play shooter on PS5 with 'Halo:CE' as a paid for release as a story/campaign introduction to the world of Halo for Context to the MP. H:I MP is F2P anyway so why not release that on PS5 to expand the 'current' MP playerbase.

@kmtrain83 What I mean is that these games are built around Windows and DirectX so built with features like Direct Storage which isn't emulated well on Proton and can make games unplayable on Steamdeck because it doesn't have Windows built in. The point of Proton is to emulate Windows/Direct X in those games built to utilise Windows. However, MS only build their PC games for Windows PC and maybe utilising features of DX12 Ultimate that Proton doesn't emulate or emulate well. It's a bit like expecting Sony to let you play Xbox via emulation because technically they have the same hardware structure as every other gaming device - the Proton Layer was Valves/Steam way of emulating Windows/Direct X for their Linux based (so no 'Windows/DirectX') handheld. Microsoft sold them for 'PC' to Steam so its Steam's responsibility to ensure their 'platform' plays PC versions built to use MS Windows/Direct X.

That's different to releasing 'inferior' versions to sabotage, it's not sabotaging them if you play on any Windows PC. The point is that their Games are built for 'their' platform first and foremost. You must have a 'Windows PC' or rely on 3rd Party Emulation - which is currently not as expensive as running Windows in its current full state - but that's with all the non essential to gaming processes are running too which is what Xbox & Windows are working on for the RoG Xbox Ally (and other Handhelds) because Windows etc is using too much of the Hardware's very 'limited' resources - Xbox usually has a portion partitioned off for OS and background processes but PC's don't.

It's not about Sabotaging, its more about trying to make your own place the 'best' place by the entire treatment of you as a gamer whilst also trying to run a business. Game Pass links to their ecosystem, Games are more expensive, people will see more games they 'recognise' in Game Pass and its value and link to MS store, their Xbox Library grows with DLC/MTX as well, you want to buy from MS because your achievements are growing and its everywhere you can sign in and game - not just the Box or Handheld device you had to buy specifically, but your bedroom TV, your mobile phone etc - you already have a 'Xbox' in your home, whether you'd really want to game on it or not. Steam you have to buy, you can't Sub and get these games Free like you can with Microsoft!! That's the BIG point here - you aren't buying on Steam for $80 when you have Game Pass, if it leaves Game Pass, you'll likely buy from Xbox to keep progress and get the discount...

And as for Consoles - its entirely possible that they do a 'two' tiered approach like this Gen - this time the 'S' could be a Handheld ALL-Digital Xbox but won't let you play Steam or other PC platforms whilst their Console that sits under the TV will. It may not let you boot to the Full windows 11 desktop, all the processes that are turned off are permanently turned off/removed so MS retain Control - only letting a few 3rd Party Platforms on their Console

@Millionski Then why care at all about what Microsoft do or the way they choose to do it?

The 'Xbox' only came about because Microsoft wanted a way to bring 'PC' games to the mainstream, more affordable market. They only got into hardware because NO other hardware existed to do that - a way to make DirectX important for Game development on PC was also to make it 'important' for their Console.

You might not 'care' about Achievements, but that's part of Xbox and What your Xbox History of Games has 'achieved' together. That Profile with your achievements, your friends, your Library has been (or could be for some) their entire 25yrs of Xbox gaming and the Majority of Digital Xbox owned Games are still playable today on a Series X. The Hardware is not really that important, not as important as the Games and your Library. You either bought it because it was 'cheap' or because it had Microsoft Games that you want to play. You either upgrade to the next, to keep your Digital Library, Achievements etc, or buy 'different' hardware because they have more Games you want to play.

If the Games are there, people will play Xbox has a presence on PC - whether you like it or not and now with Gaming PC's become far more affordable as Consoles also are becoming more expensive, the whole reason Microsoft made a Console so more people could access 'their' games and many other great PC games has become obsolete. The 'cheapest' way is now going to be Cloud so your 'Xbox' Profile is still important and a Xbox user and still playing on 'Xbox'. That Profile is your 'Xbox' account as well as your Microsoft account, why with Ultimate you can play on PC and Cloud - because its all part of the Microsoft 'Xbox' Ecosystem. Game Pass doesn't link Steam games to buy and the Xbox/MS app won't advertise 'Steam' games, it just lets you launch them if you've installed them. Delete it, despite still being able to download from steam, it no longer appears in your Library on Xbox.

Its not like Steam is being 'advertised' and when you see 'new' games advertised or coming soon, its only going to take you to the Microsoft Store. You probably can go on Steam and browse their Catalogue, but you have to go to their app specifically to 'buy' and manage your games you own on Steam.

They also get 100% of all the Money through their OWN platforms - that includes Cloud where 'buying' is possible for a growing number of Games but its really more for the casual/budget limited gamer right now. Game Pass PC and their own PC platform they get 100% of ALL their games and 30% for all 3rd Party releases too - Game Pass links to MS store so if 3rd Party games leave, they link to the MS store version, your save and progress is locked to MS Platforms.

Yes you can play on 'other' platforms, but MS doesn't have to sell their games on EVERY PC Platform Day/date, they could treat Steam like Sony and only release some games there.

Even if you still refuse to buy from Microsoft, they'll still make money from you if you choose to buy from steam - they've still got you to 'buy' a game you maybe could have played free on Game Pass and/or also played on your Xbox console, your mobile phone, your LG/Samsung TV or Amazon Firestick, not just the Steamdeck/PC

@Millionski NO - MS are NOT getting rid of their Consoles - at least NOT the messaging they are putting out. They announced they had partnered with AMD for their NEXT CONSOLES.

Regardless of whether it also is more a 'PC' in that its more 'multi-platform' hardware with access to Steam, Epic etc, that doesn't mean that people will buy from Steam - maybe the games MS doesn't sell, but buy from Steam, you lose all the 'Xbox/MS' based features - like Achievements and Play Anywhere, and your Xbox purchases are NOT on Steam. Steam is a separate PC platform - Microsoft have their own too. Game Pass PC Games and ALL the DLC/MTX etc are locked to 'Microsoft' - You won't get Game Pass discounts on Steam (discounts just because you Subscribe), won't get Xbox games free 'Day 1' with your Game Pass Subscription, won't get achievements and may not even have 'Cross-progression' between Steam & MS versions on the SAME Platform.

Their entire PC gaming is 'Xbox', they may also sell some games on Steam that require MS Windows and MS Direct X API's to work, which really impacts them negatively on Steamdeck and can make them unplayable (don't work well with the Proton Layer) but on a Windows PC with Windows API, playing on Steam is not much of an issue. That alone can make a difference to 'where' you choose to buy.

At the end of the day, where ever you choose to buy from, Microsoft are benefitting. You are buying a Microsoft product to spend time in a Microsoft IP and maybe even spend money it that IP's store front buying MTX/DLC content - so are still a Microsoft Customer. You may choose to buy their Hardware to play their games and spend money in their ecosystem but also own a PS5 so the Xbox is just for Exclusives, another may play on PC through Game Pass or Microsoft or choose to buy from Steam/Epic but MS is still making money, still getting revenue from their Products, their Platforms, their Services - its not just 1 Platform and ONLY Sales revenue coming in. You can buy games now to Stream via Cloud so they can 'sell' to those who just Stream and of course they can seell Subs on FAR more Platforms than just their Console - the 'best Value' in Gaming Service is available on so many devices, MS have basically put an Xbox in EVERY Household - like Netflix is. You only need to buy Hardware to get better visual quality and/or performance and MS have a 'budget' Console, a Premium Console or you can buy/build your own custom PC hardware. You don't buy a Series S if you own a Series X so why buy a Series X if you own a decent PC?

They obviously don't want to 'lose' money on Hardware as most Consoles are sold at a Loss - especially in the early days. Maybe its better to only sell 35-40m units instead of 100m+. Even if you are losing just $10 - $350-400m is not as bad as losing 1bn and its not as if you can't have 100m across all your Platforms Cloud, Console and PC (excluding Steam, Epic, GoG on PC) - Battlenet and Bethesda.net are both Microsoft and Battlenet is more Popular for CoD than Steam is with Xbox Consoles being even more Popular. Why buy from Steam when you can play Free on Game Pass, get discounts off of CoD Points (15% discount as a GP subscriber) and get 20% discount if/when you do choose to buy!

It makes sense when you consider the Xbox Console is NOT the ONLY Microsoft Platform.

Cloud, whilst not necessarily the best option in terms of quality, it maybe the cheapest and/or best option for the Casual gamer. You don't need a Console, but you are playing on a Microsoft Platform, playing on 'Xbox' built into servers but you don't need to buy your own Xbox.

PC Game Pass and Microsoft Windows - as is Battlenet now - a Microsoft owned platform on PC's. PC's are 'multi-platform' devices - you buy CoD from Steam, you can only play through Steam you don't get the Battlenet PC version. You play on Game Pass, all the DLC and MTX are linked to Microsoft store, even if you buy the game through Game Pass, it will sell you the Microsoft version playable in their Ecosystem (Cloud, PC and Xbox consoles). PC owners are MSS customers, they bought a MS Windows Licence and the games often require MS owned OS and API's to run...

As Microsoft have 'multiple' Platforms now, they aren't going to sell as many Consoles. They can still have 100m users in their Platforms without selling 100m Consoles. They could sell 35m Consoles, have 8m on Cloud devices and 57m on their PC platform (Game Pass PC, Windows and/or Battlenet/Bethesda launchers - not counting Steam/Epic).

I do wonder if MS are about to ditch the Online fees so will lose some Subs for Game Pass Core. I can't see them able to compete with Steam on their own Hardware if that charge remains. Why buy CoD from Microsoft when it requires Game Pass Core to play, but buy it on Steam and you don't need GPC at all. Of course you won't get Achievements or be able to play Anywhere the Microsoft ecosystem is, just the Steam version and anywhere Steam is.

Therefore, they may be planning to ditch that and preparing to lose a 'chunk' of Subscription revenue in the hopes that it will lead to more 'growth' of users long term - more users, more income. The games too are Microsoft products (even if sold on other Platforms), so they get revenue and time spent in the Products - Hardware, Software or services. They are still Microsoft Customers using Microsoft Products.

I had them all being offered on sale a day or so ago - all under £2 but I still decided not to buy.

I haven't played D2 for a LONG time. They were still an Activision Developer but it seemed that Eververse was taking over as their 'Priority' and the way they made some of the Hardest Gear to achieve virtually useless the next season, made me feel like my time spent grinding for them was pointless and no point grinding because whatever you spend all that time effort to get will get artificially held back, nerfed as the 'basic' gear from the next update surpasses the Epic/Legendary gear introduced in the last season.

2yrs and it seems that MS inherited the issues ABK were with only their CoD releasing annually with maybe a remaster too - such as Tony Hawks, Crash Bandicoot or Spyro. We still haven't seen Blizzard/King games.

It's not surprising because their Activision Studios were basically all working on CoD to ensure it released annually and on time....

Studio's are NOT independent and are Employed by Microsoft - just like all the other employees who do NOT directly work on Games. The get a Salary, they earn money and don't 'need' to be Profitable to invest that into their next project, they may/may not get 'bonuses' based on their games success.

It's not like aa 3rd Party Studio who hopes that the 'debt' they've accrued whilst they were working to make the game can be paid off and give them enough 'funds' to go on and develop their 'next' game without building up as much debt.

Microsoft/Xbox is earning money every minute of the day - whether that's from Sub Fees, Sales (not just their OWN titles), hardware sales, etc etc. So many different streams of Revenue that more than covers the Costs of Paying ALL the staff their Salaries and costs to develop products etc.

Game Pass brings in over $4bn a year. I doubt their Studios have massive wage bills and over head costs certainly not in the $5m+ a month, but even if they had 40 studios and gave each of them $5m a month to make games for Game Pass paid entirely by Subscribers fees over time, that would still leave around 40-50% of the Sub fees to pay for 3rd Party and Indie games. Sales of games, sales of MTX, sales of LC, sales of Hardware etc are also adding to the 'Game Pass' Subs revenue.

Without Game Pass, there is a $4bn a year deficit in revenue that Sales alone would have to match - if not beat and with Prices going up, they may not sell 'many' games at $80 - people may choose to play cheap or free to play games, games with little/no cost, little/no 'revenue' stream.

I also think that Microsoft will have to consider ditching their Online/Playing with Friends fee - especially if they are looking at allowing Steam on their Hardware. People will buy CoD from steam knowing Steam doesn't charge for Online access. They maybe 'reorganising' because they will lose a 'chunk' of Game Pass Subscribers, the Game Pass Core subscribers on Console, if they don't need to sub for Online.

@GuyinPA75 Game Pass makes money from its Subscription fees to 'pay' for games - games aren't made in a 'month' they are made over many months. Repeat Subscribers paid for games over months before they release effectively - give each Studio working on games for Game Pass $10m a month and they still have a BIG chunk of revenue in to pay for 3rd party and indies.

That doesn't mean they want to back a third Party Studio who maybe promised to have something for release in a 3-4 yrs, maybe now needs another 3-4yrs and costs have gone up, but projected 'revenue' across all formats (inc sales) at least the money MS would get back, doesn't make sense when that money can be invested more into their own projects to ensure the ones that maybe need a bit of a boost or outside assistance to get the game ready on time is more important.

Especially if they want to maintain their current cadence of releases to maintain a steady if not growing income as more Microsoft product reaches more customers...

With no idea how long the game is expected to be in development for and how far along they actually are, its difficult to assess. If MS feel that the game is still 'years' away and will cost them a LOT of money over that time, based on what 'little' they may have, regardless of how interesting the project sounded when they backed them, maybe doesn't make sense now with Economic Uncertainty and disrupted markets.

Unsustainable is can they keep releasing ALL their games Day and Date into that service if they don't sell ANY games ANYWHERE. Are there enough Subscribers paying their Subscription Fees every month to not only Pay for ALL those Studios to stay open and keep working, keep making games, pay all the independent and 3rd Party releases (new or older) and all the staff involved in running it...

If its 'growing' in Subscriber numbers to the point that 'no-one is buying games, can they sustain their Gaming business - Its bringing in a 'massive' monthly revenue.

However, their games are also being Sold and, if you look at their Gaming Revenue, because of more products, especially now with CoD too, and releasing games (mostly older and unlikely to be bringing in revenue on Xbox anymore) on Playstation is way up. Just because their games have gone up, does not mean that they are 'losing' more money now because its now only $10-20 (PC/Console) on Game Pass. There is no guarantee all those that played Day 1, would play in the first month, let alone day 1 at $80. Most would wait for sales or not bother.

Maybe a LOT of the indie games don't get 'bought' because they are over in an hour or two and forgotten a week or two later. But I'm sure Game Pass Subscribers are still buying games, still spending money in their ecosystem, not just their time.

It only really becomes unsustainable if everyone plays on Game Pass but NO-ONE spends ANY other money for revenue and the costs to keep Game Pass supplied with Games (inc their own) and the Sub fee's coming in don't meet the Costs - otherwise its very difficult to assess - but it is bringing in a 'healthy' chunk of money every month 35m at $10 - some pay more I know but at just $10 a month is $350m - over $4bn a year - you could give each studio $10m a month to pay for all the staff salaries, all the bills and development costs that month and still have over $300m for whatever so by the time the game releases, it was paid for by Game Pass Subscribers over the years they took making it!

Xbox Series S has an advantage in that it is not as starved for power and designed to deal with more heat too. The Switch has to run from a Battery as well and be slim in design.

That being said, we saw with the first gen Switch that games thought 'impossible' for that hardware ended up releasing so I'm sure they'll be 'impossible' ports to Switch 2 that look/run well but whether or not they'd hold up on a big 4k screen, time will tell.

@kuu_nousee That's not true at all. During the XB360 era, they didn't have many Studios at all - Epic made Gears of War and Playground made Forza Horizon - before joining Xbox in 2018.

Scalebound wasn't a one-off - they also closed down Lionhead Studios and cancelled Fable: Legends around that time too. They lost Bungie and Epic themselves didn't want to keep making Gears so they created Studios for those IP's (343 and the Coalition) but other than Turn 10, Rare and Lionhead, they had few Studios of their own during the OG/360 era. In 2014, MS acquired Mojang, in 2018 they acquired Playground, Obsidian, Ninja Theory, Double Fine, Compulsion, Inexile, Undead Labs and created the initiative.

In 2021, they acquired Zenimax and their Studios, IP's, Publishing rights and all the OTHER departments (marketing, PR, Sales, merchandising etc), then they acquired ABK too. That's a LOT of Growth and expansion over the past 7yrs - so much expansion and growth that restructuring and reorganising was inevitable. They didn't go out and buy Arkane Austin or Tango specifically, they bought Zenimax as a JOB LOT to get the IP's, the Publishing rights etc. They own Prey and Dishonored IP's and Publishing rights so they can put them in Game Pass, make money on every game sold.

Last year, Bungie lost a chunk of staff, Firewalk Studios was closed as was Neon Koei (Formerly Savage Games who were only acquired in August 2022 - they didn't last 2yrs after Sony bought them). They've also closed numerous Studios (The Studio behind Motorstorm and Driveclub gone as have Sony Japan and others) as well as Cancelled numerous games - inc Last of Us: Factions, Concorde (after release) and others in development.

I don't want this to seem like I'm bashing Sony to 'defend' MS, but EVERY gaming Company in recent years have Cancelled games, closed or Sold off Studio's/IP's etc. Square Enix Sold off Crystal Dynamics to Embracer who 'restructured' soon after and laid off a chunk of that Studios staff. WB cancelled Wonder Woman and numerous other projects - its not JUST Microsoft although they have probably grown the most - so had more to restructure.

It's only been since the XB1 generation that Microsoft have actually got Serious about gaming - not running it as a little Side Project. They've merged it into Microsoft and its now the Entire Microsoft Gaming Brand. They have more Studios than they've ever had, more IPs and Games in development than ever before and arguably their most Consumer friendly focused business plan.

But hey, just ignore the fact that EVERY Publisher has been through Restructuring in recent times, Many Studios gone, many games cancelled etc. Point is, you really need to look at the History to see that Xbox is so much bigger and better supported than the OG/360 era. They have far more Studios than they've ever had and releasing more games than I can ever recall of games they own. Most of the OG/360 'exclusives' Like Mass Effect, Bioshock etc weren't exclusive forever and certainly weren't made by Xbox 1st Party Studios.

My decision on whether to play a game has NOTHING to do with whether or not its on Game Pass. If a game I want to play is not on Game Pass, I have no option but to buy to play. That doesn't mean I'll buy it day 1 though, that depends on how much I want to play, how well it reviews, the state of the game on release etc etc.

This maybe cheaper than the standard price we have seen Games being sold, but that doesn't mean I think its worth the money - many Free to Play games are as much fun.

Game Pass lets me play the games I want to play 'sooner' - I don't have to wait for a sale. It lets me play games I probably wouldn't have bought at all, not even in a sale. But I'll not play games I have little/no interest in just because they are on Game Pass or not play games I really want to play just because they aren't in Game Pass.

Game Pass may expand my Library so that I am not wasting money on buying games that either I don't really enjoy/like, don't get my 'moneys' worth from, or bought just to have something new. It stops me buying over hyped and/or mediocre games, games rushed to release but require months of work to optimise and polish, add features promised or expected etc.

Just because this is a Sony IP and whilst it maybe relatively popular on PC/PS5, its not necessarily a game I'd buy or play - the fact I own a PS5 and a PC too yet haven't bought has nothing to do with Game Pass so why should that make a difference on Xbox?

When you have 80m consoles but only sell 5-10m copies on that hardware, that means the majority didn't buy - regardless of how 'Popular' it is. 20m is still only 25% of ALL users that bought but most tend to sell to about 10%. When you only have 35m consoles and only sell around 2-4m copies, that's still selling to roughly the same percentage of your users. The PS5 probably out-numbers the Xbox by 2:1 so there should be 2:1 more people to buy the game.

As for the option to 'rent' first via Game Pass, it doesn't mean that I won't buy those games - I've bought numerous Game Pass games - often months after release because they are now on Sale and at a price I consider reasonable - the fact I've been able to play for months is irrelevant. I've also bought more DLC/Cosmetics in Game Pass games as my way to show support and enjoyment for their game. Of course there are games I tried on Game Pass I didn't buy, but most of them I'm glad I didn't waste my money on, these are games I also never finished or have a desire to return to.