I read the above, and the first thought that strikes me is that Sharma is bringing in people to introduce or further integrate AI into how Xbox is run. Whether this is good for Xbox, or for game development, I honestly cannot say. This could be the first controversial move that Sharma has made since becoming head of Xbox, although I personally, have no real qualms with the use of AI...
I totally get what you are saying, @MinervaX76, but when I say big games, I did not mean 25 AAA games, more that if you are bringing 50 A games, 20 AA games and just 5 AAA games, then most of that 50 will be completely irrelevant and forgotten by most. As I said, small does not mean bad, but if the games are bigger, with bigger budgets, they will likely have more appeal. I'd far rather struggle to find the time to play 25 games, than be faced with 50 or 60 that hold no interest to me at all...
I have no issue with your views whatsoever, @Sol4ris, and I hope that my comment did not come over that way because that was not how it was intended.
From a pro-consumer point of view, having no exclusivity is the best approach possible. Every game on whatever platform you choose to play on is the Utopia that we would all love to see. The problem is that what invariably happens is that the smaller players get squeezed out of the market. The one that offers the least benefits will be seen as the least desirable, with only costs being the saving grace. In the case of Microsoft, it would seem that Helix is going to be considerably more expensive than the PS6, with the only true advantage being access to PC games. Now, that is a big advantage, but the problem is that why own a Helix, when you could own a PC instead. That is the issue that Microsoft will have to address, with the most obvious solution being that the Helix, whilst expensive, offers more (in terms of hardware) than you or I could match in buying a PC we either build ourselves or can be built for us. In other words, they offer us a better spec'd machine for a price that is much better than a PC we could get elsewhere for the same price or less. I think that is what Microsoft will do, but then the issue is just how much more than the PS6 will Helix cost? If there is a considerable difference, then I can see a lot of people opting for the PS6 instead of either sticking with Xbox or opting to enter the PC sphere.
Sony have obviously crunched the numbers and determined that their exclusives (which are of undoubtedly high quality) bring enough people into their ecosystem to warrant keeping them exclusive, even though that means they lose some sales on PC (though in reality, it would seem that it is not that many really).
If you want access to the maximum number of games possible, then undoubtedly PC gaming is where you should be, and it would seem, from what we know right now, that Helix could well be a very good entry point into that sphere...
Th problem is that people sign up to Game Pass for a month, play a first-party game and then unsub, @Millionski. So a game that could be sold for £70 is instead played for £13, and whilst it is great that a million people sub to Game Pass for a month to play, let's say, Fable, instead of that game being bought by that million people generating £70,000,000 in revenue, it brings in £13,000,000. That is a huge difference.
Then you have those people, such as myself, who have Ultimate stacked, who can then play Fable without adding a single penny more to the Microsoft coffers.
Conversely, you can sell Fable on PlayStation, sell a million copies and Microsoft makes £49,000,000, with the other £21,000,000 going to Sony.
Obviously, a game like Fable will probably sell a lot more than a million copies on the PlayStation, but the problem is also that a lot more than a million people will choose not to buy the game at all and instead play it at a vastly reduced cost on Game Pass.
The only reason that Microsoft have taken to selling their games on PlayStation is because the games were not selling in sufficient quantities on Xbox and PC, and whilst subs to Game Pass increase with each game, they then flatline again soon after. Regardless, the games simply do not generate enough revenue on Xbox and PC, and the cycle cannot continue indefinitely, because Microsoft cannot continue to lose revenue as all that leads to is job loses and studio closures (as we have seen in the not too distant past).
The problem for Microsoft, when it comes to returning to fully exclusive, is that people are not buying Xbox consoles, and whilst there will be an uptick in sales to play Fable (if it was exclusive), the strongest likelihood is that people on PlayStation will just shrug and move on to something else instead. In other words, the game will effectively bomb, not because it is not a good game, but because too few people buy the game, and too many play it on Game Pass instead, and when a game bombs it is rarely good news for the studio...
What would you do if Gear of War was only available on PlayStation, @HonestHick? Indeed, if Microsoft withdraw from the console space during the next generation, this might become a reality...
I too have always bought a PlayStation every single generation only to play their exclusives, @Master_Cthulhu70. I bought the OG Xbox day one and from that moment onwards I bought every third-party game on Xbox.
I also bought both of my sons an Xbox too, and that is the only platform they play on.
That said, I recently bought a PS5 Pro, and because many games play better there than on the X, I have been buying third-party games there instead, but my intention is to switch back to fully Xbox once Helix releases...
How are they anti- consumer, @Sol4ris? If Sony spend $300 million making Spiderman 3, are they not then entitled to sell the game on their platform only?
I do agree that Sony paying a third-party to have their game as exclusive is more of an anti-consumer move, but the truth is that people have the option to buy a PlayStation should they wish.
The problem with Microsoft having no exclusives is that it could well lead to Microsoft calling an end to being a player in the console market, and surely having one fewer option as to where you play your games is even more anti-consumer than having games as exclusive?
Xbox not having exclusives has had a massive impact on sales of Xbox consoles, which in turn means fewer people in their ecosystem, which means they then make less money, and that then led to them releasing their games on PlayStation, which has in turn led to a further downturn in Xbox console sales. This downward spiral began when Microsoft began releasing their games on PC straight after the abysmal release of the Xbox One. They diluted the brand then, and have diluted the brand still further when they began releasing their games on PlayStation.
One day, this Utopia that people seem to so desire wherein every game will be playable on one system will come to exist, but the truth is that there will be casualties along the way, and with the market share as it currently is, the first to fall victim to a move in this direction will be Xbox, particularly so if it does not have exclusives.
The real question is who would be next? It will either be Nintendo or Sony, but my money is on Sony. The next question is when? Well we know that the PS6 will sell very well, but will it make enough money over its lifetime to warrant a PS7, that is another matter entirely. With games costing so much to make, can they draw enough people into their ecosystem whilst keeping their games entirely exclusive (Live Service excluded)? The answer is probably, particularly so if Xbox withdraws from the console market within the next 5 or 6 years, which I think they will do. My money is on the Helix being offered for sale for around 3 years, after which Microsoft will withdraw from the console market, which will bolster PlayStation still further (and they will likely already have had quite a boost from Xbox gamers unwilling to pay the asking price for the Helix). Ultimately, I think there will be a PS7, but what happens thereafter, is too far off to provide an informed speculation right now, but the reality is that exclusives do play a genuinely significant role in the success (or otherwise) of a console...
The biggest problem with this survey is the way it has been presented. Clearly Circana have ask something like 'Give us your top 3 reasons why...?', meaning that the overall score is not out of 100%. Either that, or the person who then collated the results was not well enough versed in mathematics to put it out of 100%. In other words, had they only give people one option to choose from, then the results would have been different, and potentially very different, but may actually have given us a much clearer answer as to why people choose one console over another. These results, because they have given people multiple options are somewhat muddled...
I totally agree, @Telin. Microsoft own Bethesda, and they could instruct them to make the games that Microsoft want made. Keeping Bethesda doing what they have always done and make a game in a particular franchise every 10 to 15 years makes no sense whatsoever. Microsoft have enough studios that could make the successful franchises, and as was shown with Fallout: New Vegas, you don't have to be part of Bethesda to make a successful Fallout game...
The only reason to have exclusive games is to attract people into your ecosystem, @Millionski, and the only games that can do that are the big AAA games, so there really is no value in keeping smaller titles exclusive. None whatsoever. They may not sell well by comparison to the big games but they also cost a heck of a lot less to make. Releasing them day and date everywhere gives them the best chance to make the most money, and as they will not attract people into your ecosystem anyway, selling them on rival platforms actually makes a lot of sense.
The problem comes down to a sizable percentage of people only playing games via Game Pass, and more still play mostly on Game Pass and only but a few select titles. Game Pass eats heavily into the revenue that any game could make and because most of us find ways to get Game Pass for much less than the monthly subscription, the amount of money that Game Pass makes is reduced too, meaning the games on it make less money too. It is for this reason alone that games began being ported to PlayStation, and having tasted the full fat revenue that can be found on PlayStation, Microsoft are not going to want to return to a lean diet of slim pickings of Xbox sales and Game Pass subscriptions. The best I can see Microsoft doing is have some timed exclusivity, but I cannot see them doing that for long simply because games sell best when sold everywhere day and date. Timed exclusivity leads to a game selling less well than it would than if it is day and date on all systems.
If Microsoft do decide to go down the route of having smaller games as exclusive, it will be a token gesture to keep the fans happy, but ultimately it could be bad for the studios that make them because if they are seen to be making insufficient revenue they could well end up closed. Microsoft really are better off selling them everywhere day and date because attempts to keep us happy by keeping them as exclusives could lead to consequences we would not like...
I don't doubt that some of the indie games are good, @Millionski. And there are some people that thrive on them. Personally I don't, but that's just me. The real problem is that more often than not 3 out of 4 games are completely forgettable, and whilst people will rave about that one game, that still leaves 3 that are barely worth talking about. That is why I say I would prefer Microsoft put 25 big or decent games on the service each year, than fill it with tat just to fulfil a quota...
You hit the nail on the head, @RegnumSolipsi, not having exclusives and relying solely on your hardware as the place to play any game only works if everyone is doing the same. For that strategy to work for Microsoft, Sony would have to abandon exclusivity too, and we all know they have decided now to double down on exclusives, maybe in part because there was a concern that the Helix may prove to be more popular than many of us think, and even if not, it would still have enabled people to play Sony games that released on PC.
The truth is that Microsoft are on to a hiding to nothing in the position they find themselves in. They've taken to releasing everything on PlayStation, perhaps in the belief that Sony would reciprocate, but mostly from a position of weakness wherein they absolutely needed to sell their games on PlayStation because sales of their games on Xbox and PC, plus Game Pass subscription fees was not giving them enough revenue. Something had to give, it was either close more studios, cut costs to the bone, or sell their games on their biggest rivals console. And of course now that Microsoft have tasted that juicy revenue on PlayStation there's very little chance of persuading the bean-counters that they can make similar revenue by making games exclusive when the only reason they sold their games on PlayStation in the first place was because they weren't making enough revenue. That is why I do not foresee Xbox drastically changing their exclusivity practices. Maybe they will dabble with timed-exclusives, but if they do, I doubt it will be for long...
In fairness, @Seioni, I did mean first-party exclusives. I absolutely agree that signing an exclusive agreement with one console or another is a risky business strategy. It's great for that console, but not necessarily great for the developer as Square Enix will attest.
Personally, I have always seen third-party exclusives as more of a bonus than anything, and when it came to me buying a PlayStation I did so purely for Sony's first-party output (indeed, I still have not played a single Final Fantasy game either!).
That's not to say that I do not play the third-party exclusives, because I certainly do on occasion, Stellar Blade probably being the most recent. However having a strong line-up of first-party exclusives really does give people a reason to buy into a particular console ecosystem...
In all honesty, @16BitHerom just as with Gears of War: Reloaded the Halo remakes are being made more for an audience on PlayStation than they are for those on Xbox. Were it not for the desire to introduce PlayStation gamers to the two franchises, we would not be seeing these remakes. Indeed, arguably, us getting these remakes is a happy by-product of the desire to bring them to PlayStation. Were it not for that, we would not have been getting them because we already have the original games, however, those games, as they exist now, would have been seen as laughable if they had simply tried to port the Master Chief Collection to PlayStation because they are showing their age by todays standards...
I know Microsoft promised us 75 day one games a year, but I guess I am guilty of being fooled into thinking they meant 75 day one games for Xbox consoles alone, not half of them for PC only.
Also, I would rather have 25 big games a year than 75 small and largely forgettable titles. I'm not saying these small games won't be half decent, but the issue is that when there are so many other games vying for your attention, these small games will be forgotten and largely ignored...
I've said that exclusives were the main reason people buy into an ecosystem time and time again, @Jenkinss, and there are some here that fought back against it probably because they believed the drivel that Nadella spouted.
Indeed, there has now been a recent poll that shows that exclusives were the main reason that people buy a console. And from a personal perspective, exclusives are the only reason that I used to buy a PlayStation because every other game I bought on Xbox.
Circana recently carried out that poll, as then reported elsewhere:
I have also said a fair few times now that having Sharma as the head of Xbox does not mean that the brand is out of the woods because Nadella is still her boss, and he may still have a different agenda, and, as has been demonstrated in the past 2 years, his agenda may not end well for Xbox. Only time will tell, and we just have to hope that Nadella has backed off for now whilst he pursues his AI dreams, and that Sharma has enough clout to get things done at Xbox...
I like this approach from Sharma. Firstly, she has no real understanding of the gaming industry itself, but secondly, she is being open about this lack of understanding and is demonstrating a willingness to learn. You can learn as much from successful people as you can from those that failed. Indeed, it is arguable that you can learn more from people's mistakes than you can the times they got things right.
I said from the outset that Sharma should be given time to get her feet under the bosses table, and thus far she has impressed me, particularly when it comes to communicating with the Xbox community, which, I believe stems from her understanding of PR.
We still need to see tangible changes to Xbox, and to see Sharma's vision for the brand, but that will take time. Maybe as much as 2 or 3 years, because right now what we are seeing come through were either greenlit under Spencer, or were absolutely inevitable no matter who was in charge. However give Sharma time, and we could see a bright future for Xbox. She is at least giving Xbox an element of positivity that has been sorely missing in recent years...
I agree with you, @Bob_Tempura. It would likely have been Bond presenting us with Helix, not Spencer, and I have said before that I think she was being primed to be his replacement, and part of the reason she left so abruptly is because she found out she was being stiffed for the position by Sharma. Indeed, rumour is that Spencer tendered his resignation in late 2025, and I think that both he and Bond initially assumed that Bond would take his place.
So yes, I think you are right, it would have been Bond giving us first sight of Helix, but now it will be Sharma, though people need to remember, it is not her baby. She has just been left holding the baby whilst Mummy and Daddy waltz off into the sunset.
Interestingly, although this is not Sharma's natural born child, I do think she will still be judged on whether or not it is a success. Not so much in its specs, etc., but how everything attached to it is handled thereafter, such as free (or not) online gaming, PC Game Pass, and exclusives (or not).
It's a day one purchase for me, as I loved both games. I do wonder whether the rats will feature because I thought they were drawn to Hugo who obviously will not exist in this game. After rewatching the trailer there is no sign of the rats, and it's unclear what drives the protagonist in this new game. I have faith in the studio though, so have no qualms about pre-ordering it when it becomes available to do so...
Do we have any idea of how much of the game is single-player campaign, and how much is multiplayer orientated, @FraserG? In other words, do we know what the focus of the game is? Is multiplayer the focus with the campaign tacked on, or is it the other way around? Thanks...
Got you, @Millionski. To be fair, I don't think I have ever said that this was not a good move because I do, which is why I suggested it the week before it was announced.
As someone that only ever plays the Call of Duty campaign having the game on Game Pass was a benefit to me. Or at least is would have been had I actually played the past two campaigns, which is kind of bizarre when you consider that I have always pre-ordered every Call of Duty ever since the second game (and then only to play the campaign), and when it is actually included in Game Pass I haven't bothered with it at all despite having Ultimate. Go figure...! 🤪
I certainly think this is a good move, and as someone that is not heavily invested in Call of Duty I am glad that I would not have to pay a premium price for Game Pass to have it included, and indeed, I would be quite happy to wait a year to play the game on Game Pass rather than buying it if that is what I wanted to do.
This is good news, my only issue is that some people are seemingly trying to portray Sharma as the new Messiah because of this move when it was absolutely so inevitable that even a nobody such as me said this is what they should do.
Sharma is the face of Xbox, I get that, but if she is going to be credited with this move, then she needs to be blamed for the revenue loses that Xbox announced today too. I won't do that because I understand that she is not responsible for either. Her vision for Xbox will take at least a year, but more likely two to be realised, but I do think she should be given time to settle in and make the minor adjustments that she can whilst we await her more Earth-shattering changes in 2028 and beyond...
I think you are right, @Gabrie. When Spencer came in he faced considerable problems, and he too offered many, many warm words, but if anything we ended up in a worse position, though I personally would lay the blame for that firmly at the door of Nadella who took charge for the last couple of years (hence Spencer being all but completely AWOL).
Right now, Sharma is uttering similar platitudes, and I like what I am hearing, but people need to understand that she faces considerable problems at Xbox HQ, and arguably worse problems that Spencer faced when he took charge.
It's going to take some considerable effort to right the Xbox ship, but I wish Sharma the very best of luck as she endeavours to do so...
I'm looking forward to seeing what Sharma brings to the table. I think her background in PR, and her obvious knowledge that communicating with your community is key is shining through.
I think it important to remember that most (if not all) of the key things that we experience with Xbox over the next couple of years will have been put in motion prior to Sharma taking over. Helix, for example, will likely see Sharma stood front and centre on stage introducing it, but it is not her baby, it is Spencer's. Sharma is just adopting it! She will be the face of Helix because she is in charge, but that plan was put in motion well before she took the big chair.
Truthfully, it will be a couple of years before we really see Sharma's vision for Xbox, and whilst she cannot claim all the credit for what happens within that span of time, she also cannot be blamed for things such as sluggish Xbox console sales, or even the dips in incoming revenue.
I really like Sharma's style when it comes to speaking to us, and that was sorely missing during the last couple of years of Spencer's reign, although he was very much side-lined by Nadella, and did not have much to crow about as he watched the Microsoft CEO butcher his baby.
Anyway, I like Sharma, and wish her the best of luck in her Xbox endeavours because she is going to need it as Xbox was the like the Titanic heading for the iceberg prior to her taking charge, and it is now a question of whether she can steer the ship clear or whether the course if set and unavoidable. I'm hoping for the former, but there is not two ways about it, Sharma really has her work cut out, and so I wish her the very best of luck..
I'm uncertain what you are getting at to be honest, @Millionski. If you are saying you don't agree with my comment regarding the necessity of the changes to Game Pass, and that they would have happened regardless of whether Asha was in charge, then you need to be a little clearer. You would also need to explain what you think would have happened if Spencer was still in charge. Do you really think that Call of Duty would have continued to lose hundreds of millions of dollars, and also see Game Pass Ultimate continue to lose millions of subscribers? Because that is what would have happened if Call of Duty had remained on Game Pass, and that is what made these changes absolutely inevitable, and it is why I said that is what they should do the week prior to the announcement. Was the reduction in Game Pass price significant? Absolutely it was, but can you imagine the furore if Microsoft had removed Call of Duty and left the price the same? It would have been absolute carnage. So much hate would have been spouted that the word 'Xbox' would have been deep in the gutter everywhere you turned.
The removal of Call of Duty had to happen to recoup on Microsoft's investment with ABK, and there was no way they could not follow it's removal with anything short of a significant price drop because the whole reason it went up by 50% in the first place was because Call of Duty was being put on the service, and that it had lost hundreds of millions the first year too.
As for Asha, I was one of those that said day one that she needs to be given time to see what she can do, and she should not be judged on her AI past. I said then that her work in PR may well be of benefit to Xbox, and my only caution about her was her potential closeness to Nadella.
Since she took charge, I have praised her obvious PR credentials a number of times because it is because she is talking positively about Xbox that we are feeling better about the brand. I have said a fair few times now that Spencer being radio silent in recent years (whilst Nadella pulled all the master strokes that broke Xbox) hurt Xbox, though in fairness there was not much for Spencer to be positive about anyway. He was side-lined, and was watching from the side-lines as Nadella trashed everything because he does not understand gaming.
Anyway, I think Asha is a breath of fresh air, as is her positivity about Xbox, but that for her vision for Xbox to shine through it will take a couple of years because until that point, she will just be ushering in things that were greenlit under Spencer. Like Helix, for example; Asha will stand on the stage and introduce it to us, but it was Spencer's dream not hers, and that will be the way of many of the significant things over the next couple of years. That's just the way it is, that's not shade on Asha, but significant changes take time...
O.D.S.T. is my favourite of the franchise, @wildcat_kickz. The way the story unfolds through locating items in the world, and either engaging or attempting to avoid enemies as the wander around is superbly done. It's probably the one in the franchise that I have played the most. That particular game deserves a sequel, or at least another one done in a similar fashion...
I'd like a full remake of each game, but for me the priority is a new one. I really enjoyed Infinite, and would happily see another one in the same vein. Unfortunately, I think I'm in the minority when it comes to having enjoyed Infinite, and so I imagine that whatever new game comes next will be more like 4 and 5, which were not as good as Infinite (certainly 5 wasn't)...
Only because she absolutely had too, @Deshalu. No matter who was in charge, lowering the price of Game Pass would have happened (and let's not forget that it is still more expensive than 12 months ago).
Call of Duty was haemorrhaging money by being on Game Pass, and Game Pass was haemorrhaging subscribers due to the price increase. It was a double whammy that had to be addressed, and I suggested that they remove CoD from Game Pass, and then lower the price of Game Pass a week before it happened. It was a matter of necessity. Simple as that. Something had to be done because it was costing Microsoft way too much money...
It's been a while since I played the first game, @Broosh, and I don't have the greatest memory, but I seem to recall the map basically being one large labyrinth with a cathedral at its heart. It was, as I recall, very much the same pretty much everywhere you went.
The second game is far more open world, and a lot more fun to explore. I really enjoyed it...
I never play any of the Souls or Souls-like games in co-op, @Broosh, so for me its omission from Code Vein 2 was no issue, although I can imagine it being a disappointment for those that like to play co-op games. Personally, I don't like people, so I choose to play solo...! 😂
Code Vein 2 is a great game. If you liked the first game, then you will definitely like the second because it does everything just that little bit better...
Really sad to hear this. I loved the first Greedfall game, and have bought (but yet to play) the sequel. I also loved Steelrising, and was hoping we might see a sequel to that at some point. Very disappointed by this news...
Have to say that I am somewhat disappointed with the overall ratings, and it never fails to surprise me how one can basically love it, and another doesn't think it worthy of your time.
Still, I guess the one advantage that a game that likely no longer features on my 'To Play' list, is that I don't have to find time for it now. I have already pre-ordered Pragmata, Greefdall: The Dying World, Disciples: Domination, Crimson Desert and Saros, and am yet to start any of them, so not having another game in the mix is kind of a relief...
If it follows Microsoft's usual half-baked games that promise the Earth and deliver a lot less, then it will score somewhere between 70 and 80. I have no idea why Microsoft insist on releasing games that go on to score middling reviews, rather than keep them in an oven for another 6 months, and release something far better. People get upset that Microsoft don't feature in the Game of the Year discussions, but it is precisely because it is how the game is first received and reviewed that counts, and the reputation a game garners on release sticks with it, no matter whether you then go on to fix it.
However, from what I have seem of Forza Horizon 6, and also based on the past entries, I think there is a good chance that this game might release in good order, without the need for major patches, and so will likely score in the high 80s at the very least, and potentially into the 90s. We can only hope that PlayGround Games knock it out of the park and actually present us with a Game of the Year contender because that would cap off what is shaping up to be a good year for Xbox...
I don't know what it is about 007 First Light, but I'm just not sold on it yet. I think part of the problem is that I'm not keen on the Hitman games, and I worry that 007 will play like a reskin of those games.
Do you happen to know whether we will get reviews of the game prior to release, @FraserG...?
It's nice to have even a morsel of meat on the Helix bone! The rumours regarding dev kits have been out for a while, and so it is not so much as something new but something confirmed. A friend of a friend tells me that dev kits for the PS6 are already in the hands of some developers, although I am unsure whether this is a physical kit, or a virtual kit, so it would seem that Xbox is actually slightly behind Sony, which I find surprising because I thought that Xbox were going to be out a year before the PS6. That said, the probabilities are that actual Xbox studios might get Helix dev kits first anyway.
Still, it's good to have some confirmation of the rumour, and it is entirely possible that we might get a little more red meat come the June Showcase, which I am already very much looking forward too...
I was ready to tick the box for Aphelion alone, but then I watched the trailer for Trepang 2, and quite liked what I saw.
For some reason, I thought Trepang was a multiplayer game, which having watched the trailer I think was maybe wrong. I do like a bit of senseless violence every now and again, and it looks more like it is pure violence rather than story led.
First off, am I right in thinking (now) that Trepang 2 is a solo game, and more about just shooting everything, rather than having a story? And secondly, was the first game any good because I often see that one on sale...?
Personally, I like what I am hearing, but we need actions that are not borne out of necessity to see any real change.
I know some will herald the Game Pass price change and Call of Duty being removed as that big change, and it is a big change, but it was borne out of necessity. Call of Duty was haemorrhaging money by being on Game Pass, and Game Pass was haemorrhaging subscribers as a consequence of the price increase. Action had to be taken to rectify this, and it mattered not who was in charge, these changes would have occurred. Indeed, I suggested these changes be made a week before they were announced.
Now, what I have really liked about the arrival of Sharma is her communication with the Xbox community. This was something that was severely lacking in recent years. I also like her renewed focus on Xbox. However, let's be clear about it, we have yet to actually see tangible and positive changes beyond words. Do I feel better about Xbox right now? Absolutely I do, and for that I credit Sharma, but I do want to see some positive changes that we can actually see and feel, though in fairness to her, that will take time. I do not expect her to waltz in and change everything for the better within the first couple of months, and in all honesty, it will likely take closer to a couple of years before we really see her vision shine through.
I do feel positive about Sharma's arrival, and hope that she is given the opportunity to make good on her words...
My son has bought the big add-on (the one that costs the same as a AAA game on its own!) for Forza Horizon 6, and as we game share, I get most of the benefits from him doing so too. I usually sink 30 hours or so into these games before becoming bored, and I'm kind of expecting to do the same this time round too, though when I will actually get round to playing it I am unsure because I am already well behind on games I have bought this year, but not yet started.
That list includes:
Pragmata Greefdall: The Dying World Disciples: Domination
and Crimson Desert
As well as:
Saros, which comes out next week and which will be the first of the 5 that I tackle.
It's a great time to be a gamer, but I need to make more time for gaming too...
Absolutely I do! Done well, or better still, done better, and a good game is most definitely worth buying and playing again.
Black Flag is one of the Assassin's Creed games that I bought as a pre-order, but never played. I think it is because I did not enjoy Assassin's Creed 3 that I did not play 4. Anyway, because I did not play it, I will most certainly be buying the remake, as I will Halo Campaign Evolved, and I've played through the original of that many a time...
Comments 4,862
Re: 'We Need To Evolve How We Work' - Xbox CEO Announces She's Bringing In New Leaders
I read the above, and the first thought that strikes me is that Sharma is bringing in people to introduce or further integrate AI into how Xbox is run. Whether this is good for Xbox, or for game development, I honestly cannot say. This could be the first controversial move that Sharma has made since becoming head of Xbox, although I personally, have no real qualms with the use of AI...
Re: Two More 'Day One' Game Pass Titles Quietly Announced For 2026
I totally get what you are saying, @MinervaX76, but when I say big games, I did not mean 25 AAA games, more that if you are bringing 50 A games, 20 AA games and just 5 AAA games, then most of that 50 will be completely irrelevant and forgotten by most. As I said, small does not mean bad, but if the games are bigger, with bigger budgets, they will likely have more appeal. I'd far rather struggle to find the time to play 25 games, than be faced with 50 or 60 that hold no interest to me at all...
Re: Talking Point: New Survey Highlights The 'Top Reasons To Play Games On A Console'
I have no issue with your views whatsoever, @Sol4ris, and I hope that my comment did not come over that way because that was not how it was intended.
From a pro-consumer point of view, having no exclusivity is the best approach possible. Every game on whatever platform you choose to play on is the Utopia that we would all love to see. The problem is that what invariably happens is that the smaller players get squeezed out of the market. The one that offers the least benefits will be seen as the least desirable, with only costs being the saving grace. In the case of Microsoft, it would seem that Helix is going to be considerably more expensive than the PS6, with the only true advantage being access to PC games. Now, that is a big advantage, but the problem is that why own a Helix, when you could own a PC instead. That is the issue that Microsoft will have to address, with the most obvious solution being that the Helix, whilst expensive, offers more (in terms of hardware) than you or I could match in buying a PC we either build ourselves or can be built for us. In other words, they offer us a better spec'd machine for a price that is much better than a PC we could get elsewhere for the same price or less. I think that is what Microsoft will do, but then the issue is just how much more than the PS6 will Helix cost? If there is a considerable difference, then I can see a lot of people opting for the PS6 instead of either sticking with Xbox or opting to enter the PC sphere.
Sony have obviously crunched the numbers and determined that their exclusives (which are of undoubtedly high quality) bring enough people into their ecosystem to warrant keeping them exclusive, even though that means they lose some sales on PC (though in reality, it would seem that it is not that many really).
If you want access to the maximum number of games possible, then undoubtedly PC gaming is where you should be, and it would seem, from what we know right now, that Helix could well be a very good entry point into that sphere...
Re: Xbox Founder Invited To Microsoft HQ By Asha Sharma, Says It Was 'Amazing' And 'Bizarre'
Th problem is that people sign up to Game Pass for a month, play a first-party game and then unsub, @Millionski. So a game that could be sold for £70 is instead played for £13, and whilst it is great that a million people sub to Game Pass for a month to play, let's say, Fable, instead of that game being bought by that million people generating £70,000,000 in revenue, it brings in £13,000,000. That is a huge difference.
Then you have those people, such as myself, who have Ultimate stacked, who can then play Fable without adding a single penny more to the Microsoft coffers.
Conversely, you can sell Fable on PlayStation, sell a million copies and Microsoft makes £49,000,000, with the other £21,000,000 going to Sony.
Obviously, a game like Fable will probably sell a lot more than a million copies on the PlayStation, but the problem is also that a lot more than a million people will choose not to buy the game at all and instead play it at a vastly reduced cost on Game Pass.
The only reason that Microsoft have taken to selling their games on PlayStation is because the games were not selling in sufficient quantities on Xbox and PC, and whilst subs to Game Pass increase with each game, they then flatline again soon after. Regardless, the games simply do not generate enough revenue on Xbox and PC, and the cycle cannot continue indefinitely, because Microsoft cannot continue to lose revenue as all that leads to is job loses and studio closures (as we have seen in the not too distant past).
The problem for Microsoft, when it comes to returning to fully exclusive, is that people are not buying Xbox consoles, and whilst there will be an uptick in sales to play Fable (if it was exclusive), the strongest likelihood is that people on PlayStation will just shrug and move on to something else instead. In other words, the game will effectively bomb, not because it is not a good game, but because too few people buy the game, and too many play it on Game Pass instead, and when a game bombs it is rarely good news for the studio...
Re: Talking Point: New Survey Highlights The 'Top Reasons To Play Games On A Console'
What would you do if Gear of War was only available on PlayStation, @HonestHick? Indeed, if Microsoft withdraw from the console space during the next generation, this might become a reality...
Re: Talking Point: New Survey Highlights The 'Top Reasons To Play Games On A Console'
I too have always bought a PlayStation every single generation only to play their exclusives, @Master_Cthulhu70. I bought the OG Xbox day one and from that moment onwards I bought every third-party game on Xbox.
I also bought both of my sons an Xbox too, and that is the only platform they play on.
That said, I recently bought a PS5 Pro, and because many games play better there than on the X, I have been buying third-party games there instead, but my intention is to switch back to fully Xbox once Helix releases...
Re: Talking Point: New Survey Highlights The 'Top Reasons To Play Games On A Console'
How are they anti- consumer, @Sol4ris? If Sony spend $300 million making Spiderman 3, are they not then entitled to sell the game on their platform only?
I do agree that Sony paying a third-party to have their game as exclusive is more of an anti-consumer move, but the truth is that people have the option to buy a PlayStation should they wish.
The problem with Microsoft having no exclusives is that it could well lead to Microsoft calling an end to being a player in the console market, and surely having one fewer option as to where you play your games is even more anti-consumer than having games as exclusive?
Xbox not having exclusives has had a massive impact on sales of Xbox consoles, which in turn means fewer people in their ecosystem, which means they then make less money, and that then led to them releasing their games on PlayStation, which has in turn led to a further downturn in Xbox console sales. This downward spiral began when Microsoft began releasing their games on PC straight after the abysmal release of the Xbox One. They diluted the brand then, and have diluted the brand still further when they began releasing their games on PlayStation.
One day, this Utopia that people seem to so desire wherein every game will be playable on one system will come to exist, but the truth is that there will be casualties along the way, and with the market share as it currently is, the first to fall victim to a move in this direction will be Xbox, particularly so if it does not have exclusives.
The real question is who would be next? It will either be Nintendo or Sony, but my money is on Sony. The next question is when? Well we know that the PS6 will sell very well, but will it make enough money over its lifetime to warrant a PS7, that is another matter entirely. With games costing so much to make, can they draw enough people into their ecosystem whilst keeping their games entirely exclusive (Live Service excluded)? The answer is probably, particularly so if Xbox withdraws from the console market within the next 5 or 6 years, which I think they will do. My money is on the Helix being offered for sale for around 3 years, after which Microsoft will withdraw from the console market, which will bolster PlayStation still further (and they will likely already have had quite a boost from Xbox gamers unwilling to pay the asking price for the Helix). Ultimately, I think there will be a PS7, but what happens thereafter, is too far off to provide an informed speculation right now, but the reality is that exclusives do play a genuinely significant role in the success (or otherwise) of a console...
Re: Talking Point: New Survey Highlights The 'Top Reasons To Play Games On A Console'
The biggest problem with this survey is the way it has been presented. Clearly Circana have ask something like 'Give us your top 3 reasons why...?', meaning that the overall score is not out of 100%. Either that, or the person who then collated the results was not well enough versed in mathematics to put it out of 100%. In other words, had they only give people one option to choose from, then the results would have been different, and potentially very different, but may actually have given us a much clearer answer as to why people choose one console over another. These results, because they have given people multiple options are somewhat muddled...
Re: Two More 'Day One' Game Pass Titles Quietly Announced For 2026
I totally agree, @Telin. Microsoft own Bethesda, and they could instruct them to make the games that Microsoft want made. Keeping Bethesda doing what they have always done and make a game in a particular franchise every 10 to 15 years makes no sense whatsoever. Microsoft have enough studios that could make the successful franchises, and as was shown with Fallout: New Vegas, you don't have to be part of Bethesda to make a successful Fallout game...
Re: Xbox Founder Invited To Microsoft HQ By Asha Sharma, Says It Was 'Amazing' And 'Bizarre'
The only reason to have exclusive games is to attract people into your ecosystem, @Millionski, and the only games that can do that are the big AAA games, so there really is no value in keeping smaller titles exclusive. None whatsoever. They may not sell well by comparison to the big games but they also cost a heck of a lot less to make. Releasing them day and date everywhere gives them the best chance to make the most money, and as they will not attract people into your ecosystem anyway, selling them on rival platforms actually makes a lot of sense.
The problem comes down to a sizable percentage of people only playing games via Game Pass, and more still play mostly on Game Pass and only but a few select titles. Game Pass eats heavily into the revenue that any game could make and because most of us find ways to get Game Pass for much less than the monthly subscription, the amount of money that Game Pass makes is reduced too, meaning the games on it make less money too. It is for this reason alone that games began being ported to PlayStation, and having tasted the full fat revenue that can be found on PlayStation, Microsoft are not going to want to return to a lean diet of slim pickings of Xbox sales and Game Pass subscriptions. The best I can see Microsoft doing is have some timed exclusivity, but I cannot see them doing that for long simply because games sell best when sold everywhere day and date. Timed exclusivity leads to a game selling less well than it would than if it is day and date on all systems.
If Microsoft do decide to go down the route of having smaller games as exclusive, it will be a token gesture to keep the fans happy, but ultimately it could be bad for the studios that make them because if they are seen to be making insufficient revenue they could well end up closed. Microsoft really are better off selling them everywhere day and date because attempts to keep us happy by keeping them as exclusives could lead to consequences we would not like...
Re: Two More 'Day One' Game Pass Titles Quietly Announced For 2026
I don't doubt that some of the indie games are good, @Millionski. And there are some people that thrive on them. Personally I don't, but that's just me. The real problem is that more often than not 3 out of 4 games are completely forgettable, and whilst people will rave about that one game, that still leaves 3 that are barely worth talking about. That is why I say I would prefer Microsoft put 25 big or decent games on the service each year, than fill it with tat just to fulfil a quota...
Re: Xbox Founder Invited To Microsoft HQ By Asha Sharma, Says It Was 'Amazing' And 'Bizarre'
You hit the nail on the head, @RegnumSolipsi, not having exclusives and relying solely on your hardware as the place to play any game only works if everyone is doing the same. For that strategy to work for Microsoft, Sony would have to abandon exclusivity too, and we all know they have decided now to double down on exclusives, maybe in part because there was a concern that the Helix may prove to be more popular than many of us think, and even if not, it would still have enabled people to play Sony games that released on PC.
The truth is that Microsoft are on to a hiding to nothing in the position they find themselves in. They've taken to releasing everything on PlayStation, perhaps in the belief that Sony would reciprocate, but mostly from a position of weakness wherein they absolutely needed to sell their games on PlayStation because sales of their games on Xbox and PC, plus Game Pass subscription fees was not giving them enough revenue. Something had to give, it was either close more studios, cut costs to the bone, or sell their games on their biggest rivals console. And of course now that Microsoft have tasted that juicy revenue on PlayStation there's very little chance of persuading the bean-counters that they can make similar revenue by making games exclusive when the only reason they sold their games on PlayStation in the first place was because they weren't making enough revenue. That is why I do not foresee Xbox drastically changing their exclusivity practices. Maybe they will dabble with timed-exclusives, but if they do, I doubt it will be for long...
Re: Xbox Founder Invited To Microsoft HQ By Asha Sharma, Says It Was 'Amazing' And 'Bizarre'
In fairness, @Seioni, I did mean first-party exclusives. I absolutely agree that signing an exclusive agreement with one console or another is a risky business strategy. It's great for that console, but not necessarily great for the developer as Square Enix will attest.
Personally, I have always seen third-party exclusives as more of a bonus than anything, and when it came to me buying a PlayStation I did so purely for Sony's first-party output (indeed, I still have not played a single Final Fantasy game either!).
That's not to say that I do not play the third-party exclusives, because I certainly do on occasion, Stellar Blade probably being the most recent. However having a strong line-up of first-party exclusives really does give people a reason to buy into a particular console ecosystem...
Re: 10 New Xbox Indie Games That Should Be On Your Radar In May 2026
I remember liking the look of Necrophosis when it was first revealed. It will be interesting to see how that reviews...
Re: Report: Halo 2 & 3 Remakes Are In 'Active Development' At Halo Studios
In all honesty, @16BitHerom just as with Gears of War: Reloaded the Halo remakes are being made more for an audience on PlayStation than they are for those on Xbox. Were it not for the desire to introduce PlayStation gamers to the two franchises, we would not be seeing these remakes. Indeed, arguably, us getting these remakes is a happy by-product of the desire to bring them to PlayStation. Were it not for that, we would not have been getting them because we already have the original games, however, those games, as they exist now, would have been seen as laughable if they had simply tried to port the Master Chief Collection to PlayStation because they are showing their age by todays standards...
Re: Two More 'Day One' Game Pass Titles Quietly Announced For 2026
I know Microsoft promised us 75 day one games a year, but I guess I am guilty of being fooled into thinking they meant 75 day one games for Xbox consoles alone, not half of them for PC only.
Also, I would rather have 25 big games a year than 75 small and largely forgettable titles. I'm not saying these small games won't be half decent, but the issue is that when there are so many other games vying for your attention, these small games will be forgotten and largely ignored...
Re: Xbox Founder Invited To Microsoft HQ By Asha Sharma, Says It Was 'Amazing' And 'Bizarre'
I've said that exclusives were the main reason people buy into an ecosystem time and time again, @Jenkinss, and there are some here that fought back against it probably because they believed the drivel that Nadella spouted.
Indeed, there has now been a recent poll that shows that exclusives were the main reason that people buy a console. And from a personal perspective, exclusives are the only reason that I used to buy a PlayStation because every other game I bought on Xbox.
Circana recently carried out that poll, as then reported elsewhere:
https://metro.co.uk/2026/05/01/take-note-xbox-exclusives-main-reason-people-buy-video-game-consoles-28195417/
I have also said a fair few times now that having Sharma as the head of Xbox does not mean that the brand is out of the woods because Nadella is still her boss, and he may still have a different agenda, and, as has been demonstrated in the past 2 years, his agenda may not end well for Xbox. Only time will tell, and we just have to hope that Nadella has backed off for now whilst he pursues his AI dreams, and that Sharma has enough clout to get things done at Xbox...
Re: Xbox Founder Invited To Microsoft HQ By Asha Sharma, Says It Was 'Amazing' And 'Bizarre'
I like this approach from Sharma. Firstly, she has no real understanding of the gaming industry itself, but secondly, she is being open about this lack of understanding and is demonstrating a willingness to learn. You can learn as much from successful people as you can from those that failed. Indeed, it is arguable that you can learn more from people's mistakes than you can the times they got things right.
I said from the outset that Sharma should be given time to get her feet under the bosses table, and thus far she has impressed me, particularly when it comes to communicating with the Xbox community, which, I believe stems from her understanding of PR.
We still need to see tangible changes to Xbox, and to see Sharma's vision for the brand, but that will take time. Maybe as much as 2 or 3 years, because right now what we are seeing come through were either greenlit under Spencer, or were absolutely inevitable no matter who was in charge. However give Sharma time, and we could see a bright future for Xbox. She is at least giving Xbox an element of positivity that has been sorely missing in recent years...
Re: Asha Sharma Comments On Xbox Revenue Loss For Q3 2026
I agree with you, @Bob_Tempura. It would likely have been Bond presenting us with Helix, not Spencer, and I have said before that I think she was being primed to be his replacement, and part of the reason she left so abruptly is because she found out she was being stiffed for the position by Sharma. Indeed, rumour is that Spencer tendered his resignation in late 2025, and I think that both he and Bond initially assumed that Bond would take his place.
So yes, I think you are right, it would have been Bond giving us first sight of Helix, but now it will be Sharma, though people need to remember, it is not her baby. She has just been left holding the baby whilst Mummy and Daddy waltz off into the sunset.
Interestingly, although this is not Sharma's natural born child, I do think she will still be judged on whether or not it is a success. Not so much in its specs, etc., but how everything attached to it is handled thereafter, such as free (or not) online gaming, PC Game Pass, and exclusives (or not).
Interesting times for sure...
Re: Star Wars Galactic Racer Brings Its 'High-Stakes Reinvention Of Racing' To Xbox In October 2026
Understood, @FraserG. Thank you for the response...
Re: The Next Plague Tale Release 'Is Almost Here', Launches On Xbox Game Pass In 2026
It's a day one purchase for me, as I loved both games. I do wonder whether the rats will feature because I thought they were drawn to Hugo who obviously will not exist in this game. After rewatching the trailer there is no sign of the rats, and it's unclear what drives the protagonist in this new game. I have faith in the studio though, so have no qualms about pre-ordering it when it becomes available to do so...
Re: Star Wars Galactic Racer Brings Its 'High-Stakes Reinvention Of Racing' To Xbox In October 2026
Do we have any idea of how much of the game is single-player campaign, and how much is multiplayer orientated, @FraserG? In other words, do we know what the focus of the game is? Is multiplayer the focus with the campaign tacked on, or is it the other way around? Thanks...
Re: Microsoft Issues Xbox Email Addresses As Part Of 'Strengthening The Xbox Identity'
Got you, @Millionski. To be fair, I don't think I have ever said that this was not a good move because I do, which is why I suggested it the week before it was announced.
As someone that only ever plays the Call of Duty campaign having the game on Game Pass was a benefit to me. Or at least is would have been had I actually played the past two campaigns, which is kind of bizarre when you consider that I have always pre-ordered every Call of Duty ever since the second game (and then only to play the campaign), and when it is actually included in Game Pass I haven't bothered with it at all despite having Ultimate. Go figure...! 🤪
I certainly think this is a good move, and as someone that is not heavily invested in Call of Duty I am glad that I would not have to pay a premium price for Game Pass to have it included, and indeed, I would be quite happy to wait a year to play the game on Game Pass rather than buying it if that is what I wanted to do.
This is good news, my only issue is that some people are seemingly trying to portray Sharma as the new Messiah because of this move when it was absolutely so inevitable that even a nobody such as me said this is what they should do.
Sharma is the face of Xbox, I get that, but if she is going to be credited with this move, then she needs to be blamed for the revenue loses that Xbox announced today too. I won't do that because I understand that she is not responsible for either. Her vision for Xbox will take at least a year, but more likely two to be realised, but I do think she should be given time to settle in and make the minor adjustments that she can whilst we await her more Earth-shattering changes in 2028 and beyond...
Re: Asha Sharma Comments On Xbox Revenue Loss For Q3 2026
I think you are right, @Gabrie. When Spencer came in he faced considerable problems, and he too offered many, many warm words, but if anything we ended up in a worse position, though I personally would lay the blame for that firmly at the door of Nadella who took charge for the last couple of years (hence Spencer being all but completely AWOL).
Right now, Sharma is uttering similar platitudes, and I like what I am hearing, but people need to understand that she faces considerable problems at Xbox HQ, and arguably worse problems that Spencer faced when he took charge.
It's going to take some considerable effort to right the Xbox ship, but I wish Sharma the very best of luck as she endeavours to do so...
Re: Asha Sharma Comments On Xbox Revenue Loss For Q3 2026
I'm looking forward to seeing what Sharma brings to the table. I think her background in PR, and her obvious knowledge that communicating with your community is key is shining through.
I think it important to remember that most (if not all) of the key things that we experience with Xbox over the next couple of years will have been put in motion prior to Sharma taking over. Helix, for example, will likely see Sharma stood front and centre on stage introducing it, but it is not her baby, it is Spencer's. Sharma is just adopting it! She will be the face of Helix because she is in charge, but that plan was put in motion well before she took the big chair.
Truthfully, it will be a couple of years before we really see Sharma's vision for Xbox, and whilst she cannot claim all the credit for what happens within that span of time, she also cannot be blamed for things such as sluggish Xbox console sales, or even the dips in incoming revenue.
I really like Sharma's style when it comes to speaking to us, and that was sorely missing during the last couple of years of Spencer's reign, although he was very much side-lined by Nadella, and did not have much to crow about as he watched the Microsoft CEO butcher his baby.
Anyway, I like Sharma, and wish her the best of luck in her Xbox endeavours because she is going to need it as Xbox was the like the Titanic heading for the iceberg prior to her taking charge, and it is now a question of whether she can steer the ship clear or whether the course if set and unavoidable. I'm hoping for the former, but there is not two ways about it, Sharma really has her work cut out, and so I wish her the very best of luck..
Re: Microsoft Issues Xbox Email Addresses As Part Of 'Strengthening The Xbox Identity'
I'm uncertain what you are getting at to be honest, @Millionski. If you are saying you don't agree with my comment regarding the necessity of the changes to Game Pass, and that they would have happened regardless of whether Asha was in charge, then you need to be a little clearer. You would also need to explain what you think would have happened if Spencer was still in charge. Do you really think that Call of Duty would have continued to lose hundreds of millions of dollars, and also see Game Pass Ultimate continue to lose millions of subscribers? Because that is what would have happened if Call of Duty had remained on Game Pass, and that is what made these changes absolutely inevitable, and it is why I said that is what they should do the week prior to the announcement. Was the reduction in Game Pass price significant? Absolutely it was, but can you imagine the furore if Microsoft had removed Call of Duty and left the price the same? It would have been absolute carnage. So much hate would have been spouted that the word 'Xbox' would have been deep in the gutter everywhere you turned.
The removal of Call of Duty had to happen to recoup on Microsoft's investment with ABK, and there was no way they could not follow it's removal with anything short of a significant price drop because the whole reason it went up by 50% in the first place was because Call of Duty was being put on the service, and that it had lost hundreds of millions the first year too.
As for Asha, I was one of those that said day one that she needs to be given time to see what she can do, and she should not be judged on her AI past. I said then that her work in PR may well be of benefit to Xbox, and my only caution about her was her potential closeness to Nadella.
Since she took charge, I have praised her obvious PR credentials a number of times because it is because she is talking positively about Xbox that we are feeling better about the brand. I have said a fair few times now that Spencer being radio silent in recent years (whilst Nadella pulled all the master strokes that broke Xbox) hurt Xbox, though in fairness there was not much for Spencer to be positive about anyway. He was side-lined, and was watching from the side-lines as Nadella trashed everything because he does not understand gaming.
Anyway, I think Asha is a breath of fresh air, as is her positivity about Xbox, but that for her vision for Xbox to shine through it will take a couple of years because until that point, she will just be ushering in things that were greenlit under Spencer. Like Helix, for example; Asha will stand on the stage and introduce it to us, but it was Spencer's dream not hers, and that will be the way of many of the significant things over the next couple of years. That's just the way it is, that's not shade on Asha, but significant changes take time...
Re: Talking Point: After Halo: Campaign Evolved, What Do You Want Xbox To Do With The Series?
O.D.S.T. is my favourite of the franchise, @wildcat_kickz. The way the story unfolds through locating items in the world, and either engaging or attempting to avoid enemies as the wander around is superbly done. It's probably the one in the franchise that I have played the most. That particular game deserves a sequel, or at least another one done in a similar fashion...
Re: Talking Point: After Halo: Campaign Evolved, What Do You Want Xbox To Do With The Series?
I'd like a full remake of each game, but for me the priority is a new one. I really enjoyed Infinite, and would happily see another one in the same vein. Unfortunately, I think I'm in the minority when it comes to having enjoyed Infinite, and so I imagine that whatever new game comes next will be more like 4 and 5, which were not as good as Infinite (certainly 5 wasn't)...
Re: Microsoft Issues Xbox Email Addresses As Part Of 'Strengthening The Xbox Identity'
Only because she absolutely had too, @Deshalu. No matter who was in charge, lowering the price of Game Pass would have happened (and let's not forget that it is still more expensive than 12 months ago).
Call of Duty was haemorrhaging money by being on Game Pass, and Game Pass was haemorrhaging subscribers due to the price increase. It was a double whammy that had to be addressed, and I suggested that they remove CoD from Game Pass, and then lower the price of Game Pass a week before it happened. It was a matter of necessity. Simple as that. Something had to be done because it was costing Microsoft way too much money...
Re: New Golden Week 2026 Sale Sees Hundreds Of Games Discounted On Xbox
It's been a while since I played the first game, @Broosh, and I don't have the greatest memory, but I seem to recall the map basically being one large labyrinth with a cathedral at its heart. It was, as I recall, very much the same pretty much everywhere you went.
The second game is far more open world, and a lot more fun to explore. I really enjoyed it...
Re: New Golden Week 2026 Sale Sees Hundreds Of Games Discounted On Xbox
I never play any of the Souls or Souls-like games in co-op, @Broosh, so for me its omission from Code Vein 2 was no issue, although I can imagine it being a disappointment for those that like to play co-op games. Personally, I don't like people, so I choose to play solo...! 😂
Re: New Golden Week 2026 Sale Sees Hundreds Of Games Discounted On Xbox
Code Vein 2 is a great game. If you liked the first game, then you will definitely like the second because it does everything just that little bit better...
Re: Nacon's RPG Studio Seemingly Shutting Down Following Financial Troubles
Really sad to hear this. I loved the first Greedfall game, and have bought (but yet to play) the sequel. I also loved Steelrising, and was hoping we might see a sequel to that at some point. Very disappointed by this news...
Re: 'Working On It' - Asha Sharma Confirms Dynamic Background For New Xbox Logo Is In The Works
Stop being sensible, @fatpunkslim, you know I cannot work with that...! 😂
Re: Roundup: Here's What The Reviews Are Saying About 'Aphelion' On Xbox Game Pass
It's sad to think The Bannishers underperformed, @themightyant. I absolutely loved the game and would love to see a sequel too...
Re: Roundup: Here's What The Reviews Are Saying About 'Aphelion' On Xbox Game Pass
Have to say that I am somewhat disappointed with the overall ratings, and it never fails to surprise me how one can basically love it, and another doesn't think it worthy of your time.
Still, I guess the one advantage that a game that likely no longer features on my 'To Play' list, is that I don't have to find time for it now. I have already pre-ordered Pragmata, Greefdall: The Dying World, Disciples: Domination, Crimson Desert and Saros, and am yet to start any of them, so not having another game in the mix is kind of a relief...
Re: Talking Point: With Forza Horizon 6 Imminent, What Are Your Predictions For Its Final Review Score?
If it follows Microsoft's usual half-baked games that promise the Earth and deliver a lot less, then it will score somewhere between 70 and 80. I have no idea why Microsoft insist on releasing games that go on to score middling reviews, rather than keep them in an oven for another 6 months, and release something far better. People get upset that Microsoft don't feature in the Game of the Year discussions, but it is precisely because it is how the game is first received and reviewed that counts, and the reputation a game garners on release sticks with it, no matter whether you then go on to fix it.
However, from what I have seem of Forza Horizon 6, and also based on the past entries, I think there is a good chance that this game might release in good order, without the need for major patches, and so will likely score in the high 80s at the very least, and potentially into the 90s. We can only hope that PlayGround Games knock it out of the park and actually present us with a Game of the Year contender because that would cap off what is shaping up to be a good year for Xbox...
Re: All New Games Coming To Xbox In May 2026
Thank you as always, @FraserG... 👍
Re: All New Games Coming To Xbox In May 2026
I don't know what it is about 007 First Light, but I'm just not sold on it yet. I think part of the problem is that I'm not keen on the Hitman games, and I worry that 007 will play like a reskin of those games.
Do you happen to know whether we will get reviews of the game prior to release, @FraserG...?
Re: All New Games Coming To Xbox In May 2026
Is there an upgrade path for Darksiders Warmastered Edition, @FraserG, or are we expected to buy it for third time...?
Re: Xbox Is Kicking Off The Week With Two New Game Pass Additions (April 28-29)
Have to say I loved F.E.A.R back on the 360, so that raises my interest even more, @Eejay...
Re: Asha Sharma Explains Why Xbox 'Isn't Ready' To Share A Release Timeline For Project Helix
It's nice to have even a morsel of meat on the Helix bone! The rumours regarding dev kits have been out for a while, and so it is not so much as something new but something confirmed. A friend of a friend tells me that dev kits for the PS6 are already in the hands of some developers, although I am unsure whether this is a physical kit, or a virtual kit, so it would seem that Xbox is actually slightly behind Sony, which I find surprising because I thought that Xbox were going to be out a year before the PS6. That said, the probabilities are that actual Xbox studios might get Helix dev kits first anyway.
Still, it's good to have some confirmation of the rumour, and it is entirely possible that we might get a little more red meat come the June Showcase, which I am already very much looking forward too...
Re: Xbox Is Kicking Off The Week With Two New Game Pass Additions (April 28-29)
Good to know. Thank you, @FraserG. Hope you are well, and enjoying the sunshine...
Re: Xbox Is Kicking Off The Week With Two New Game Pass Additions (April 28-29)
I was ready to tick the box for Aphelion alone, but then I watched the trailer for Trepang 2, and quite liked what I saw.
For some reason, I thought Trepang was a multiplayer game, which having watched the trailer I think was maybe wrong. I do like a bit of senseless violence every now and again, and it looks more like it is pure violence rather than story led.
First off, am I right in thinking (now) that Trepang 2 is a solo game, and more about just shooting everything, rather than having a story? And secondly, was the first game any good because I often see that one on sale...?
Re: 'I've Ordered A Series X, I'm Back In' - Lapsed Xbox Fan Attracts The Attention Of Asha Sharma
One down, a few million more to go... 🤣
Re: Reaction: Xbox Is Changing For The Better, And Now Microsoft Needs To Be Consistent
Personally, I like what I am hearing, but we need actions that are not borne out of necessity to see any real change.
I know some will herald the Game Pass price change and Call of Duty being removed as that big change, and it is a big change, but it was borne out of necessity. Call of Duty was haemorrhaging money by being on Game Pass, and Game Pass was haemorrhaging subscribers as a consequence of the price increase. Action had to be taken to rectify this, and it mattered not who was in charge, these changes would have occurred. Indeed, I suggested these changes be made a week before they were announced.
Now, what I have really liked about the arrival of Sharma is her communication with the Xbox community. This was something that was severely lacking in recent years. I also like her renewed focus on Xbox. However, let's be clear about it, we have yet to actually see tangible and positive changes beyond words. Do I feel better about Xbox right now? Absolutely I do, and for that I credit Sharma, but I do want to see some positive changes that we can actually see and feel, though in fairness to her, that will take time. I do not expect her to waltz in and change everything for the better within the first couple of months, and in all honesty, it will likely take closer to a couple of years before we really see her vision shine through.
I do feel positive about Sharma's arrival, and hope that she is given the opportunity to make good on her words...
Re: These 30+ Games Are Coming To Xbox Next Week (April 27-May 1)
Yes, that is the beauty of Game Pass, @Cptnemouk. Indeed, I might even play it that way myself...
Re: Xbox Game Pass: All Games Coming Soon In May 2026
My son has bought the big add-on (the one that costs the same as a AAA game on its own!) for Forza Horizon 6, and as we game share, I get most of the benefits from him doing so too. I usually sink 30 hours or so into these games before becoming bored, and I'm kind of expecting to do the same this time round too, though when I will actually get round to playing it I am unsure because I am already well behind on games I have bought this year, but not yet started.
That list includes:
Pragmata
Greefdall: The Dying World
Disciples: Domination
and
Crimson Desert
As well as:
Saros, which comes out next week and which will be the first of the 5 that I tackle.
It's a great time to be a gamer, but I need to make more time for gaming too...
Re: These 30+ Games Are Coming To Xbox Next Week (April 27-May 1)
Aphelion is the one I'm most interested in from that list. I've decided not to pre-order it just yet, as I want to see some reviews first.
Re: Talking Point: Do You Still Get Excited About Remakes On Xbox In 2026?
Absolutely I do! Done well, or better still, done better, and a good game is most definitely worth buying and playing again.
Black Flag is one of the Assassin's Creed games that I bought as a pre-order, but never played. I think it is because I did not enjoy Assassin's Creed 3 that I did not play 4. Anyway, because I did not play it, I will most certainly be buying the remake, as I will Halo Campaign Evolved, and I've played through the original of that many a time...