I played Gears of War a couple of days prior to its release because I received the disc early in the post. That was always the beauty of having physical releases because invariably they arrived prior to the games official release, and I always then tried to unlock an achievement in the game to bookmark when I played it. I'm not sure whether discs still arrive early, or whether they still enable you to play them early, because I have been all digital since the start of the Xbox One era, but it was definitely a perk back in the 360 days.
As for Gears of War 3, I distinctly remember being first in a queue outside Game in Plymouth, waiting for the store to open at midnight for the launch of the game. When I got into the store, I was served second, because the other person only bought the game, whereas I bought a GoW3 console, a GoW3 controller and the game. I then got home and played the game straight away, and it was simply awesome. Such happy memories.
Unfortunately, I find myself waiting for the arrival of my Collector's Edition of E-Day with a sense of trepidation. I am looking forward to the campaign very much, and will go through it multiple times. I'll play it solo on Hardcore, then solo on Insane, then do exactly the same with a mate, then with my son, then with another mate, and then finally I'll play it on Casual with another mate who is going blind (hence the easier difficulty). In all, I will probably go through the campaign around 10 times within the first month or so.
However, where my trepidation comes in is with regard to Horde. Everything points to there being no proper Horde mode now, and that massively disappoints me. As someone that has poured well over 2000 hours into Horde in Gears 5, to suddenly be faced with not having that option in E-Day is utterly saddening. I cannot express just how disappointed I am. I'm glad that others will find joy in the game, and I hope the game finds success, but I fear that my time with E-Day will be much shorter than with any of the past entries (except perhaps Tactics, which I have only beaten 4 times including on Insane)...
Thank you, @HonestHick. I watched the whole video because I have been subscribed to Matty for years now. I loved his coverage of Baldur's Gate 3 when that went into Early Access as well.
When it comes to E-Day, he made even the PvP sound interesting, and I say that as someone that is not into PvP.
The only thing that he said that got me thinking, is when he said that there were different Horde modes; Siege, Blitz and then Horde mode. Now, I don't know if he has misspoken, or if he is referring to the modes within Siege. If you read what The Coalition has said about Siege, they say:
Horde Siege missions are organized into three main playlists that offer matches of differing lengths and objectives:
Blitz: Short, intense missions that feature 1-2 objectives, perfect for when you only have time for a quick run, usually around 15 – 20 minutes in length Siege: Standard-length missions that can contain multiple objectives with more opportunity to traverse across the map. Missions range from 20 – 40 minutes Horde: For when you want a tougher grind, these missions will ask your squad to hunker down in one spot, setting up defences against 10 gruelling waves with limited support. These missions can last up to 50 – 60 minutes
Now, that is not include a standard Horde mode because that would be 50 waves, and not 10, and the shortest time in which I have ever completed a Horde run (on a hard difficulty) is just over 2 hours (although there were only 3 of us playing).
Nothing that The Coalition has said remotely mentions any other modes at all. It is Siege or nothing!
I have read every word on this link (and it is well worth reading):
There is almost not doubt that there is not a traditional 50 wave Horde mode, and that massively disappoints me. I'll play the campaign a number of times upon release, and maybe try the 10 wave Horde mode which unless that really grabs me, it looks I'll be moving on to something else because it looks like E-Day is not offering what I want. I have put hundreds of hours in Horde mode in GoW2. Well over a thousand hours in GoW3 Horde mode. Hundreds of hours into Horde in Judgement (although it was not called Horde!). Just a couple of hundred hours in GoW4 because I didn't really vibe with it. And well over 2000 hours into Horde in Gears 5. So for me to say that it looks like E-Day has nothing to offer me, outside the campaign, is staggeringly disappointing...
Thank you, @HelloCraigo. I think, having read the entire thing, that there is no traditional Horde mode, which for me, means I will likely play the campaign, and move back to Gears 5. Very disappointed in what they are offering as it seems they are chasing trends such as Helldivers, and forgoing Gears of War in the process...
Sorry if this sounds a little bit harsh, but I think the "Game Pass has conditioned Xbox gamers to not buy games" narrative is just nonsense.
No it is not, @Questionable_Duck. It is not nonsense at all. Not when we are talking exclusively about first-party games. Obviously every other game that is not on Game Pass needs to be bought in order to be played, and I would not suggest otherwise. However, when we are discussing first-party games (CoD excluded now), then there is a change in behaviour on Xbox and gamers play them almost exclusively via Game Pass.
If Pure were to hold a poll today about people's intentions when it comes to E-Day, with the questions being:
1. Will you be buying the full game
or
2. Will you be playing it on Game Pass.
We know which answer would get the most ticks. Obviously it would be different when it comes to third-party games that are not on Game Pass because then your two options are buying it, or not buying it.
The reason I mentioned about buying games rather than playing them on Game Pass is quite simply people playing it on Game Pass are less likely to spend any money on the game, and are more likely to play it quickly and move on, than people who are invested enough in the game to buy it (which in itself gives revenue directly attributable to the studio).
I concur about the quality of games being essential to the equation, and on that we will have to wait and see. The problem, as I see it, is that I don't think that Xbox has the luxury of time for them to get that dial moving, which is why I think the decision to stick with putting Halo, Fable and FH6 on PlayStation was an imbecilic move. The only reason that I can see why that would have made even one iota of sense is if there were contracts that needed to be honoured, but I really do not think that will be the case because we see games being pulled from a platform all the time, yet we do not see the platform holder suing the studios that pulled the game. Honestly, I think this dumb decision was made purely because Sharma and Co. do not have faith that they can right the Xbox ship, and so are chasing the revenue that these games will make on PlayStation rather than having all 3 games as exclusive and hoping the exclusives plan works. Problem with that decision is that you make it harder for the plan to work without those games being exclusive.
As for E-Day, I do think that Sharma is using it as a test case. If it is successful in selling more consoles, and selling more subscriptions, then we will see more exclusives. If the needle does not move sufficiently, then Clockwork is likely to be the last exclusive we get...
I'm genuinely pleased for you, @fatpunkslim, but if you are being absolutely truthful, how much time have you spent playing previous Gears of War games?
I agree that exclusives are crucial to enticing people into an ecosystem, @Questionable_Duck & @fatpunkslim, and I have said that time and time again. The problem is, what exclusives are there that can do that?
E-Day is unlikely to do the numbers required (particularly no if you take into account the rumoured development costs), and Clockwork Revolution is very unlikely to do it either. Taken together, Fable, Forza Horizon 6 and Halo might have made it a lot more enticing, but they are not exclusive. And that's before you get to the argument that nothing is exclusive to Xbox whilst it is also releasing on Steam.
Then we have the what next issue? What (console) exclusive games are still to come? We might get an exclusive remaster of a Fallout game, but then again, we don't know whether that would even be exclusive. There is a new Fallout game in development, but that is likely 3, 4 or more years away yet, as is the new Elder Scrolls game, and again, with both, we do not know whether they will be exclusive, albeit the gaming landscape may well have changed considerably by then.
Blade? Probably going to be cancelled. So what system sellers does Xbox have in the pipeline that are going to release in short order? The answer right now is E-Day, and only E-Day, and that does not have the lustre that it once did, so is that even going to do it? I certainly hope so, but I have my doubts.
It is all well and good saying that exclusives bring people into an ecosystem, and it is true, but there needs to be enough and they need to arrive on a regular basis, and, absolutely crucially, people need to be buying them, which we all know does not happen on Xbox. The vast majority of people play a game via Game Pass, which massively affects the amount of revenue that a single game makes. The truth is, that whilst the argument about exclusives is correct, Xbox is swimming against the tide on this issue because they do not have enough exclusives, and they are not bringing in the new gamers.
Just think about one thing, what is different now to right prior to the '4 games' moment? Back then consoles were cheaper, Game Pass was cheaper, and Xbox had a whole bunch of exclusive games. Now, consoles are more expensive, Game Pass is more expensive, and Xbox has barely any exclusives. So, the question is, if it did not work in 2024 (and the years leading up to that time), what makes you think it will work now...?
Thing is, @fatpunkslim, they need players like me. They need people who will play the game for years like I do. I have been playing Gears 5 every weekend since the game released in 2019. They need players like me, and not players that will bounce off the game after playing the campaign once or playing PvP or PvE for a dozen hours and then move on.
My needs might be complicated, my old mucker, but I am part of the community they need to keep on side, not just those that will bounce from game to game having spent little time, and (crucially) no money, on the game...
It may just be me being set in my ways, @shoeses, but I absolutely love the idea of fortifying a particular point on the map, and then trying to fight off every enemy as they attempt to storm your defences. It's what makes Gears 5 so much fun. I have played so much Horde in every game, but particularly in Gears 5 it is frankly ridiculous. It is why I am currently one of only 0.12% of players in Gears 5 to have reached Re-Up 60, and why I am currently #93 in the World for completed runs as a Mechanic although I think if they did it based on waves completed I would be a heck of lot higher because I only ever play Horde in a team of 2 or 3, and always on Insane and above, meaning that we have probably played three or four times as many waves that ended in failure as we have were we have completed the entire 50 waves. To say I love Horde would be an understatement. Problem is, Siege seems, on first glance, to be something that does not interest me at all. I will probably give it a go, but I don't think it will be for me...
Another question to go with the one at #13, @HelloCraigo, how do the weapon part upgrades work? Does everyone get the same, or is it every man for themselves? In other words, is it possible for one person to pick them all up leaving other people without any at all...?
I agree, @shoeses, Gears of War 4, and Gears 5, are classic examples of people disliking change. This, to me, is shaping up to be another game that will very much divide the community. I know I personally do not like what I am hearing so far...
Thank you for taking the time to respond, @HelloCraigo. I take it you don't know about a standard Horde mode also being available then? It's just Siege, as far as you know...?
I played a heck of a lot of ME3 multiplayer on the 360 with my mates, @Mr-Cage, but it was on PC that I played the most. I did break the top 1000 on PC, but honestly cannot remember where I ended up (or where I am now all these years later). I cannot remember my login for Origin, so cannot check where I am now, but I took a photograph of it couple of years ago, and despite not having played it for about a decade, I was still #4192 in the World and still in the top 1%. According to my stats I play 2735 matches, and played it for 885 hours, which is insane! I honestly lived and breathed the mode to the point of it being somewhat unhealthy. I would stay up until 3 a.m. playing it, and then be back on it 8 hours later! I absolutely loved it.
I played the game so much that I was able to make a few videos of myself soling Gold on various maps. I was not quite good enough to ever manage to solo Platinum, but I did give it a fair few attempts. The videos are still on YouTube today... 😂
I have questions, @HelloCraigo, if you don't mind, please?
1. Is there a standard Horde mode with a team of 5? If so, do objectives feature there too?
2. You talk about extraction, is that competitive? In other words, do you mean that all 3 teams need to get to the extraction point, or is it a case of one team could prevent the other two teams from extracting?
3. How many waves does Siege last for?
4. When do the bosses appear? Set waves or every wave? Are there multiple bosses on a single wave at the same time (so two Corpsers etc.)?
5. Do chainsaws feature in Siege?
6. You mention classes, is there an Infiltrator class, or an Engineer class?
7. Do you build defences in the same way as you do in Gears 5?
8. What enemy types did you encounter? Any familiar ones (outside drones)? Were there any enemies that really should not be present (Berserkers, for example)?
9. How do you level up between waves? What 'currency' do you earn to do so? In Gears 5 you have taps that you empty at the end of the wave and that gives you the 'currency' that enables you to do yourself up, and also buy defences. Is there a similar mechanic in Horde in E-Day?
10. Are there bots in Siege? Can a game be made up almost entirely of bots? I play Master Horde in Gears 5 as part of a team of just 3 with 2 bots. Could I play Siege in a team of 3 (all on the same team) with the other 9 spots made up of bots? I know that is very unlikely, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
Apologies for so many questions, but you are unlikely to find anyone else as invested in Gears of War than myself, and not having the answers to these questions is driving me nuts...
Got to be honest, none of this fills me with optimism for Horde. Barely any of it sounds like what Horde is all about; hunkering down with squad mates, fending off ever more difficult waves of enemies, whilst gradually building up your defences. Movement and objectives are not what Horde is about.
Now, the objectives side of things could be a little like that found in Mass Effect 3, which was a really fun part of the game, and something I played so much that I got into the top 1% of players in the World, so it's not that I'm against that completely, however, what is the point in building defences, if you then leave it, and thus leave yourself defenceless in the process? That makes no sense to me, and the difference is that in Mass Effect you did not build defences, you just used what was available.
Regardless, my biggest concern is the 12 players required. This is a massive departure from the original Horde, and it is not something that interests me in the slightest, and I say that as someone that has over 2000 hours in Horde alone in Gears 5.
Anyway, to say I feel despondent is very much an understatement...
I don't think the X and S are going anywhere during the Helix generation, @Cakefish, as I think developers will continue to support the consoles for the entire Helix generation, mostly because the next generation will cost so much that uptake will be pretty small. Most people will simply stick with current gen consoles, meaning that developers will too.
Whether Microsoft continue to manufacture the X and the S is another matter completely. I think they'd be foolish to not do so, which probably means they will stop making them the instant the Helix releases... 🤪
Hmm, I had a different interpretation, @PsBoxSwitchOwner. I read it as being more X's are being sold now than S's. Taking into account that more consoles will have been sold in the first 3 years than in the past 3 years, and that the S was outselling the X when more consoles were being sold then it gives the S a healthy overall lead, but it is a lead that is decreasing as more people buy the X now (and have done for the past couple of years (assuming they still do with the price increases!)).
Still, I guess only Microsoft know for sure, and of course they won't tell us a thing...
Sony are just as susceptible to the component crisis as every other company, @Millionski, and I really cannot see how they can bring down the price of the PS6 to much below that of the Pro. Probabilities are that the console will cost $1000 or more. Anything less will likely mean a console that does little more in terms of power over the PS5 making the PS6 pretty pointless. There needs to be a compelling reason to upgrade to the next generation, and for the most part that has always happened before. If you take away that reason, then what is the point in upgrading...?
Yeah, I'm really looking forward to it, @Titntin. I have liked the look of it from the start, and it has looked better with each further showing. It is precisely my sort of game so I will be pre-ordering it in the week before it releases...
Cool. Thank you, @PsBoxSwitchOwner. Good to know. Although if I am reading that correctly, the Series X only began to outsell the S in 2024, meaning that the S outsold the X for the first 4 years, and the X outsold the S only in 2024 and maybe beyond. Although I have no doubt that the X is making up ground on the S, bearing in mind that sales of Series consoles have fallen through the floor, it is probable that the S is still comfortably in the lead in overall sales. Basically, I don't think it is the case that the X has sold sufficient consoles in the past two years to put them on equal terms.
Interesting reading though. I do remain of the opinion that few of those that bought an S will be likely to upgrade to a Helix. Far more of those of us that bought an X are likely to do so. That said, I still think that the more Helix costs, the fewer of us that will upgrade. Many of us will just be content with current generation consoles because they will likely be supported by developers for the entirety of the next generation.
Assuming Helix lasts an entire generation (7 years or thereabouts), @Elbow, I think that games will be made for the current generation for that entire period. In other words, if you choose to remain on current gen devices, I think you would be absolutely fine. Sure, some games may begin to creek a little come 2035, but most games will play absolutely fine on current gen consoles. I think Helix will be a very niche product, that will sell in particularly small numbers when compared to this generation, and that will mean that developers will be effectively forced into supporting current generation consoles too. And let's be honest, for the most part, games play perfectly well on the current gen devices, and so there is no reason to believe they won't in the future. The only questions are how long the actual console can last, and whether you will be able to replace it with a new Series console in 2034 or beyond should it finally breakdown...
I've said the same thing time and again, @Weebleman; you cannot have a premium device, with components that cost more than those within the X, and expect it to be similar in price to the X. Probabilities are that it will cost 2 or 3 times more than the X, and possibly even more than that.
The other issue is that two thirds of those that have bought a Series console, have bought an S and paid £300 or less for it. So if Helix does breach the £1000 barrier, how many of those 20 million plus S owners are going to be willing to pay 4 (or more) times what they paid for their S to remain within the Xbox ecosystem and buy a Helix? I would suggest that the number would be vanishingly small. After all, the S was seen as a cheap way of getting into gaming, or indeed Xbox, and Helix at £1000 is far from cheap. Enthusiasts with the disposable income, such as myself, would be willing to part with such a sum, but I would suggest that I am very much in the minority there.
I've said it a number of times now, but I think Helix will sell 2 million units in the first year or so, and then taper of to around 3 million after 3 years, at which point, I think Microsoft will call it a day when it comes to gaming hardware. If Xbox studios are doing well enough, then I think Microsoft will stick with gaming, but right now I don't think that is a given either...
I've been saying since the very first rumour of Steam being on (the now named) Helix that I could not understand how the Xbox Store could possibly compete against Steam. At the time, I looked up a number of AAA games that were coming within the following month or two that were available to pre-order, and Steam beat the price you would pay in the Xbox Store on all of them. Most of the games were £10 cheaper to pre-order on Steam, but one of them could be purchased for £30 less via CDKeys (now Loaded).
I know people suggest that people have games already in their Xbox library, but they are not going anywhere, they would still be playable on Helix, but meanwhile you could build a second library on Steam (and a third on Epic where you get free games every week, although they have not been great for this year, for the most part - still, I have managed to amass a total of 525 games on Epic, of which I have only paid for two of them! The other 523 I have claimed for FREE each week. If you are interested in Helix, I would strongly suggest you open an Epic account and start claiming those free games because they will be sat waiting for you once you get your Helix).
The point is that whilst having Steam etc. on Helix sounds like it would be awesome, it would eat so heavily into the revenue that Xbox makes that it could be terminal for the brand.
You then get the 'Play Anywhere' guys pop up, which is great for the small number of people to whom that applies, but the fact is that most games on Steam will play on the Steam Deck, so that is effectively Play Anywhere as well, so that argument only holds up so far.
The truth is that Helix, if priced competitively, will just be seen as an entry point for those wanting to get into PC gaming, which means it will do Xbox little to no good at all.
Lastly, time and time again we have seen how Helix is described as a premium product, well that surely means it will come at a considerable cost too. It maybe cheaper than buying a PC, but it will surely cost a lot more than the Series X does, and that surely means that it will sell considerably fewer devices too. People will baulk at the price, and either go elsewhere or stick where they are.
Two thirds of the Series consoles sold have been the S, with the majority bought for less that £300. If Helix costs £1000 (and I think it will be a fair bit more than that) do we honestly think that people who paid £300 or less for the S will be wanting to spend 3, 4 or more times than on Helix? The simple answer is that they won't, and the likelihood is that even those of us that paid £450 for our Series X will think twice about paying double, or maybe triple, that for Helix, which means that not only will Helix sell in considerably smaller numbers than the Series consoles have, but also that those that do buy it will, more likely than not, be looking to the PC side of things more than anything, which leaves Xbox in a very precarious position.
Honestly, unless Microsoft do a complete about turn and make Helix a console with no PC access, and thus keep the price down, then Xbox is on a hiding to nothing...
I'm already sold on The Blood of Dawnwalker (but not the title!). However, I am keen to see more of Star Wars: Zero Company as it looks just like my kind of game.
Will be tuning in for the event, and looking forward to seeing more of E-Day and Fable...
I finished 007 First Light 3 days ago, and because I wanted to be able to play Halo on day one (for the standard release) I decided to play something I could put down easily in order to do so. Thus I thought I would play a bit of Forza Horizon 6 as I could pick it up and put it down without issue (I haven't played it until now). Only problem is, I'm really enjoying Forza, and have now decided that Halo can wait! So much for my idea of a game I could just stop playing... 😂
Hi, @HelloCraigo. When you say PC, do you mean on the Ubisoft app launcher (if it still exists), or do you mean that it will be playable via the Xbox app on PC. Not quite sure where we would need to redeem these games. Thanks...
I do like the way Steam does reviews, @themightyant, as they do tend to give you a better idea of the current state of a game. I do have to wonder whether CD Project Red changed the name of Cyberpunk 2077 to Phantom Liberty so as it could be reviewed all over again, and gain a more favourable review score (not that the original score of 86 was bad). It now scores 89. Crafty but clever, if that is the case...
Would love to see how the game reviews after this update. That's the thing that saddens me when it comes to reviews, they are obviously given at a moment in time when the game is often in its weakest state. Now, I accept that is on the developers, but we also know that they often face huge financial pressures to get the game out at the earliest opportunity, which means we often don't get the best version of the game.
If you look at the reviews for Cyberpunk 2077 for example the quality upon release compared to now is night and day. Obviously they released the Phantom Liberty expansion, which completely changed the game for the better, but it also enabled the game to be reviewed for a second time (by some outlets). The point being though that the difference is such that it is a much better game now than it was at the time of release, and I am sure the same can be said of S.T.A.L.K.E.R 2, and when you consider the adversity that the studio has faced you have to hope they find some success now.
Anyway, the TLDR point is that I wish games that have really been transformed would receive a later professional review...
It's the 'extract' part of Mistfall Hunter that has me apprehensive, @Titntin. I'd like to play the game entirely solo, with no other players in the game, but I am uncertain whether that is possible. I certainly do not want to be robbed of my loot come the end...
As for the lack of multiplayer in Mass Effect 3, I think few people will have been sadder than myself when it was not included in the Legendary Edition. I got into the top 1000 players in the World on PC, and I also played a fair amount of it on Xbox too. I even made a few videos of myself completing maps solo on Gold (I couldn't quite manage to solo Platinum). So I was gutted that it was no present, but that does not mean, for me, that the game should be marked down when it is receiving it's review scores...
Fair enough, @betterthings. So just business as usual and not a shrewd move. A shrewd move would have been to make the game fully available on Game Pass because at least they might then have had far more people playing their games, and potentially spending in them. To me that would have been a sensible move.
Any game that comes to Game Pass to avoid GTA 6 is not running scared, in my books. They are instead making a sensible decision to get people playing their games, making some money in the process, getting some exposure, and maybe doing far better that way than trying to go up against GTA 6, which will suck the life out of countless games over for an extended period, even more so once the online aspect comes out.
I'd put money on it that many games will see a drop in revenue and playtime once GTA 6 comes out, and indeed we will probably see job losses and studio closures in its wake over the course of the following year. It could well be an industry bloodbath, thus any studio that takes advantage of Game Pass to take the pressure off is making a sensible decision, I would suggest. Why leave it to chance when there is a potential revenue stream that could be tapped...
Big games indeed! I might even try my hand at the football game, which is not something I would usually play, but maybe I can regain some glory much missing from Southampton these days!
You do have to wonder whether these games are hitting Game Pass in an effort to be played due to GTA 6 being released in the same timeframe. This might give these games a boost that they might otherwise lack if left to fend for themselves in the wake of GTA 6. Better to be played for 'free' on Game Pass, than ignored due to GTA 6. Probably a shrewd move...
That's exactly what I did, @Odium. I made notes as I went around because the game does not hold your hand. I loved it.
Honestly, @Weebleman, give it a go. It's a game that will challenge you to think, but also challenge you to make sense of the mystery that is unfolding before you. The combat is sometimes pretty tricky, but the puzzles are often even more challenging! Remembering where the the puzzle was that you have just found the solution for is part of the reason for making notes, and if you are not one to get frustrated, then it's far more satisfying to solve the puzzles for yourself than it is to look it up on the internet.
Personally I loved the progression in the game, and the way we slowly got to understand what was going on. What I liked about it was the sense that it really felt like someone had no idea what was occurring, and they had to work it out for themselves. I'm really hoping that we end up with a sequel as it was probably my second favourite game last year after Cronos: The New Dawn, which was simply fantastic.
We are going to have to disagree on this then, @Jenkinss. The multiplayer is still available on Xbox, it is as it has always been. However, if you want a shiny campaign, you can have that too. It's not like they have prevented your access to the multiplayer now.
The game is new for PlayStation, and the game should be judged on what we get. It is priced to reflect that. Indeed, I have seen people say it is too expensive because it is a remaster, so there is never going to be a situation in which everyone is happy. Had they spent the time and money developing the multiplayer and then increased the price of the game accordingly, people would still have been unhappy. But like I say, when it comes to Xbox, the multiplayer is still there if you are so inclined.
As for the Mona Lisa, we are going to have to disagree here too. If someone is seeing the copy for the first time, they would have nothing to compare it too, and therefore it would be judged on the image before them, which is no different to this Halo game. Those that have seen the original, would marvel at how much better the new image is than the original was, but even so the new image would be judged on its own merits. You'd expect to pay less for the copy than you would for the original, which is exactly what is happening here too.
Anyway, we disagree, which is something you and I do probably 50% of the time, and on this issue, I don't think either one of us will persuade the other that we are right, so I guess it is a case of until next time...! 😉
I get what you are saying, @Jenkinss, but there will be many, many people who have never played the games at all. Especially now that it is releasing on PlayStation for the first time. Why should a game be marked down because Xbox gamers are salty that multiplayer is missing when as far as PlayStation gamers are concerned they are getting a game that only has a campaign (as we get so many other games that have just a campaign). It is priced to reflect that it is both a remake and a campaign only game, and if you have never played the multiplayer component, then you don't know what you are missing anyway.
Allow me to add that I would have preferred that it had come with the multiplayer aspect as well, but that is not what we are being offered, and so the game should only be judged on what it is offering, and not what it is not...
Because I buy games all the time, @Elbow, them ending up on Game Pass happens to me very often. My biggest problem is that I buy more games, when they are first released, than I actually have time to play, so not only does my backlog grow each year, but I don't even buy the games I don't play when they are on sale. I buy them full price, which makes not playing them even more stupid. I know that I do it, and I always say to myself that I will play the game when I make the purchase, but still I don't get round to them a lot of the time. Them then going on Game Pass before I have even started them just rubs salt in the wound. I am, to coin a phrase, a complete plonker...
What I would also say is that an awful lot of games have released since the original game came out, and over time it has become more difficult for a game to score those top review scores. Thus, if Halo Combat Evolved were to release today, there is no way it would score 97. Times have moved on, and therefore it is rare to see those 10/10 review scores. Heck, even getting a 9 is something to behold.
Like I say, I think the game should be judged on its own merits, and taken as if it was an original title, with the review score based on what is before the reviewer. They should not harp back to the original, and their feelings for that game, because if you have never play the original game, and you buy this remaster, you do not have that rose-tinted memory of the original game. You are presented with this game, and it is this game that should be being reviewed. An awful lot of games do not have multiplayer, and they are not deducted points for its absence. The games are reviewed based on what the reviewer has before them, which is the right way of doing it.
People know the game does not have multiplayer, but that, and the fact that it is a remaster, is why the game is more reasonably priced than if the game were a brand new entry in the series. I think if Microsoft were trying to sell it as a £70 game (and more still for the Deluxe version), then that would be a different matter, but I think for the quality of the remaster, the asking price is fair.
Anyway, basically I think the game should be judged on its own merits as if it were a brand new game just as any other brand new game would be judged...
I get where you are coming from, @MrStark, but shouldn't the game be judged on its own merits, and not what is not present? I mean, the remaster of Mass Effect 3 in the Legendary Edition was not marked down because the multiplayer aspect was missing, so why should Halo?
Every game should be judged on its own qualities, or lack thereof, not what is not present. I imagine, admittedly without having checked, that the reason it is sitting at 81 on Metacritic (actually 85 on Xbox, 81 on PS5 and 76 on PC) is because a good number of the reviews are deducting points because of the absence of the multiplayer, or there is a general wiriness when it comes to remasters, which I think is the wrong way to approach reviews. Just judge what you see before you, not what it once was...
I just had a look on eBay for the Xbox version of the Collector's Edition, and most are on sale for over £800, and there are several that have sold for over £1000...!
I mean, I am a huge collector of Collector's Editions, and I have spent a lot on my hobby this year, but none of the games I have bought have cost me more than £300, and even that is because I could only get the American version of Gears of War: E-Day, and I had to pay to ship it.
As much as I love to buy Collector's Editions, and I have bought something like 7 this year, I wouldn't contemplate spending over £1000 for one. Have to say, it is annoying to see people selling their CE's when I could not get one for myself as a true collector...
I know I keep saying the same thing, but don't sleep on Hell Is Us. It is a superb game. It doesn't hold your hand, and you will spend a while wondering what you are supposed to do next, but it is a very enjoyable game...
Wow! I received my Steam Collector's Edition a week ago, @RegnumSolipsi, so Xbox (which is what I assume yours is) is quite a bit behind.
Unfortunately, the Steam version was the only one I could get as the Xbox one sold out too quickly for me to grab a copy (and I guess it is possible (maybe even probable) that Microsoft made fewer Xbox versions available).
I haven't open my CE because I don't want to play it on Steam, even though I could if I wanted, so I am waiting for the standard version to arrive on Game Pass, as that is where I will play it...
That would be good, @FreasurePlanten. The sooner they put my mind at ease, as to whether there is a traditional Horde mode, the better. I highly doubt that Siege is for me, so my fingers are crossed when it comes to a normal Horde mode...
Comments 5,492
Re: Talking Point: What Was The First Gears Of War Game You Ever Played?
I played Gears of War a couple of days prior to its release because I received the disc early in the post. That was always the beauty of having physical releases because invariably they arrived prior to the games official release, and I always then tried to unlock an achievement in the game to bookmark when I played it. I'm not sure whether discs still arrive early, or whether they still enable you to play them early, because I have been all digital since the start of the Xbox One era, but it was definitely a perk back in the 360 days.
As for Gears of War 3, I distinctly remember being first in a queue outside Game in Plymouth, waiting for the store to open at midnight for the launch of the game. When I got into the store, I was served second, because the other person only bought the game, whereas I bought a GoW3 console, a GoW3 controller and the game. I then got home and played the game straight away, and it was simply awesome. Such happy memories.
Unfortunately, I find myself waiting for the arrival of my Collector's Edition of E-Day with a sense of trepidation. I am looking forward to the campaign very much, and will go through it multiple times. I'll play it solo on Hardcore, then solo on Insane, then do exactly the same with a mate, then with my son, then with another mate, and then finally I'll play it on Casual with another mate who is going blind (hence the easier difficulty). In all, I will probably go through the campaign around 10 times within the first month or so.
However, where my trepidation comes in is with regard to Horde. Everything points to there being no proper Horde mode now, and that massively disappoints me. As someone that has poured well over 2000 hours into Horde in Gears 5, to suddenly be faced with not having that option in E-Day is utterly saddening. I cannot express just how disappointed I am. I'm glad that others will find joy in the game, and I hope the game finds success, but I fear that my time with E-Day will be much shorter than with any of the past entries (except perhaps Tactics, which I have only beaten 4 times including on Insane)...
Re: Preview: We've Played Gears Of War: E-Day, And Can't Get Enough Of Horde Siege
Thank you, @HonestHick. I watched the whole video because I have been subscribed to Matty for years now. I loved his coverage of Baldur's Gate 3 when that went into Early Access as well.
When it comes to E-Day, he made even the PvP sound interesting, and I say that as someone that is not into PvP.
The only thing that he said that got me thinking, is when he said that there were different Horde modes; Siege, Blitz and then Horde mode. Now, I don't know if he has misspoken, or if he is referring to the modes within Siege. If you read what The Coalition has said about Siege, they say:
Horde Siege missions are organized into three main playlists that offer matches of differing lengths and objectives:
Blitz: Short, intense missions that feature 1-2 objectives, perfect for when you only have time for a quick run, usually around 15 – 20 minutes in length
Siege: Standard-length missions that can contain multiple objectives with more opportunity to traverse across the map. Missions range from 20 – 40 minutes
Horde: For when you want a tougher grind, these missions will ask your squad to hunker down in one spot, setting up defences against 10 gruelling waves with limited support. These missions can last up to 50 – 60 minutes
Now, that is not include a standard Horde mode because that would be 50 waves, and not 10, and the shortest time in which I have ever completed a Horde run (on a hard difficulty) is just over 2 hours (although there were only 3 of us playing).
Nothing that The Coalition has said remotely mentions any other modes at all. It is Siege or nothing!
I have read every word on this link (and it is well worth reading):
https://www.gearsofwar.com/en-us/news/multiplayer/
There is almost not doubt that there is not a traditional 50 wave Horde mode, and that massively disappoints me. I'll play the campaign a number of times upon release, and maybe try the 10 wave Horde mode which unless that really grabs me, it looks I'll be moving on to something else because it looks like E-Day is not offering what I want. I have put hundreds of hours in Horde mode in GoW2. Well over a thousand hours in GoW3 Horde mode. Hundreds of hours into Horde in Judgement (although it was not called Horde!). Just a couple of hundred hours in GoW4 because I didn't really vibe with it. And well over 2000 hours into Horde in Gears 5. So for me to say that it looks like E-Day has nothing to offer me, outside the campaign, is staggeringly disappointing...
Re: Preview: We've Played Gears Of War: E-Day, And Can't Get Enough Of Horde Siege
Thank you, @HelloCraigo. I think, having read the entire thing, that there is no traditional Horde mode, which for me, means I will likely play the campaign, and move back to Gears 5. Very disappointed in what they are offering as it seems they are chasing trends such as Helldivers, and forgoing Gears of War in the process...
Re: Roundup: Here's What The Previews Are Saying About Gears Of War: E-Day
Sorry if this sounds a little bit harsh, but I think the "Game Pass has conditioned Xbox gamers to not buy games" narrative is just nonsense.
No it is not, @Questionable_Duck. It is not nonsense at all. Not when we are talking exclusively about first-party games. Obviously every other game that is not on Game Pass needs to be bought in order to be played, and I would not suggest otherwise. However, when we are discussing first-party games (CoD excluded now), then there is a change in behaviour on Xbox and gamers play them almost exclusively via Game Pass.
If Pure were to hold a poll today about people's intentions when it comes to E-Day, with the questions being:
1. Will you be buying the full game
or
2. Will you be playing it on Game Pass.
We know which answer would get the most ticks. Obviously it would be different when it comes to third-party games that are not on Game Pass because then your two options are buying it, or not buying it.
The reason I mentioned about buying games rather than playing them on Game Pass is quite simply people playing it on Game Pass are less likely to spend any money on the game, and are more likely to play it quickly and move on, than people who are invested enough in the game to buy it (which in itself gives revenue directly attributable to the studio).
I concur about the quality of games being essential to the equation, and on that we will have to wait and see. The problem, as I see it, is that I don't think that Xbox has the luxury of time for them to get that dial moving, which is why I think the decision to stick with putting Halo, Fable and FH6 on PlayStation was an imbecilic move. The only reason that I can see why that would have made even one iota of sense is if there were contracts that needed to be honoured, but I really do not think that will be the case because we see games being pulled from a platform all the time, yet we do not see the platform holder suing the studios that pulled the game. Honestly, I think this dumb decision was made purely because Sharma and Co. do not have faith that they can right the Xbox ship, and so are chasing the revenue that these games will make on PlayStation rather than having all 3 games as exclusive and hoping the exclusives plan works. Problem with that decision is that you make it harder for the plan to work without those games being exclusive.
As for E-Day, I do think that Sharma is using it as a test case. If it is successful in selling more consoles, and selling more subscriptions, then we will see more exclusives. If the needle does not move sufficiently, then Clockwork is likely to be the last exclusive we get...
Re: Preview: We've Played Gears Of War: E-Day, And Can't Get Enough Of Horde Siege
Okay, @HelloCraigo. That's cool, and I totally understand. Sorry for pestering you. I can wait (an hour or so!)... 🤣
Re: Preview: We've Played Gears Of War: E-Day, And Can't Get Enough Of Horde Siege
Thank you, @HelloCraigo. May I ask, is it a matter of insufficient time to answer, or what you are (and crucially) are not allowed to say...?
Re: Roundup: Here's What The Previews Are Saying About Gears Of War: E-Day
I'm genuinely pleased for you, @fatpunkslim, but if you are being absolutely truthful, how much time have you spent playing previous Gears of War games?
Truthful mind... 😉
Re: Roundup: Here's What The Previews Are Saying About Gears Of War: E-Day
I agree that exclusives are crucial to enticing people into an ecosystem, @Questionable_Duck & @fatpunkslim, and I have said that time and time again. The problem is, what exclusives are there that can do that?
E-Day is unlikely to do the numbers required (particularly no if you take into account the rumoured development costs), and Clockwork Revolution is very unlikely to do it either. Taken together, Fable, Forza Horizon 6 and Halo might have made it a lot more enticing, but they are not exclusive. And that's before you get to the argument that nothing is exclusive to Xbox whilst it is also releasing on Steam.
Then we have the what next issue? What (console) exclusive games are still to come? We might get an exclusive remaster of a Fallout game, but then again, we don't know whether that would even be exclusive. There is a new Fallout game in development, but that is likely 3, 4 or more years away yet, as is the new Elder Scrolls game, and again, with both, we do not know whether they will be exclusive, albeit the gaming landscape may well have changed considerably by then.
Blade? Probably going to be cancelled. So what system sellers does Xbox have in the pipeline that are going to release in short order? The answer right now is E-Day, and only E-Day, and that does not have the lustre that it once did, so is that even going to do it? I certainly hope so, but I have my doubts.
It is all well and good saying that exclusives bring people into an ecosystem, and it is true, but there needs to be enough and they need to arrive on a regular basis, and, absolutely crucially, people need to be buying them, which we all know does not happen on Xbox. The vast majority of people play a game via Game Pass, which massively affects the amount of revenue that a single game makes. The truth is, that whilst the argument about exclusives is correct, Xbox is swimming against the tide on this issue because they do not have enough exclusives, and they are not bringing in the new gamers.
Just think about one thing, what is different now to right prior to the '4 games' moment? Back then consoles were cheaper, Game Pass was cheaper, and Xbox had a whole bunch of exclusive games. Now, consoles are more expensive, Game Pass is more expensive, and Xbox has barely any exclusives. So, the question is, if it did not work in 2024 (and the years leading up to that time), what makes you think it will work now...?
Re: Roundup: Here's What The Previews Are Saying About Gears Of War: E-Day
Thing is, @fatpunkslim, they need players like me. They need people who will play the game for years like I do. I have been playing Gears 5 every weekend since the game released in 2019. They need players like me, and not players that will bounce off the game after playing the campaign once or playing PvP or PvE for a dozen hours and then move on.
My needs might be complicated, my old mucker, but I am part of the community they need to keep on side, not just those that will bounce from game to game having spent little time, and (crucially) no money, on the game...
Re: Preview: We've Played Gears Of War: E-Day, And Can't Get Enough Of Horde Siege
It may just be me being set in my ways, @shoeses, but I absolutely love the idea of fortifying a particular point on the map, and then trying to fight off every enemy as they attempt to storm your defences. It's what makes Gears 5 so much fun. I have played so much Horde in every game, but particularly in Gears 5 it is frankly ridiculous. It is why I am currently one of only 0.12% of players in Gears 5 to have reached Re-Up 60, and why I am currently #93 in the World for completed runs as a Mechanic although I think if they did it based on waves completed I would be a heck of lot higher because I only ever play Horde in a team of 2 or 3, and always on Insane and above, meaning that we have probably played three or four times as many waves that ended in failure as we have were we have completed the entire 50 waves. To say I love Horde would be an understatement. Problem is, Siege seems, on first glance, to be something that does not interest me at all. I will probably give it a go, but I don't think it will be for me...
Re: Preview: We've Played Gears Of War: E-Day, And Can't Get Enough Of Horde Siege
Another question to go with the one at #13, @HelloCraigo, how do the weapon part upgrades work? Does everyone get the same, or is it every man for themselves? In other words, is it possible for one person to pick them all up leaving other people without any at all...?
Re: Roundup: Here's What The Previews Are Saying About Gears Of War: E-Day
I like the positive buzz around the game, albeit I have a terrible feeling the game won't be for me, but time will tell I guess..
Re: Preview: We've Played Gears Of War: E-Day, And Can't Get Enough Of Horde Siege
I agree, @shoeses, Gears of War 4, and Gears 5, are classic examples of people disliking change. This, to me, is shaping up to be another game that will very much divide the community. I know I personally do not like what I am hearing so far...
Re: Preview: We've Played Gears Of War: E-Day, And Can't Get Enough Of Horde Siege
Thank you for taking the time to respond, @HelloCraigo. I take it you don't know about a standard Horde mode also being available then? It's just Siege, as far as you know...?
Re: Preview: We've Played Gears Of War: E-Day, And Can't Get Enough Of Horde Siege
I played a heck of a lot of ME3 multiplayer on the 360 with my mates, @Mr-Cage, but it was on PC that I played the most. I did break the top 1000 on PC, but honestly cannot remember where I ended up (or where I am now all these years later). I cannot remember my login for Origin, so cannot check where I am now, but I took a photograph of it couple of years ago, and despite not having played it for about a decade, I was still #4192 in the World and still in the top 1%. According to my stats I play 2735 matches, and played it for 885 hours, which is insane! I honestly lived and breathed the mode to the point of it being somewhat unhealthy. I would stay up until 3 a.m. playing it, and then be back on it 8 hours later! I absolutely loved it.
I played the game so much that I was able to make a few videos of myself soling Gold on various maps. I was not quite good enough to ever manage to solo Platinum, but I did give it a fair few attempts. The videos are still on YouTube today... 😂
Re: Preview: We've Played Gears Of War: E-Day, And Can't Get Enough Of Horde Siege
I have questions, @HelloCraigo, if you don't mind, please?
1. Is there a standard Horde mode with a team of 5? If so, do objectives feature there too?
2. You talk about extraction, is that competitive? In other words, do you mean that all 3 teams need to get to the extraction point, or is it a case of one team could prevent the other two teams from extracting?
3. How many waves does Siege last for?
4. When do the bosses appear? Set waves or every wave? Are there multiple bosses on a single wave at the same time (so two Corpsers etc.)?
5. Do chainsaws feature in Siege?
6. You mention classes, is there an Infiltrator class, or an Engineer class?
7. Do you build defences in the same way as you do in Gears 5?
8. What enemy types did you encounter? Any familiar ones (outside drones)? Were there any enemies that really should not be present (Berserkers, for example)?
9. How do you level up between waves? What 'currency' do you earn to do so? In Gears 5 you have taps that you empty at the end of the wave and that gives you the 'currency' that enables you to do yourself up, and also buy defences. Is there a similar mechanic in Horde in E-Day?
10. Are there bots in Siege? Can a game be made up almost entirely of bots? I play Master Horde in Gears 5 as part of a team of just 3 with 2 bots. Could I play Siege in a team of 3 (all on the same team) with the other 9 spots made up of bots? I know that is very unlikely, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
Apologies for so many questions, but you are unlikely to find anyone else as invested in Gears of War than myself, and not having the answers to these questions is driving me nuts...
Re: Preview: We've Played Gears Of War: E-Day, And Can't Get Enough Of Horde Siege
Got to be honest, none of this fills me with optimism for Horde. Barely any of it sounds like what Horde is all about; hunkering down with squad mates, fending off ever more difficult waves of enemies, whilst gradually building up your defences. Movement and objectives are not what Horde is about.
Now, the objectives side of things could be a little like that found in Mass Effect 3, which was a really fun part of the game, and something I played so much that I got into the top 1% of players in the World, so it's not that I'm against that completely, however, what is the point in building defences, if you then leave it, and thus leave yourself defenceless in the process? That makes no sense to me, and the difference is that in Mass Effect you did not build defences, you just used what was available.
Regardless, my biggest concern is the 12 players required. This is a massive departure from the original Horde, and it is not something that interests me in the slightest, and I say that as someone that has over 2000 hours in Horde alone in Gears 5.
Anyway, to say I feel despondent is very much an understatement...
Re: Xbox Could Still Lose Money On Series X|S Console Sales Despite Price Hike, Sources Claim
I don't think the X and S are going anywhere during the Helix generation, @Cakefish, as I think developers will continue to support the consoles for the entire Helix generation, mostly because the next generation will cost so much that uptake will be pretty small. Most people will simply stick with current gen consoles, meaning that developers will too.
Whether Microsoft continue to manufacture the X and the S is another matter completely. I think they'd be foolish to not do so, which probably means they will stop making them the instant the Helix releases... 🤪
Re: Xbox Could Still Lose Money On Series X|S Console Sales Despite Price Hike, Sources Claim
Hmm, I had a different interpretation, @PsBoxSwitchOwner. I read it as being more X's are being sold now than S's. Taking into account that more consoles will have been sold in the first 3 years than in the past 3 years, and that the S was outselling the X when more consoles were being sold then it gives the S a healthy overall lead, but it is a lead that is decreasing as more people buy the X now (and have done for the past couple of years (assuming they still do with the price increases!)).
Still, I guess only Microsoft know for sure, and of course they won't tell us a thing...
Re: Xbox Could Still Lose Money On Series X|S Console Sales Despite Price Hike, Sources Claim
Sony are just as susceptible to the component crisis as every other company, @Millionski, and I really cannot see how they can bring down the price of the PS6 to much below that of the Pro. Probabilities are that the console will cost $1000 or more. Anything less will likely mean a console that does little more in terms of power over the PS5 making the PS6 pretty pointless. There needs to be a compelling reason to upgrade to the next generation, and for the most part that has always happened before. If you take away that reason, then what is the point in upgrading...?
Re: Xbox Announces Big List Of Games And Broadcast Schedule For Gamescom 2026
Yeah, I'm really looking forward to it, @Titntin. I have liked the look of it from the start, and it has looked better with each further showing. It is precisely my sort of game so I will be pre-ordering it in the week before it releases...
Re: Xbox Could Still Lose Money On Series X|S Console Sales Despite Price Hike, Sources Claim
Cool. Thank you, @PsBoxSwitchOwner. Good to know. Although if I am reading that correctly, the Series X only began to outsell the S in 2024, meaning that the S outsold the X for the first 4 years, and the X outsold the S only in 2024 and maybe beyond. Although I have no doubt that the X is making up ground on the S, bearing in mind that sales of Series consoles have fallen through the floor, it is probable that the S is still comfortably in the lead in overall sales. Basically, I don't think it is the case that the X has sold sufficient consoles in the past two years to put them on equal terms.
Interesting reading though. I do remain of the opinion that few of those that bought an S will be likely to upgrade to a Helix. Far more of those of us that bought an X are likely to do so. That said, I still think that the more Helix costs, the fewer of us that will upgrade. Many of us will just be content with current generation consoles because they will likely be supported by developers for the entirety of the next generation.
Interesting times, that's for sure...
Re: Xbox Could Still Lose Money On Series X|S Console Sales Despite Price Hike, Sources Claim
Assuming Helix lasts an entire generation (7 years or thereabouts), @Elbow, I think that games will be made for the current generation for that entire period. In other words, if you choose to remain on current gen devices, I think you would be absolutely fine. Sure, some games may begin to creek a little come 2035, but most games will play absolutely fine on current gen consoles. I think Helix will be a very niche product, that will sell in particularly small numbers when compared to this generation, and that will mean that developers will be effectively forced into supporting current generation consoles too. And let's be honest, for the most part, games play perfectly well on the current gen devices, and so there is no reason to believe they won't in the future. The only questions are how long the actual console can last, and whether you will be able to replace it with a new Series console in 2034 or beyond should it finally breakdown...
Re: Xbox Could Still Lose Money On Series X|S Console Sales Despite Price Hike, Sources Claim
I didn't know that, @PsBoxSwitchOwner. I'm not doubting you, but do we have a source for that? I only ask because Microsoft tell us nothing...
Re: Xbox Could Still Lose Money On Series X|S Console Sales Despite Price Hike, Sources Claim
I've said the same thing time and again, @Weebleman; you cannot have a premium device, with components that cost more than those within the X, and expect it to be similar in price to the X. Probabilities are that it will cost 2 or 3 times more than the X, and possibly even more than that.
The other issue is that two thirds of those that have bought a Series console, have bought an S and paid £300 or less for it. So if Helix does breach the £1000 barrier, how many of those 20 million plus S owners are going to be willing to pay 4 (or more) times what they paid for their S to remain within the Xbox ecosystem and buy a Helix? I would suggest that the number would be vanishingly small. After all, the S was seen as a cheap way of getting into gaming, or indeed Xbox, and Helix at £1000 is far from cheap. Enthusiasts with the disposable income, such as myself, would be willing to part with such a sum, but I would suggest that I am very much in the minority there.
I've said it a number of times now, but I think Helix will sell 2 million units in the first year or so, and then taper of to around 3 million after 3 years, at which point, I think Microsoft will call it a day when it comes to gaming hardware. If Xbox studios are doing well enough, then I think Microsoft will stick with gaming, but right now I don't think that is a given either...
Re: Xbox Could Still Lose Money On Series X|S Console Sales Despite Price Hike, Sources Claim
I've been saying since the very first rumour of Steam being on (the now named) Helix that I could not understand how the Xbox Store could possibly compete against Steam. At the time, I looked up a number of AAA games that were coming within the following month or two that were available to pre-order, and Steam beat the price you would pay in the Xbox Store on all of them. Most of the games were £10 cheaper to pre-order on Steam, but one of them could be purchased for £30 less via CDKeys (now Loaded).
I know people suggest that people have games already in their Xbox library, but they are not going anywhere, they would still be playable on Helix, but meanwhile you could build a second library on Steam (and a third on Epic where you get free games every week, although they have not been great for this year, for the most part - still, I have managed to amass a total of 525 games on Epic, of which I have only paid for two of them! The other 523 I have claimed for FREE each week. If you are interested in Helix, I would strongly suggest you open an Epic account and start claiming those free games because they will be sat waiting for you once you get your Helix).
The point is that whilst having Steam etc. on Helix sounds like it would be awesome, it would eat so heavily into the revenue that Xbox makes that it could be terminal for the brand.
You then get the 'Play Anywhere' guys pop up, which is great for the small number of people to whom that applies, but the fact is that most games on Steam will play on the Steam Deck, so that is effectively Play Anywhere as well, so that argument only holds up so far.
The truth is that Helix, if priced competitively, will just be seen as an entry point for those wanting to get into PC gaming, which means it will do Xbox little to no good at all.
Lastly, time and time again we have seen how Helix is described as a premium product, well that surely means it will come at a considerable cost too. It maybe cheaper than buying a PC, but it will surely cost a lot more than the Series X does, and that surely means that it will sell considerably fewer devices too. People will baulk at the price, and either go elsewhere or stick where they are.
Two thirds of the Series consoles sold have been the S, with the majority bought for less that £300. If Helix costs £1000 (and I think it will be a fair bit more than that) do we honestly think that people who paid £300 or less for the S will be wanting to spend 3, 4 or more times than on Helix? The simple answer is that they won't, and the likelihood is that even those of us that paid £450 for our Series X will think twice about paying double, or maybe triple, that for Helix, which means that not only will Helix sell in considerably smaller numbers than the Series consoles have, but also that those that do buy it will, more likely than not, be looking to the PC side of things more than anything, which leaves Xbox in a very precarious position.
Honestly, unless Microsoft do a complete about turn and make Helix a console with no PC access, and thus keep the price down, then Xbox is on a hiding to nothing...
Re: Xbox Announces Big List Of Games And Broadcast Schedule For Gamescom 2026
I'm already sold on The Blood of Dawnwalker (but not the title!). However, I am keen to see more of Star Wars: Zero Company as it looks just like my kind of game.
Will be tuning in for the event, and looking forward to seeing more of E-Day and Fable...
Re: Poll: So, What Do You Think Of Halo: Campaign Evolved?
I finished 007 First Light 3 days ago, and because I wanted to be able to play Halo on day one (for the standard release) I decided to play something I could put down easily in order to do so. Thus I thought I would play a bit of Forza Horizon 6 as I could pick it up and put it down without issue (I haven't played it until now). Only problem is, I'm really enjoying Forza, and have now decided that Halo can wait! So much for my idea of a game I could just stop playing... 😂
Re: Xbox Owners Get Free PC Copies Of Select Ubisoft Games
Cool. Thank you, @Michael2008ish...
Re: Xbox Owners Get Free PC Copies Of Select Ubisoft Games
Thank you, @HelloCraigo. Sorry if the question was a little dumb... 🤪
Re: Xbox Owners Get Free PC Copies Of Select Ubisoft Games
Hi, @HelloCraigo. When you say PC, do you mean on the Ubisoft app launcher (if it still exists), or do you mean that it will be playable via the Xbox app on PC. Not quite sure where we would need to redeem these games. Thanks...
Re: Stalker 2: Cost Of Hope Gets August 2026 Release Date For Xbox, PS5 & PC
I do like the way Steam does reviews, @themightyant, as they do tend to give you a better idea of the current state of a game. I do have to wonder whether CD Project Red changed the name of Cyberpunk 2077 to Phantom Liberty so as it could be reviewed all over again, and gain a more favourable review score (not that the original score of 86 was bad). It now scores 89. Crafty but clever, if that is the case...
Re: Stalker 2: Cost Of Hope Gets August 2026 Release Date For Xbox, PS5 & PC
Would love to see how the game reviews after this update. That's the thing that saddens me when it comes to reviews, they are obviously given at a moment in time when the game is often in its weakest state. Now, I accept that is on the developers, but we also know that they often face huge financial pressures to get the game out at the earliest opportunity, which means we often don't get the best version of the game.
If you look at the reviews for Cyberpunk 2077 for example the quality upon release compared to now is night and day. Obviously they released the Phantom Liberty expansion, which completely changed the game for the better, but it also enabled the game to be reviewed for a second time (by some outlets). The point being though that the difference is such that it is a much better game now than it was at the time of release, and I am sure the same can be said of S.T.A.L.K.E.R 2, and when you consider the adversity that the studio has faced you have to hope they find some success now.
Anyway, the TLDR point is that I wish games that have really been transformed would receive a later professional review...
Re: These Are The Final Two Xbox Game Pass Additions To Finish Off The Week (July 23)
Glad you are enjoying it, @ZeD, I thought the world they had created was really interesting, but a pen and paper will help you find your way about...
Re: These 30+ Games Are Coming To Xbox Next Week (July 27-31)
You'll have to let me know how you get on, @Titntin. You can be my Guinea pig... 😂
Re: These 30+ Games Are Coming To Xbox Next Week (July 27-31)
It's the 'extract' part of Mistfall Hunter that has me apprehensive, @Titntin. I'd like to play the game entirely solo, with no other players in the game, but I am uncertain whether that is possible. I certainly do not want to be robbed of my loot come the end...
Re: Review: Halo: Campaign Evolved (Xbox) - A Stunning Remake That Becomes The Definitive Master Chief Campaign
Fair enough, @InterceptorAlpha.
As for the lack of multiplayer in Mass Effect 3, I think few people will have been sadder than myself when it was not included in the Legendary Edition. I got into the top 1000 players in the World on PC, and I also played a fair amount of it on Xbox too. I even made a few videos of myself completing maps solo on Gold (I couldn't quite manage to solo Platinum). So I was gutted that it was no present, but that does not mean, for me, that the game should be marked down when it is receiving it's review scores...
Re: These Are The Final Two Xbox Game Pass Additions To Finish Off The Week (July 23)
Not surprised, @ZeD. It does take some wandering about in order to get the game rolling...
Re: Two Massive Sports Games Have Joined Xbox's Stacked Lineup For September
Fair enough, @betterthings. So just business as usual and not a shrewd move. A shrewd move would have been to make the game fully available on Game Pass because at least they might then have had far more people playing their games, and potentially spending in them. To me that would have been a sensible move.
Any game that comes to Game Pass to avoid GTA 6 is not running scared, in my books. They are instead making a sensible decision to get people playing their games, making some money in the process, getting some exposure, and maybe doing far better that way than trying to go up against GTA 6, which will suck the life out of countless games over for an extended period, even more so once the online aspect comes out.
I'd put money on it that many games will see a drop in revenue and playtime once GTA 6 comes out, and indeed we will probably see job losses and studio closures in its wake over the course of the following year. It could well be an industry bloodbath, thus any studio that takes advantage of Game Pass to take the pressure off is making a sensible decision, I would suggest. Why leave it to chance when there is a potential revenue stream that could be tapped...
Re: Two Massive Sports Games Have Joined Xbox's Stacked Lineup For September
Big games indeed! I might even try my hand at the football game, which is not something I would usually play, but maybe I can regain some glory much missing from Southampton these days!
You do have to wonder whether these games are hitting Game Pass in an effort to be played due to GTA 6 being released in the same timeframe. This might give these games a boost that they might otherwise lack if left to fend for themselves in the wake of GTA 6. Better to be played for 'free' on Game Pass, than ignored due to GTA 6. Probably a shrewd move...
Re: These Are The Final Two Xbox Game Pass Additions To Finish Off The Week (July 23)
That's exactly what I did, @Odium. I made notes as I went around because the game does not hold your hand. I loved it.
Honestly, @Weebleman, give it a go. It's a game that will challenge you to think, but also challenge you to make sense of the mystery that is unfolding before you. The combat is sometimes pretty tricky, but the puzzles are often even more challenging! Remembering where the the puzzle was that you have just found the solution for is part of the reason for making notes, and if you are not one to get frustrated, then it's far more satisfying to solve the puzzles for yourself than it is to look it up on the internet.
Personally I loved the progression in the game, and the way we slowly got to understand what was going on. What I liked about it was the sense that it really felt like someone had no idea what was occurring, and they had to work it out for themselves. I'm really hoping that we end up with a sequel as it was probably my second favourite game last year after Cronos: The New Dawn, which was simply fantastic.
Hope you enjoy it Mr Weeble...
Re: Review: Halo: Campaign Evolved (Xbox) - A Stunning Remake That Becomes The Definitive Master Chief Campaign
We are going to have to disagree on this then, @Jenkinss. The multiplayer is still available on Xbox, it is as it has always been. However, if you want a shiny campaign, you can have that too. It's not like they have prevented your access to the multiplayer now.
The game is new for PlayStation, and the game should be judged on what we get. It is priced to reflect that. Indeed, I have seen people say it is too expensive because it is a remaster, so there is never going to be a situation in which everyone is happy. Had they spent the time and money developing the multiplayer and then increased the price of the game accordingly, people would still have been unhappy. But like I say, when it comes to Xbox, the multiplayer is still there if you are so inclined.
As for the Mona Lisa, we are going to have to disagree here too. If someone is seeing the copy for the first time, they would have nothing to compare it too, and therefore it would be judged on the image before them, which is no different to this Halo game. Those that have seen the original, would marvel at how much better the new image is than the original was, but even so the new image would be judged on its own merits. You'd expect to pay less for the copy than you would for the original, which is exactly what is happening here too.
Anyway, we disagree, which is something you and I do probably 50% of the time, and on this issue, I don't think either one of us will persuade the other that we are right, so I guess it is a case of until next time...! 😉
Re: Review: Halo: Campaign Evolved (Xbox) - A Stunning Remake That Becomes The Definitive Master Chief Campaign
I get what you are saying, @Jenkinss, but there will be many, many people who have never played the games at all. Especially now that it is releasing on PlayStation for the first time. Why should a game be marked down because Xbox gamers are salty that multiplayer is missing when as far as PlayStation gamers are concerned they are getting a game that only has a campaign (as we get so many other games that have just a campaign). It is priced to reflect that it is both a remake and a campaign only game, and if you have never played the multiplayer component, then you don't know what you are missing anyway.
Allow me to add that I would have preferred that it had come with the multiplayer aspect as well, but that is not what we are being offered, and so the game should only be judged on what it is offering, and not what it is not...
Re: These Are The Final Two Xbox Game Pass Additions To Finish Off The Week (July 23)
Because I buy games all the time, @Elbow, them ending up on Game Pass happens to me very often. My biggest problem is that I buy more games, when they are first released, than I actually have time to play, so not only does my backlog grow each year, but I don't even buy the games I don't play when they are on sale. I buy them full price, which makes not playing them even more stupid. I know that I do it, and I always say to myself that I will play the game when I make the purchase, but still I don't get round to them a lot of the time. Them then going on Game Pass before I have even started them just rubs salt in the wound. I am, to coin a phrase, a complete plonker...
Re: Review: Halo: Campaign Evolved (Xbox) - A Stunning Remake That Becomes The Definitive Master Chief Campaign
I agree, @Millionski.
What I would also say is that an awful lot of games have released since the original game came out, and over time it has become more difficult for a game to score those top review scores. Thus, if Halo Combat Evolved were to release today, there is no way it would score 97. Times have moved on, and therefore it is rare to see those 10/10 review scores. Heck, even getting a 9 is something to behold.
Like I say, I think the game should be judged on its own merits, and taken as if it was an original title, with the review score based on what is before the reviewer. They should not harp back to the original, and their feelings for that game, because if you have never play the original game, and you buy this remaster, you do not have that rose-tinted memory of the original game. You are presented with this game, and it is this game that should be being reviewed. An awful lot of games do not have multiplayer, and they are not deducted points for its absence. The games are reviewed based on what the reviewer has before them, which is the right way of doing it.
People know the game does not have multiplayer, but that, and the fact that it is a remaster, is why the game is more reasonably priced than if the game were a brand new entry in the series. I think if Microsoft were trying to sell it as a £70 game (and more still for the Deluxe version), then that would be a different matter, but I think for the quality of the remaster, the asking price is fair.
Anyway, basically I think the game should be judged on its own merits as if it were a brand new game just as any other brand new game would be judged...
Re: Review: Halo: Campaign Evolved (Xbox) - A Stunning Remake That Becomes The Definitive Master Chief Campaign
I get where you are coming from, @MrStark, but shouldn't the game be judged on its own merits, and not what is not present? I mean, the remaster of Mass Effect 3 in the Legendary Edition was not marked down because the multiplayer aspect was missing, so why should Halo?
Every game should be judged on its own qualities, or lack thereof, not what is not present. I imagine, admittedly without having checked, that the reason it is sitting at 81 on Metacritic (actually 85 on Xbox, 81 on PS5 and 76 on PC) is because a good number of the reviews are deducting points because of the absence of the multiplayer, or there is a general wiriness when it comes to remasters, which I think is the wrong way to approach reviews. Just judge what you see before you, not what it once was...
Re: Halo: Campaign Evolved Release Date, Release Times & Early Access Details For Xbox & PC
I just had a look on eBay for the Xbox version of the Collector's Edition, and most are on sale for over £800, and there are several that have sold for over £1000...!
I mean, I am a huge collector of Collector's Editions, and I have spent a lot on my hobby this year, but none of the games I have bought have cost me more than £300, and even that is because I could only get the American version of Gears of War: E-Day, and I had to pay to ship it.
As much as I love to buy Collector's Editions, and I have bought something like 7 this year, I wouldn't contemplate spending over £1000 for one. Have to say, it is annoying to see people selling their CE's when I could not get one for myself as a true collector...
Re: These Are The Final Two Xbox Game Pass Additions To Finish Off The Week (July 23)
I know I keep saying the same thing, but don't sleep on Hell Is Us. It is a superb game. It doesn't hold your hand, and you will spend a while wondering what you are supposed to do next, but it is a very enjoyable game...
Re: Halo: Campaign Evolved Release Date, Release Times & Early Access Details For Xbox & PC
Wow! I received my Steam Collector's Edition a week ago, @RegnumSolipsi, so Xbox (which is what I assume yours is) is quite a bit behind.
Unfortunately, the Steam version was the only one I could get as the Xbox one sold out too quickly for me to grab a copy (and I guess it is possible (maybe even probable) that Microsoft made fewer Xbox versions available).
I haven't open my CE because I don't want to play it on Steam, even though I could if I wanted, so I am waiting for the standard version to arrive on Game Pass, as that is where I will play it...
Re: Two Massive Betas Are Now Confirmed For Xbox Series X|S In August
That would be good, @FreasurePlanten. The sooner they put my mind at ease, as to whether there is a traditional Horde mode, the better. I highly doubt that Siege is for me, so my fingers are crossed when it comes to a normal Horde mode...