Thank you, @themightyant. I'm 62, so things are bound to start going wrong. Such is the benefit of getting older. Both my Grandparents were dead by my age because back then life expectancy was around 60. These days its around 80, but with the probability of health issues. I'm still kicking, which is the main thing...
Currently undertaking my annual run through every Gears of War campaign with a mate. We've finished Judgement, GoW: Reloaded and GoW 2, and are towards the end of GoW 3.
I'm also playing through one of my favourite ever games; XCOM 2 on my PS5 Pro, and have to say I do not recall the game crashing as often as it does there. It crashes at least twice every day, which can be pretty infuriating at times.
Edit: We've now finished GoW 3 so we'll be starting Gears 4 tomorrow, although we need to finish Raam's Shadow first. It really is such an enjoyable franchise, one I have put probably close to 10,000 hours into...
Obviously we will never know the true details, @ILuvGames, but I think Nadella became more involved because investors were not seeing the instant results they were expecting following the massive loan to purchase ABK.
The problem was not so much Spencer as the expectations of investors, and Nadella, being unrealistic, and they became even more unrealistic following the FTC case that stymied some of the plans that were intrinsic to the purchase and which made the returns on the investment much more difficult to achieve. Those changes tied Spencer's hands, after which Nadella then forced through changes that were even more damaging to the Xbox brand, and likely also further damage the revenue flow.
With hindsight, the ABK acquisition can clearly be seen to have been a tipping-point for Xbox, and it would be really interesting to see where Xbox might be had that purchase not gone ahead. Personally, I think Xbox would still have ended up in trouble (the ABK acquisition was made to ease the situation, after all), but I do think it would have meant that Nadella would have paid a great deal less attention to all things Xbox.
The only hope we have is that his interest is too tied up in AI now to pay any further attention to Xbox because his touch is pretty corrosive. This might also explain why Sharma seems to have a slightly freer hand to get things moving in a positive direction for Xbox...
Man, you really don't want to know how I am, @Kaloudz! Aside from being nigh on crippled with my back, I am currently undergoing treatment to try to prevent cancer in my left ear, I'm already losing my hearing and this week I was told I'm starting to lost my sight. Other than that, everything is great, thank you for asking... 🤣🤣🤣
I'm loving this conversation about Making Our Xbox Great Again (MOXGA 😉), and really hope it amounts to something truly tangible. Something really significant. I'd like to think the future is green, and certainly Sharma is talking a good game. Hopefully she can deliver on her words...
I agree, @Coletrain. Sharma actually talking to us is a breath of fresh air. When it comes to Spencer, I think Nadella took the wind from his sails. Come the end, I think he had had enough of Nadella, enough of not being able to manage Xbox the way he wanted, and enough of being blamed for things that weren't his choice. I also think he just could not bring himself to be front and centre trying to sell us a vision he did not share. I think that is why we saw so little of him, and why he retired, and I cannot blame him.
It does seem that Sharma is either in Nadella's good books, or has been granted a slightly longer leash, although it just might be that she has a little more autonomy whilst Nadella is distracted with his pet AI project. Either way, it is nice to have Sharma communicating with us...
I think part of the reason that the plans flopped, @ILuvGames, is that Nadella suddenly took a keen interest in Xbox and dictated certain moves that then backfired. It was Nadella that pushed for games to be made multiplatform. Hood that pushed for higher revenue (higher than was actually possible). I don't think Spencer agreed with any of this, and was bounced into these plans that subsequently harmed the Xbox brand. It is why we saw so little of Spencer for going on 3 months...
I mean, you really are discounting the big one that Spencer introduced, @Coletrain, and that's Game Pass. Now I accept that some, myself included, will say they don't like it or the impact it has had on the industry, but many, many others absolutely love it. So there's that!
Also, the rumours are that ABK approached Nadella about the acquisition, and that Spencer agreed to it. I think things then drastically changed as a result of the Court proceedings where concessions had to be made which then diluted what Microsoft planned with the acquisition (i.e. I think Microsoft initially intended for CoD to be fully exclusive).
I do agree that Sharma is a breath of fresh air when it comes to the PR side of things, and her background in that area is shining through right now. She knows communication is key, and she is giving us hope...
Problem is, @Millionski, they can make games like South of Midnight permanently exclusive but no one is going to buy an Xbox in order to play it! It really needs to be the big hitters, or it's just not worth trying. I'd even argue there is a basis for having Live Service games such as Forza Horizon permanently exclusive, because that is a game that will draw people into your ecosystem, and I generally argue that Live Service games should release everywhere so as to have the biggest audience to ensure success.
And, as I said, timed-exclusivity really doesn't work that well; firstly, and most importantly, gamers can be patient enough to wait for it to arrive on their chosen system, but secondly, games lose their lure over time. A brand new game will always stand a better chance of selling than a two year old port. If Xbox try shorter periods of timed exclusivity like 6 to 12 months then gamers will just wait, if Xbox try longer periods of timed exclusivity they risk gamers ignoring the game when it does finally land on their chosen console.
The only way for Xbox (in terms of consoles) to be in with a real chance of revival is full exclusivity, and I'd include PC in that too. People keep focussing in on PlayStation as the problem when it comes to exclusivity, but PC is diluting the issue too. PC Game Pass plays a part in that as well.
Of course, there is absolutely no way that Microsoft will agree to accepting a decade (or more) of loses on the games made by Xbox whilst they attempt to rebuild the brand, and no way they will agree to pulling the ports to PC either. A token effort at timed exclusivity is the most likely thing we will see, but I think the bean-counters will be all over the figures, and will quickly advise the likes of Hood and Nadella that they are leaving a considerable amount of money on the table by attempting this route, and Xbox will return to being fully multiplatform with their games releasing everywhere day and date...
I think the Helix S will actually be the Series X. This generation will exist for the entirety of the next generation, particuarly if Helix does cost the rumoured £1200. The Series X is a very capable machine, and will serve most people very well for the duration of the next generation. The Helix will be for the enthusiasts, very much a niche product...
I agree that Sharma appears to have more sway with Nadella that Spencer did, @Coletrain, but I think Nadella side-lined Spencer, and steamroll through a bunch of decisions that have since backfired.
I agree that Sharma is a better communicator, particularly in light of Spencer's radio silence, but again, I think Spencer was pushed into the background by Nadella, didn't agree with Nadella's thinking, and could not stand in good conscious and tell us that he backed what Nadella was doing. I think Nadella wore Spencer down to the point that he said 'sod it!' and retired.
The changes to Game Pass & CoD, and were truly inevitable, and we would be praising Spencer had he still been in charge, or Paddington Bear if he was in charge. Heck, you'd of been praising me if I was in charge, because I said only last week that this was precisely what they should do. Truth be told, Sharma probably read what I wrote, agreed with it, and then implemented it! 😉
So, if you put Game Pass & CoD to one side because it was absolutely inevitable, we have yet to have anything meaningful result from Sharma taking over other than her very much welcome open communication with the Xbox community. I do think we will see some tangible and positive outcomes from Sharma's reign in the future, but thus far we have had little more than warm words, when it is the deeds that we truly need to see...
Anyway, I cannot see Microsoft seriously dabbling with exclusivity of any real merit. It will be a token gesture to please the boys and girls. Maybe a few months, but I honestly don't expect them to do it for long once the realisation sets in that it loses them a considerable amount of money...
It's difficult to know what Xbox can do in the situation they find themselves in. In an ideal world, everything would be permanently exclusive, and this would mean that if you want to play the games, you need to be within the ecosystem.
The problem with that solution is threefold, firstly, even if games became exclusive to Xbox, that would still mean they were releasing on PC, so they're not truly exclusive anyway, meaning you do not have to own an Xbox in order to play said exclusive. And secondly, and this is the biggest problem of the lot, games are very, very expensive to make, and if first-party games continue to release on Game Pass day and date, then Xbox simply will not make enough money back on each game, which in turn would mean studio closures and job loses. Thirdly, even if Microsoft were willing to stick with the loses made on each game with the mindset that people will be drawn into the ecosystem, it will take time. A lot of time! We are talking a decade or more of loses on games in the hope of attracting enough people into the ecosystem to make the making of games profitable for Xbox, and Microsoft simply will not accept loses over an extended period of time.
Which then takes us back a notch to timed-exclusives. In theory it sounds great, but the problem with that is that gamers can be patient, and if they know a particular game will release on PlayStation in two years, they will wait. Wait in the knowledge that the game will release in a far better state on their platform than it originally did on Xbox. You only have to look at games like Forza Horizon 5, Sea of Thieves or Starfield, which have sold extremely well on PlayStation years after their initial release to see that gamers would rather wait for a game to arrive on their chosen console rather than buy an Xbox in order to play the game earlier.
Ultimately, I think the upshot it that Microsoft will dabble with some timed-exclusivity, but quickly give up on the notion, and return to simply selling everything everywhere day one because that tangibly can be seen to bring in more revenue...
I agree that Sharma is a breath of fresh air when it comes to communication, @Coletrain, but in all honesty, we have not seen very much truly meaningful transpire that was not always going to happen anyway. The changes to Game Pass pricing, and the removal of CoD were always going to happen, no matter who was in charge, and I said this should happen just over a week ago. So if I could see it was necessary, then it should most certainly be obvious to those with the ability to enact the changes.
Don't misunderstand me, I absolutely love the face that Sharma is communicating with the community, but the truth is we have yet to see anything of any significance happen yet. These are great words, but it is actions to follow them up that we need to see, and unfortunately, much of it will take time...
I don't think Spencer had much say in what befell Xbox in the past couple of years following the ABK acquisition, @FatGuyInLilCoat. That was all Nadella's doing, and Spencer was merely doing as he was instructed. It is why Spencer went AWOL for so long. He did not agree with what was happening and knew that it would be bad for Xbox. But what Nadella wants, Nadella gets.
Now, after a dismal couple of years of interference from Nadella, he has promoted someone into the space vacated by Spencer, but it is someone that will unquestioningly do his bidding. When it comes to Spencer, I think had just had enough, and so he retired.
I think the difference we are seeing now though is mostly down to Nadella returning some of the autonomy to the head of Xbox, partly because he probably knows (but would never admit) that he has made a mess of things, and partly because he is distracted by his push into all things AI.
Honestly, I think Spencer is blamed for things that were beyond his control. Yes, he was the boss at Xbox, but come the end, he was just there as a figurehead, but not actually in charge...
This is the way. We've been saying for a while now that Xbox has lost its identity, and this is a step in the right direction to reverting to what it should always have been. We just have to hope that she can stop Nadella and Hood interfering too because just renaming the division won't stop Nadella and Hood from ruining everything.
Regardless, this is a very positive step, in my opinion..
I said exactly this multiple times even as recently as last week. As I have said before, the Call of Duty day one Game Pass experiment has failed dismally. Hence this change was always going to happen.
Hopefully things change for the better for Game Pass from here on out...
With having a birthday so close to Christmas, I wish I could change it for real, @Markatron84, or have two birthdays like Royalty does here in the UK... 😂
What I have really liked about the arrival of Sharma, is the increased communication with the Xbox community. This, I think, stems from her background in PR, and perhaps a recognition of how things have been very wrong in that regard for a good few years. It seems to me that she has told her staff to engage with us more, and that can only be a good thing...
I absolutely agree that she should be given a chance to turn things around, @ILuvGames, and you can look at my posts from the day that she was appointed to see I said exactly that. Many railed against her because of her AI background, but I looked more positively at her background in PR as being an opportunity for Xbox to spread some positivity, and that has been borne out now. Whether or not she can right the ship, she does at least understand the need to communicate with her community, and to make us feel good about the product. No one can deny a shift in tone from gloom and doom, to a sense of optimism about the future.
Thus whether or not I am right about the inevitability of these changes to Game Pass and them being made regardless of who was in charge, things are definitely changing for the better, and that is all we can ask for...
Truth is we will never know, @ILuvGames, but I think the writing was on the wall when it came to these changes. Indeed, if you look back to last week, I said this was exactly what was needed in these very forums. So if I, a mere numpty that likes gaming, but has no inside knowledge of the figures and sustainability of Game Pass, can conclude that they needed to cease putting Call of Duty on Game Pass day one, and not put it the Service until it had been out for at least a year, and reduce the price of Game Pass in order to compensate for the lack of day one Call of Duty. If I could make that observation just last week, then it is clear that the powers that be within the Microsoft leadership could also have that same realisation.
Does Sharma have a longer leash? Now there is an interesting conversation to be had. Many of us feel that Sharma is Nadella's stooge, she is there to do Nadella's bidding. However, because she has a close relationship with Nadella, she may well have some sway over him. Regardless though, Microsoft is not our friend, they are there to gouge as much cash from our pockets as humanly possible, as was evidenced by the 50% increase in Game Pass just last year. The Call of Duty day one Game Pass experiment failed spectacularly, as did the accompanying massive Game Pass price hike. Instead of this move bringing in much more revenue, the probabilities are that people left Game Pass in significant numbers, and many of those that did remain dropped to a lower tier. Microsoft had to act. It was absolutely inevitable. It matters not who was in charge, this change would have happened. Whether it was dictated by Nadella, or implemented by Sharma, it was not an act of benevolence. It was an act of necessity. It was always going to happen. If the experiment had been a success, and people had flocked to Game Pass in order to play Call of Duty despite the 50% price hike, then Microsoft would have stuck to the plan and in all probabilities they would have raised the price once again come this September.
Ultimately, because Sharma is in charge when this occurs, she can take credit for it, but only because she is in charge right now, because the truth is that this change was as inescapable as the sunrise tomorrow morning...
I cannot agree, @ILuvGames. The issues caused by and to Call of Duty and Game Pass were evident in 2024, and then further rammed home in 2025. My money is on these changes being on the cards for months now.
Did Sharma rubber stamp them? Probably, but then she is in charge now so you'd expect that. Would Spencer have done exactly the same had he still been in place? Undoubtedly so.
When it comes to CoD and Game Pass, something had to be done, and that was glaringly obvious the moment that the price of Game Pass increased by 50%, and then CoD did poorly straight after. These changes were always going to happen, no matter who was in charge.
I think the earliest we will see any of Sharma's thinking for Xbox to shine through will be 2027, but anything truly meaningful will be 2028 and beyond.
I think the real question is how much of a free hand does she have? Or are Nadella and Hood still steering the ship? That remains to be seen...
I wish her the very best of luck for the future. It will be interesting to see whether she remains in gaming, she clearly has a lot of experience to lean on.
Also, what a surname! It sounds more like a Gamertag. Indeed, if I were her, that is exactly what my Gamertag would be...
I completely agree, @themightyant. As I said elsewhere, Call of Duty went on to Game Pass, and sold (relatively) poorly as a consequence, so Microsoft increased the cost of Game Pass to compensate. The increase in price for Game Pass led to a sizable exodus from Game Pass, or at the very least, a sizable shift to a lower tier, and Call of Duty still sold poorly. Indeed, it sold more poorly still. That meant the removal of Call of Duty from Game Pass was pretty much an inevitability because the price hike had hit Game Pass revenue, and Call of Duty revenue had taken a hit too.
Effectively, the experiment failed, and by the speed of the U-turn, it must have failed pretty miserably...
Being able to take your stacked Ultimate subscription, and drop it to either Premium or Essential would be a nice option to have. Being able to raise it and lower it a couple of times a year would be even better, but I know Microsoft won't want to do that and for obvious reasons.
I am stacked on Ultimate until June 2027, and I honestly wish that I had not done that. If I were able to refund my Ultimate, and were it not for there being an online requirement, I would not have Game Pass at all right now because here we are, nearly 5 months into 2026, and I still have not played a single game on Game Pass.
In fact , I stacked 3 years of Game Pass Ultimate in June 2024, and yet the last game I played on Game Pass was Hellblade 2, which I completed on the 22nd of May 2024.
Don't ask me what I was thinking. It was probably the promise of all the big games we had coming through that made me do it, though if I had thought about my gaming habits, I would have realised that I buy all the games I want to play, and that includes all of the Xbox first-party games too.
Part of the problem, for me, when it comes to the first-party output from Xbox, is that I like to have the best version of the game. So if a game has the promise of DLC in the pipeline, I would rather own the game from the outset, and then get the DLC included, though in truth that is a fools economy because I could save myself money by playing the base version on Game Pass, and then either buying the DLC separately, or buying the full game with the DLC included at a much later point in time when it is on sale for much less.
What I will say, is that my disillusionment with much of what is happening at Xbox, and with Game Pass in particular, will probably better inform my decision making when my subscription comes to an end. Also, by June 2027 I expect to know far better what Microsoft are doing in terms of Helix, and also with PC Game Pass. If I can play Gears of War with my mate each weekend, for free, on my Helix (assuming it is everything I want in the device) then I won't be renewing Game Pass in the future. If I still have to pay in order to play online, then I'll likely opt for the lowest tier. Time will undoubtedly tell...
This is good news, absolutely no doubt, but people are way too quick to heap praise on Sharma. Microsoft did not get where they are today without knowing how to be somewhat savvy when it comes to the numbers, and I firmly believe this move would have been undertaken no matter who was in charge.
Call of Duty went on to Game Pass, and sold (relatively) poorly as a consequence, so Microsoft increased the cost of Game Pass to compensate. The increase in price for Game Pass led to a sizable exodus from Game Pass, or at the very least, a sizable shift to a lower tier, and Call of Duty still sold poorly. Indeed, more poorly still. That meant the removal of Call of Duty from Game Pass was pretty much inevitable because the price hike had hit Game Pass revenue, and Call of Duty was still selling poorly. Microsoft could not have removed Call of Duty from Game Pass without appearing to give something to gamers in return, hence we see the very welcome price cuts now.
I believe Game Pass is still more expensive now than it was prior to last year's price hikes, though I guess that is inevitable too, however it does seem to be lost on people following the good news of this price cut.
In all honesty, it is good to have some positive buzz around Xbox once more, but how much of this would have happened in spite of Sharma is very much up for debate. I think the strong likelihood is that Microsoft were very much bounced into these decisions by a decline in revenue, and that Sharma would have had very little to do with it.
Don't misunderstand me, I do like what I am seeing of Sharma, but most of that is down to the fact that she is actually communicating with her community, rather than leaving us entirely in the dark, which became particularly stark once Nadella took a keen interest in all things Xbox following the ABK acquisition.
When it comes to Sharma's influence on Xbox, I would suggest that we waiting until a couple of years have passed, and then assess her impact then. 2028/29 will give us a much better overview of the state of Xbox, and we can either praise her arrival or bemoan Spencer's departure at that point. Until then, how much of any of this is actually her doing is truly questionable...
Totally agree, @ILuvGames. Microsoft are clearly reacting to the numbers, which is exactly what they should be doing, and in that regard it matters not who is in charge.
I do think that too many people are honing in on Sharma and believing that everything that happened from the moment she became boss is her doing, without thinking about the wider possibilities. Business is business, and the numbers never lie. Microsoft were always likely to have made this move, but as Sharma is now in charge she is being credited with the price reductions.
It's a bit like a new football manager taking over a team, playing exactly the same team as the previous manager, and scoring a win in the first match, and despite the previous manager having had an excellent record, the new manager takes all the praise when the old manager would have achieved the same result.
I've said it several times now, but we need to look back in 3 years time and reflect on where Xbox is then. So if Xbox is doing brilliantly at the start of 2029, then fair do's, we can lay that firmly at Sharma's door. If Xbox is doing worse (God forbid!), or is in much the same position, then really changing manager has not really altered the position of the team on the Premier League table...
Funny enough, the decision that Microsoft have taken regarding Call of Duty, and its delayed entry to Game Pass, is something I suggested they should do on another article only a few days ago.
Thank you. That's all I'm trying to ascertain, @themightyant, whether Microsoft are making it themselves, or doing so with another company (as was the handheld)...
This is an excellent move probably driven by a significant drop in subscriber numbers, particularly for Ultimate. I know that Sharma is in charge now, but part of me thinks that Spencer would likely have done the same had he still been in charge simply because the revenue brought in by Game Pass will have suffered greatly following the price increase last year meaning that action will have had to be taken no matter who was in charge.
Anyway, I think this is the right call, and as Sharma is the one calling the shots now (if we ignore Nadella's input!), she should rightly be praised for this move.
It's a good start, so let's hope that Sharma, and her team, can begin to put things right...
I was aware that Foxconn built the consoles for Microsoft, @Sakai, and my use of the word in-house was probably erroneous. So, to put it more accurately, I was wondering whether Foxconn would be doing the same this time, or whether it was instead a partnership with another company (I know ASUS has been ruled out, but that does not mean there is no other company involved). That is all I am trying to get to grips with...
I'm only trying to work out who is actually assembling the Helix, @themightyant. Whether that is Microsoft alone or whether they are doing it in partnership with another company? Whether it is the same as with the Series consoles, or whether Microsoft are employing another manufacturer to make it for them? Whether this is 100% a first-party console (PC) or whether it is a joint venture with an outside company? I've not seen this explicitly stated anywhere, and that is what I am trying to get to the bottom of...
Then kindly block me, @shiny-enzo. I engage with this community as I see fit, if you don't want to read what I write, the simple solution is to not do so. I would also remind you that you wrote to me first, not I you. I am merely responding. I also have responded to two other people, or are you suggesting I should ignore them..?
I think that is a good idea for the next generation, @Skinny-Pete, but as is so often the case with Microsoft, I think they introduced the S one generation too early because it has struggled with some games, and has disappointed on more than a few occasions.
I do think that next generation that having a secondary device that is the equivalent of the X will be fine because the X has been absolutely fine for most games, and although it will always be inferior to the Helix, people will generally be happy with its performance.
The one thing that Microsoft simply must not do next time round though, is have a parity clause, and they need to explicitly tell us that's the case too. There must never be a case of the secondary console holding back the Helix, and there must never be a suggestion of such. Indeed, if a game cannot run on the secondary console, then rather than it not being available for the Helix as well, it should just skip the secondary console alone. I think having a parity clause has caused more than a few issues for Xbox this generation...
I entirely agree, @Balaam_. Ever since the rumours of the next Xbox began circulating, people have been grasping at hints and coming away with solid facts, and that then leads to the potential of significant disappointment. It is also what was so very wrong with the way that things were handled under Spencer, and what I hope Sharma understands and puts right. Just give us the facts, and not generalities that need to be deciphered via an Enigma machine...
You and I are not reading the same link, @Sakai. The words 'first-party' is only mentioned once...! However, again, is Microsoft actually making the Helix themselves? That is the point I am getting at. We all know they will be involved in the development of the device, but have they confirmed that they are building it in-house? That is what I cannot find anywhere. It is entirely possible to enter a partnership with a third-party and have them build a first-party console for Microsoft. As I say, the rumours of the Helix (as it is now known) being built by a third-party have been circulating for ages, and I still cannot find anywhere where Microsoft have either explicitly denied this, or explicitly stated they are building the Helix in-house. Calling Helix first-party does not preclude the possibility of it being built by a third-party, and that is what I trying to get to the bottom of...
Looking forward to seeing how this game fares. I've always loved the belief that Molyneux has in himself, it's kind of infectious. Would be good to see him go out on a on a high with a 10 out of 10 Game of the Year game...
I really hope so, @Skinny-Pete. I really do not want to be faced with multiple options built by different companies. In all honesty, I would also really only want to see one option offered next generation because we have repeatedly seen the rumours of parity between the S and the X meaning things scaled back in games, delaying games, or just the suggestion of this being the case damaging the Xbox brand.
I'd be content with Microsoft continuing to supply the X, alongside the Helix, so long as there was no parity clause, but in my opinion the Helix should be the absolute pinnacle, and it should be squeezed for everything it is worth. If there are more than one option then there will always be one that is better than the others in one way or another...
You are always good with the links, @themightyant. Can you point me in the direction of where Microsoft have said this, please, because I cannot find it...?
I cannot find where they have explicitly stated they are manufacturing the Helix themselves, @Sakai. The word 'making' is generic, and not explicit. In other words, Microsoft saying they are making another console, does not preclude it being made for them by a third-party. It will still be their console, just not necessarily made by them. I've looked as best I can, and I cannot find where they have said they will be the ones actually making the Helix. It's not a case of not listening. In fact, it's quite the opposite; it's listening and not making assumptions. The rumours of third-party involvement have been circulating almost as long as the rumours of the Helix being a suggestion have been doing the rounds. I also searched to see whether Microsoft have precluded the possibility of third-party involvement, and cannot find an answer for that either...
Have Microsoft actually explicitly said they are making / manufacturing / assembling / building the Helix themselves, @Sakai? I know they have confirmed that the Helix exists, but I honestly do not recall them saying that they are manufacturing it themselves...
Out of curiosity, @FraserG, do Microsoft consider the Xbox ROG Ally to be a first-party handheld, or a third-party handheld? Obviously, if Microsoft consider it to be a first-party handheld, then this does mean that Helix could indeed be being built by a third party, which if that is the case, would be massively disappointing to me.
I think a fair assessment of the Xbox ROG Ally is that it was built by ASUS, with input from Microsoft, but calling it a first-party Xbox would be extremely charitable, and that in turn worries me when it comes to Helix...
I may get the Halo Collector's controller, @LordDieALot, If there is one. And I will most definitely get the E-Day standard and Elite 2 Collector's controller, and also the Fable Elite 2 controller but I very much dislike this one.
I will even consider getting the E-Day console, were they to do one, even if I knew that Helix was releasing next year. I already have the GoW 360 console, and the Xbox One version too, so I would need the Series X one to complete my set...
I absolutely agree, @Grumblevolcano. When it comes to ongoing franchises such as Gears of War, there needs to be a commitment to bringing every game over to PlayStation. There is no halfway house if Microsoft expect any success. I think the only exceptions might be with Forza Horizon, though I'd argue that 4 would find a good audience on PlayStation because it is currently regarded as the best in the franchise, so if your average PlayStation gamer thought 5 was good, then they would positively lap up 4 (pun intended!).
It is all a proper mess right now with everyone having a slightly different take on what they believe Microsoft have planned (at least before Sharma took over), but now with the change in leadership no one really knows what the future holds for Xbox let alone what might happen with regards to PlayStation.
Some proper clarity rather than fan pleasing soundbites is sorely required, though in fairness to Sharma, she will probably need several months, if not longer, with her feet under the bosses desk before she really has an understanding of not only what the fans want, but more importantly, what is deliverable. It would be very easy for her to give Xbox fans a pleasing statement by giving a cast-iron guarentee that exclusives are back, for example, and then establish that the money won't be there to support such an initiative.
And therein lies the reason I just don't think Microsoft will return to full exclusivity, because there are just not enough Xbox gamers who buy first-party games, and too many that play them on Game Pass instead. Games simply will not make back the money they cost to make by releasing as Xbox exclusives, and whilst being released day one on Game Pass. For games to sell well, and crucially, for the studios to survive, Microsoft have no option but to sell their games on competitors platforms. If they had 3 times the number of console gamers than Sony, then maybe things would be different, but even then I think Game Pass would get in the way.
There are no easy options, but I do agree, it should be an all or nothing approach for ongoing franchises...
Comments 4,862
Re: Four Key Priorities For Xbox's Future Outlined By CEO Asha Sharma & EVP Matt Booty
Thank you, @themightyant. I'm 62, so things are bound to start going wrong. Such is the benefit of getting older. Both my Grandparents were dead by my age because back then life expectancy was around 60. These days its around 80, but with the probability of health issues. I'm still kicking, which is the main thing...
Re: Talking Point: What Are You Playing This Weekend? (April 25-26)
Currently undertaking my annual run through every Gears of War campaign with a mate. We've finished Judgement, GoW: Reloaded and GoW 2, and are towards the end of GoW 3.
I'm also playing through one of my favourite ever games; XCOM 2 on my PS5 Pro, and have to say I do not recall the game crashing as often as it does there. It crashes at least twice every day, which can be pretty infuriating at times.
Edit: We've now finished GoW 3 so we'll be starting Gears 4 tomorrow, although we need to finish Raam's Shadow first. It really is such an enjoyable franchise, one I have put probably close to 10,000 hours into...
Re: Xbox Leadership Issues Massive Statement On The Future Of The Brand
Obviously we will never know the true details, @ILuvGames, but I think Nadella became more involved because investors were not seeing the instant results they were expecting following the massive loan to purchase ABK.
The problem was not so much Spencer as the expectations of investors, and Nadella, being unrealistic, and they became even more unrealistic following the FTC case that stymied some of the plans that were intrinsic to the purchase and which made the returns on the investment much more difficult to achieve. Those changes tied Spencer's hands, after which Nadella then forced through changes that were even more damaging to the Xbox brand, and likely also further damage the revenue flow.
With hindsight, the ABK acquisition can clearly be seen to have been a tipping-point for Xbox, and it would be really interesting to see where Xbox might be had that purchase not gone ahead. Personally, I think Xbox would still have ended up in trouble (the ABK acquisition was made to ease the situation, after all), but I do think it would have meant that Nadella would have paid a great deal less attention to all things Xbox.
The only hope we have is that his interest is too tied up in AI now to pay any further attention to Xbox because his touch is pretty corrosive. This might also explain why Sharma seems to have a slightly freer hand to get things moving in a positive direction for Xbox...
Re: Four Key Priorities For Xbox's Future Outlined By CEO Asha Sharma & EVP Matt Booty
Man, you really don't want to know how I am, @Kaloudz! Aside from being nigh on crippled with my back, I am currently undergoing treatment to try to prevent cancer in my left ear, I'm already losing my hearing and this week I was told I'm starting to lost my sight. Other than that, everything is great, thank you for asking... 🤣🤣🤣
Re: Asha Sharma Says Xbox Is Investing To Make Series X|S Consoles A 'First-Class Experience Again'
I'm loving this conversation about Making Our Xbox Great Again (MOXGA 😉), and really hope it amounts to something truly tangible. Something really significant. I'd like to think the future is green, and certainly Sharma is talking a good game. Hopefully she can deliver on her words...
Re: Xbox Leadership Issues Massive Statement On The Future Of The Brand
I agree, @Coletrain. Sharma actually talking to us is a breath of fresh air. When it comes to Spencer, I think Nadella took the wind from his sails. Come the end, I think he had had enough of Nadella, enough of not being able to manage Xbox the way he wanted, and enough of being blamed for things that weren't his choice. I also think he just could not bring himself to be front and centre trying to sell us a vision he did not share. I think that is why we saw so little of him, and why he retired, and I cannot blame him.
It does seem that Sharma is either in Nadella's good books, or has been granted a slightly longer leash, although it just might be that she has a little more autonomy whilst Nadella is distracted with his pet AI project. Either way, it is nice to have Sharma communicating with us...
Re: Xbox Leadership Issues Massive Statement On The Future Of The Brand
I think part of the reason that the plans flopped, @ILuvGames, is that Nadella suddenly took a keen interest in Xbox and dictated certain moves that then backfired. It was Nadella that pushed for games to be made multiplatform. Hood that pushed for higher revenue (higher than was actually possible). I don't think Spencer agreed with any of this, and was bounced into these plans that subsequently harmed the Xbox brand. It is why we saw so little of Spencer for going on 3 months...
Re: Xbox Leadership Issues Massive Statement On The Future Of The Brand
I mean, you really are discounting the big one that Spencer introduced, @Coletrain, and that's Game Pass. Now I accept that some, myself included, will say they don't like it or the impact it has had on the industry, but many, many others absolutely love it. So there's that!
Also, the rumours are that ABK approached Nadella about the acquisition, and that Spencer agreed to it. I think things then drastically changed as a result of the Court proceedings where concessions had to be made which then diluted what Microsoft planned with the acquisition (i.e. I think Microsoft initially intended for CoD to be fully exclusive).
I do agree that Sharma is a breath of fresh air when it comes to the PR side of things, and her background in that area is shining through right now. She knows communication is key, and she is giving us hope...
Re: Xbox Is Officially 'Reevaluating' What To Do About Exclusivity
Problem is, @Millionski, they can make games like South of Midnight permanently exclusive but no one is going to buy an Xbox in order to play it! It really needs to be the big hitters, or it's just not worth trying. I'd even argue there is a basis for having Live Service games such as Forza Horizon permanently exclusive, because that is a game that will draw people into your ecosystem, and I generally argue that Live Service games should release everywhere so as to have the biggest audience to ensure success.
And, as I said, timed-exclusivity really doesn't work that well; firstly, and most importantly, gamers can be patient enough to wait for it to arrive on their chosen system, but secondly, games lose their lure over time. A brand new game will always stand a better chance of selling than a two year old port. If Xbox try shorter periods of timed exclusivity like 6 to 12 months then gamers will just wait, if Xbox try longer periods of timed exclusivity they risk gamers ignoring the game when it does finally land on their chosen console.
The only way for Xbox (in terms of consoles) to be in with a real chance of revival is full exclusivity, and I'd include PC in that too. People keep focussing in on PlayStation as the problem when it comes to exclusivity, but PC is diluting the issue too. PC Game Pass plays a part in that as well.
Of course, there is absolutely no way that Microsoft will agree to accepting a decade (or more) of loses on the games made by Xbox whilst they attempt to rebuild the brand, and no way they will agree to pulling the ports to PC either. A token effort at timed exclusivity is the most likely thing we will see, but I think the bean-counters will be all over the figures, and will quickly advise the likes of Hood and Nadella that they are leaving a considerable amount of money on the table by attempting this route, and Xbox will return to being fully multiplatform with their games releasing everywhere day and date...
Re: Four Key Priorities For Xbox's Future Outlined By CEO Asha Sharma & EVP Matt Booty
Hey, @Kaloudz,. Hope you're okay, matey.
I think the Helix S will actually be the Series X. This generation will exist for the entirety of the next generation, particuarly if Helix does cost the rumoured £1200. The Series X is a very capable machine, and will serve most people very well for the duration of the next generation. The Helix will be for the enthusiasts, very much a niche product...
Re: Xbox Leadership Issues Massive Statement On The Future Of The Brand
I agree that Sharma appears to have more sway with Nadella that Spencer did, @Coletrain, but I think Nadella side-lined Spencer, and steamroll through a bunch of decisions that have since backfired.
I agree that Sharma is a better communicator, particularly in light of Spencer's radio silence, but again, I think Spencer was pushed into the background by Nadella, didn't agree with Nadella's thinking, and could not stand in good conscious and tell us that he backed what Nadella was doing. I think Nadella wore Spencer down to the point that he said 'sod it!' and retired.
Things have turned to 💩 for Xbox in recent times, and so Nadella has put in place someone that can turn things around, but not just that, he has turned his attention to his new pet project in the form of AI, but has also allowed Sharma far more autonomy that he allowed Spencer following the ABK acquisition.
The changes to Game Pass & CoD, and were truly inevitable, and we would be praising Spencer had he still been in charge, or Paddington Bear if he was in charge. Heck, you'd of been praising me if I was in charge, because I said only last week that this was precisely what they should do. Truth be told, Sharma probably read what I wrote, agreed with it, and then implemented it! 😉
So, if you put Game Pass & CoD to one side because it was absolutely inevitable, we have yet to have anything meaningful result from Sharma taking over other than her very much welcome open communication with the Xbox community. I do think we will see some tangible and positive outcomes from Sharma's reign in the future, but thus far we have had little more than warm words, when it is the deeds that we truly need to see...
Re: Xbox Is Officially 'Reevaluating' What To Do About Exclusivity
Starfield sold badly to an extent, @Millionski, and has a bug (that is believed to be fixed now) but otherwise did not perform that badly. However, when it comes to Starfield, you have to take into account how much 💩 was thrown at it for the past few years. When you take that into consideration, the fact that it sold a single copy is pretty miraculous! However, the point remains, gamers waited to play it rather than buy an Xbox and play it there. So, as I said, gamers are a patient bunch when the need arises.
Anyway, I cannot see Microsoft seriously dabbling with exclusivity of any real merit. It will be a token gesture to please the boys and girls. Maybe a few months, but I honestly don't expect them to do it for long once the realisation sets in that it loses them a considerable amount of money...
Re: Xbox Is Officially 'Reevaluating' What To Do About Exclusivity
It's difficult to know what Xbox can do in the situation they find themselves in. In an ideal world, everything would be permanently exclusive, and this would mean that if you want to play the games, you need to be within the ecosystem.
The problem with that solution is threefold, firstly, even if games became exclusive to Xbox, that would still mean they were releasing on PC, so they're not truly exclusive anyway, meaning you do not have to own an Xbox in order to play said exclusive. And secondly, and this is the biggest problem of the lot, games are very, very expensive to make, and if first-party games continue to release on Game Pass day and date, then Xbox simply will not make enough money back on each game, which in turn would mean studio closures and job loses. Thirdly, even if Microsoft were willing to stick with the loses made on each game with the mindset that people will be drawn into the ecosystem, it will take time. A lot of time! We are talking a decade or more of loses on games in the hope of attracting enough people into the ecosystem to make the making of games profitable for Xbox, and Microsoft simply will not accept loses over an extended period of time.
Which then takes us back a notch to timed-exclusives. In theory it sounds great, but the problem with that is that gamers can be patient, and if they know a particular game will release on PlayStation in two years, they will wait. Wait in the knowledge that the game will release in a far better state on their platform than it originally did on Xbox. You only have to look at games like Forza Horizon 5, Sea of Thieves or Starfield, which have sold extremely well on PlayStation years after their initial release to see that gamers would rather wait for a game to arrive on their chosen console rather than buy an Xbox in order to play the game earlier.
Ultimately, I think the upshot it that Microsoft will dabble with some timed-exclusivity, but quickly give up on the notion, and return to simply selling everything everywhere day one because that tangibly can be seen to bring in more revenue...
Re: Xbox Leadership Issues Massive Statement On The Future Of The Brand
I agree that Sharma is a breath of fresh air when it comes to communication, @Coletrain, but in all honesty, we have not seen very much truly meaningful transpire that was not always going to happen anyway. The changes to Game Pass pricing, and the removal of CoD were always going to happen, no matter who was in charge, and I said this should happen just over a week ago. So if I could see it was necessary, then it should most certainly be obvious to those with the ability to enact the changes.
Don't misunderstand me, I absolutely love the face that Sharma is communicating with the community, but the truth is we have yet to see anything of any significance happen yet. These are great words, but it is actions to follow them up that we need to see, and unfortunately, much of it will take time...
Re: Xbox Leadership Issues Massive Statement On The Future Of The Brand
I don't think Spencer had much say in what befell Xbox in the past couple of years following the ABK acquisition, @FatGuyInLilCoat. That was all Nadella's doing, and Spencer was merely doing as he was instructed. It is why Spencer went AWOL for so long. He did not agree with what was happening and knew that it would be bad for Xbox. But what Nadella wants, Nadella gets.
Now, after a dismal couple of years of interference from Nadella, he has promoted someone into the space vacated by Spencer, but it is someone that will unquestioningly do his bidding. When it comes to Spencer, I think had just had enough, and so he retired.
I think the difference we are seeing now though is mostly down to Nadella returning some of the autonomy to the head of Xbox, partly because he probably knows (but would never admit) that he has made a mess of things, and partly because he is distracted by his push into all things AI.
Honestly, I think Spencer is blamed for things that were beyond his control. Yes, he was the boss at Xbox, but come the end, he was just there as a figurehead, but not actually in charge...
Re: Assassin's Creed: Black Flag Resynced Formally Unveiled, Heading To Xbox In July 2026
I was just looking for the Collector's Edition, @KayUK, where did you order it from...?
Re: Microsoft Gaming Reportedly Scrapped As Asha Sharma Promotes 'Return Of Xbox' At MS HQ
This is the way. We've been saying for a while now that Xbox has lost its identity, and this is a step in the right direction to reverting to what it should always have been. We just have to hope that she can stop Nadella and Hood interfering too because just renaming the division won't stop Nadella and Hood from ruining everything.
Regardless, this is a very positive step, in my opinion..
Re: 'This Change Is Not Surprising At All' - Industry Analyses Xbox Game Pass Price Drop
No 💩 Sherlock!
I said exactly this multiple times even as recently as last week. As I have said before, the Call of Duty day one Game Pass experiment has failed dismally. Hence this change was always going to happen.
Hopefully things change for the better for Game Pass from here on out...
Re: Xbox Rewards Adds Brand-New 'Birthday Gift' Feature With Special Benefits
With having a birthday so close to Christmas, I wish I could change it for real, @Markatron84, or have two birthdays like Royalty does here in the UK... 😂
Re: Xbox Engineer Hints At More 'Fun Surprises' And Features Based On Fan Feedback
What I have really liked about the arrival of Sharma, is the increased communication with the Xbox community. This, I think, stems from her background in PR, and perhaps a recognition of how things have been very wrong in that regard for a good few years. It seems to me that she has told her staff to engage with us more, and that can only be a good thing...
Re: Xbox Rewards Adds Brand-New 'Birthday Gift' Feature With Special Benefits
It would be funny if you could game the system by changing your birthday once a week... 🤣
Re: Xbox Rewards Adds Brand-New 'Birthday Gift' Feature With Special Benefits
Mine is not until the 22nd of December, @Markatron84, so I feel your pain... 😂
Re: Xbox Announces Price Reductions For Game Pass Ultimate & PC Game Pass
I absolutely agree that she should be given a chance to turn things around, @ILuvGames, and you can look at my posts from the day that she was appointed to see I said exactly that. Many railed against her because of her AI background, but I looked more positively at her background in PR as being an opportunity for Xbox to spread some positivity, and that has been borne out now. Whether or not she can right the ship, she does at least understand the need to communicate with her community, and to make us feel good about the product. No one can deny a shift in tone from gloom and doom, to a sense of optimism about the future.
Thus whether or not I am right about the inevitability of these changes to Game Pass and them being made regardless of who was in charge, things are definitely changing for the better, and that is all we can ask for...
Re: Xbox Announces Price Reductions For Game Pass Ultimate & PC Game Pass
Truth is we will never know, @ILuvGames, but I think the writing was on the wall when it came to these changes. Indeed, if you look back to last week, I said this was exactly what was needed in these very forums. So if I, a mere numpty that likes gaming, but has no inside knowledge of the figures and sustainability of Game Pass, can conclude that they needed to cease putting Call of Duty on Game Pass day one, and not put it the Service until it had been out for at least a year, and reduce the price of Game Pass in order to compensate for the lack of day one Call of Duty. If I could make that observation just last week, then it is clear that the powers that be within the Microsoft leadership could also have that same realisation.
Does Sharma have a longer leash? Now there is an interesting conversation to be had. Many of us feel that Sharma is Nadella's stooge, she is there to do Nadella's bidding. However, because she has a close relationship with Nadella, she may well have some sway over him. Regardless though, Microsoft is not our friend, they are there to gouge as much cash from our pockets as humanly possible, as was evidenced by the 50% increase in Game Pass just last year. The Call of Duty day one Game Pass experiment failed spectacularly, as did the accompanying massive Game Pass price hike. Instead of this move bringing in much more revenue, the probabilities are that people left Game Pass in significant numbers, and many of those that did remain dropped to a lower tier. Microsoft had to act. It was absolutely inevitable. It matters not who was in charge, this change would have happened. Whether it was dictated by Nadella, or implemented by Sharma, it was not an act of benevolence. It was an act of necessity. It was always going to happen. If the experiment had been a success, and people had flocked to Game Pass in order to play Call of Duty despite the 50% price hike, then Microsoft would have stuck to the plan and in all probabilities they would have raised the price once again come this September.
Ultimately, because Sharma is in charge when this occurs, she can take credit for it, but only because she is in charge right now, because the truth is that this change was as inescapable as the sunrise tomorrow morning...
Re: Xbox Announces Price Reductions For Game Pass Ultimate & PC Game Pass
I cannot agree, @ILuvGames. The issues caused by and to Call of Duty and Game Pass were evident in 2024, and then further rammed home in 2025. My money is on these changes being on the cards for months now.
Did Sharma rubber stamp them? Probably, but then she is in charge now so you'd expect that. Would Spencer have done exactly the same had he still been in place? Undoubtedly so.
When it comes to CoD and Game Pass, something had to be done, and that was glaringly obvious the moment that the price of Game Pass increased by 50%, and then CoD did poorly straight after. These changes were always going to happen, no matter who was in charge.
I think the earliest we will see any of Sharma's thinking for Xbox to shine through will be 2027, but anything truly meaningful will be 2028 and beyond.
I think the real question is how much of a free hand does she have? Or are Nadella and Hood still steering the ship? That remains to be seen...
Re: Xbox & Halo Veteran Makes 'Difficult' Decision To Leave Microsoft After 28 Years
I wish her the very best of luck for the future. It will be interesting to see whether she remains in gaming, she clearly has a lot of experience to lean on.
Also, what a surname! It sounds more like a Gamertag. Indeed, if I were her, that is exactly what my Gamertag would be...
Re: Here's A Breakdown Of The New Prices For Xbox Game Pass As Of April 2026
I completely agree, @themightyant. As I said elsewhere, Call of Duty went on to Game Pass, and sold (relatively) poorly as a consequence, so Microsoft increased the cost of Game Pass to compensate. The increase in price for Game Pass led to a sizable exodus from Game Pass, or at the very least, a sizable shift to a lower tier, and Call of Duty still sold poorly. Indeed, it sold more poorly still. That meant the removal of Call of Duty from Game Pass was pretty much an inevitability because the price hike had hit Game Pass revenue, and Call of Duty revenue had taken a hit too.
Effectively, the experiment failed, and by the speed of the U-turn, it must have failed pretty miserably...
Re: Rumour: Xbox Might Introduce Customisable Plans For Game Pass In The Future
Being able to take your stacked Ultimate subscription, and drop it to either Premium or Essential would be a nice option to have. Being able to raise it and lower it a couple of times a year would be even better, but I know Microsoft won't want to do that and for obvious reasons.
I am stacked on Ultimate until June 2027, and I honestly wish that I had not done that. If I were able to refund my Ultimate, and were it not for there being an online requirement, I would not have Game Pass at all right now because here we are, nearly 5 months into 2026, and I still have not played a single game on Game Pass.
In fact , I stacked 3 years of Game Pass Ultimate in June 2024, and yet the last game I played on Game Pass was Hellblade 2, which I completed on the 22nd of May 2024.
Don't ask me what I was thinking. It was probably the promise of all the big games we had coming through that made me do it, though if I had thought about my gaming habits, I would have realised that I buy all the games I want to play, and that includes all of the Xbox first-party games too.
Part of the problem, for me, when it comes to the first-party output from Xbox, is that I like to have the best version of the game. So if a game has the promise of DLC in the pipeline, I would rather own the game from the outset, and then get the DLC included, though in truth that is a fools economy because I could save myself money by playing the base version on Game Pass, and then either buying the DLC separately, or buying the full game with the DLC included at a much later point in time when it is on sale for much less.
What I will say, is that my disillusionment with much of what is happening at Xbox, and with Game Pass in particular, will probably better inform my decision making when my subscription comes to an end. Also, by June 2027 I expect to know far better what Microsoft are doing in terms of Helix, and also with PC Game Pass. If I can play Gears of War with my mate each weekend, for free, on my Helix (assuming it is everything I want in the device) then I won't be renewing Game Pass in the future. If I still have to pay in order to play online, then I'll likely opt for the lowest tier. Time will undoubtedly tell...
Re: Call Of Duty Titles Will No Longer Join Xbox Game Pass On Day One
This is good news, absolutely no doubt, but people are way too quick to heap praise on Sharma. Microsoft did not get where they are today without knowing how to be somewhat savvy when it comes to the numbers, and I firmly believe this move would have been undertaken no matter who was in charge.
Call of Duty went on to Game Pass, and sold (relatively) poorly as a consequence, so Microsoft increased the cost of Game Pass to compensate. The increase in price for Game Pass led to a sizable exodus from Game Pass, or at the very least, a sizable shift to a lower tier, and Call of Duty still sold poorly. Indeed, more poorly still. That meant the removal of Call of Duty from Game Pass was pretty much inevitable because the price hike had hit Game Pass revenue, and Call of Duty was still selling poorly. Microsoft could not have removed Call of Duty from Game Pass without appearing to give something to gamers in return, hence we see the very welcome price cuts now.
I believe Game Pass is still more expensive now than it was prior to last year's price hikes, though I guess that is inevitable too, however it does seem to be lost on people following the good news of this price cut.
In all honesty, it is good to have some positive buzz around Xbox once more, but how much of this would have happened in spite of Sharma is very much up for debate. I think the strong likelihood is that Microsoft were very much bounced into these decisions by a decline in revenue, and that Sharma would have had very little to do with it.
Don't misunderstand me, I do like what I am seeing of Sharma, but most of that is down to the fact that she is actually communicating with her community, rather than leaving us entirely in the dark, which became particularly stark once Nadella took a keen interest in all things Xbox following the ABK acquisition.
When it comes to Sharma's influence on Xbox, I would suggest that we waiting until a couple of years have passed, and then assess her impact then. 2028/29 will give us a much better overview of the state of Xbox, and we can either praise her arrival or bemoan Spencer's departure at that point. Until then, how much of any of this is actually her doing is truly questionable...
Re: Xbox Announces Price Reductions For Game Pass Ultimate & PC Game Pass
Totally agree, @ILuvGames. Microsoft are clearly reacting to the numbers, which is exactly what they should be doing, and in that regard it matters not who is in charge.
I do think that too many people are honing in on Sharma and believing that everything that happened from the moment she became boss is her doing, without thinking about the wider possibilities. Business is business, and the numbers never lie. Microsoft were always likely to have made this move, but as Sharma is now in charge she is being credited with the price reductions.
It's a bit like a new football manager taking over a team, playing exactly the same team as the previous manager, and scoring a win in the first match, and despite the previous manager having had an excellent record, the new manager takes all the praise when the old manager would have achieved the same result.
I've said it several times now, but we need to look back in 3 years time and reflect on where Xbox is then. So if Xbox is doing brilliantly at the start of 2029, then fair do's, we can lay that firmly at Sharma's door. If Xbox is doing worse (God forbid!), or is in much the same position, then really changing manager has not really altered the position of the team on the Premier League table...
Re: Xbox Exec Chimes In As Rumours Suggest Project Helix Chip Will Be Used For 'Other Machines'
Funny enough, the decision that Microsoft have taken regarding Call of Duty, and its delayed entry to Game Pass, is something I suggested they should do on another article only a few days ago.
https://www.purexbox.com/news/2026/04/report-new-game-pass-tier-exclusive-to-first-party-games-under-consideration-at-xbox#reply
That particular comment is at #36.
Mystic Beaver strikes again...! 😂
Re: Xbox Exec Chimes In As Rumours Suggest Project Helix Chip Will Be Used For 'Other Machines'
Thank you. That's all I'm trying to ascertain, @themightyant, whether Microsoft are making it themselves, or doing so with another company (as was the handheld)...
Re: Report: New Game Pass Tier Exclusive To First-Party Games 'Under Consideration' At Xbox
It looks like they read my comment at #36 and decided it was the right call, @cragis0001. Even down to putting it on GP a year later... 😂
Re: Xbox Announces Price Reductions For Game Pass Ultimate & PC Game Pass
This is an excellent move probably driven by a significant drop in subscriber numbers, particularly for Ultimate. I know that Sharma is in charge now, but part of me thinks that Spencer would likely have done the same had he still been in charge simply because the revenue brought in by Game Pass will have suffered greatly following the price increase last year meaning that action will have had to be taken no matter who was in charge.
Anyway, I think this is the right call, and as Sharma is the one calling the shots now (if we ignore Nadella's input!), she should rightly be praised for this move.
It's a good start, so let's hope that Sharma, and her team, can begin to put things right...
Re: Xbox Exec Chimes In As Rumours Suggest Project Helix Chip Will Be Used For 'Other Machines'
I was aware that Foxconn built the consoles for Microsoft, @Sakai, and my use of the word in-house was probably erroneous. So, to put it more accurately, I was wondering whether Foxconn would be doing the same this time, or whether it was instead a partnership with another company (I know ASUS has been ruled out, but that does not mean there is no other company involved). That is all I am trying to get to grips with...
Re: Xbox Exec Chimes In As Rumours Suggest Project Helix Chip Will Be Used For 'Other Machines'
I'm only trying to work out who is actually assembling the Helix, @themightyant. Whether that is Microsoft alone or whether they are doing it in partnership with another company? Whether it is the same as with the Series consoles, or whether Microsoft are employing another manufacturer to make it for them? Whether this is 100% a first-party console (PC) or whether it is a joint venture with an outside company? I've not seen this explicitly stated anywhere, and that is what I am trying to get to the bottom of...
Re: Xbox Exec Chimes In As Rumours Suggest Project Helix Chip Will Be Used For 'Other Machines'
Then kindly block me, @shiny-enzo. I engage with this community as I see fit, if you don't want to read what I write, the simple solution is to not do so. I would also remind you that you wrote to me first, not I you. I am merely responding. I also have responded to two other people, or are you suggesting I should ignore them..?
Re: Xbox Exec Chimes In As Rumours Suggest Project Helix Chip Will Be Used For 'Other Machines'
I think that is a good idea for the next generation, @Skinny-Pete, but as is so often the case with Microsoft, I think they introduced the S one generation too early because it has struggled with some games, and has disappointed on more than a few occasions.
I do think that next generation that having a secondary device that is the equivalent of the X will be fine because the X has been absolutely fine for most games, and although it will always be inferior to the Helix, people will generally be happy with its performance.
The one thing that Microsoft simply must not do next time round though, is have a parity clause, and they need to explicitly tell us that's the case too. There must never be a case of the secondary console holding back the Helix, and there must never be a suggestion of such. Indeed, if a game cannot run on the secondary console, then rather than it not being available for the Helix as well, it should just skip the secondary console alone. I think having a parity clause has caused more than a few issues for Xbox this generation...
Re: Xbox Exec Chimes In As Rumours Suggest Project Helix Chip Will Be Used For 'Other Machines'
I entirely agree, @Balaam_. Ever since the rumours of the next Xbox began circulating, people have been grasping at hints and coming away with solid facts, and that then leads to the potential of significant disappointment. It is also what was so very wrong with the way that things were handled under Spencer, and what I hope Sharma understands and puts right. Just give us the facts, and not generalities that need to be deciphered via an Enigma machine...
Re: Xbox Exec Chimes In As Rumours Suggest Project Helix Chip Will Be Used For 'Other Machines'
You and I are not reading the same link, @Sakai. The words 'first-party' is only mentioned once...! However, again, is Microsoft actually making the Helix themselves? That is the point I am getting at. We all know they will be involved in the development of the device, but have they confirmed that they are building it in-house? That is what I cannot find anywhere. It is entirely possible to enter a partnership with a third-party and have them build a first-party console for Microsoft. As I say, the rumours of the Helix (as it is now known) being built by a third-party have been circulating for ages, and I still cannot find anywhere where Microsoft have either explicitly denied this, or explicitly stated they are building the Helix in-house. Calling Helix first-party does not preclude the possibility of it being built by a third-party, and that is what I trying to get to the bottom of...
Re: Fable Creator Says His New Game Is 'Most Significant Event' In His Entire 40-Year Career
Looking forward to seeing how this game fares. I've always loved the belief that Molyneux has in himself, it's kind of infectious. Would be good to see him go out on a on a high with a 10 out of 10 Game of the Year game...
Re: Xbox Exec Chimes In As Rumours Suggest Project Helix Chip Will Be Used For 'Other Machines'
I really hope so, @Skinny-Pete. I really do not want to be faced with multiple options built by different companies. In all honesty, I would also really only want to see one option offered next generation because we have repeatedly seen the rumours of parity between the S and the X meaning things scaled back in games, delaying games, or just the suggestion of this being the case damaging the Xbox brand.
I'd be content with Microsoft continuing to supply the X, alongside the Helix, so long as there was no parity clause, but in my opinion the Helix should be the absolute pinnacle, and it should be squeezed for everything it is worth. If there are more than one option then there will always be one that is better than the others in one way or another...
Re: Xbox Exec Chimes In As Rumours Suggest Project Helix Chip Will Be Used For 'Other Machines'
You are always good with the links, @themightyant. Can you point me in the direction of where Microsoft have said this, please, because I cannot find it...?
Re: Xbox Exec Chimes In As Rumours Suggest Project Helix Chip Will Be Used For 'Other Machines'
I cannot find where they have explicitly stated they are manufacturing the Helix themselves, @Sakai. The word 'making' is generic, and not explicit. In other words, Microsoft saying they are making another console, does not preclude it being made for them by a third-party. It will still be their console, just not necessarily made by them. I've looked as best I can, and I cannot find where they have said they will be the ones actually making the Helix. It's not a case of not listening. In fact, it's quite the opposite; it's listening and not making assumptions. The rumours of third-party involvement have been circulating almost as long as the rumours of the Helix being a suggestion have been doing the rounds. I also searched to see whether Microsoft have precluded the possibility of third-party involvement, and cannot find an answer for that either...
Re: Xbox Exec Chimes In As Rumours Suggest Project Helix Chip Will Be Used For 'Other Machines'
Have Microsoft actually explicitly said they are making / manufacturing / assembling / building the Helix themselves, @Sakai? I know they have confirmed that the Helix exists, but I honestly do not recall them saying that they are manufacturing it themselves...
Re: Xbox Exec Chimes In As Rumours Suggest Project Helix Chip Will Be Used For 'Other Machines'
Out of curiosity, @FraserG, do Microsoft consider the Xbox ROG Ally to be a first-party handheld, or a third-party handheld? Obviously, if Microsoft consider it to be a first-party handheld, then this does mean that Helix could indeed be being built by a third party, which if that is the case, would be massively disappointing to me.
I think a fair assessment of the Xbox ROG Ally is that it was built by ASUS, with input from Microsoft, but calling it a first-party Xbox would be extremely charitable, and that in turn worries me when it comes to Helix...
Re: Xbox Unveils New Controller And Headset For Forza Horizon 6
I may get the Halo Collector's controller, @LordDieALot, If there is one. And I will most definitely get the E-Day standard and Elite 2 Collector's controller, and also the Fable Elite 2 controller but I very much dislike this one.
I will even consider getting the E-Day console, were they to do one, even if I knew that Helix was releasing next year. I already have the GoW 360 console, and the Xbox One version too, so I would need the Series X one to complete my set...
Re: Xbox Unveils New Controller And Headset For Forza Horizon 6
Oh, man! That's hideous...! 🤣
Re: You're The Xbox Boss And Need To Figure Out Exclusivity, What Decision Are You Making?
I absolutely agree, @Grumblevolcano. When it comes to ongoing franchises such as Gears of War, there needs to be a commitment to bringing every game over to PlayStation. There is no halfway house if Microsoft expect any success. I think the only exceptions might be with Forza Horizon, though I'd argue that 4 would find a good audience on PlayStation because it is currently regarded as the best in the franchise, so if your average PlayStation gamer thought 5 was good, then they would positively lap up 4 (pun intended!).
It is all a proper mess right now with everyone having a slightly different take on what they believe Microsoft have planned (at least before Sharma took over), but now with the change in leadership no one really knows what the future holds for Xbox let alone what might happen with regards to PlayStation.
Some proper clarity rather than fan pleasing soundbites is sorely required, though in fairness to Sharma, she will probably need several months, if not longer, with her feet under the bosses desk before she really has an understanding of not only what the fans want, but more importantly, what is deliverable. It would be very easy for her to give Xbox fans a pleasing statement by giving a cast-iron guarentee that exclusives are back, for example, and then establish that the money won't be there to support such an initiative.
And therein lies the reason I just don't think Microsoft will return to full exclusivity, because there are just not enough Xbox gamers who buy first-party games, and too many that play them on Game Pass instead. Games simply will not make back the money they cost to make by releasing as Xbox exclusives, and whilst being released day one on Game Pass. For games to sell well, and crucially, for the studios to survive, Microsoft have no option but to sell their games on competitors platforms. If they had 3 times the number of console gamers than Sony, then maybe things would be different, but even then I think Game Pass would get in the way.
There are no easy options, but I do agree, it should be an all or nothing approach for ongoing franchises...
Re: Xbox To Highlight 'Tons' Of Games In ID@Xbox Showcase Later This Week
Looking forward to this as I enjoyed watching last years show even if most of the games won't appeal to me.
I am definitely looking forward to seeing more of Aphelion though. The game looks like it could be pretty decent...