Lastly, @Millionski, I know there are no easy solutions, and I also know few, if any, of my suggestions would work. The reason is simple, there are too few people that game on an Xbox, and there will be a sizable percentage of those that do that own an Xbox own it as a secondary console that they use when not gaming on their PlayStation. I firmly believe that Game Pass is the biggest problem that Xbox has, and until they resolve that problem, they will continue to be in pain, with yearly cuts and downsizing of Xbox. Because of Game Pass, too many people do not buy first-party games, and too many people use their Xbox as a Game Pass machine, spending nothing on Xbox except for their subscription (as is their right). The problem is, that is really hurting the bottom line. Xbox is simply not making enough money, and that is why they are seeing all these job cuts and getting rid of studios (and let's not forget, we haven't seen where the axe will fall for the other 1600 jobs just yet (obviously inXile, are likely to go, but they only account for around 130 jobs, so there's a lot more pain to come yet)). So long as people continue as normal, Xbox will suffer as normal, and that just means we rinse and repeat each year. We will undoubtedly be back in the same boat this time next year unless there is some fundamental shift at Xbox, and that starts with Game Pass. It has nothing to do with me being an Xbox fan, and nothing to do with the 360 days. However, the solutions needed to grow Xbox are those that were used back in the 360 days; strong exclusives, good PR, avoiding the rakes, and making the community feel good about Xbox. The problem is, that PlayStation has stolen the thunder from Xbox, it now has 3 times the number of gamers, and because exclusives do not sell well enough on Xbox, Microsoft are forced into putting them elsewhere.
Honestly, if Xbox is aggressively pursuing exclusives in 2 years after the release of E-Day, I will be absolutely astounded, and will happily eat humble pie (unless they remove day one first-party games from Game Pass, in which case, I will accept your apology! 😉), however I reckon that Sharma will conclude that they simply cannot make the numbers work, and will have to U-Turn on that particular issue, but time will tell, and we can circle back to this in 2 years time...
When it comes to Helix, @Millionski, I'll be gobsmacked if it comes in for less than $1500. Making it a console could almost halve that.
As for the Series S, I have been saying this all along; do people honestly believe that people who paid £200 for a Series S are going to spend £1000 or more on Helix? The whole point of the S was a cheap way to get into gaming, or a cheap way to get into owning an Xbox. That is not true of £1000. Even if Microsoft made Helix into just a console, and not a PC, and sold it at £700, that is still a massive jump for someone that bought an S for £200, and so many simply will not make that jump. They just won't bother, which is why I have said all along that Helix will be very niche. It will be the uber Xbox fans device, and I think a great many of us will just stick with out current gen Xbox and be done with it. Making it cheaper will encourage more people to make the change, but even then, it is still going to be an unpalatable price for many, particularly so if the price for Helix is beaten by the PS6...
I have said time and time again that only the big AAA games sell consoles and subscriptions, @Millionski. I have not played South of Midnight, Keeper or Kiln, although I did play, and was disappointed with the Walking Simulator that was Hellblade 2. I fully support those studios being spun off, and the realisation at Xbox that people do not buy a console to play those games. I am fully on board with that decision and you will not find me arguing against that. I do think that hitting iD is a problem when it comes to the job cuts, but only because I think Sharma saw them as an easy target because they had just released a game and its DLC, and because I think it will impact their ability to get another game out in a timely manner, but I do not see the likes of Doom or Wolfenstein in the same way I see South of Midnight, Keeper or Kiln. So whilst I argue against the job losses at iD, I do not see a problem with the other studios being spun off...
As for exclusives, @Millionski, what is an exclusive if it is not actually exclusive then? I did also say if money was not a concern, then I would not put it on Steam, but of course that is not the case, so that would not happen. However, Sony have realised that selling their games on Steam was hurting their sales on PlayStation (they weren't selling that well either, mind). And the same is absolutely true of Xbox. You have to question how many people would have bought an Xbox and not a PC if every game were actually exclusive to Xbox and not on PC at all. I bet there would have been a fair few, but just like the decision to put games on PlayStation, the reason that games went to PC in the first place was because of the disastrous launch of the Xbox One, and the impact that had on sales. Microsoft would never have begun putting their games on PC had things worked out differently after the Xbox One's release, because they know the importance of exclusives, and they know how it dilutes their importance to an ecosystem if they are available elsewhere.
Thing is E-Day will live or die not on sales on the Xbox, but on Steam. It will be Steam that saves it now because we know the majority of people will simply play the game via Game Pass (and that goes with PC Game Pass too). However, as much as people want to call it exclusive, it really isn't when it is available on another platform, the problem being that if it were not for that platform the game would be in a huge financial mess (which could still happen, of course). E-Day is a Live Service game that would have done really, really well on PlayStation, and I can only believe that Sharma has made it 'exclusive' to Xbox as a form of appeasement to Xbox gamers, but also as an experiment because Gears of War is one of the pillar franchises, and if it fails to move the dial in terms of console sales, new subscriptions and sales on Xbox (so not on Steam), then she can use it as a reason why exclusives won't work on Xbox with the number of people that game on the platform, and crucially actually buy first-party games on Xbox. There is no getting away from the financials. Sharma will have them clearly laid out before her. She will know whether E-Day has been the success that Xbox needs. She will probably know pretty quickly after it releases, but I imagine she will want to see how it performs over an entire year before making any decisions about a long term strategy of exclusives on Xbox.
Personally, I would have kept E-Day as multiplatform because it is a Live Service game just like Forza, but I would have made both Halo and Fable exclusive to Xbox, as I would any game thereafter that is essentially a single-player game. When they make the multiplayer version of Halo, which will also be a Live Service game, I would put that on PlayStation. The principle is pretty simply to follow; if a game needs a lot of players to keep it afloat, and it is a Live Service game, put it everywhere you can. If it is essentially a single-player game (or co-op) then keep it exclusive...
You're absolutely right, @Millionski, there will be a lot of players that don't want to see first-party games removed from Game Pass, but realistically, how many games of that nature do people actually play each year on Game Pass? How many AAA games do Xbox release each year anyway, and how many of us play all of them? There will of course be some that do, but most of us play 2 maybe 3 a year at best, meaning that what you save on Game Pass subs, you could put towards buying a game that you want, whether that is day one, or when it goes on sale. However, you, and I do mean you here, cannot just pretend that Game Pass will be the saviour of Xbox, because right now putting first-party games on Game Pass day one is fantastic for the consumer, but terrible for Xbox and for the studios concerned. You cannot pretend that it is not a problem because it does not suit your argument. There is a reason why Spencer put first-party games on PlayStation, and that is because they are not making enough money in the way they are being handled right now. We can all sit back, loving the fact that first-party games are landing on Game Pass day one, chuckling at PlayStation gamers as they have to buy their games, and laughing at the fact that first-party games rarely end up on the Sony subscription service, but then we can't also complain when our studios are being sold off, our games are being put on PlayStation, and when Sharma sells off our studios, or sacks our developers. You simply cannot have it both ways. There was a time, right at the beginning of the Game Pass experiment that it seemed like we could have the best of all Worlds, and that nothing would stop us. It was great! No doubt. However, reality is now biting. It is clear that Game Pass is massively disruptive with first-party sales and something has to be changed. The question is simple; do we want to make hay for the next 3 or 4 years and have first-party games day one on Game Pass, and watch Xbox and our favourite studios be killed off, or do we want to accept that it is a problem and have something done about it? Personally, I would far rather Xbox survived and then thrived, than watch Xbox sink without a trace. It's smaller now than it was a few months back, and it will likely get smaller again once Clockwork Revolution releases and the 1600 further sackings bite. However, I would put money on us being in exactly the same position this time next year unless drastic action is taken when it comes to Game Pass in particular. Mark June in your calendar for next year, and watch the axe fall on more studios and more jobs. I have no doubt it will happen because Game Pass is a real problem. Honestly, if it is too good to be true, then it probably is...
My Collector's Edition has already arrived. Unfortunately, I could only get it for Steam because the Xbox version sold out too quickly.
So, as I do not want to play it on Steam, I shall play it on Game Pass instead, and it will be the first game that I have played on my Ultimate subscription this year...!
Lets say you are CEO of MS (they saw your 3k hours in gears 5 and gave you a promotion @Millionski;
You know most of my solutions:
1) Game Pass:
Simple, and can be resolved in 3 steps:
No more day one first-party games on Game Pass.
Get rid of Ultimate, making Premium the de facto top tier.
No commitment to when first-party games will go on Game Pass, so it might be a year, it might be 3, it might be never.
2) Exclusives:
Simple: One of two paths, either everything other than Live Service games are fully exclusive, or everything is multiplatform. If I was purely thinking about saving Xbox then everything would just be exclusive, I would also cease putting games on Steam, because that does not help Xbox at all. If money were not an issue, then I would not put Xbox games on PC at all.
3) Rising console costs:
This one is a lot more difficult to deal with, but the easiest solution is for the next console to be a console, and not a PC. This would make it potentially a lot cheaper. I'd completely scrap the PC side of things as I think Steam on Helix will cause Xbox untold problems. If people use Helix as a cheap entry point into PC gaming, that is of no advantage whatsoever to Xbox. Steam is cheaper than the Xbox Store, and indeed is often a lot cheaper, it has the potential to undercut Xbox to such a degree that they will lose billions in revenue. That's revenue that Xbox relies on, and if they don't get it, then be on the look out for further restructuring, downsizing, lay offs, studio closures etc. What we have seen in recent weeks, may look like a walk in the park compared to the damage that Steam could do to Xbox. So, if I were in charge, I wouldn't allow Steam on my next Xbox.
4) Too many studios: This is simple for me; I would divest Xbox of any studio that was not making AAA games. If a game franchise is one that has the potential to attract new customers, or indeed, retain existing ones, then they would be safe. Any studio that is making games that do not sell particularly well, or are niche etc., I would get rid of. Right now, Xbox needs to substantially grow its userbase, therefore it needs games that shout to people 'buy an Xbox'. It does not need games about walking lighthouses, or pottery, or indeed walking simulators. It needs those games that make people want to buy an Xbox, and if you are not making one of those, or don't want to make one of those, then I'd sell you off or close you down.
5) Launch of next gen: Simple; release Helix as soon as you can. If that is Spring next year, then do so. Try to beat the PS6 to the market because you do not want Xbox and PlayStation to be battling it out in the same release window because we know how that will pan out. Get out early and get people interested in Helix. Also, no one can predict what is going to happen with component prices. They may continue to increase, they may stay the same, they may fall. That may happen in 3 years, 5 years, not at all. The problem is, the longer you wait, the more you may end up paying for the components, which then means the more you and I are expected to pay for Helix. Because there is no guarentee that prices will fall, you may as well go early, and hope that Sony don't, and maybe even end up suffering for not having gone early too...
I understand what you say about comments that Sharma made committing to Doom as one of the core franchises, @Millionski, but the simple truth is that she needed to make 3200 people redundant in order to save money. The easiest way for her to rid Xbox of those people is to get rid of some studios, which she has done. The next easiest target for these sackings are studios that have just released a game, which is where iD fell foul, and which is where (watch this space) inXile will follow once Clockwork Revolution has released.
Now, you can commit to releasing certain franchises, whilst also delaying when those games come out (without publicly saying as much). Sharma, understandably, has not said when these games will come out, just that they will (at some point). Sharma is not a stupid individual, she would not be the boss at Xbox were that the case. Sharma is also exceptionally adept in the wily arts of PR, and she knows what the community wants to hear, and if she knows that the community wants more Doom or Wolfenstein, then she will tell us we'll be getting it because that's what we want to hear. It makes us feel better about Xbox. It's certainly what I want to hear.
However, Sharma not being a stupid person, does mean that she is likely fully aware that development of the next Doom or Wolfenstein will be slowed when cutting the size of the studio in half because how could it not? But regardless, the games will still be made, and so we will get the games we want, and Sharma will be good to her word. The only issue being that we won't get them every 3 years, it'll be 5 instead, but hey, we will still get them, which is good.
As for hiring in temporary staff to make up the numbers, I'm not so sure they will, at least they won't do so until they are nearing the end of the games development, which is something that happens all the time when they are heading towards a release deadline. The reason that I don't think they will do it comes down to exactly the same reason as why I they sacked the iD staff in the first place; they did it to save money. Hiring extra staff, even temporary staff, is still going to cost extra money, and remember, Xbox is looking to shed another 1600 jobs within the next 11 months or so, so hiring more people, even temporary ones, just isn't going to happen. I know for a fact that agency (temporary) staff here in the UK cost more to hire than people that are directly employed by the company that utilises them, it's just that they are able to be hired and fired on a whim, which is not the same for fully employed staff. Whether the same is true in America, I don't know...
Wait a second, @Millionski, let me ask you a question; do you think that following these sackings, that the next game that iD bring out will be released exactly at the same time as it would have done had the sackings not taken place?
Simple question, to which to answer is either yes or no...
I'm not saying I'm against the ability to climb, @ILuvGames, I'm saying it will be odd to have it in this game, but not in the games that follow it canonically. I play through each campaign, in timeline order, each year, which is why I have a good idea of the lore of the game. It's just going to be odd having an ability in one game, which you then lose in the following games. I'm not against it, and I'm probably not making myself very clear, it's just going to feel a little odd.
As for the future of E-Day, that is a whole other matter. I think they have made a massive mistake on not putting it on PlayStation, and it is a mistake that could sink the entire franchise. The only hope is that it sells really well on Steam, because otherwise it may well be considered a financial flop. We just have to hope that the likes of Sharma understand that first-party games do not sell particularly well on Xbox because of Game Pass, although I do believe that she is using this game as a test case for what changes she feels she needs to make to Game Pass in the not too distant future.
Halo and Fable should have been the games made exclusive, whereas E-Day, because it is a Live Service game, should have been multiplatform. Because this is so obviously the case, it strikes me that there must have been some significant reason as to why she chose to make E-Day exclusive, and not Halo and Fable. I really cannot make sense of the decision at all...
Fair enough, @MinervaX76. I obviously have absolutely no hands-on knowledge of the industry, and can only speak to what makes sense to me. I was a Police Officer for more than 28 years (retired now for quite a while), and when it came to investigations, the more people that worked on it, the quicker it was completed. You'd have a Lead Investigator, someone to gather statements and speak to witnesses (on bigger enquiries that would be a lot of someones), someone to conduct the searches, someone to conduct the interviews, and someone to prepare the file, etc. If all of that is done by just one person, it can take weeks, if it is done by a team of 20, it could be completed in a day. So, it makes sense to me that the bigger the team, the quicker the work is completed. Clearly, from what you are saying, it doesn't necessarily work that way in gaming, although I still believe, no matter what anyone might try to tell us, that progress on the next game will be slowed by these sackings...
I know there will be a lot of people who have not given thought to the lore of Gears of War who will be unhappy that certain characters are not present, @ILuvGames. There will always be people who are going to be unhappy no matter what.
My only wish really is for a traditional Horde mode, other than that, I don't care what else they try.
As for the campaign, I am still not sure how I feel about being able to climb because it is not in the 'later' games, and will seem odd to be able to do it at the start, but not in all the others. Likewise, why do we not have grenade launchers after E-Day in any of the later games, but do in E-Day? It kind of makes no sense.
I just hope they do not mess with the lore too much, and keep things making sense, rather than adding stuff in that just makes you question it.
As for Gears 6, I would much, much, much preferred that they did 6 before E-Day, not least because I strongly suspect we will be getting another trilogy before such time as they return to 6, if they ever actually bother to do so. If we are lucky, and we get a Gears of War game every 4 years, with 6 being the fourth game, then that means 6 will arrive in 2041, at which point I'll be 78 (or more likely dead!). I fear that I may never see the resolution to the second trilogy of games, and 2041 is if we are extremely lucky, because there is every chance it will be more than 5 years between games...
I think the two later games are pretty different, @ILuvGames, and as you say, the biggest complaint is that the game moved too far away from the original trilogy. So what are they asking for now? To go back to the original characters, and back to horror (which I don't think it ever was anyway). They are effectively asking for the opposite of innovation. They are asking for more of the same.
Now, I am one of those that liked the campaigns in 4 and 5, and I have played through both of them in excess of 20 times each (as I have the original trilogy (and Judgement, which was also not liked because it didn't feature Marcus and Dom).
I do think that many, many people will be disappointed in E-Day because it does not feature Baird and Cole (or at least it shouldn't!), and I would also say that looking at the campaign footage shown thus far for E-Day, it looks very different to the original trilogy, and that in itself will doubtless upset some long time fans.
Ultimately people want change so long as things stay the same....
I agree that they can still make an excellent game, @Elbow, it's the timeliness that I am thinking about. You cannot cut the workforce by half and expect the game to come out in the same time period. Not unless you are right at the end of making the game, but as they have only just finished with Doom The Dark Ages, I highly doubt that is the case.
If, hypothetically, Wolfenstein was looking to be released in 2028 prior to these job cuts, the likelihood is that now these 90 jobs have been lost, that 2028 window will look more like 2030.
It will still be a fantastic game, but we won't be getting it as quickly as we would have...
We'll see, @Millionski. Doom 2016 came out in er... let's see 2016! Doom Eternal came out 4 years later in 2020, and Doom The Dark Ages came out 5 years later. All we can do is see when the next Doom game comes out, although I believe they are currently working on another Wolfenstein game, so probabilities are that everyone will be working on that game now. I don't know when work began on that game, but the leaks suggest that it was prior to these sackings. However, what these sackings do mean is that the ability to work on two games simultaneously has all but been denied them, which means if all hands are now on deck with Wolfenstein, then the next Doom will be pushed much further down the production line, and unless the 90 that were sacked were all mopping the floors, emptying the bins, or making tea, then work on Wolfenstein will slow too meaning its release date will be pushed further back too.
I know none of us know exactly how this will impact iD, but surely none of us can honestly believe that it will not impact them at all...?
I don't follow what you are saying when it comes to Gears of War, @ILuvGames, after all, there was a complete change when they went from Gears of War 3 to Gears of War 4, and 5 moved even further away from the original trilogy. Indeed, that is what much of the community railed against!
If you look at Horde in Gears of War 2, and compare it to what we have in Gears 5, they are completely different and Horde is fantastic in 5. Indeed, it is the absolute pinnacle of Horde mode in any game out there. There simply is no game that has done it better than that we have in 5.
That is the point. If you are already doing it better than anyone else, do you really need to completely change it? Sure, they can evolve it slightly as they have with each game, but it does not need to be drastically changed, as changing it too much will quite possibly alienate the community.
The problem that I see with Siege, is that it requires a team of 12. It is not that difficult to find of 5 mates to play through a Horde, but good luck finding 12 mates all available at the same time. It is pretty much guaranteed that you will need to play Siege with randoms. Sure, your 4 man team maybe made comprised of 4 friends, but the other 8? Probably not. And then you enter the whole territory of people dropping out, and people deliberately attempting to sabotage or spoil your game...
I get we need innovation, @ILuvGames, but if you move to far away from what was successful, not only might you not find success, but you might lose your community too. Change just for the sake of change does not mean that it will be popular.
I know I am in the minority, but I am one of those that plays Horde every single weekend. I have over 2000 hours in just that one mode. I have Re-Upped 60 times now. I am precisely the kind of player that The Coalition want to keep onside. They want people like me who will play the game week in week out. If they get it wrong, it will be played for a few months, and then people will just drift away leaving the game to slowly die. They have to keep the community onside, and if they change too much they risk losing the very people they want to see playing the game...
So your argument against what I said, @fatpunkslim, is that these 90 people were surplus to requirement, and did absolutely nothing but play pool, drink tea, and occasionally eat a sandwich...?
I jest, but surely you don't think that these people were doing nothing? Surely therefore they were helping the process, which would doubtless have sped things up...
I don't care what he says, the question is would they have got their next game out more quickly had the 90 people that were sacked not been sacked? We all know the answer to that one is yes! In other words, yes, they might be at the same staffing levels as they were when they made Doom 2016, but it will now take them longer to get their next game made. Potentially quite a bit longer, and who knows where the next 1600 job loses will come from (although I think with the disquiet that these particular sackings have had will mean that iD is likely safe from the next bout of sackings).
I see people seizing on the fact that iD is the same size now as when it made Doom 2016, as if it is of no consequence, but that game took 8 years to make! That is a point I think many people are overlooking in their rush to minimise the impact this is likely to have on iD.
Doom Eternal, on the other hand took just 3 years to make (although I'm sure shared assets would have aided that games development (along with a bigger team, of course)).
So yes, iD may well be the same size as when they made Doom 2016, but don't be fooled into thinking they are able to get games out as quickly as they have since then, because having the bigger team is what enabled them to do so. The next game will take much longer to make now...
I first played the first Halo. I cannot remember now whether it came with my OG Xbox, which I got day one from Electronic Boutique (I think, although it may have been Game), or whether I bought it separately, but either way, I was playing it on the day it released.
Funny enough, I have received my Halo Combat Evolved Collector's Edition today. Unfortunately, I could only get it for Steam, which is not where I want to play it, so I may actually end up playing the game on Game Pass instead...
We're kind of opposites, @ILuvGames. I don't enjoy playing with random people, and I did not enjoy Escape at all. I tried Frenzy a couple of times, but it was not for me as it didn't really suit my style of play. If there is a traditional Horde mode, I may not even try Siege as the very thought of it is very unappealing. I have a horrible feeling that it might end up as an extraction event too, which will mean that I hold no interest in it whatsoever.
As for the bots, I am hoping that they get a significant upgrade from the way they performed in Gears 5. They were okay about 20% of the time, but they are often useless when it comes to revives as they invariably end up being downed because they run straight towards whatever downed you with no regards to their own wellbeing.
They are often a topic of conversation when I am playing Gears 5, with some of the suggestions being that you could assign them roles (so make them an Infiltrator or a Combat Medic etc.), give them different weapons, tell them where you want them to defend, and the ability to swap weapons with them like you could in Gears of War 3 would be awesome to have back. I always play as a Mechanic in Gears 5, and my loadout is utterly useless on Master. Having a Chainsaw is a must, and watching the bots run around with one, but not being able to swap it for my Enforcer is very frustrating. The Enforcer is one of the most useless weapons in the game, as is the Overkill Shotgun, which is the Mechanics secondary weapon. The Overkill has limited use, but it is not designed for use on Master difficulty.
Ultimately, all that I hope will be fixed could be totally irrelevant if they don't have a traditional Horde, because that is the only mode that I am interested in outside the Campaign. Unless, of course, you can play Siege with 9 bots... 😉
Jump into a bigger and bolder PvE battlefield in Horde Siege, an evolved take on Gears’ iconic co-op wave survival mode.
None of that gives the impression that there is a traditional Horde mode, only that they have 'evolved' Horde.
Prior to when Gears 5 released in September 2019, they did say it would include Horde, and then in March 2020 they added the Frenzy mode. In other words, they did only have the one mode at launch, but I guess there is always the possibility of them adding a traditional Horde at a later point. Either way, I am not at all confident that there is a 5 player Horde mode at launch, and then it comes down to whether The Coalition want to spend the time (and money) making the more traditional mode, which may be even less likely if the game struggles to make it's rumoured $400 million budget back. I mean, if the game is not on course to make that money back, why spend even more money on it thereafter...?
It's one of the many games that I want to play at some point. It would be helpful if everyone could stop making games for 4 or 5 years so that I can catch up on my backlog. Actually, make that 10 years! I have so many games that I have bought and I am yet to play, and then there are also so many more games that I want. I just cannot keep up. Even though I am retired, I still cannot find enough time to get through them all... 🤪
I absolutely agree, @ILuvGames. Playing as a team to beat the map on Master with my son and a mate is the best feeling, and it is the game mode that I return to every single weekend and absolutely love doing so. It's why I have a sense of dread when it comes to E-Day because The Coalition have not mentioned once that there is a traditional Horde mode...
It's the challenge of beating the map, @Balaam_, that I particularly enjoy about Horde. I have over 2000 hours in Horde alone in Gears 5, and have currently completed 25 maps on Master in a team of just 3 (for a 5 player mode). The satisfaction of completing a map is difficult to achieve in most games. The sense of achievement is a bit like beating a campaign solo on the hardest difficulty, but ramped up because when it comes to a Master Horde, we know that (relatively) very few people have done it anyway, let alone as a team of just 3.
I get the same sense of satisfaction when beating the likes of Elden Ring solo, when I know so many people rely on the help of others. Same with beating every Halo game on Legendary on my own, when again, the majority do it in co-op.
I totally get that if you are an achievement hunter, having all these modes is a pain in the backside, but if you are an achievement hunter the truth if Gears of War has never really been a game for you because of the Seriously achievements, which are usually extremely time intensive...
I stand corrected, @Jenkinss, and said what I said without thinking it through. The statement is correct for games, not consoles.
I stand by my assessment though, and I have stated it a fair few times now; Helix (if it is the one promised by Bond) will sell around 2 million in the first year, and then it will taper of significantly selling a further 1 million over the next two years at which point Microsoft will cancel it.
The two factors that might change that are; firstly, if Microsoft are able to significantly reduce the price if the component crisis comes to a swift end soon after they first release Helix, or secondly, if Helix is fundamentally different to the one promised by Bond, and is a heck of a lot cheaper than the original Helix would have cost. If Helix can come in at close to £600 then it stands a lot better chance than if it is north of £1000...
I agree, @Millionski, the one big thing that Microsoft have to change, if they really do want to pursue the exclusive avenue, is to stop putting their games on Game Pass day one. There needs to be at least a year before they go on there, but in all honesty, I think Xbox needs to follow the example set by PlayStation, which is to leave us completely guessing as to when, or if, first-party games will go on Game Pass as the problem with saying they will put them on after a year, is that people will still not buy the game and just wait that year. If Xbox does as PlayStation does, and not always put their games on their service, then people will likely buy the games instead.
I know many people think that Game Pass is superior because of day one games, but if it is killing Xbox then the price is too high, and I think people will accept it, particularly if Sharma treats us like adults and actually explains the decision and why it has been made.
Ultimately, it needs to change, and I hope Sharma makes the decision very soon...
As much as I am looking forward to the game, I have this genuine dread that The Coalition have scrapped the 5 player Horde mode in favour of this 12 player Siege mode, that none of my fellow Horde players are interested in...
Honestly, I think Sharma has now made two or three monumentally dumb decisions now (and before people get all offended, I actually like her):
1. Making E-Day an exclusive when, like Gears 5, it is a Live Service game and therefore will live or die based on the size of its community, and could have had a far larger community had it released on PlayStation too.
2. Returning to exclusives is fine, but it needs to be all or nothing (Live Service games excluded). Fable and Halo should have been made exclusive to bolster the number of games that could attract potential new Xbox gamers. Clockwork Revolution is unlikely to move the dial, but hopefully I am wrong on that.
3. Ridding iD of half its workforce. A studio that consistently puts out high quality games. I get that it has just released the last DLC for Doom, and therefore any new work is potentially years away making them easy pickings for Xbox to sack, but they are now half their recent size meaning that whatever they might do next will likely take much longer than it needed too. I understand that Xbox management are at pains to tell us that they are the same size as when they relaunched Doom, but instead of pumping out a game in 3 years, we are more likely looking at 5 now, and all the time that they are not close to releasing a game, the Xbox vultures will be circling to see what further cuts they can make. Remember, there are still 1600 job losses to be found somewhere, and the further out you are from releasing a game, the easier it is to target you, which is something that I am sure inXile are well aware of. I pity them because I bet they know they are on the chopping block once they release Clockwork Revolution.
No, @Millionski, I didn't expect Xbox to return to exclusives, though I do expect them to return to fully multiplatform about a year after E-Day's release (once the experiment has failed dismally!). I honestly think they chose E-Day because if it does not move the dial then they think nothing can, but unfortunately, it is not about one game, but many, and their next big game (Fable) is multiplatform because... why? Because they said it would go to PlayStation? What a feeble excuse. Plans are plans until they're not, and they could have reversed that decision if they had wanted but what? Didn't want to upset PlayStation gamers? So what? If they really want to play Fable, they could have just played it on Xbox. I really cannot make sense of that decision at all. I mean, Fable is a single-player game, and E-Day is a Live Service game. Totally wrong decisions on both counts.
Problem is, once Fable comes out, what is the next big AAA system seller that Xbox has coming out next year? Or the year after that for that matter?
I have said it all along, it should be all or nothing with the exception of Live Service games. If I had been in charge I would have refunded any Halo pre-orders (if they were live when the decision was made). The more games that are exclusive, the more likely people are to buy into your ecosystem. The fewer there are, the less likely. So the decisions that Sharma has made make no sense whatsoever...
I don't think this holds any water whatsoever. It is all total guess work. Bearing in mind that they predict Helix will sell 2 million in 2027, that means, by their estimates, it will then sell a further 5 million units in the following 2 years, which I find highly doubtful. Usually consoles sell best in the first year, and then it tapers off (with Xbox quite significantly tapers off). I also do not think that the component crisis will end within the next 5 years, and even after that, I doubt prices will drop significantly.
Funny enough, I have been saying that I think that Helix will sell around 2 million within the first year as well, although I did go on to say that after 3 years it would have sold around 3 million units, and will then be cancelled.
As I say, it's all guess work (and that includes my own)...
I bought the Collector's Edition of the game, but unfortunately, I could only get it for PC, so I'm not sure what I shall do now. I guess it really could be the first game this year that I play on Game Pass, as at least that way I don't have to unseal my Collector's Edition...
I will take a look, @Zed, because what you say is sensible. The reason I tend to buy my games though is because more often than not, the one that goes on Game Pass is the barebones version, and the better one is the one you need to buy. In fairness, I have not looked to see if that is the case before I posted my comment so it may well be that what you suggest is the more sensible option.
Another reason that I like to buy my games though is to show support for the studios. I think in these uncertain times (in the game industry), it is probably more beneficial to buy the games outright if you can, which I am fortunate enough to do most of the time...
That's interesting, @Grumblevolcano. The only reason that I think there is a chance that the game will come out this year is because of the pre-order situation, and I think Take Two will catch a lot of heat if they go on to delay it into next year having taken people's money. I mean, it's not like they could not afford to have waited before opening up pre-orders, with the amount of money that GTA 5 is still making now. Whereas taking people's money 6 months early, and then delaying it another 3 months would be seen as a cynical cash-grab (they'll be earning interest on the money that people could have been earning themselves)...
I was saying for a long time that I thought GTA 6 would be delayed, and said so on the basis that we had not (and still have not) seen anything more of the game, @Grumblevolcano. Then they went and opened up pre-orders, and my confidence in my prediction has wavered a little. I would say I am 50/50 right now on whether it will release this year, though as time moves on, with no sign of any gameplay, I think my confidence in its delay will increase.
Absolutely right about it being a minefield for other games though, and them trying to work out when to release, though I do think that Microsoft were initially planning on releasing Helix this year as well, which could have worked well for them with GTA 6 releasing too, but then the components crisis cropped up and has thrown everything into doubt...
I'll be buying Resonance: A Plague Tale Legacy by way of pre-order, as I have each game in the franchise. However (shock, horror!), in a proper turn of events, it might just be that Beast of Reincarnation will be the first game that I try on Game Pass this year. If I like it, I'll probably buy it because I prefer to own my games, but I'm not quite confident enough in it to pre-order it right now...
On my Pro, I just need to get one more Trophy to get the final Platinum in Mass Effect Legendary Edition. The Trophy in question is raising a weapon to level 10, so I just need to get aboard the Normandy at the start of the game, and it'll pop once I get to the armoury.
On my Series X, I'll be undertaking yet another Master run in Gears 5 Horde, with a team of just 3 on what is meant to be a team of 5 event. They have proven to be very difficult, but we have now managed 22 of the 37 maps, which is pretty good going, and I would suggest probably not have been done by anyone else in the World. I will also finally pop the Re-Up 60 Achievement today, and it has only taken just over 2000 hours too...! 😂
I will also be playing through Dying Light: The Beast in co-op once more on my Series X, but this time undertaking the New Game Plus on a higher difficulty. And then lastly, I will probably start playing the new Lego Batman game at some point if I have chance...
Honestly, @FatGuyInLilCoat, right now we know nothing. I said a couple of years back that I thought they were saving all these games up as launch titles for Helix. Obviously, Helix has not released, but now I am left wondering what they will have as launch titles because right now we don't really know about anything. I have a horrible feeling we are going to enter a pretty barren period after Spring next year...
I thought that the ABK acquisition would be good for Xbox because I believed in Spencer's vision, @oopsiezz. Spencer knew that for Game Pass to get enough first-party content, Xbox needed more studios, and on that he was right. Unfortunately, the bit that went wrong was that he (or Microsoft) expected huge growth in Game Pass subscription numbers, yet the dial barely moved. I think one of the big problems there was that Spencer might have wanted to keep CoD as an Xbox exclusive, but he was forced into making concessions that blew that idea out of the water. Those concessions basically sunk any chances Xbox had of recovering.
You have to wonder what would have become of ABK had Microsoft not bought them because I don't think it would exist now as it did back then. Parts of it would have been sold off, and goodness knows what would have happened from there. When it comes to job losses, it could quite possibly have been far worse, although we will never know now...
I agree, @AI-Generation. Personally I have Ultimate, but rarely play anything on it. I have it so that I can play online. Mine runs out in June, and as I always buy my games (including first-party games) I am not entirely sure what I will do when my subscription ends. I may just take Essential so as to access online, but if Helix is out and online is free there, I won't bother as I will be getting Helix.
As for more games coming, it's difficult to know what is in the pipeline right now because the big games (Gears, Forza and Fable) are out within the next 8 months or so, which only really leaves Blade and maybe a new Halo game. When it comes to Blade, it looks like Microsoft are trying to sell the studio, and we only know of the first games remake when it comes to Halo. So, unless they have some big AAA system sellers coming out in 2027 (after Fable), pickings might be very slim...
I say this in jest, but denying that there is just one person working in Texas, does not mean it isn't just two...!
Dozens spread around how many locations? Also, dozens? Is that 24, 36, 48...? Point being it may not be many, and if there are many locations, then there really may not be many people working in each location.
So whilst it is good that Microsoft have debunked the 'one person' rumour, having read what they said, that is the only part they are really addressing. Their response is still so vague that they haven't properly explained the situation, and it still sounds like the situation at iD is pretty dire...
You're absolutely right, @AI-Generation. If Blade does indeed get cancelled, what is there after Fable in the way of AAA games that might be exclusive, and might actually be considered system sellers?
We might hope that a new Halo is in the works, but The Coalition will be working on the future content for E-Day in order to keep that Live Service game going.
Any new Fallout game is years aways, as is Elder Scrolls 6. Problems now exist at iD, so will they be able to ship a new Doom or Wolfenstein within the nest couple of years? Doubtful, I'd suggest.
We might get the rumoured Fallout remaster(s), and maybe even Gears of War 2 remastered (if it exists), but whilst welcome, they are not new games as such.
So yes, up until Fable there is some decent content to come, but after that, we could be in a drought once again, and pickings may be very lean, which could lead to further cuts just to save yet more money. Cutting staff saves money in the short term, but also slows the production of new content, which is what you need in order to keep the money coming in. It's pretty short-sighted, if you ask me...
It will be another thing that Sharma gets the credit for but which started under Spencer, @Mr-Cage. Some people are all too ready to heap praise on Sharma (who I like, by the way), without taking into account that many of the things that she has introduced were actually the work of Spencer....
In fairness, @awp69, most of the comments do centre around Reloaded, which is one of the two games being released so they're not completely on the wrong article, and of course it not unusual for comments to veer off the beaten path...
I agree, @Millionski, and it is something that I have been saying for a while now, they need to scrap Ultimate, and make Premium the de facto top tier, with it receiving first-party games a full year after their initial release. Obviously we know that many will just wait for the game to arrive on Premium, which is absolutely their right, but it does at least give it a chance of people choosing to buy the game within that time should they wish. It might just be enough to help Xbox out of its current woes.
I think the crunch point for the service will happen just before the launch of Helix, because it is at that point that Microsoft will almost certainly have to remove the need for Game Pass in order to play online. Now, I'm sure there is some way in which Microsoft can ensure that only those playing on Helix get the free online, but I don't think that will go down well with the rest of the Xbox community, albeit we already have that scenario with people playing on PC right now not paying to play Xbox games online. It will be interesting to see how Microsoft handle this going forward, but whatever happens, I think it safe to assume that it will happen within the next year, or more likely within the 100 days that Sharma has mentioned...
Listen, @Millionski, I think the game was mediorce in terms of its actual perfomance, but I cannot quite fathom why you always have such a downer on the game. Did I want it to go to PlayStation? Nope! Not at all. I thought it a mistake to put one of the tentpole franchises on PlayStation, but accepted that it was meant to serve as a taster for PlayStation gamers with the promise of a Live Service game in the form of E-Day to come. Obviously plans have changed when it comes to E-Day, but that's a different topic.
When it comes to Reloaded, it is a 'remaster' of a remaster of a 20 year old game. Many PlayStation gamers will already have played the game anyway, but that last bit is the crucial bit, it is essentially a 20 year old game.
It may do well in the sales, but what you are not taking into consideration is that is is on sale pretty much every other month. So for it to be sitting at #8 is indeed very good for a 20 year old game.
Take a look at this to see the price history and you will see what I mean:
We are unlikely to ever know exactly how well it has sold, but it is still selling in reasonable numbers even now.
What would be interesting to know is whether this 20 year old game has sold better on PlayStation than E-Day will sell on Xbox when it comes out. There's no way we will ever know, which is a shame but I imagine it will be a lot closer than perhaps you would like to think... 😉
I agree with your assessment of Reloaded, @Mr-Cage, and I have bemoaned the quality of the game on many occasions. The campaign remains fun, but playing solo on Insane whilst Dom sits doing nothing at the back of the map was frankly ridiculous. This should have been fixed prior to release. The game was basically given a small performance boost purely so that it could be released on PlayStation. The game only exists for that reason alone.
What I would say though is that I don't think the game has sold as badly as many would have you believe. I mean, even today it is currently half-price and is sitting at #8 in the best selling games on PlayStation.
I would dearly love them to release updated versions of both the second and third games, but don't know how that fits in with Sharma's vision for Xbox now...
Comments 5,492
Re: DOOM Director Elaborates On The State Of The Studio Going Forward
Lastly, @Millionski, I know there are no easy solutions, and I also know few, if any, of my suggestions would work. The reason is simple, there are too few people that game on an Xbox, and there will be a sizable percentage of those that do that own an Xbox own it as a secondary console that they use when not gaming on their PlayStation. I firmly believe that Game Pass is the biggest problem that Xbox has, and until they resolve that problem, they will continue to be in pain, with yearly cuts and downsizing of Xbox. Because of Game Pass, too many people do not buy first-party games, and too many people use their Xbox as a Game Pass machine, spending nothing on Xbox except for their subscription (as is their right). The problem is, that is really hurting the bottom line. Xbox is simply not making enough money, and that is why they are seeing all these job cuts and getting rid of studios (and let's not forget, we haven't seen where the axe will fall for the other 1600 jobs just yet (obviously inXile, are likely to go, but they only account for around 130 jobs, so there's a lot more pain to come yet)). So long as people continue as normal, Xbox will suffer as normal, and that just means we rinse and repeat each year. We will undoubtedly be back in the same boat this time next year unless there is some fundamental shift at Xbox, and that starts with Game Pass. It has nothing to do with me being an Xbox fan, and nothing to do with the 360 days. However, the solutions needed to grow Xbox are those that were used back in the 360 days; strong exclusives, good PR, avoiding the rakes, and making the community feel good about Xbox. The problem is, that PlayStation has stolen the thunder from Xbox, it now has 3 times the number of gamers, and because exclusives do not sell well enough on Xbox, Microsoft are forced into putting them elsewhere.
Honestly, if Xbox is aggressively pursuing exclusives in 2 years after the release of E-Day, I will be absolutely astounded, and will happily eat humble pie (unless they remove day one first-party games from Game Pass, in which case, I will accept your apology! 😉), however I reckon that Sharma will conclude that they simply cannot make the numbers work, and will have to U-Turn on that particular issue, but time will tell, and we can circle back to this in 2 years time...
Re: DOOM Director Elaborates On The State Of The Studio Going Forward
When it comes to Helix, @Millionski, I'll be gobsmacked if it comes in for less than $1500. Making it a console could almost halve that.
As for the Series S, I have been saying this all along; do people honestly believe that people who paid £200 for a Series S are going to spend £1000 or more on Helix? The whole point of the S was a cheap way to get into gaming, or a cheap way to get into owning an Xbox. That is not true of £1000. Even if Microsoft made Helix into just a console, and not a PC, and sold it at £700, that is still a massive jump for someone that bought an S for £200, and so many simply will not make that jump. They just won't bother, which is why I have said all along that Helix will be very niche. It will be the uber Xbox fans device, and I think a great many of us will just stick with out current gen Xbox and be done with it. Making it cheaper will encourage more people to make the change, but even then, it is still going to be an unpalatable price for many, particularly so if the price for Helix is beaten by the PS6...
Re: DOOM Director Elaborates On The State Of The Studio Going Forward
I have said time and time again that only the big AAA games sell consoles and subscriptions, @Millionski. I have not played South of Midnight, Keeper or Kiln, although I did play, and was disappointed with the Walking Simulator that was Hellblade 2. I fully support those studios being spun off, and the realisation at Xbox that people do not buy a console to play those games. I am fully on board with that decision and you will not find me arguing against that. I do think that hitting iD is a problem when it comes to the job cuts, but only because I think Sharma saw them as an easy target because they had just released a game and its DLC, and because I think it will impact their ability to get another game out in a timely manner, but I do not see the likes of Doom or Wolfenstein in the same way I see South of Midnight, Keeper or Kiln. So whilst I argue against the job losses at iD, I do not see a problem with the other studios being spun off...
Re: DOOM Director Elaborates On The State Of The Studio Going Forward
As for exclusives, @Millionski, what is an exclusive if it is not actually exclusive then? I did also say if money was not a concern, then I would not put it on Steam, but of course that is not the case, so that would not happen. However, Sony have realised that selling their games on Steam was hurting their sales on PlayStation (they weren't selling that well either, mind). And the same is absolutely true of Xbox. You have to question how many people would have bought an Xbox and not a PC if every game were actually exclusive to Xbox and not on PC at all. I bet there would have been a fair few, but just like the decision to put games on PlayStation, the reason that games went to PC in the first place was because of the disastrous launch of the Xbox One, and the impact that had on sales. Microsoft would never have begun putting their games on PC had things worked out differently after the Xbox One's release, because they know the importance of exclusives, and they know how it dilutes their importance to an ecosystem if they are available elsewhere.
Thing is E-Day will live or die not on sales on the Xbox, but on Steam. It will be Steam that saves it now because we know the majority of people will simply play the game via Game Pass (and that goes with PC Game Pass too). However, as much as people want to call it exclusive, it really isn't when it is available on another platform, the problem being that if it were not for that platform the game would be in a huge financial mess (which could still happen, of course). E-Day is a Live Service game that would have done really, really well on PlayStation, and I can only believe that Sharma has made it 'exclusive' to Xbox as a form of appeasement to Xbox gamers, but also as an experiment because Gears of War is one of the pillar franchises, and if it fails to move the dial in terms of console sales, new subscriptions and sales on Xbox (so not on Steam), then she can use it as a reason why exclusives won't work on Xbox with the number of people that game on the platform, and crucially actually buy first-party games on Xbox. There is no getting away from the financials. Sharma will have them clearly laid out before her. She will know whether E-Day has been the success that Xbox needs. She will probably know pretty quickly after it releases, but I imagine she will want to see how it performs over an entire year before making any decisions about a long term strategy of exclusives on Xbox.
Personally, I would have kept E-Day as multiplatform because it is a Live Service game just like Forza, but I would have made both Halo and Fable exclusive to Xbox, as I would any game thereafter that is essentially a single-player game. When they make the multiplayer version of Halo, which will also be a Live Service game, I would put that on PlayStation. The principle is pretty simply to follow; if a game needs a lot of players to keep it afloat, and it is a Live Service game, put it everywhere you can. If it is essentially a single-player game (or co-op) then keep it exclusive...
Re: DOOM Director Elaborates On The State Of The Studio Going Forward
You're absolutely right, @Millionski, there will be a lot of players that don't want to see first-party games removed from Game Pass, but realistically, how many games of that nature do people actually play each year on Game Pass? How many AAA games do Xbox release each year anyway, and how many of us play all of them? There will of course be some that do, but most of us play 2 maybe 3 a year at best, meaning that what you save on Game Pass subs, you could put towards buying a game that you want, whether that is day one, or when it goes on sale. However, you, and I do mean you here, cannot just pretend that Game Pass will be the saviour of Xbox, because right now putting first-party games on Game Pass day one is fantastic for the consumer, but terrible for Xbox and for the studios concerned. You cannot pretend that it is not a problem because it does not suit your argument. There is a reason why Spencer put first-party games on PlayStation, and that is because they are not making enough money in the way they are being handled right now. We can all sit back, loving the fact that first-party games are landing on Game Pass day one, chuckling at PlayStation gamers as they have to buy their games, and laughing at the fact that first-party games rarely end up on the Sony subscription service, but then we can't also complain when our studios are being sold off, our games are being put on PlayStation, and when Sharma sells off our studios, or sacks our developers. You simply cannot have it both ways. There was a time, right at the beginning of the Game Pass experiment that it seemed like we could have the best of all Worlds, and that nothing would stop us. It was great! No doubt. However, reality is now biting. It is clear that Game Pass is massively disruptive with first-party sales and something has to be changed. The question is simple; do we want to make hay for the next 3 or 4 years and have first-party games day one on Game Pass, and watch Xbox and our favourite studios be killed off, or do we want to accept that it is a problem and have something done about it? Personally, I would far rather Xbox survived and then thrived, than watch Xbox sink without a trace. It's smaller now than it was a few months back, and it will likely get smaller again once Clockwork Revolution releases and the 1600 further sackings bite. However, I would put money on us being in exactly the same position this time next year unless drastic action is taken when it comes to Game Pass in particular. Mark June in your calendar for next year, and watch the axe fall on more studios and more jobs. I have no doubt it will happen because Game Pass is a real problem. Honestly, if it is too good to be true, then it probably is...
Re: Talking Point: So, Are You Getting The Premium Upgrade For Halo: Campaign Evolved?
Did you manage to get the Xbox Collector's Edition, @ILuvGames? I was only able to get the Steam version, which I have now received
Re: Talking Point: So, Are You Getting The Premium Upgrade For Halo: Campaign Evolved?
My Collector's Edition has already arrived. Unfortunately, I could only get it for Steam because the Xbox version sold out too quickly.
So, as I do not want to play it on Steam, I shall play it on Game Pass instead, and it will be the first game that I have played on my Ultimate subscription this year...!
Re: DOOM Director Elaborates On The State Of The Studio Going Forward
Lets say you are CEO of MS (they saw your 3k hours in gears 5 and gave you a promotion @Millionski;
You know most of my solutions:
1) Game Pass:
Simple, and can be resolved in 3 steps:
2) Exclusives:
Simple: One of two paths, either everything other than Live Service games are fully exclusive, or everything is multiplatform. If I was purely thinking about saving Xbox then everything would just be exclusive, I would also cease putting games on Steam, because that does not help Xbox at all. If money were not an issue, then I would not put Xbox games on PC at all.
3) Rising console costs:
This one is a lot more difficult to deal with, but the easiest solution is for the next console to be a console, and not a PC. This would make it potentially a lot cheaper. I'd completely scrap the PC side of things as I think Steam on Helix will cause Xbox untold problems. If people use Helix as a cheap entry point into PC gaming, that is of no advantage whatsoever to Xbox. Steam is cheaper than the Xbox Store, and indeed is often a lot cheaper, it has the potential to undercut Xbox to such a degree that they will lose billions in revenue. That's revenue that Xbox relies on, and if they don't get it, then be on the look out for further restructuring, downsizing, lay offs, studio closures etc. What we have seen in recent weeks, may look like a walk in the park compared to the damage that Steam could do to Xbox. So, if I were in charge, I wouldn't allow Steam on my next Xbox.
4) Too many studios: This is simple for me; I would divest Xbox of any studio that was not making AAA games. If a game franchise is one that has the potential to attract new customers, or indeed, retain existing ones, then they would be safe. Any studio that is making games that do not sell particularly well, or are niche etc., I would get rid of. Right now, Xbox needs to substantially grow its userbase, therefore it needs games that shout to people 'buy an Xbox'. It does not need games about walking lighthouses, or pottery, or indeed walking simulators. It needs those games that make people want to buy an Xbox, and if you are not making one of those, or don't want to make one of those, then I'd sell you off or close you down.
5) Launch of next gen: Simple; release Helix as soon as you can. If that is Spring next year, then do so. Try to beat the PS6 to the market because you do not want Xbox and PlayStation to be battling it out in the same release window because we know how that will pan out. Get out early and get people interested in Helix. Also, no one can predict what is going to happen with component prices. They may continue to increase, they may stay the same, they may fall. That may happen in 3 years, 5 years, not at all. The problem is, the longer you wait, the more you may end up paying for the components, which then means the more you and I are expected to pay for Helix. Because there is no guarentee that prices will fall, you may as well go early, and hope that Sony don't, and maybe even end up suffering for not having gone early too...
Re: DOOM Director Elaborates On The State Of The Studio Going Forward
I understand what you say about comments that Sharma made committing to Doom as one of the core franchises, @Millionski, but the simple truth is that she needed to make 3200 people redundant in order to save money. The easiest way for her to rid Xbox of those people is to get rid of some studios, which she has done. The next easiest target for these sackings are studios that have just released a game, which is where iD fell foul, and which is where (watch this space) inXile will follow once Clockwork Revolution has released.
Now, you can commit to releasing certain franchises, whilst also delaying when those games come out (without publicly saying as much). Sharma, understandably, has not said when these games will come out, just that they will (at some point). Sharma is not a stupid individual, she would not be the boss at Xbox were that the case. Sharma is also exceptionally adept in the wily arts of PR, and she knows what the community wants to hear, and if she knows that the community wants more Doom or Wolfenstein, then she will tell us we'll be getting it because that's what we want to hear. It makes us feel better about Xbox. It's certainly what I want to hear.
However, Sharma not being a stupid person, does mean that she is likely fully aware that development of the next Doom or Wolfenstein will be slowed when cutting the size of the studio in half because how could it not? But regardless, the games will still be made, and so we will get the games we want, and Sharma will be good to her word. The only issue being that we won't get them every 3 years, it'll be 5 instead, but hey, we will still get them, which is good.
As for hiring in temporary staff to make up the numbers, I'm not so sure they will, at least they won't do so until they are nearing the end of the games development, which is something that happens all the time when they are heading towards a release deadline. The reason that I don't think they will do it comes down to exactly the same reason as why I they sacked the iD staff in the first place; they did it to save money. Hiring extra staff, even temporary staff, is still going to cost extra money, and remember, Xbox is looking to shed another 1600 jobs within the next 11 months or so, so hiring more people, even temporary ones, just isn't going to happen. I know for a fact that agency (temporary) staff here in the UK cost more to hire than people that are directly employed by the company that utilises them, it's just that they are able to be hired and fired on a whim, which is not the same for fully employed staff. Whether the same is true in America, I don't know...
Re: DOOM Director Elaborates On The State Of The Studio Going Forward
Wait a second, @Millionski, let me ask you a question; do you think that following these sackings, that the next game that iD bring out will be released exactly at the same time as it would have done had the sackings not taken place?
Simple question, to which to answer is either yes or no...
Re: 'Most Technically Ambitious Gears To Date' - Xbox Partners With NVIDIA On Gears Of War: E-Day
I'm not saying I'm against the ability to climb, @ILuvGames, I'm saying it will be odd to have it in this game, but not in the games that follow it canonically. I play through each campaign, in timeline order, each year, which is why I have a good idea of the lore of the game. It's just going to be odd having an ability in one game, which you then lose in the following games. I'm not against it, and I'm probably not making myself very clear, it's just going to feel a little odd.
As for the future of E-Day, that is a whole other matter. I think they have made a massive mistake on not putting it on PlayStation, and it is a mistake that could sink the entire franchise. The only hope is that it sells really well on Steam, because otherwise it may well be considered a financial flop. We just have to hope that the likes of Sharma understand that first-party games do not sell particularly well on Xbox because of Game Pass, although I do believe that she is using this game as a test case for what changes she feels she needs to make to Game Pass in the not too distant future.
Halo and Fable should have been the games made exclusive, whereas E-Day, because it is a Live Service game, should have been multiplatform. Because this is so obviously the case, it strikes me that there must have been some significant reason as to why she chose to make E-Day exclusive, and not Halo and Fable. I really cannot make sense of the decision at all...
Re: DOOM Director Elaborates On The State Of The Studio Going Forward
Fair enough, @MinervaX76. I obviously have absolutely no hands-on knowledge of the industry, and can only speak to what makes sense to me. I was a Police Officer for more than 28 years (retired now for quite a while), and when it came to investigations, the more people that worked on it, the quicker it was completed. You'd have a Lead Investigator, someone to gather statements and speak to witnesses (on bigger enquiries that would be a lot of someones), someone to conduct the searches, someone to conduct the interviews, and someone to prepare the file, etc. If all of that is done by just one person, it can take weeks, if it is done by a team of 20, it could be completed in a day. So, it makes sense to me that the bigger the team, the quicker the work is completed. Clearly, from what you are saying, it doesn't necessarily work that way in gaming, although I still believe, no matter what anyone might try to tell us, that progress on the next game will be slowed by these sackings...
Re: 'Most Technically Ambitious Gears To Date' - Xbox Partners With NVIDIA On Gears Of War: E-Day
I know there will be a lot of people who have not given thought to the lore of Gears of War who will be unhappy that certain characters are not present, @ILuvGames. There will always be people who are going to be unhappy no matter what.
My only wish really is for a traditional Horde mode, other than that, I don't care what else they try.
As for the campaign, I am still not sure how I feel about being able to climb because it is not in the 'later' games, and will seem odd to be able to do it at the start, but not in all the others. Likewise, why do we not have grenade launchers after E-Day in any of the later games, but do in E-Day? It kind of makes no sense.
I just hope they do not mess with the lore too much, and keep things making sense, rather than adding stuff in that just makes you question it.
As for Gears 6, I would much, much, much preferred that they did 6 before E-Day, not least because I strongly suspect we will be getting another trilogy before such time as they return to 6, if they ever actually bother to do so. If we are lucky, and we get a Gears of War game every 4 years, with 6 being the fourth game, then that means 6 will arrive in 2041, at which point I'll be 78 (or more likely dead!). I fear that I may never see the resolution to the second trilogy of games, and 2041 is if we are extremely lucky, because there is every chance it will be more than 5 years between games...
Re: 'Most Technically Ambitious Gears To Date' - Xbox Partners With NVIDIA On Gears Of War: E-Day
I think the two later games are pretty different, @ILuvGames, and as you say, the biggest complaint is that the game moved too far away from the original trilogy. So what are they asking for now? To go back to the original characters, and back to horror (which I don't think it ever was anyway). They are effectively asking for the opposite of innovation. They are asking for more of the same.
Now, I am one of those that liked the campaigns in 4 and 5, and I have played through both of them in excess of 20 times each (as I have the original trilogy (and Judgement, which was also not liked because it didn't feature Marcus and Dom).
I do think that many, many people will be disappointed in E-Day because it does not feature Baird and Cole (or at least it shouldn't!), and I would also say that looking at the campaign footage shown thus far for E-Day, it looks very different to the original trilogy, and that in itself will doubtless upset some long time fans.
Ultimately people want change so long as things stay the same....
Re: DOOM Director Elaborates On The State Of The Studio Going Forward
I agree that they can still make an excellent game, @Elbow, it's the timeliness that I am thinking about. You cannot cut the workforce by half and expect the game to come out in the same time period. Not unless you are right at the end of making the game, but as they have only just finished with Doom The Dark Ages, I highly doubt that is the case.
If, hypothetically, Wolfenstein was looking to be released in 2028 prior to these job cuts, the likelihood is that now these 90 jobs have been lost, that 2028 window will look more like 2030.
It will still be a fantastic game, but we won't be getting it as quickly as we would have...
Re: DOOM Director Elaborates On The State Of The Studio Going Forward
We'll see, @Millionski. Doom 2016 came out in er... let's see 2016! Doom Eternal came out 4 years later in 2020, and Doom The Dark Ages came out 5 years later. All we can do is see when the next Doom game comes out, although I believe they are currently working on another Wolfenstein game, so probabilities are that everyone will be working on that game now. I don't know when work began on that game, but the leaks suggest that it was prior to these sackings. However, what these sackings do mean is that the ability to work on two games simultaneously has all but been denied them, which means if all hands are now on deck with Wolfenstein, then the next Doom will be pushed much further down the production line, and unless the 90 that were sacked were all mopping the floors, emptying the bins, or making tea, then work on Wolfenstein will slow too meaning its release date will be pushed further back too.
I know none of us know exactly how this will impact iD, but surely none of us can honestly believe that it will not impact them at all...?
Re: 'Most Technically Ambitious Gears To Date' - Xbox Partners With NVIDIA On Gears Of War: E-Day
I don't follow what you are saying when it comes to Gears of War, @ILuvGames, after all, there was a complete change when they went from Gears of War 3 to Gears of War 4, and 5 moved even further away from the original trilogy. Indeed, that is what much of the community railed against!
If you look at Horde in Gears of War 2, and compare it to what we have in Gears 5, they are completely different and Horde is fantastic in 5. Indeed, it is the absolute pinnacle of Horde mode in any game out there. There simply is no game that has done it better than that we have in 5.
That is the point. If you are already doing it better than anyone else, do you really need to completely change it? Sure, they can evolve it slightly as they have with each game, but it does not need to be drastically changed, as changing it too much will quite possibly alienate the community.
The problem that I see with Siege, is that it requires a team of 12. It is not that difficult to find of 5 mates to play through a Horde, but good luck finding 12 mates all available at the same time. It is pretty much guaranteed that you will need to play Siege with randoms. Sure, your 4 man team maybe made comprised of 4 friends, but the other 8? Probably not. And then you enter the whole territory of people dropping out, and people deliberately attempting to sabotage or spoil your game...
Re: 'Most Technically Ambitious Gears To Date' - Xbox Partners With NVIDIA On Gears Of War: E-Day
I get we need innovation, @ILuvGames, but if you move to far away from what was successful, not only might you not find success, but you might lose your community too. Change just for the sake of change does not mean that it will be popular.
I know I am in the minority, but I am one of those that plays Horde every single weekend. I have over 2000 hours in just that one mode. I have Re-Upped 60 times now. I am precisely the kind of player that The Coalition want to keep onside. They want people like me who will play the game week in week out. If they get it wrong, it will be played for a few months, and then people will just drift away leaving the game to slowly die. They have to keep the community onside, and if they change too much they risk losing the very people they want to see playing the game...
Re: DOOM Director Elaborates On The State Of The Studio Going Forward
So your argument against what I said, @fatpunkslim, is that these 90 people were surplus to requirement, and did absolutely nothing but play pool, drink tea, and occasionally eat a sandwich...?
I jest, but surely you don't think that these people were doing nothing? Surely therefore they were helping the process, which would doubtless have sped things up...
Re: DOOM Director Elaborates On The State Of The Studio Going Forward
I don't care what he says, the question is would they have got their next game out more quickly had the 90 people that were sacked not been sacked? We all know the answer to that one is yes! In other words, yes, they might be at the same staffing levels as they were when they made Doom 2016, but it will now take them longer to get their next game made. Potentially quite a bit longer, and who knows where the next 1600 job loses will come from (although I think with the disquiet that these particular sackings have had will mean that iD is likely safe from the next bout of sackings).
I see people seizing on the fact that iD is the same size now as when it made Doom 2016, as if it is of no consequence, but that game took 8 years to make! That is a point I think many people are overlooking in their rush to minimise the impact this is likely to have on iD.
Doom Eternal, on the other hand took just 3 years to make (although I'm sure shared assets would have aided that games development (along with a bigger team, of course)).
So yes, iD may well be the same size as when they made Doom 2016, but don't be fooled into thinking they are able to get games out as quickly as they have since then, because having the bigger team is what enabled them to do so. The next game will take much longer to make now...
Re: Talking Point: What Was The First Halo Game You Ever Played?
I first played the first Halo. I cannot remember now whether it came with my OG Xbox, which I got day one from Electronic Boutique (I think, although it may have been Game), or whether I bought it separately, but either way, I was playing it on the day it released.
Funny enough, I have received my Halo Combat Evolved Collector's Edition today. Unfortunately, I could only get it for Steam, which is not where I want to play it, so I may actually end up playing the game on Game Pass instead...
Re: Two 'Day One' Games Are Available Today Across Xbox And PC Game Pass (July 17)
Nothing of interest to me here...
Re: 'Most Technically Ambitious Gears To Date' - Xbox Partners With NVIDIA On Gears Of War: E-Day
We're kind of opposites, @ILuvGames. I don't enjoy playing with random people, and I did not enjoy Escape at all. I tried Frenzy a couple of times, but it was not for me as it didn't really suit my style of play. If there is a traditional Horde mode, I may not even try Siege as the very thought of it is very unappealing. I have a horrible feeling that it might end up as an extraction event too, which will mean that I hold no interest in it whatsoever.
As for the bots, I am hoping that they get a significant upgrade from the way they performed in Gears 5. They were okay about 20% of the time, but they are often useless when it comes to revives as they invariably end up being downed because they run straight towards whatever downed you with no regards to their own wellbeing.
They are often a topic of conversation when I am playing Gears 5, with some of the suggestions being that you could assign them roles (so make them an Infiltrator or a Combat Medic etc.), give them different weapons, tell them where you want them to defend, and the ability to swap weapons with them like you could in Gears of War 3 would be awesome to have back. I always play as a Mechanic in Gears 5, and my loadout is utterly useless on Master. Having a Chainsaw is a must, and watching the bots run around with one, but not being able to swap it for my Enforcer is very frustrating. The Enforcer is one of the most useless weapons in the game, as is the Overkill Shotgun, which is the Mechanics secondary weapon. The Overkill has limited use, but it is not designed for use on Master difficulty.
Ultimately, all that I hope will be fixed could be totally irrelevant if they don't have a traditional Horde, because that is the only mode that I am interested in outside the Campaign. Unless, of course, you can play Siege with 9 bots... 😉
Re: 'Most Technically Ambitious Gears To Date' - Xbox Partners With NVIDIA On Gears Of War: E-Day
Unfortunately, @ILuvGames, I have a feeling that there is no traditional Horde mode.
If you look at what they have said on the Xbox Game Studio site, they say:
Online Multiplayer: Online campaign co-op, Horde Siege
And on the Xbox site they have said:
Jump into a bigger and bolder PvE battlefield in Horde Siege, an evolved take on Gears’ iconic co-op wave survival mode.
None of that gives the impression that there is a traditional Horde mode, only that they have 'evolved' Horde.
Prior to when Gears 5 released in September 2019, they did say it would include Horde, and then in March 2020 they added the Frenzy mode. In other words, they did only have the one mode at launch, but I guess there is always the possibility of them adding a traditional Horde at a later point. Either way, I am not at all confident that there is a 5 player Horde mode at launch, and then it comes down to whether The Coalition want to spend the time (and money) making the more traditional mode, which may be even less likely if the game struggles to make it's rumoured $400 million budget back. I mean, if the game is not on course to make that money back, why spend even more money on it thereafter...?
Re: Dispatch, One Of The Best Games Of 2025, Is Coming To Xbox This Month
It's one of the many games that I want to play at some point. It would be helpful if everyone could stop making games for 4 or 5 years so that I can catch up on my backlog. Actually, make that 10 years! I have so many games that I have bought and I am yet to play, and then there are also so many more games that I want. I just cannot keep up. Even though I am retired, I still cannot find enough time to get through them all... 🤪
Re: 'Most Technically Ambitious Gears To Date' - Xbox Partners With NVIDIA On Gears Of War: E-Day
I absolutely agree, @ILuvGames. Playing as a team to beat the map on Master with my son and a mate is the best feeling, and it is the game mode that I return to every single weekend and absolutely love doing so. It's why I have a sense of dread when it comes to E-Day because The Coalition have not mentioned once that there is a traditional Horde mode...
Re: 'Most Technically Ambitious Gears To Date' - Xbox Partners With NVIDIA On Gears Of War: E-Day
It's the challenge of beating the map, @Balaam_, that I particularly enjoy about Horde. I have over 2000 hours in Horde alone in Gears 5, and have currently completed 25 maps on Master in a team of just 3 (for a 5 player mode). The satisfaction of completing a map is difficult to achieve in most games. The sense of achievement is a bit like beating a campaign solo on the hardest difficulty, but ramped up because when it comes to a Master Horde, we know that (relatively) very few people have done it anyway, let alone as a team of just 3.
I get the same sense of satisfaction when beating the likes of Elden Ring solo, when I know so many people rely on the help of others. Same with beating every Halo game on Legendary on my own, when again, the majority do it in co-op.
I totally get that if you are an achievement hunter, having all these modes is a pain in the backside, but if you are an achievement hunter the truth if Gears of War has never really been a game for you because of the Seriously achievements, which are usually extremely time intensive...
Re: Xbox Project Helix Vs. PS6 - Data Firm Reveals Its Forecasted Sales Figures For Each
I stand corrected, @Jenkinss, and said what I said without thinking it through. The statement is correct for games, not consoles.
I stand by my assessment though, and I have stated it a fair few times now; Helix (if it is the one promised by Bond) will sell around 2 million in the first year, and then it will taper of significantly selling a further 1 million over the next two years at which point Microsoft will cancel it.
The two factors that might change that are; firstly, if Microsoft are able to significantly reduce the price if the component crisis comes to a swift end soon after they first release Helix, or secondly, if Helix is fundamentally different to the one promised by Bond, and is a heck of a lot cheaper than the original Helix would have cost. If Helix can come in at close to £600 then it stands a lot better chance than if it is north of £1000...
Re: The Next Halo Game Has Officially Gone Gold
I agree, @Millionski, the one big thing that Microsoft have to change, if they really do want to pursue the exclusive avenue, is to stop putting their games on Game Pass day one. There needs to be at least a year before they go on there, but in all honesty, I think Xbox needs to follow the example set by PlayStation, which is to leave us completely guessing as to when, or if, first-party games will go on Game Pass as the problem with saying they will put them on after a year, is that people will still not buy the game and just wait that year. If Xbox does as PlayStation does, and not always put their games on their service, then people will likely buy the games instead.
I know many people think that Game Pass is superior because of day one games, but if it is killing Xbox then the price is too high, and I think people will accept it, particularly if Sharma treats us like adults and actually explains the decision and why it has been made.
Ultimately, it needs to change, and I hope Sharma makes the decision very soon...
Re: 'Most Technically Ambitious Gears To Date' - Xbox Partners With NVIDIA On Gears Of War: E-Day
As much as I am looking forward to the game, I have this genuine dread that The Coalition have scrapped the 5 player Horde mode in favour of this 12 player Siege mode, that none of my fellow Horde players are interested in...
Re: Xbox Has Another Potential GOTY Candidate On Its Hands, Even Though It's Just DLC
Honestly, I think Sharma has now made two or three monumentally dumb decisions now (and before people get all offended, I actually like her):
1. Making E-Day an exclusive when, like Gears 5, it is a Live Service game and therefore will live or die based on the size of its community, and could have had a far larger community had it released on PlayStation too.
2. Returning to exclusives is fine, but it needs to be all or nothing (Live Service games excluded). Fable and Halo should have been made exclusive to bolster the number of games that could attract potential new Xbox gamers. Clockwork Revolution is unlikely to move the dial, but hopefully I am wrong on that.
3. Ridding iD of half its workforce. A studio that consistently puts out high quality games. I get that it has just released the last DLC for Doom, and therefore any new work is potentially years away making them easy pickings for Xbox to sack, but they are now half their recent size meaning that whatever they might do next will likely take much longer than it needed too. I understand that Xbox management are at pains to tell us that they are the same size as when they relaunched Doom, but instead of pumping out a game in 3 years, we are more likely looking at 5 now, and all the time that they are not close to releasing a game, the Xbox vultures will be circling to see what further cuts they can make. Remember, there are still 1600 job losses to be found somewhere, and the further out you are from releasing a game, the easier it is to target you, which is something that I am sure inXile are well aware of. I pity them because I bet they know they are on the chopping block once they release Clockwork Revolution.
It all seems so dumb to me...
Re: The Next Halo Game Has Officially Gone Gold
No, @Millionski, I didn't expect Xbox to return to exclusives, though I do expect them to return to fully multiplatform about a year after E-Day's release (once the experiment has failed dismally!). I honestly think they chose E-Day because if it does not move the dial then they think nothing can, but unfortunately, it is not about one game, but many, and their next big game (Fable) is multiplatform because... why? Because they said it would go to PlayStation? What a feeble excuse. Plans are plans until they're not, and they could have reversed that decision if they had wanted but what? Didn't want to upset PlayStation gamers? So what? If they really want to play Fable, they could have just played it on Xbox. I really cannot make sense of that decision at all. I mean, Fable is a single-player game, and E-Day is a Live Service game. Totally wrong decisions on both counts.
Problem is, once Fable comes out, what is the next big AAA system seller that Xbox has coming out next year? Or the year after that for that matter?
I have said it all along, it should be all or nothing with the exception of Live Service games. If I had been in charge I would have refunded any Halo pre-orders (if they were live when the decision was made). The more games that are exclusive, the more likely people are to buy into your ecosystem. The fewer there are, the less likely. So the decisions that Sharma has made make no sense whatsoever...
Re: The Next Halo Game Has Officially Gone Gold
I remember those conversations, @Millionski, and have chosen not to gloat about being right when I said Sony wouldn't port their games... 🤣
Re: Xbox Project Helix Vs. PS6 - Data Firm Reveals Its Forecasted Sales Figures For Each
I don't think this holds any water whatsoever. It is all total guess work. Bearing in mind that they predict Helix will sell 2 million in 2027, that means, by their estimates, it will then sell a further 5 million units in the following 2 years, which I find highly doubtful. Usually consoles sell best in the first year, and then it tapers off (with Xbox quite significantly tapers off). I also do not think that the component crisis will end within the next 5 years, and even after that, I doubt prices will drop significantly.
Funny enough, I have been saying that I think that Helix will sell around 2 million within the first year as well, although I did go on to say that after 3 years it would have sold around 3 million units, and will then be cancelled.
As I say, it's all guess work (and that includes my own)...
Re: The Next Halo Game Has Officially Gone Gold
I bought the Collector's Edition of the game, but unfortunately, I could only get it for PC, so I'm not sure what I shall do now. I guess it really could be the first game this year that I play on Game Pass, as at least that way I don't have to unseal my Collector's Edition...
Re: Five Games Are Confirmed For Xbox Game Pass In August 2026 So Far
I will take a look, @Zed, because what you say is sensible. The reason I tend to buy my games though is because more often than not, the one that goes on Game Pass is the barebones version, and the better one is the one you need to buy. In fairness, I have not looked to see if that is the case before I posted my comment so it may well be that what you suggest is the more sensible option.
Another reason that I like to buy my games though is to show support for the studios. I think in these uncertain times (in the game industry), it is probably more beneficial to buy the games outright if you can, which I am fortunate enough to do most of the time...
Re: Xbox Teases Potentially Major Console Update That Will Be 'Worth The Wait'
That's interesting, @Grumblevolcano. The only reason that I think there is a chance that the game will come out this year is because of the pre-order situation, and I think Take Two will catch a lot of heat if they go on to delay it into next year having taken people's money. I mean, it's not like they could not afford to have waited before opening up pre-orders, with the amount of money that GTA 5 is still making now. Whereas taking people's money 6 months early, and then delaying it another 3 months would be seen as a cynical cash-grab (they'll be earning interest on the money that people could have been earning themselves)...
Re: Xbox Teases Potentially Major Console Update That Will Be 'Worth The Wait'
I was saying for a long time that I thought GTA 6 would be delayed, and said so on the basis that we had not (and still have not) seen anything more of the game, @Grumblevolcano. Then they went and opened up pre-orders, and my confidence in my prediction has wavered a little. I would say I am 50/50 right now on whether it will release this year, though as time moves on, with no sign of any gameplay, I think my confidence in its delay will increase.
Absolutely right about it being a minefield for other games though, and them trying to work out when to release, though I do think that Microsoft were initially planning on releasing Helix this year as well, which could have worked well for them with GTA 6 releasing too, but then the components crisis cropped up and has thrown everything into doubt...
Re: Five Games Are Confirmed For Xbox Game Pass In August 2026 So Far
I'll be buying Resonance: A Plague Tale Legacy by way of pre-order, as I have each game in the franchise. However (shock, horror!), in a proper turn of events, it might just be that Beast of Reincarnation will be the first game that I try on Game Pass this year. If I like it, I'll probably buy it because I prefer to own my games, but I'm not quite confident enough in it to pre-order it right now...
Re: Talking Point: What Are You Playing This Weekend? (July 11-12)
On my Pro, I just need to get one more Trophy to get the final Platinum in Mass Effect Legendary Edition. The Trophy in question is raising a weapon to level 10, so I just need to get aboard the Normandy at the start of the game, and it'll pop once I get to the armoury.
On my Series X, I'll be undertaking yet another Master run in Gears 5 Horde, with a team of just 3 on what is meant to be a team of 5 event. They have proven to be very difficult, but we have now managed 22 of the 37 maps, which is pretty good going, and I would suggest probably not have been done by anyone else in the World. I will also finally pop the Re-Up 60 Achievement today, and it has only taken just over 2000 hours too...! 😂
I will also be playing through Dying Light: The Beast in co-op once more on my Series X, but this time undertaking the New Game Plus on a higher difficulty. And then lastly, I will probably start playing the new Lego Batman game at some point if I have chance...
Re: Xbox Teases Potentially Major Console Update That Will Be 'Worth The Wait'
Honestly, @FatGuyInLilCoat, right now we know nothing. I said a couple of years back that I thought they were saving all these games up as launch titles for Helix. Obviously, Helix has not released, but now I am left wondering what they will have as launch titles because right now we don't really know about anything. I have a horrible feeling we are going to enter a pretty barren period after Spring next year...
Re: Xbox Sends Out Brief Statement Regarding 'Inaccurate' id Tech Reports
I thought that the ABK acquisition would be good for Xbox because I believed in Spencer's vision, @oopsiezz. Spencer knew that for Game Pass to get enough first-party content, Xbox needed more studios, and on that he was right. Unfortunately, the bit that went wrong was that he (or Microsoft) expected huge growth in Game Pass subscription numbers, yet the dial barely moved. I think one of the big problems there was that Spencer might have wanted to keep CoD as an Xbox exclusive, but he was forced into making concessions that blew that idea out of the water. Those concessions basically sunk any chances Xbox had of recovering.
You have to wonder what would have become of ABK had Microsoft not bought them because I don't think it would exist now as it did back then. Parts of it would have been sold off, and goodness knows what would have happened from there. When it comes to job losses, it could quite possibly have been far worse, although we will never know now...
Re: Xbox Teases Potentially Major Console Update That Will Be 'Worth The Wait'
I agree, @AI-Generation. Personally I have Ultimate, but rarely play anything on it. I have it so that I can play online. Mine runs out in June, and as I always buy my games (including first-party games) I am not entirely sure what I will do when my subscription ends. I may just take Essential so as to access online, but if Helix is out and online is free there, I won't bother as I will be getting Helix.
As for more games coming, it's difficult to know what is in the pipeline right now because the big games (Gears, Forza and Fable) are out within the next 8 months or so, which only really leaves Blade and maybe a new Halo game. When it comes to Blade, it looks like Microsoft are trying to sell the studio, and we only know of the first games remake when it comes to Halo. So, unless they have some big AAA system sellers coming out in 2027 (after Fable), pickings might be very slim...
Re: Xbox Sends Out Brief Statement Regarding 'Inaccurate' id Tech Reports
I say this in jest, but denying that there is just one person working in Texas, does not mean it isn't just two...!
Dozens spread around how many locations? Also, dozens? Is that 24, 36, 48...? Point being it may not be many, and if there are many locations, then there really may not be many people working in each location.
So whilst it is good that Microsoft have debunked the 'one person' rumour, having read what they said, that is the only part they are really addressing. Their response is still so vague that they haven't properly explained the situation, and it still sounds like the situation at iD is pretty dire...
Re: Xbox Teases Potentially Major Console Update That Will Be 'Worth The Wait'
You're absolutely right, @AI-Generation. If Blade does indeed get cancelled, what is there after Fable in the way of AAA games that might be exclusive, and might actually be considered system sellers?
We might hope that a new Halo is in the works, but The Coalition will be working on the future content for E-Day in order to keep that Live Service game going.
Any new Fallout game is years aways, as is Elder Scrolls 6. Problems now exist at iD, so will they be able to ship a new Doom or Wolfenstein within the nest couple of years? Doubtful, I'd suggest.
We might get the rumoured Fallout remaster(s), and maybe even Gears of War 2 remastered (if it exists), but whilst welcome, they are not new games as such.
So yes, up until Fable there is some decent content to come, but after that, we could be in a drought once again, and pickings may be very lean, which could lead to further cuts just to save yet more money. Cutting staff saves money in the short term, but also slows the production of new content, which is what you need in order to keep the money coming in. It's pretty short-sighted, if you ask me...
Re: Xbox Teases Potentially Major Console Update That Will Be 'Worth The Wait'
It will be another thing that Sharma gets the credit for but which started under Spencer, @Mr-Cage. Some people are all too ready to heap praise on Sharma (who I like, by the way), without taking into account that many of the things that she has introduced were actually the work of Spencer....
Re: Two Games Are Available Today Across Various Tiers Of Xbox Game Pass (July 9)
In fairness, @awp69, most of the comments do centre around Reloaded, which is one of the two games being released so they're not completely on the wrong article, and of course it not unusual for comments to veer off the beaten path...
Re: Xbox Game Pass Reportedly Drops To 30M Subscribers, But Has 'Started To Grow Again'
I agree, @Millionski, and it is something that I have been saying for a while now, they need to scrap Ultimate, and make Premium the de facto top tier, with it receiving first-party games a full year after their initial release. Obviously we know that many will just wait for the game to arrive on Premium, which is absolutely their right, but it does at least give it a chance of people choosing to buy the game within that time should they wish. It might just be enough to help Xbox out of its current woes.
I think the crunch point for the service will happen just before the launch of Helix, because it is at that point that Microsoft will almost certainly have to remove the need for Game Pass in order to play online. Now, I'm sure there is some way in which Microsoft can ensure that only those playing on Helix get the free online, but I don't think that will go down well with the rest of the Xbox community, albeit we already have that scenario with people playing on PC right now not paying to play Xbox games online. It will be interesting to see how Microsoft handle this going forward, but whatever happens, I think it safe to assume that it will happen within the next year, or more likely within the 100 days that Sharma has mentioned...
Re: Two Games Are Available Today Across Various Tiers Of Xbox Game Pass (July 9)
Listen, @Millionski, I think the game was mediorce in terms of its actual perfomance, but I cannot quite fathom why you always have such a downer on the game. Did I want it to go to PlayStation? Nope! Not at all. I thought it a mistake to put one of the tentpole franchises on PlayStation, but accepted that it was meant to serve as a taster for PlayStation gamers with the promise of a Live Service game in the form of E-Day to come. Obviously plans have changed when it comes to E-Day, but that's a different topic.
When it comes to Reloaded, it is a 'remaster' of a remaster of a 20 year old game. Many PlayStation gamers will already have played the game anyway, but that last bit is the crucial bit, it is essentially a 20 year old game.
It may do well in the sales, but what you are not taking into consideration is that is is on sale pretty much every other month. So for it to be sitting at #8 is indeed very good for a 20 year old game.
Take a look at this to see the price history and you will see what I mean:
https://psprices.com/region-gb/game/8667813/gears-of-war-reloaded
We are unlikely to ever know exactly how well it has sold, but it is still selling in reasonable numbers even now.
What would be interesting to know is whether this 20 year old game has sold better on PlayStation than E-Day will sell on Xbox when it comes out. There's no way we will ever know, which is a shame but I imagine it will be a lot closer than perhaps you would like to think... 😉
Re: Two Games Are Available Today Across Various Tiers Of Xbox Game Pass (July 9)
I agree with your assessment of Reloaded, @Mr-Cage, and I have bemoaned the quality of the game on many occasions. The campaign remains fun, but playing solo on Insane whilst Dom sits doing nothing at the back of the map was frankly ridiculous. This should have been fixed prior to release. The game was basically given a small performance boost purely so that it could be released on PlayStation. The game only exists for that reason alone.
What I would say though is that I don't think the game has sold as badly as many would have you believe. I mean, even today it is currently half-price and is sitting at #8 in the best selling games on PlayStation.
I would dearly love them to release updated versions of both the second and third games, but don't know how that fits in with Sharma's vision for Xbox now...