The only solution to the woes that Xbox faces is for absolutely everything to be permanently exclusive. Microsoft would have to suck up the pain (losses) for a decade or more, and also remove day one games from Game Pass, instead putting their games on the service a year after any final content for a game arrives. So if a game has DLC, it is on sale for 12 months before the base game goes on Game Pass.
This is the only way in which people will be permanently drawn into the Xbox ecosystem. If games go on Game Pass day one, people will sub into Game Pass for a month, and return to their usual platform. However, if they are forced to wait for a year or two to play a game, they may instead choose to opt for Xbox.
By way of example, I have been with PlayStation since day one, but I immediately switched to Xbox on the day that the very first console arrived. However, switching to Xbox did not mean that I did not continue to buy a PlayStation each generation. I did so for one reason, and one reason only, to play their exclusives. Until I bought Resident Evil: Requiem, I had never bought a single multiplatform game on any of my PlayStation's. Those games I always bought on my Xbox. The only games I bought on my PlayStation each generation were those games I could not play on my Xbox. If Sony did not have any exclusives, I would not have bought a PlayStation. It is as simple as that. The same will be true of many Xbox gamers, and the same was likely true of many PlayStation gamers up until the point that it became clear that owning an Xbox was no longer a requirement if you wanted to play future Xbox games.
We all know that Microsoft will not take this path because whether they can make enough high quality exclusives to attract people to their ecosystem, leaving behind their PlayStations is very uncertain. People are now entrenched in their platforms, and persuading people to move is probably nigh on impossible. Indeed, I think there is now an expectation among PlayStation gamers that every game will come to their consoles, and the pain that Microsoft would need to endure to change that is unlikely to be something that Microsoft will want to do (and I think they are right!)...
I hope the game does well for those that want to play it, but I am most certainly not one of them. I hope the game succeeds for Double Fine's sake because with Microsoft being particularly cutthroat right now, one poorly received game could result in closure...
Thank you, @TrollOfWar, and I mean that. That's the second time this week someone has explain something to me, that they clearly have a good understanding of, in a way that I was (mostly) able to follow (the other one was on the subject of growing fruit trees of all things!).
Now that you explain it, it makes far more sense. I had made a stab at understanding what she was getting at, and was not a million miles off, but now get what she is talking about, and have to say it is kind of surprising that this was not obvious before, though I guess her background may have meant that she picked up on this more easily.
Anyway, thank you for taking the time to thoroughly explain it...
I mostly do prefer AAA games, @jesse_dylan, but I kick-started Wasteland, and one of my favourite types of games (and I'm actually playing one at the moment as it happens) is turn-based. I'm currently playing XCOM 2 for example because it is one of my all time favourite games.
What I do dislike is games that have poor visuals. I am not a fan of retro games, and very much dislike pixilated games. I have played a few side-scrollers, but for the most part I avoid them...
As I said to someone else above, @cragis0001, I think the version of Game Pass they rejected was the version we currently have. It's all the third-party games that Sony rejected, and understandably so because Sony wants to sell those, not have them offered cheaply on Game Pass.
As for Call of Duty, I think that particular franchise will likely be the big exception. Maybe they would stick it on the service once it has been out for a year or two, and once sales of the game have pretty much dried up, but I don't see them putting it on GP day one (potentially not this year either, even for Xbox!).
I think the same may be true of pretty much all their first-party games. I think there is a strong chance that Microsoft will want to sell their games for at least a year before putting it on Game Pass on the PlayStation. Honestly, I think they would be foolish to just put everything on Game Pass (on the PlayStation) day one. Indeed, I'd argue it's foolish to do it for us too...
I had to look it up, @fatpunkslim, but this is the Tier that I was thinking of regarding PlayStation:
PlayStation Plus Premium: The most comprehensive plan, it includes all the features of Essential and Extra, plus access to classic games from PS1, PS2, and PS3, cloud streaming, and time-limited trials of new titles.
So it is just the older games, as I thought. I only thought about it because I occasionally see Push Square do articles regarding what games are entering each Tier (as Pure does with Game Pass titles), and remember seeing people mention how rarely Premium gets updated. I believe some of Sony's older first-party games do go on the service too.
As for Game Pass generally being a mess, I entirely agree, and I think they should get ride of Ultimate, and get rid of day one titles. Premium should become the top Tier, and should only get new first-party titles once they have been out for between 6 months and a year after their initial release...
I think the version of Game Pass they rejected was the version we currently have, @Questionable_Duck. It's all the third-party games that Sony rejected, and understandably so.
However, as I said above, I think it may well be their older back catalogue that they would look to fill this new Tier. With Bethesda, Activision, Blizzard and Xbox games to call upon, there really is a lot of games to put in there...
It's not just about new games though, @shiny-enzo. Just think how many older games Microsoft now has access too from over the past couple of decades at Xbox, Activision, Blizzard and Bethesda. So many great games that many people would happily subscribe for. PlayStation already has something similar, if I'm not mistaken, and they have far, far fewer games that they can call upon to put into the Tier. New games would just be the cherry on top, and indeed, it may not even have new games. Just the older back catalogue
Not surprised by this, only surprised that it took so long. I've said for years now that if Xbox did this, they could put this version of Game Pass on PlayStation too as it would be no different to EA or Ubisoft etc...
I can see my badge for how long I've been with Xbox*, @FraserG, but do you happen to know whether I can add other badges to those on my profile? If so, do you know how? I'm going mad flicking between different parts of my Xbox trying to find where all the other badges might be (if they even exist!).
*Disappointingly, my badge only shows 17 years because that is when I set up my online account. I've been with Xbox since day one, but for the first 8 years my account was on a different email address for which I couldn't remember by password, so I just created a new account. Kind of gutted now that it only shows 17 instead of 25...
I absolutely agree with everything you have said, @Jenkinss. From an Xbox consumer perspective, if we cannot have fully exclusive games, then timed feels better than multiplatform. From Microsoft's perspective, it is as you say, a lose/lose scenario where gamers will either await the arrival of the game on their chosen platform, or simply ignore it when it does arrive because the industry has moved on. I said as much earlier within these forums.
I only would like to see Microsoft opt for timed exclusives because it would make me feel better about Xbox, but it really does not serve us that well. And the only reason I would prefer timed exclusives is because we all know that Microsoft will not go for fully exclusive because they just won't make their money back. Heck, they probably won't make their money back if they went for timed exclusives either, which is why they probably won't do that either.
Xbox, as I have said a number of times now, is pretty much done for in terms of consoles. Helix is a last hurrah, a last throw of the dice, but its cost is likely to stifle interest almost immediately, and as I have been saying for a couple of years now, across multiple comments, I think Microsoft will pull the plug on Helix around 3 years after it is introduced, and then Microsoft will go on to be a massively successful publisher of games. As a long-standing Xbox gamer, I find this incredibly sad, and in all honesty, I would love to be proven wrong. The problem is, I don't think that Xbox (the console) is in a recoverable position. I don't think there is a fix for the situation they are in. It would take a decade or more of losses on fully exclusive games to potentially tempt enough people into your ecosystem to make it viable, and Microsoft won't accept a decade of loses. They would rather bin the project and move on to where the money can be made, which is in making and publishing games. Sad, but unfortunately true...
I have only Mastered 17 of the 37 maps in Gears 5, @Jenkinss, but then I only play in a team of 3, whereas most people do it as a team of 5. It makes it silly hard to achieve, but a lot of fun.
Horde in Gears 5 is my favourite, with Gears of War 3 as my second favourite, and then Gears 2. For some reason I just didn't really enjoy it in Gears 4. The version they had in Judgement was okay, I guess, but only okay.
When it came to GoW3 Horde, I used to play it with 4 other people (including my son who was just 8 or 9 at the time (I know, very bad parenting, but he was a great sniper at a very young age!)), and we managed to get a couple of scores that were in the top 20 worldwide. These days one of my mates is losing his sight, and another has a high-powered job and just doesn't have time for gaming. Thus now we Master maps in Gears 5 with just my son and one of my mates from back when we played Horde in Gears 3.
I absolutely love playing the mode. Honestly, I never get bored of it. Really cannot wait to see what they do with it in E-Day.
I absolutely agree that the original trilogy had the best Campaigns, @nomither6, and Horde in Gears 2 was my first taste of Horde ever (it may well be the first game to have the mode, but I'm not sure), and I absolutely loved it. Indeed, it was playing Horde that I met 2 of my best friends online, and subsequently met them in real life, becoming Godfather to one of their children.
Personally, I really enjoyed the campaigns in 4 and 5 too, though I accept the tone was very different. In all honesty, I would rather see Gears 6 conclude the trilogy, than receive E-Day, but regardless, a new game is welcome after such a long time since the release of Gears 5.
On a side note, my mate and I play through every campaign (on Hardcore) each year. We play them chronologically, thus so far we have played both Judgement and Reloaded, and are right at the end of Gears 2 at the moment. I absolutely love the franchise and cannot wait for E-Day, which will then be played through first each year as we continue our annual tradition of playing through them all... 😂
That's my opinion, @Kang81; I'd rather they kept the game baking in the oven until it is exceptional, than rush is out and attempt to fix it later. We have seen so often how a game has the foundations of being great, but releases in such a state that its reputation never recovers. I do not want that to happen with Fable. I want it to release in tip-top condition, and be fantastic from start to finish. Honestly, I'd rather wait another year, than be disappointed...
Horde is simply fantastic, @Jenkinss. I have played Gears 5 for just over 2000 hours now, and the only two modes I have played are the Campaign and Horde. I do not touch PvP. The vast, vast majority of my time playing is in Horde. The last time I looked I was number 91 in the World as a Mechanic in Horde. I am currently Re-Up 57 and so want to get to Re-Up 60 before E-Day comes out because once it does, that's me playing just that for years to come.
Very excited to see what they do with Horde, and wondering what enemy types we get because if they go by what is canon then many of the enemy types we are playing against right now, will not appear in either the Campaign or Horde. We certainly should not see Robots (which suits me because they are a nightmare in Horde), but we should see some new enemies too. I am hoping they bring back Armoured Kantus and Bloodmounts among other enemy types. My guess is that Horde will not be canon, as that will allow them to keep many of the enemies we have seen over the years.
So yes, I absolutely agree, I really hope they show us the Horde mode as well as the Campaign...
Really looking forward to playing this game, though I don't foresee it coming out in 2026. My guess would be the second quarter of 2027. I'd love to be wrong, but that is where my thinking is at. Regardless, whenever it does release, I really hope they get the tone right, and that the game is a blast from start to finish...
So excited for this. Just have to hope that I can get by Re-Up 60 Achievement in Gears 5 before E-Day releases. I'm currently on Re-Up 57, but it takes so long now to level up it's frankly ridiculous. I need to get it sorted before E-Day it is all I'll be playing until the sequel to E-Day comes out, which if it follows the same path as Gears 5 will be another 7 years.
What I would also love them to show us is the Collector's Edition of the game, and a Collector's controller too. Heck, even at this late stage I might even be tempted to get a Collector's Series X as well to go with my Gears of War 360 console, and my Gears of War Xbox One console.
I don't think there are many bigger fans of Gears of War than myself and @HonestHick that frequent these forums, and I might even suggest that I'm the biggest! I have so many Gears of War Collector's items it's laughable, but I'd love to add more still...
I'd love Microsoft to bring back full exclusivity on games, @Jenkinss. No timed-exclusives. Exclusive full-stop! The problem with that though is with their first-party games going day one on Game Pass, people will opt to play the games that way at a far lower cost than if they were to buy the game outright. And of course, even if the games did not go on Game Pass (which I think would be a good move), are there enough Xbox gamers willing to buy the games? If a game costs £200 million to make, they need sell nigh on 3 million games at full price just to break even, and we know for a fact that games often cost more than that to make, and even the best games don't always sell that many copies.
Then you have the issue of how many Helix will sell if it costs as much as is rumoured. Plus if Microsoft decide they will no longer put their first-party games on Game Pass day one, how many people will either cancel their subscriptions, and how many people, who bought a Series console purely as a Game Pass machine primarily for those day one first-party games, will decide to move away from Xbox because they no longer see value in Game Pass because it is no longer offering them the service that they bought the console for? After all, if you are a PlayStation gamer who has bought a Series S to play E-Day on Game Pass only to find that it is not on there, and if you want to play it you have to buy it, but it is also available to buy on your PS5, then it would be a safe bet they're going to buy it on PlayStation, costing Microsoft 30% of the proceeds in the process.
And whilst I love the idea of Microsoft turning the Xbox ship around, and giving us fully exclusive games that attract more people into the Xbox ecosystem, we both know that to do so would probably take a decade or more during which Microsoft would probably make massive losses on each game, meaning we both also know that Microsoft won't accept that. As Spencer so accurately said, Xbox lost the most important generation during the Xbox One period when people were building their digital libraries primarily on PlayStation. Attracting people away from their existing libraries is an exceptionally difficult thing to do, and I'm not sure that Microsoft would be willing to tough it out in what may prove to be a futile attempt to get people to abandon the likes of PlayStation, and join Xbox. To do that in the kind of numbers Xbox needs for it to be self-sustaining is probably nigh on impossible, and that is why I don't believe that Microsoft will return to full exclusivity. I can see them trying timed-exclusives, but we all know that gamers can be very patient. If they know a game will land on their preferred platform they will wait, even if that means waiting 2 years. If they know it is coming, they will wait. We've seen it before on many occasion. So I think in the end, even timed exclusives will not be seen as that beneficial because games lose their lustre when they've been out for a while, and always sell best when they land everywhere at the same time. So even though I think Microsoft will at the very least consider timed exclusives, I think they will soon revert to day and date everywhere instead...
It's a matter of maths, @Xboxian360. Games are very costly to make, and the problem that Microsoft has is twofold; firstly they have Game Pass to contend with and how that cannibalises sales on the Xbox (and PC), and secondly the fact Xbox has something like 3 times fewer gamers than PlayStation.
In other words, any game made makes back too little money on Xbox alone, which is why Microsoft have been forced into selling their games on other platforms too.
If a game is made fully exclusive, it will make vastly less money than it could do, and this will lead to studio closures, which in turn means fewer games being made. It is a self-defeating cycle that will be disastrous for Xbox.
Back in the days of the 360 exclusives made far more sense because there was no Game Pass, and because the player-base on both PlayStation and Xbox was much the same for much of the generation. The circumstances are completely different for Microsoft now.
In an ideal world, Xbox would have their games be fully exclusive, and they would make enough money to be self-sustaining, but for that to happen Microsoft would have to be making loses for years to come as they attempt to rebalance the scales, and I just cannot see that happening...
I've been arguing it's all about the ecosystem for ages now, @Jenkinss, so I don't entirely disagree with what you are saying, but I think the outlier in this case is the cost of the Helix.
If the Helix costs £1200/£1500 (or indeed possibly more), then it will be an exceptionally niche product. I honestly believe we could be looking at 2 to 3 million sold within the first 2 years plus. It is precisely because I think it will sell so poorly (in comparison to how consoles past have sold) that the sums will mean that Microsoft will need to continue porting their games to PlayStation in order to keep decent revenue coming in.
I've said a number of times in the past that I think Microsoft will be aiming for something like 10 million Helix lifetime sales, but in all honesty, as the cost of components keeps rising, I think the product will become more and more niche with each passing month. Add to that that rumours are saying that the PS6 will be cheaper than the Pro, and I can see people just opting to go there instead.
I am also on record for saying that I can foresee circumstances in which Microsoft stop supplying the Helix around 3 years after it is released due to poor sales. Personally, I think they'll be lucky to shift 3 million of them within that timescale, and therefore Microsoft will just back away from the project.
So whilst I entirely agree that it is all about the ecosystem, and it is not how much an individual game makes on its own (something I have oft said), I think when it comes to the Helix, the equation shifts to whether losses on a game are worth the gains from the ecosystem, and I think in that equation Microsoft will determine that they will actually make more money from selling their games on every platform...
I agree Microsoft can choose to do what they want, but I think they can do that regardless of prior commitments, @Millionski. Now they have changed leadership, it is the prime time to make changes to the way they do things too.
As for timed-exclusivity, as I said above, I think this is the way to go (just using E-Day as an example):
August 2026 - Release E-Day as an exclusive to Xbox, but crucially, NOT on Game Pass.
August 2027 - Retain E-day as an Xbox exclusive, but also allow the game to enter Game Pass.
August 2028 - Port the game to PlayStation / Switch 2.
I agree that this would mean either scrapping, or fundamentally changing Ultimate, but I think that is a necessary step for the service. Without getting rid of day one games the only options are either to continue increasing how much it costs, or watch the service whither and die within the next 5 years (and indeed, it would probably be a combination of both of those things)...
I think you are missing a bit in your equation, @Jenkinss. 70% of a £70 game sold on PlayStation is £49 for Microsoft. That same game, played for a month on Ultimate nets Microsoft £22.99.
That is why I think that Microsoft will continue to port their games to PlayStation.
Obviously some gamers on Xbox still buy their first-party games, myself included and that is despite having Ultimate, for way more people play via Game Pass than buy a first-party game on the Xbox.
The net result is that Microsoft make more money from a single title by selling it on PlayStation. Indeed, this is precisely why Microsoft have resorted to selling their previously exclusive games on PlayStation.
If it was a straight equation of 70% verses 100% then I absolutely agree that keeping games exclusive would be the way to go for Microsoft, but Game Pass is a jumbo-jet sized fly in the ointment. Yes, Microsoft get to keep an extra 30% for games sold on their platform, but I just don't think the numbers add up to a game earning more for them once Game Pass is factored in.
Totally agree regarding putting their games on PlayStation being a sad surrender. I just don't see Microsoft moving away from that. I think the best we can hope for is a period of timed-exclusivity, though that in itself can harm future sales because very often people will either have played it via Game Pass prior to its release on PlayStation, or people have just moved on from wanting to play a game that is a couple of years old...
I'm so looking forward to Pragmata. I have already pre-ordered the Deluxe Edition. My only problem is that I am currently re-playing XCOM 2, which is one of my all time favourite games, and I think I have a little way to go yet, so might not be able to get on to Pragmata day one, a game I have been looking forward to since I first saw it revealed. Absolutely cannot wait, but will probably have too...
I'm not a fan of side-scrolling games, but I am curious about this game. Problem for me is that I have already bought a number of games this year, and not even started on a few of them, so finding time for a game with a style that I am not overly keen on does most likely mean that I'll end up not playing it at all.
For those among us looking forward to this game, I hope you enjoy it...
I agree with what you say to a point, @cragis0001, but as I said in my comment at #30, people do buy a second console for the exclusives alone, and so it absolutely makes sense that without exclusives, there is no need to buy a particular console.
It also needs to be borne in mind that if a parent walks into a store, without a clue about these things, then any decent salesperson will point out whether a particular console has either more games, or more exclusives. Not everyone is as informed as we are, and everyone has to start somewhere. Indeed, if you were looking to buy your very first console, and did not have friends on a particular platform, and you then did your research, exclusives could well play a part in your final decision.
I'm just saying that to say that exclusives do not matter to anyone other than Nintendo is to be very wide of the mark...
Xbox has loads and loads and loads of exclusives though. I mean, every Halo game is currently exclusive, for example, and only one Gears of War game has been ported. So they can easily be referring to those games, and thus be accurate in what they say.
However, the big question is will future first-party games be exclusive, and do Microsoft consider a game that is released on Xbox one month, and then released on PlayStation 6 months later to be an exclusive (although we, the well informed!(!), know that is actually a timed-exclusive)?
The inclusion of a picture of Forza Horizon 6 is mildy amusing though, because we have heard a few times that the only reason that it is releasing on Xbox first is because the PS5 port won't be ready in time. It is an accidental timed-exclusive, not a planned one...
I have to disagree that the lack of exclusivity has not hurt sales of Xbox, @cragis0001. If Microsoft had not ported their games to PC, then there would undoubtedly have been people that now game on PC would either have also bought an Xbox, or only bought an Xbox and not a PC.
The exact same will be true when it comes to the next generation, and the end of this generation, wherein people will look at the lack of exclusives and see no reason to own an Xbox when they can play each game (and more!) on either PC or PlayStation. Where is the need to own both a PS5/6 and an Xbox when you can play every future Xbox game on a PlayStation, plus all those games that are actually exclusive to PlayStation?
Microsoft only put there games on PC in the first place due to the dire issues faced after the launch of the Xbox One, and are only now porting their games to PlayStation due to the dire issues they are now facing with the Series consoles.
Many, many people bought a Series S (in particular), in addition to their PlayStation, as a Game Pass console, but with the massive price hike in subscription fees last year, Microsoft have slaughtered that particular goose. Having no exclusives, will only lead to exacerbating the issue still further.
I do entirely agree that Microsoft's lack of focus on Xbox consoles, has hurt Xbox, but when it comes to industry bias, it really comes does to what platform you game on and promote. In other words, you cannot really expect a PlayStation influencer on YouTube to be singing the praises of Xbox, can you? And the converse is exactly true. There are more PlayStation focussed influencers and websites, but that is because PlayStation has a larger player-base, so it is entirely expected. Also, in fairness to everyone else out there, if Microsoft does not focus on their own brand, can you really blame everyone else for not focusing on them either?
I don't think the issue of Xbox games topping PlayStation should surprise anyone. Ultimately, the vast majority of people game on one home console only, and whilst they may eye with envy games that are on other systems, they do not feel inclined to buy the relevant console in order to play it. However, once it comes to their system, they will gladly jump on it.
That is why I think exclusives are so important; they attract people into your ecosystem, but you have to have enough of them to make people buy your platform. Having just a few is not ever going to be enough. There has to be a realisation amongst gamers that if they want to play a particular game they have no choice but to either buy the relevant console, or go without. And the more exclusives a brand has, the more reasons you give people to buy into that brand. The fewer exclusives you have (or none, for that matter), then the less likely people are to see the need to buy your system...
As much as I would love Xbox to return to having proper exclusives, @Coletrain, I really cannot see it happening.
I always look at it this way, I have been Xbox through and through since day one, yet I have always also bought a PlayStation, and why is that? Purely to play their exclusives. Until I bought Resident Evil: Requiem on my Pro, I had never once bought a multiplatform game on a PlayStation. So, I guess it kind of follows I would do the same if I primarily gamed on a PlayStation, in that I would then opt to buy an Xbox to play their exclusives. However, if they have no exclusives, where is the need to do so? That in a nutshell is why I think exclusives are so important; they encourage people, such as myself, to buy into a particular ecosystem...
Ahh! Right, now I get you, @Questionable_Duck, and there is absolutely no need to apologise, my statement was not sufficiently clear. You are correct, I did mean that those games that we currently view as exclusive to Xbox (the next Gears of War, for example), have not released day and date on PlayStation. Each game (Starfield for example), has already been exclusive to Xbox for a period of time first.
I'll be absolutely shocked if E-Day is not fully multi-platform, @HonestHick. I mean, what would the point have been in releasing Reloaded on PlayStation, if E-Day was not going to follow suit?
I know there is an argument for releasing a single game from a franchise on PlayStation, and then saying if you want to play the others, then you need to buy an Xbox, but on what planet was Reloaded that game? It was such a poor quality port, that very few people would look at that game and tell themselves they just have to play the subsequent games and are prepared to buy an Xbox to do so.
I think the plan to release E-Day on PlayStation has been longstanding, and indeed, the only reason that game was made, rather than Gears 6 was in order to bring it to a new audience on PlayStation. Otherwise they may as well have finished the current trilogy first, then made E-Day.
No, I'll be shocked if E-Day does not release on PlayStation, and I expect it to do so day one...
I agree, @Coletrain. Exclusivity only works if every game is exclusive (other than Live Service). Anything less means each game you port is one less reason to own an Xbox, and one more reason to own a PlayStation. It only takes so many games to tip the balance to the point where people question whether there is a need to own an Xbox.
I think the problem is that Microsoft have tasted some success with some of their former exclusive games releasing on PlayStation, and none of those games have been day one releases. So the big test for Microsoft will be with a day one game; if they were to release E-Day day one on PlayStation and it proves to be a rip-roaring success then I think the bean-counters at Microsoft will push for every game to be fully multiplatform...
Hades 2 could well be the first game I play on Game Pass this year. Indeed, it may well prove to be the only game that I play on Game Pass this year. I struggled with the first game, and only got right to the end once, but promptly died, and as it had taken me so long to get there, I could not muster the will to continue, so rather than buy the sequel (as I did the first game), I think I might try it on Game Pass instead...
The lack of exclusives has massively hurt Xbox in terms of console sales, but has also lined the pockets of Microsoft in the process. I think Microsoft will choose to continue to put their games on PlayStation even if that hurts sales of the Helix because I believe the sales of their games will bring in more revenue than they lose as a consequence of selling fewer Helix's.
Microsoft have the added problem of the Helix being a PC, and their releasing all their games on PC anyway, and effectively the only console they would be denying games to would be PlayStation, and doing so would massively impact the revenue that each individual game brings in.
In other words, I cannot see Microsoft returning to fully exclusive games.
I have argued previously that I believe Microsoft should do the following (using Gears of War: E-Day as an example):
August 2026 - Release E-Day as an exclusive to Xbox, but crucially, NOT on Game Pass.
August 2027 - Retain E-day as an Xbox exclusive, but also allow the game to enter Game Pass.
August 2028 - Port the game to PlayStation / Switch 2.
For me, Microsoft need to keep every game they are legally allowed to as an exclusive to the consequence. It does not matter that Elder Scrolls or Doom used to be fully multi-platform, if you want your own platform to survive and thrive then you need to have strong exclusives to attract people to within your ecosystem. It will be a massively unpopular decision with many PlayStation gamers, but it is what is needed for Xbox. Personally, I would argue that had the Helix not been a PC, that Microsoft should treat PC in the same way, and take away all first-party games, but obviously that is now a moot point anyway.
Regardless of everything that I have written above, I don't think Microsoft will take the necessary steps, and whilst some have said they should continue to port the smaller games, and keep the bigger ones as exclusives, I actually think Microsoft are far more likely to do it the other way around because the smaller games will not bring in the revenue to make it worthwhile, whereas the bigger games can bring in a massive amount of revenue, and at the end of the day, I think that the bean-counters will win that argument...
My money is on there having been a huge exodus from Game Pass (particularly Ultimate) since the last price increase, and there has been a realisation at Microsoft that it cannot continue as is, and that the idea that people will stick with the service no matter what is charged has been comprehensively disproven. The majority of people who still subscribe to Ultimate are either shielded from the price increases due to local laws, or have already stacked a period of subscription and so again are not paying the increased rates. I'd bet good money that many of those that were not shielded from the price increase last year either dropped to a cheaper tier or left the Service entirely. Either way, I bet Microsoft saw a significant reduction in revenue hence the need to revaluate what they are doing with Game Pass...
This seems like the ideal opportunity to copy and paste my predictions from last year as to when games will release this year.
Thus far I have one prediction right, and two predictions that are rumoured to be right:
May: Forza Horizon 6 - now confirmed, but I did say May before it was confirmed! 😉
July: Halo Combat Remastered. Now rumoured to be correct.
August: Gears Of War: E-day. Day and date on the PlayStation too.
September: Fable Day and date on the PlayStation too, although I think it will be delayed into 2027 (now rumoured to be correct).
October: Call of Duty
November : GTA 6 if it is not delayed into 2027
November: Forza Horizon 6 on PlayStation.
So, if Halo does land in July, and if Fable is delayed then I'll be 3 out of 3, so far, on getting my predictions right! Just have to hope all my dire predictions as to the future of Xbox (in terms of consoles) do not also come to pass... 😉
I have said this before, @Millionski. I think Microsoft are looking to end Game Pass as we currently know it, and one way is to price it out of people's pockets. Day one games has been a disaster for Microsoft, and a boon for us consumers, but it really cannot continue as is. The problem that Microsoft have is that many people have stacked their Game Pass Ultimate subscriptions for up to 3 years on the promise of future day one first-party games, so it makes it extremely difficult for Microsoft to just end them because people will feel (rightly) that they had paid for a particular service, which is then being denied to them.
As for Premium, if you pay attention to the number of games announced as entering the service, it is noticeable that Ultimate is only getting one or two games a month that are no also going on Premium. It is as if Microsoft are trying to entice people to sign up to Premium, instead of Ultimate, by making it appear much better value, and of course, what does Premium not have that Ultimate does? That promise of day one games. In other words, they are trying to encourage us to subscribe to Premium because it appears to be better value than Ultimate, with the hope that we will instead buy those first-party releases that we don't get straight away on Premium. Ultimately (pun-intended!), I think Microsoft are going to phase out Ultimate possibly within the next year, but probably within the next 3 years, and the start of that process may become apparent by them restricting our ability to stack our subscription. That way people cannot complain that they have 3 years worth of subscription stacked when Microsoft withdraw day one games.
The removal of day one games could well be Sharma's first big, unpopular decision, but I do think it is coming...
Putting CoD on Game Pass was never, ever going to be a good idea, and it has undoubtedly led to the 50% price hike in Game Pass that we saw last year. If they do not put CoD on Game Pass in future, then you can put money on it that the price of the service will not come down to compensate. Indeed, I've heard that Microsoft intend to increase the price by a further 25% this September, though that might change if CoD does not go on the service...
Yes, @Grumblevolcano, I've just seen that. I mean, it is always nice to be proven right, except when you don't want to be! I have no interest in GTA 6, but I'll be all over Fable, so out of the two, I'd rather GTA 6 was delayed. Of course, with Microsoft not having said when Fable will release (I'm not even sure they have actually committed to 2026), it would be very easy for them to delay it anyway...
I still believe that much of what we are currently seeing were long planned improvements, probably meant as a celebration of the 25th anniversary of Xbox, @Coletrain. These improvements were likely sat waiting to be released at the 'right time'.
I will say that with Sharma's background in PR, she knows how to give a good appearance, but in all honesty, I think it will be 2 or 3 years before we see her true vision for Xbox come to fruition. The exact timing of the release of certain things will likely be down to her, but the release of things that she green lights herself will take some time. For smaller innovations, that may just be months, but the more meaningful stuff will take years.
The other thing I would add is that Sharma saying she wants to hear our views is not new either. Indeed, when Spencer took over, he did exactly the same, and he either had a dedicated website, or a place on Twitter for us to tell him what we wanted of Xbox. That's not to downplay what Sharma is doing now, but it is not new, and with Spencer still guiding her, it may even be his suggestion that she is implementing, though obviously we will never know that for sure.
Ultimately, I like what we are seeing, but how much of it was planned prior to Sharma taking over, is another matter. Regardless, all of this is good for Xbox...
Thank you, @Pigrotto. I've put over 2000 hours into Gears 5 now, and am currently number 91 in the World as a Mechanic in the game. So to say I love playing it would be somewhat of an understatement... 😂
Comments 4,862
Re: You're The Xbox Boss And Need To Figure Out Exclusivity, What Decision Are You Making?
The only solution to the woes that Xbox faces is for absolutely everything to be permanently exclusive. Microsoft would have to suck up the pain (losses) for a decade or more, and also remove day one games from Game Pass, instead putting their games on the service a year after any final content for a game arrives. So if a game has DLC, it is on sale for 12 months before the base game goes on Game Pass.
This is the only way in which people will be permanently drawn into the Xbox ecosystem. If games go on Game Pass day one, people will sub into Game Pass for a month, and return to their usual platform. However, if they are forced to wait for a year or two to play a game, they may instead choose to opt for Xbox.
By way of example, I have been with PlayStation since day one, but I immediately switched to Xbox on the day that the very first console arrived. However, switching to Xbox did not mean that I did not continue to buy a PlayStation each generation. I did so for one reason, and one reason only, to play their exclusives. Until I bought Resident Evil: Requiem, I had never bought a single multiplatform game on any of my PlayStation's. Those games I always bought on my Xbox. The only games I bought on my PlayStation each generation were those games I could not play on my Xbox. If Sony did not have any exclusives, I would not have bought a PlayStation. It is as simple as that. The same will be true of many Xbox gamers, and the same was likely true of many PlayStation gamers up until the point that it became clear that owning an Xbox was no longer a requirement if you wanted to play future Xbox games.
We all know that Microsoft will not take this path because whether they can make enough high quality exclusives to attract people to their ecosystem, leaving behind their PlayStations is very uncertain. People are now entrenched in their platforms, and persuading people to move is probably nigh on impossible. Indeed, I think there is now an expectation among PlayStation gamers that every game will come to their consoles, and the pain that Microsoft would need to endure to change that is unlikely to be something that Microsoft will want to do (and I think they are right!)...
Re: Xbox's Next First-Party Game Arrives This Week, And Preloads Have Already Begun
I hope the game does well for those that want to play it, but I am most certainly not one of them. I hope the game succeeds for Double Fine's sake because with Microsoft being particularly cutthroat right now, one poorly received game could result in closure...
Re: Asha Sharma Lays Out Plans For 'Deeper Investment' In Xbox's Platform Foundations
Thank you, @TrollOfWar, and I mean that. That's the second time this week someone has explain something to me, that they clearly have a good understanding of, in a way that I was (mostly) able to follow (the other one was on the subject of growing fruit trees of all things!).
Now that you explain it, it makes far more sense. I had made a stab at understanding what she was getting at, and was not a million miles off, but now get what she is talking about, and have to say it is kind of surprising that this was not obvious before, though I guess her background may have meant that she picked up on this more easily.
Anyway, thank you for taking the time to thoroughly explain it...
Re: Poll: How Are You Getting On With Hades 2 On Xbox Game Pass?
I want to play it, but finding the time to do so is another matter completely...
Re: Xbox First-Party Title 'Wasteland Remastered' Is Free To Claim Right Now
I mostly do prefer AAA games, @jesse_dylan, but I kick-started Wasteland, and one of my favourite types of games (and I'm actually playing one at the moment as it happens) is turn-based. I'm currently playing XCOM 2 for example because it is one of my all time favourite games.
What I do dislike is games that have poor visuals. I am not a fan of retro games, and very much dislike pixilated games. I have played a few side-scrollers, but for the most part I avoid them...
Re: Asha Sharma Lays Out Plans For 'Deeper Investment' In Xbox's Platform Foundations
Who knows exactly what'll come of this, but it sounds like major changes are afoot behind the scenes at Xbox!, @FraserG:
Today we operate across dozens of surfaces, pipelines, and release models without a shared code repository or common data foundation.
Who knows what that means...? 😂
Re: Report: New Game Pass Tier Exclusive To First-Party Games 'Under Consideration' At Xbox
As I said to someone else above, @cragis0001, I think the version of Game Pass they rejected was the version we currently have. It's all the third-party games that Sony rejected, and understandably so because Sony wants to sell those, not have them offered cheaply on Game Pass.
As for Call of Duty, I think that particular franchise will likely be the big exception. Maybe they would stick it on the service once it has been out for a year or two, and once sales of the game have pretty much dried up, but I don't see them putting it on GP day one (potentially not this year either, even for Xbox!).
I think the same may be true of pretty much all their first-party games. I think there is a strong chance that Microsoft will want to sell their games for at least a year before putting it on Game Pass on the PlayStation. Honestly, I think they would be foolish to just put everything on Game Pass (on the PlayStation) day one. Indeed, I'd argue it's foolish to do it for us too...
Re: Report: New Game Pass Tier Exclusive To First-Party Games 'Under Consideration' At Xbox
I had to look it up, @fatpunkslim, but this is the Tier that I was thinking of regarding PlayStation:
PlayStation Plus Premium: The most comprehensive plan, it includes all the features of Essential and Extra, plus access to classic games from PS1, PS2, and PS3, cloud streaming, and time-limited trials of new titles.
So it is just the older games, as I thought. I only thought about it because I occasionally see Push Square do articles regarding what games are entering each Tier (as Pure does with Game Pass titles), and remember seeing people mention how rarely Premium gets updated. I believe some of Sony's older first-party games do go on the service too.
As for Game Pass generally being a mess, I entirely agree, and I think they should get ride of Ultimate, and get rid of day one titles. Premium should become the top Tier, and should only get new first-party titles once they have been out for between 6 months and a year after their initial release...
Re: Report: New Game Pass Tier Exclusive To First-Party Games 'Under Consideration' At Xbox
I think the version of Game Pass they rejected was the version we currently have, @Questionable_Duck. It's all the third-party games that Sony rejected, and understandably so.
However, as I said above, I think it may well be their older back catalogue that they would look to fill this new Tier. With Bethesda, Activision, Blizzard and Xbox games to call upon, there really is a lot of games to put in there...
Re: Report: New Game Pass Tier Exclusive To First-Party Games 'Under Consideration' At Xbox
It's not just about new games though, @shiny-enzo. Just think how many older games Microsoft now has access too from over the past couple of decades at Xbox, Activision, Blizzard and Bethesda. So many great games that many people would happily subscribe for. PlayStation already has something similar, if I'm not mistaken, and they have far, far fewer games that they can call upon to put into the Tier. New games would just be the cherry on top, and indeed, it may not even have new games. Just the older back catalogue
Re: Report: New Game Pass Tier Exclusive To First-Party Games 'Under Consideration' At Xbox
Not surprised by this, only surprised that it took so long. I've said for years now that if Xbox did this, they could put this version of Game Pass on PlayStation too as it would be no different to EA or Ubisoft etc...
Re: Xbox's New Dashboard Update Is Now Available For All Users
I can see my badge for how long I've been with Xbox*, @FraserG, but do you happen to know whether I can add other badges to those on my profile? If so, do you know how? I'm going mad flicking between different parts of my Xbox trying to find where all the other badges might be (if they even exist!).
*Disappointingly, my badge only shows 17 years because that is when I set up my online account. I've been with Xbox since day one, but for the first 8 years my account was on a different email address for which I couldn't remember by password, so I just created a new account. Kind of gutted now that it only shows 17 instead of 25...
Re: Xbox's New Dashboard Update Is Now Available For All Users
Thank you, @FraserG. I couldn't see it, so maybe my console has not updated yet...
Re: Xbox's New Dashboard Update Is Now Available For All Users
Where exactly do you find the profile badges, @Kezelpaso? I've just taken a look on my Xbox and cannot work out where they could be. Thanks...
Re: Gears Of War E-Day Direct Length Detailed As Xbox Games Showcase Reveals Get Locked In
Agreed, @LordDieALot. It's all very exciting...
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
I absolutely agree with everything you have said, @Jenkinss. From an Xbox consumer perspective, if we cannot have fully exclusive games, then timed feels better than multiplatform. From Microsoft's perspective, it is as you say, a lose/lose scenario where gamers will either await the arrival of the game on their chosen platform, or simply ignore it when it does arrive because the industry has moved on. I said as much earlier within these forums.
I only would like to see Microsoft opt for timed exclusives because it would make me feel better about Xbox, but it really does not serve us that well. And the only reason I would prefer timed exclusives is because we all know that Microsoft will not go for fully exclusive because they just won't make their money back. Heck, they probably won't make their money back if they went for timed exclusives either, which is why they probably won't do that either.
Xbox, as I have said a number of times now, is pretty much done for in terms of consoles. Helix is a last hurrah, a last throw of the dice, but its cost is likely to stifle interest almost immediately, and as I have been saying for a couple of years now, across multiple comments, I think Microsoft will pull the plug on Helix around 3 years after it is introduced, and then Microsoft will go on to be a massively successful publisher of games. As a long-standing Xbox gamer, I find this incredibly sad, and in all honesty, I would love to be proven wrong. The problem is, I don't think that Xbox (the console) is in a recoverable position. I don't think there is a fix for the situation they are in. It would take a decade or more of losses on fully exclusive games to potentially tempt enough people into your ecosystem to make it viable, and Microsoft won't accept a decade of loses. They would rather bin the project and move on to where the money can be made, which is in making and publishing games. Sad, but unfortunately true...
Re: Gears Of War E-Day Direct Length Detailed As Xbox Games Showcase Reveals Get Locked In
I have only Mastered 17 of the 37 maps in Gears 5, @Jenkinss, but then I only play in a team of 3, whereas most people do it as a team of 5. It makes it silly hard to achieve, but a lot of fun.
Horde in Gears 5 is my favourite, with Gears of War 3 as my second favourite, and then Gears 2. For some reason I just didn't really enjoy it in Gears 4. The version they had in Judgement was okay, I guess, but only okay.
When it came to GoW3 Horde, I used to play it with 4 other people (including my son who was just 8 or 9 at the time (I know, very bad parenting, but he was a great sniper at a very young age!)), and we managed to get a couple of scores that were in the top 20 worldwide. These days one of my mates is losing his sight, and another has a high-powered job and just doesn't have time for gaming. Thus now we Master maps in Gears 5 with just my son and one of my mates from back when we played Horde in Gears 3.
I absolutely love playing the mode. Honestly, I never get bored of it. Really cannot wait to see what they do with it in E-Day.
Re: Xbox First-Party Title 'Wasteland Remastered' Is Free To Claim Right Now
This is a great game. Not easy, and requires patience, but is very rewarding...
Re: Gears Of War E-Day Direct Length Detailed As Xbox Games Showcase Reveals Get Locked In
I absolutely agree that the original trilogy had the best Campaigns, @nomither6, and Horde in Gears 2 was my first taste of Horde ever (it may well be the first game to have the mode, but I'm not sure), and I absolutely loved it. Indeed, it was playing Horde that I met 2 of my best friends online, and subsequently met them in real life, becoming Godfather to one of their children.
Personally, I really enjoyed the campaigns in 4 and 5 too, though I accept the tone was very different. In all honesty, I would rather see Gears 6 conclude the trilogy, than receive E-Day, but regardless, a new game is welcome after such a long time since the release of Gears 5.
On a side note, my mate and I play through every campaign (on Hardcore) each year. We play them chronologically, thus so far we have played both Judgement and Reloaded, and are right at the end of Gears 2 at the moment. I absolutely love the franchise and cannot wait for E-Day, which will then be played through first each year as we continue our annual tradition of playing through them all... 😂
Re: Xbox Exec Reveals That Blizzard Is Helping Out With Development On Fable
That's my opinion, @Kang81; I'd rather they kept the game baking in the oven until it is exceptional, than rush is out and attempt to fix it later. We have seen so often how a game has the foundations of being great, but releases in such a state that its reputation never recovers. I do not want that to happen with Fable. I want it to release in tip-top condition, and be fantastic from start to finish. Honestly, I'd rather wait another year, than be disappointed...
Re: Gears Of War E-Day Direct Length Detailed As Xbox Games Showcase Reveals Get Locked In
Horde is simply fantastic, @Jenkinss. I have played Gears 5 for just over 2000 hours now, and the only two modes I have played are the Campaign and Horde. I do not touch PvP. The vast, vast majority of my time playing is in Horde. The last time I looked I was number 91 in the World as a Mechanic in Horde. I am currently Re-Up 57 and so want to get to Re-Up 60 before E-Day comes out because once it does, that's me playing just that for years to come.
Very excited to see what they do with Horde, and wondering what enemy types we get because if they go by what is canon then many of the enemy types we are playing against right now, will not appear in either the Campaign or Horde. We certainly should not see Robots (which suits me because they are a nightmare in Horde), but we should see some new enemies too. I am hoping they bring back Armoured Kantus and Bloodmounts among other enemy types. My guess is that Horde will not be canon, as that will allow them to keep many of the enemies we have seen over the years.
So yes, I absolutely agree, I really hope they show us the Horde mode as well as the Campaign...
Re: Xbox Exec Reveals That Blizzard Is Helping Out With Development On Fable
Really looking forward to playing this game, though I don't foresee it coming out in 2026. My guess would be the second quarter of 2027. I'd love to be wrong, but that is where my thinking is at. Regardless, whenever it does release, I really hope they get the tone right, and that the game is a blast from start to finish...
Re: Gears Of War E-Day Direct Length Detailed As Xbox Games Showcase Reveals Get Locked In
So excited for this. Just have to hope that I can get by Re-Up 60 Achievement in Gears 5 before E-Day releases. I'm currently on Re-Up 57, but it takes so long now to level up it's frankly ridiculous. I need to get it sorted before E-Day it is all I'll be playing until the sequel to E-Day comes out, which if it follows the same path as Gears 5 will be another 7 years.
What I would also love them to show us is the Collector's Edition of the game, and a Collector's controller too. Heck, even at this late stage I might even be tempted to get a Collector's Series X as well to go with my Gears of War 360 console, and my Gears of War Xbox One console.
I don't think there are many bigger fans of Gears of War than myself and @HonestHick that frequent these forums, and I might even suggest that I'm the biggest! I have so many Gears of War Collector's items it's laughable, but I'd love to add more still...
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
I'd love Microsoft to bring back full exclusivity on games, @Jenkinss. No timed-exclusives. Exclusive full-stop! The problem with that though is with their first-party games going day one on Game Pass, people will opt to play the games that way at a far lower cost than if they were to buy the game outright. And of course, even if the games did not go on Game Pass (which I think would be a good move), are there enough Xbox gamers willing to buy the games? If a game costs £200 million to make, they need sell nigh on 3 million games at full price just to break even, and we know for a fact that games often cost more than that to make, and even the best games don't always sell that many copies.
Then you have the issue of how many Helix will sell if it costs as much as is rumoured. Plus if Microsoft decide they will no longer put their first-party games on Game Pass day one, how many people will either cancel their subscriptions, and how many people, who bought a Series console purely as a Game Pass machine primarily for those day one first-party games, will decide to move away from Xbox because they no longer see value in Game Pass because it is no longer offering them the service that they bought the console for? After all, if you are a PlayStation gamer who has bought a Series S to play E-Day on Game Pass only to find that it is not on there, and if you want to play it you have to buy it, but it is also available to buy on your PS5, then it would be a safe bet they're going to buy it on PlayStation, costing Microsoft 30% of the proceeds in the process.
And whilst I love the idea of Microsoft turning the Xbox ship around, and giving us fully exclusive games that attract more people into the Xbox ecosystem, we both know that to do so would probably take a decade or more during which Microsoft would probably make massive losses on each game, meaning we both also know that Microsoft won't accept that. As Spencer so accurately said, Xbox lost the most important generation during the Xbox One period when people were building their digital libraries primarily on PlayStation. Attracting people away from their existing libraries is an exceptionally difficult thing to do, and I'm not sure that Microsoft would be willing to tough it out in what may prove to be a futile attempt to get people to abandon the likes of PlayStation, and join Xbox. To do that in the kind of numbers Xbox needs for it to be self-sustaining is probably nigh on impossible, and that is why I don't believe that Microsoft will return to full exclusivity. I can see them trying timed-exclusives, but we all know that gamers can be very patient. If they know a game will land on their preferred platform they will wait, even if that means waiting 2 years. If they know it is coming, they will wait. We've seen it before on many occasion. So I think in the end, even timed exclusives will not be seen as that beneficial because games lose their lustre when they've been out for a while, and always sell best when they land everywhere at the same time. So even though I think Microsoft will at the very least consider timed exclusives, I think they will soon revert to day and date everywhere instead...
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
It's a matter of maths, @Xboxian360. Games are very costly to make, and the problem that Microsoft has is twofold; firstly they have Game Pass to contend with and how that cannibalises sales on the Xbox (and PC), and secondly the fact Xbox has something like 3 times fewer gamers than PlayStation.
In other words, any game made makes back too little money on Xbox alone, which is why Microsoft have been forced into selling their games on other platforms too.
If a game is made fully exclusive, it will make vastly less money than it could do, and this will lead to studio closures, which in turn means fewer games being made. It is a self-defeating cycle that will be disastrous for Xbox.
Back in the days of the 360 exclusives made far more sense because there was no Game Pass, and because the player-base on both PlayStation and Xbox was much the same for much of the generation. The circumstances are completely different for Microsoft now.
In an ideal world, Xbox would have their games be fully exclusive, and they would make enough money to be self-sustaining, but for that to happen Microsoft would have to be making loses for years to come as they attempt to rebalance the scales, and I just cannot see that happening...
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
I've been arguing it's all about the ecosystem for ages now, @Jenkinss, so I don't entirely disagree with what you are saying, but I think the outlier in this case is the cost of the Helix.
If the Helix costs £1200/£1500 (or indeed possibly more), then it will be an exceptionally niche product. I honestly believe we could be looking at 2 to 3 million sold within the first 2 years plus. It is precisely because I think it will sell so poorly (in comparison to how consoles past have sold) that the sums will mean that Microsoft will need to continue porting their games to PlayStation in order to keep decent revenue coming in.
I've said a number of times in the past that I think Microsoft will be aiming for something like 10 million Helix lifetime sales, but in all honesty, as the cost of components keeps rising, I think the product will become more and more niche with each passing month. Add to that that rumours are saying that the PS6 will be cheaper than the Pro, and I can see people just opting to go there instead.
I am also on record for saying that I can foresee circumstances in which Microsoft stop supplying the Helix around 3 years after it is released due to poor sales. Personally, I think they'll be lucky to shift 3 million of them within that timescale, and therefore Microsoft will just back away from the project.
So whilst I entirely agree that it is all about the ecosystem, and it is not how much an individual game makes on its own (something I have oft said), I think when it comes to the Helix, the equation shifts to whether losses on a game are worth the gains from the ecosystem, and I think in that equation Microsoft will determine that they will actually make more money from selling their games on every platform...
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
I agree Microsoft can choose to do what they want, but I think they can do that regardless of prior commitments, @Millionski. Now they have changed leadership, it is the prime time to make changes to the way they do things too.
As for timed-exclusivity, as I said above, I think this is the way to go (just using E-Day as an example):
August 2026 - Release E-Day as an exclusive to Xbox, but crucially, NOT on Game Pass.
August 2027 - Retain E-day as an Xbox exclusive, but also allow the game to enter Game Pass.
August 2028 - Port the game to PlayStation / Switch 2.
I agree that this would mean either scrapping, or fundamentally changing Ultimate, but I think that is a necessary step for the service. Without getting rid of day one games the only options are either to continue increasing how much it costs, or watch the service whither and die within the next 5 years (and indeed, it would probably be a combination of both of those things)...
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
I think you are missing a bit in your equation, @Jenkinss. 70% of a £70 game sold on PlayStation is £49 for Microsoft. That same game, played for a month on Ultimate nets Microsoft £22.99.
That is why I think that Microsoft will continue to port their games to PlayStation.
Obviously some gamers on Xbox still buy their first-party games, myself included and that is despite having Ultimate, for way more people play via Game Pass than buy a first-party game on the Xbox.
The net result is that Microsoft make more money from a single title by selling it on PlayStation. Indeed, this is precisely why Microsoft have resorted to selling their previously exclusive games on PlayStation.
If it was a straight equation of 70% verses 100% then I absolutely agree that keeping games exclusive would be the way to go for Microsoft, but Game Pass is a jumbo-jet sized fly in the ointment. Yes, Microsoft get to keep an extra 30% for games sold on their platform, but I just don't think the numbers add up to a game earning more for them once Game Pass is factored in.
Totally agree regarding putting their games on PlayStation being a sad surrender. I just don't see Microsoft moving away from that. I think the best we can hope for is a period of timed-exclusivity, though that in itself can harm future sales because very often people will either have played it via Game Pass prior to its release on PlayStation, or people have just moved on from wanting to play a game that is a couple of years old...
Re: Pragmata Release Date, Release Times & Everything You Need To Know On Xbox
I'm so looking forward to Pragmata. I have already pre-ordered the Deluxe Edition. My only problem is that I am currently re-playing XCOM 2, which is one of my all time favourite games, and I think I have a little way to go yet, so might not be able to get on to Pragmata day one, a game I have been looking forward to since I first saw it revealed. Absolutely cannot wait, but will probably have too...
Re: Roundup: The Reviews Are In For Replaced On Xbox Game Pass
I'm not a fan of side-scrolling games, but I am curious about this game. Problem for me is that I have already bought a number of games this year, and not even started on a few of them, so finding time for a game with a style that I am not overly keen on does most likely mean that I'll end up not playing it at all.
For those among us looking forward to this game, I hope you enjoy it...
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
I agree with what you say to a point, @cragis0001, but as I said in my comment at #30, people do buy a second console for the exclusives alone, and so it absolutely makes sense that without exclusives, there is no need to buy a particular console.
It also needs to be borne in mind that if a parent walks into a store, without a clue about these things, then any decent salesperson will point out whether a particular console has either more games, or more exclusives. Not everyone is as informed as we are, and everyone has to start somewhere. Indeed, if you were looking to buy your very first console, and did not have friends on a particular platform, and you then did your research, exclusives could well play a part in your final decision.
I'm just saying that to say that exclusives do not matter to anyone other than Nintendo is to be very wide of the mark...
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
Totally agree, @Coletrain, with the Helix being a PC, it does kind of morph Xbox and PC exclusives into one entity...
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
Kind of you to say, @Feffster. I like it here, so try not to annoy the inhabitants too much... 😂
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
I'll be on E-Day like flies on 💩 @HonestHick, from the moment the game releases no matter where that might be. I'll definitely be playing it on Xbox, but as I now have a Pro, I may well buy it there too, assuming that it will possibly play best there...
Re: Xbox Raises Eyebrows By Mentioning 'Exclusives' On The Series X|S Dashboard
Xbox has loads and loads and loads of exclusives though. I mean, every Halo game is currently exclusive, for example, and only one Gears of War game has been ported. So they can easily be referring to those games, and thus be accurate in what they say.
However, the big question is will future first-party games be exclusive, and do Microsoft consider a game that is released on Xbox one month, and then released on PlayStation 6 months later to be an exclusive (although we, the well informed!(!), know that is actually a timed-exclusive)?
The inclusion of a picture of Forza Horizon 6 is mildy amusing though, because we have heard a few times that the only reason that it is releasing on Xbox first is because the PS5 port won't be ready in time. It is an accidental timed-exclusive, not a planned one...
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
I have to disagree that the lack of exclusivity has not hurt sales of Xbox, @cragis0001. If Microsoft had not ported their games to PC, then there would undoubtedly have been people that now game on PC would either have also bought an Xbox, or only bought an Xbox and not a PC.
The exact same will be true when it comes to the next generation, and the end of this generation, wherein people will look at the lack of exclusives and see no reason to own an Xbox when they can play each game (and more!) on either PC or PlayStation. Where is the need to own both a PS5/6 and an Xbox when you can play every future Xbox game on a PlayStation, plus all those games that are actually exclusive to PlayStation?
Microsoft only put there games on PC in the first place due to the dire issues faced after the launch of the Xbox One, and are only now porting their games to PlayStation due to the dire issues they are now facing with the Series consoles.
Many, many people bought a Series S (in particular), in addition to their PlayStation, as a Game Pass console, but with the massive price hike in subscription fees last year, Microsoft have slaughtered that particular goose. Having no exclusives, will only lead to exacerbating the issue still further.
I do entirely agree that Microsoft's lack of focus on Xbox consoles, has hurt Xbox, but when it comes to industry bias, it really comes does to what platform you game on and promote. In other words, you cannot really expect a PlayStation influencer on YouTube to be singing the praises of Xbox, can you? And the converse is exactly true. There are more PlayStation focussed influencers and websites, but that is because PlayStation has a larger player-base, so it is entirely expected. Also, in fairness to everyone else out there, if Microsoft does not focus on their own brand, can you really blame everyone else for not focusing on them either?
I don't think the issue of Xbox games topping PlayStation should surprise anyone. Ultimately, the vast majority of people game on one home console only, and whilst they may eye with envy games that are on other systems, they do not feel inclined to buy the relevant console in order to play it. However, once it comes to their system, they will gladly jump on it.
That is why I think exclusives are so important; they attract people into your ecosystem, but you have to have enough of them to make people buy your platform. Having just a few is not ever going to be enough. There has to be a realisation amongst gamers that if they want to play a particular game they have no choice but to either buy the relevant console, or go without. And the more exclusives a brand has, the more reasons you give people to buy into that brand. The fewer exclusives you have (or none, for that matter), then the less likely people are to see the need to buy your system...
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
As much as I would love Xbox to return to having proper exclusives, @Coletrain, I really cannot see it happening.
I always look at it this way, I have been Xbox through and through since day one, yet I have always also bought a PlayStation, and why is that? Purely to play their exclusives. Until I bought Resident Evil: Requiem on my Pro, I had never once bought a multiplatform game on a PlayStation. So, I guess it kind of follows I would do the same if I primarily gamed on a PlayStation, in that I would then opt to buy an Xbox to play their exclusives. However, if they have no exclusives, where is the need to do so? That in a nutshell is why I think exclusives are so important; they encourage people, such as myself, to buy into a particular ecosystem...
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
Ahh! Right, now I get you, @Questionable_Duck, and there is absolutely no need to apologise, my statement was not sufficiently clear. You are correct, I did mean that those games that we currently view as exclusive to Xbox (the next Gears of War, for example), have not released day and date on PlayStation. Each game (Starfield for example), has already been exclusive to Xbox for a period of time first.
I should probably word it better to be fair...
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
Sorry, @Questionable_Duck, I'm probably being a little dense, but I am not quite sure what you are getting at...
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
I'll be absolutely shocked if E-Day is not fully multi-platform, @HonestHick. I mean, what would the point have been in releasing Reloaded on PlayStation, if E-Day was not going to follow suit?
I know there is an argument for releasing a single game from a franchise on PlayStation, and then saying if you want to play the others, then you need to buy an Xbox, but on what planet was Reloaded that game? It was such a poor quality port, that very few people would look at that game and tell themselves they just have to play the subsequent games and are prepared to buy an Xbox to do so.
I think the plan to release E-Day on PlayStation has been longstanding, and indeed, the only reason that game was made, rather than Gears 6 was in order to bring it to a new audience on PlayStation. Otherwise they may as well have finished the current trilogy first, then made E-Day.
No, I'll be shocked if E-Day does not release on PlayStation, and I expect it to do so day one...
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
I agree, @Coletrain. Exclusivity only works if every game is exclusive (other than Live Service). Anything less means each game you port is one less reason to own an Xbox, and one more reason to own a PlayStation. It only takes so many games to tip the balance to the point where people question whether there is a need to own an Xbox.
I think the problem is that Microsoft have tasted some success with some of their former exclusive games releasing on PlayStation, and none of those games have been day one releases. So the big test for Microsoft will be with a day one game; if they were to release E-Day day one on PlayStation and it proves to be a rip-roaring success then I think the bean-counters at Microsoft will push for every game to be fully multiplatform...
Re: Three Games Are Available Today With Xbox Game Pass (April 14)
Hades 2 could well be the first game I play on Game Pass this year. Indeed, it may well prove to be the only game that I play on Game Pass this year. I struggled with the first game, and only got right to the end once, but promptly died, and as it had taken me so long to get there, I could not muster the will to continue, so rather than buy the sequel (as I did the first game), I think I might try it on Game Pass instead...
Re: Xbox Is Having 'Very Big Discussions' About Exclusivity, Says Reporter
The lack of exclusives has massively hurt Xbox in terms of console sales, but has also lined the pockets of Microsoft in the process. I think Microsoft will choose to continue to put their games on PlayStation even if that hurts sales of the Helix because I believe the sales of their games will bring in more revenue than they lose as a consequence of selling fewer Helix's.
Microsoft have the added problem of the Helix being a PC, and their releasing all their games on PC anyway, and effectively the only console they would be denying games to would be PlayStation, and doing so would massively impact the revenue that each individual game brings in.
In other words, I cannot see Microsoft returning to fully exclusive games.
I have argued previously that I believe Microsoft should do the following (using Gears of War: E-Day as an example):
August 2026 - Release E-Day as an exclusive to Xbox, but crucially, NOT on Game Pass.
August 2027 - Retain E-day as an Xbox exclusive, but also allow the game to enter Game Pass.
August 2028 - Port the game to PlayStation / Switch 2.
For me, Microsoft need to keep every game they are legally allowed to as an exclusive to the consequence. It does not matter that Elder Scrolls or Doom used to be fully multi-platform, if you want your own platform to survive and thrive then you need to have strong exclusives to attract people to within your ecosystem. It will be a massively unpopular decision with many PlayStation gamers, but it is what is needed for Xbox. Personally, I would argue that had the Helix not been a PC, that Microsoft should treat PC in the same way, and take away all first-party games, but obviously that is now a moot point anyway.
Regardless of everything that I have written above, I don't think Microsoft will take the necessary steps, and whilst some have said they should continue to port the smaller games, and keep the bigger ones as exclusives, I actually think Microsoft are far more likely to do it the other way around because the smaller games will not bring in the revenue to make it worthwhile, whereas the bigger games can bring in a massive amount of revenue, and at the end of the day, I think that the bean-counters will win that argument...
Re: Xbox Boss Declares Game Pass Is 'Too Expensive' And Needs A 'Better Value Equation'
My money is on there having been a huge exodus from Game Pass (particularly Ultimate) since the last price increase, and there has been a realisation at Microsoft that it cannot continue as is, and that the idea that people will stick with the service no matter what is charged has been comprehensively disproven. The majority of people who still subscribe to Ultimate are either shielded from the price increases due to local laws, or have already stacked a period of subscription and so again are not paying the increased rates. I'd bet good money that many of those that were not shielded from the price increase last year either dropped to a cheaper tier or left the Service entirely. Either way, I bet Microsoft saw a significant reduction in revenue hence the need to revaluate what they are doing with Game Pass...
Re: Rumour: Fable Has Apparently Been Delayed Internally, But May Still Launch In 2026
This seems like the ideal opportunity to copy and paste my predictions from last year as to when games will release this year.
Thus far I have one prediction right, and two predictions that are rumoured to be right:
May: Forza Horizon 6 - now confirmed, but I did say May before it was confirmed! 😉
July: Halo Combat Remastered. Now rumoured to be correct.
August: Gears Of War: E-day. Day and date on the PlayStation too.
September: Fable Day and date on the PlayStation too, although I think it will be delayed into 2027 (now rumoured to be correct).
October: Call of Duty
November : GTA 6 if it is not delayed into 2027
November: Forza Horizon 6 on PlayStation.
So, if Halo does land in July, and if Fable is delayed then I'll be 3 out of 3, so far, on getting my predictions right! Just have to hope all my dire predictions as to the future of Xbox (in terms of consoles) do not also come to pass... 😉
Re: Rumour: Microsoft Might Not Launch Call Of Duty 2026 On Xbox Game Pass
I have said this before, @Millionski. I think Microsoft are looking to end Game Pass as we currently know it, and one way is to price it out of people's pockets. Day one games has been a disaster for Microsoft, and a boon for us consumers, but it really cannot continue as is. The problem that Microsoft have is that many people have stacked their Game Pass Ultimate subscriptions for up to 3 years on the promise of future day one first-party games, so it makes it extremely difficult for Microsoft to just end them because people will feel (rightly) that they had paid for a particular service, which is then being denied to them.
As for Premium, if you pay attention to the number of games announced as entering the service, it is noticeable that Ultimate is only getting one or two games a month that are no also going on Premium. It is as if Microsoft are trying to entice people to sign up to Premium, instead of Ultimate, by making it appear much better value, and of course, what does Premium not have that Ultimate does? That promise of day one games. In other words, they are trying to encourage us to subscribe to Premium because it appears to be better value than Ultimate, with the hope that we will instead buy those first-party releases that we don't get straight away on Premium. Ultimately (pun-intended!), I think Microsoft are going to phase out Ultimate possibly within the next year, but probably within the next 3 years, and the start of that process may become apparent by them restricting our ability to stack our subscription. That way people cannot complain that they have 3 years worth of subscription stacked when Microsoft withdraw day one games.
The removal of day one games could well be Sharma's first big, unpopular decision, but I do think it is coming...
Re: Rumour: Microsoft Might Not Launch Call Of Duty 2026 On Xbox Game Pass
Putting CoD on Game Pass was never, ever going to be a good idea, and it has undoubtedly led to the 50% price hike in Game Pass that we saw last year. If they do not put CoD on Game Pass in future, then you can put money on it that the price of the service will not come down to compensate. Indeed, I've heard that Microsoft intend to increase the price by a further 25% this September, though that might change if CoD does not go on the service...
Re: Rumour: Xbox To Release Halo: Campaign Evolved In July 2026, Early Access Included
Yes, @Grumblevolcano, I've just seen that. I mean, it is always nice to be proven right, except when you don't want to be! I have no interest in GTA 6, but I'll be all over Fable, so out of the two, I'd rather GTA 6 was delayed. Of course, with Microsoft not having said when Fable will release (I'm not even sure they have actually committed to 2026), it would be very easy for them to delay it anyway...
Re: Talking Point: Are You Happy With The New Updates Coming To Xbox Consoles So Far?
I still believe that much of what we are currently seeing were long planned improvements, probably meant as a celebration of the 25th anniversary of Xbox, @Coletrain. These improvements were likely sat waiting to be released at the 'right time'.
I will say that with Sharma's background in PR, she knows how to give a good appearance, but in all honesty, I think it will be 2 or 3 years before we see her true vision for Xbox come to fruition. The exact timing of the release of certain things will likely be down to her, but the release of things that she green lights herself will take some time. For smaller innovations, that may just be months, but the more meaningful stuff will take years.
The other thing I would add is that Sharma saying she wants to hear our views is not new either. Indeed, when Spencer took over, he did exactly the same, and he either had a dedicated website, or a place on Twitter for us to tell him what we wanted of Xbox. That's not to downplay what Sharma is doing now, but it is not new, and with Spencer still guiding her, it may even be his suggestion that she is implementing, though obviously we will never know that for sure.
Ultimately, I like what we are seeing, but how much of it was planned prior to Sharma taking over, is another matter. Regardless, all of this is good for Xbox...
Re: Talking Point: What Are You Playing This Weekend? (April 11-12)
Thank you, @Pigrotto. I've put over 2000 hours into Gears 5 now, and am currently number 91 in the World as a Mechanic in the game. So to say I love playing it would be somewhat of an understatement... 😂