I'm not surprised, I suggested this the other day. We've not seen any gameplay at all, nothing since the original CGi announcement trailer, and it is a licensed game, all of which lends itself to being cancelled...
I agree that they got the tone wrong to some extent, @Elbow, but as I say, chances are that we will see more of the same type of writing because it is a different studio to the one that made the original games.
I think people will set their expectations too high, and many will end up being sorely disappointed.
I've already seen people unhappy with the foursome, wondering where Cole and Baird are, and clearly they have not given consideration to the GoW timelines.
It's almost a guarentee that you will see people unhappy with the story in some way because they do not like the direction it is taken in, or it is not dark enough, or it is not a horror game like the original (which wasn't a horror game in any way, but go figure).
As I say, people will have set certain expectations, which are almost guaranteed to be unfulfilled. Certain characters cannot be present, certain enemies cannot be present, and by rights, even the Lancer Chainsaw shouldn't be present at the start because it didn't exist for the first 3 years after E-Day. That said, it wouldn't be GoW without the Chainsaw, and it looks like The Coalition have got round this by introducing it as a prototype. Still, you just know that some people will be unhappy with some of the stuff that will be missing...
The thing is, GTA 6 could well be selling in record numbers on Xbox, whilst also being sold 8 to 1 in favour of PlayStation. Both are entirely possible, and indeed, potentially right.
We know there are around 93 million PS5s in the wild, and there are around 35 million Series consoles, but we also know that an awful lot of people that own a PS5 also own a Series console (usually an S), which they have as a Game Pass machine. In other words, if someone owns a PS5 and an S, then they are far more likely to buy GTA 6 for the PlayStation as it will almost certainly run and look better there than on the S.
Basically, if you are in a position where you have the choice of where you are going to play GTA 6, then it is likely that you will opt for PlayStation over Xbox...
Absolutely agree, @Weebleman, and it is an argument that I have been making for a while now. When Spencer said that Xbox had lost the most important generation, he was absolutely right. People will have built up their digital libraries, and the majority of them did so on PlayStation. Thus, someone looking to get into console gaming is going to firstly look at where their mates are, and then look at the exclusives. Unless there is a truly compelling game on a different platform, they will always go to where their mates are.
Add to this that for a couple of years the belief (and basically the truth) was that Xbox had no exclusives, and was going to put all of its games on PlayStation. So, with that mindset, and with the strong probabilities being that your mates were already on PlayStation, then what was the point in buying an Xbox? Game Pass was pretty much the only reason, but even that had its price jacked up to the point that it went from the best deal in gaming, to non-essential, and of course PlayStation has its own (slightly inferior) version.
Basically everything screamed buy a PlayStation, and so that is exactly what people did, and Xbox fell further and further behind. Now, Xbox has a community that primarily plays first-party games via Game Pass, and very few exclusive games, and right now, no essential exclusives (although hopefully E-Day will change that), meaning that the question remains why buy an Xbox, and just one or two exclusives will not change that...
Absolutely, @Elbow. The biggest issues players had with Gears 4 and 5 was that twofold; it wasn't Marcus, and then Kait and Del were not liked. In terms of actual gameplay, the robots introduced in 4 were not popular at all, though if you actually follow the story properly, their introduction made a lot more sense. Problem was, their presence was not explained early enough, and so they were very jarring to begin with.
Obviously, there will be no robots in E-Day (or at least there shouldn't be (other than a Jack like model, maybe)), and we return to the Locust, which should make a lot of people happier.
As I say, the problem remains that it is still The Coalition that are making the game, and for many they have lost the trust of the community, so they have their work cut out...
Personally I really enjoyed both 4 and 5, @Elbow, and I would much prefer to have seen 6 over E-Day.
I'd happily have seen E-Day after 6. I don't have a problem with prequels, even though we already know much of the story, but I don't like leaving stories unfinished.
The one thing I would say is that people didn't like 4 and 5 mostly because of the characters involved at the heart of the story, and so a return to Marcus and Dom may solve that issue, but the truth is that it is still The Coalition that are making the game, so some of the other elements that people disliked might still be present.
As I say, I enjoyed 4 and 5, and still play 5 every weekend, so I'm sure I'll enjoy E-Day too. Just have to hope that everyone else feels the same...
I've said it a number of times now, @AI-Generation, but keeping E-Day, of all games, from PlayStation is just a dumb move.
Sony have realised that for a Live Service game to thrive, it needs to be everywhere, yet Microsoft deem that E-Day (a Live Service game) should not be on what would have been by far their biggest console audience. It makes no sense.
One game won't move the dial, and it will take years for Xbox to build up a decent portfolio of games that might attract people into the ecosystem. I mean, just one game this year, and only one game that we know of, (and not a well known franchise at that) so far, next year is not enough by a longshot, and the truth is that Xbox is on life-support, it does not have the luxury of time in which to build that portfolio, and ironically they have a decent number of games coming out in a short period of time, yet they squander them by putting them on PlayStation.
Truthfully though, what irks me the most is the stupidity in keeping a Live Service game off PlayStation. It literally makes no sense, and just seems to me that Sharma is willing to sacrifice that particular game just to appease a section of the Xbox fanbase who are more interested in sticking their middle finger up at PlayStation gamers than they are in the health of the game, the franchise, or indeed Xbox. To me, Sharma has demonstrated a severe lack of judgement, and she has chosen a short-lived dose of positive PR, over the long term impact that this decision will have.
I'll be there day one having bought both the Collector's Edition and the Premium Edition, and I can only hope that many of those celebrating this move choose to support the game by actually buying it, but I think the truth is that most will just play it on Game Pass (if they bother to play it at all) and will move quickly on...
It's not about State of Decay 3, or Halo: Combat Evolved, or Fable or Gears of War: E:Day or Forza Horizon 6, or Clockwork Revolution on their own, @Balaam_. It is about an ecosystem. A collection of games that together people find enticing. Just one of those games may not be enough to make you want to buy an Xbox. Maybe not even two. However, 3 or 4 or all of them, and it could well be a different story.
People buy a PlayStation to play the exclusives, but that is just it, it isn't 'exclusive', it is plural; 'exclusives', and it is for that reason that I say Xbox should be prioritising their own ecosystem just as Sony has done. Instead, it seems to me that rather than face the wrath of some disgruntled PlayStation gamers because they don't get to play Halo or Fable, Xbox has chosen to throw themselves to the wolves whilst hoping that one game (E-Day, because you're right, no one is going to buy an Xbox to play Clockwork Revolution (at least not right now)) can save the platform.
I have long argued that consoles need exclusives, and a few on here said Xbox didn't, and that PlayStation would follow in their footsteps and give us all their exclusives too, and all the time Sony sat on their games whilst Xbox gave theirs away, and Xbox consoles dwindled into virtual insignificance. Then suddenly, Sharma utters the word 'exclusive', and that is the right course for Xbox! Go figure!
Anyway, that aside, Xbox needs more than just E-Day, and Sharma should have been willing to make herself unpopular with the Sony audience because she owes them nothing. Xbox should be her priority. However, in making a half-baked gesture in making E-Day exclusive, whilst leaving everything else on PlayStation, she has managed to potentially cripple the chances of Gears of War, whilst also potentially crippling the chances of Xbox.
It should have been all or nothing, though the truth is that it is likely too late anyway because there is insufficient people on Xbox that buy first-party games, and saving Xbox will require substantial changes to Game Pass in order to push people into buying those games.
Regardless, I would argue that offering us E-Day as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of appeasing the more vocal among the Xbox fanbase, even though it is definitely going to harm the games chances, and most likely offer no benefit to Xbox as a whole, just seems a pointless exercise in futility to me...
So 3 (not counting Minecraft) of the top 10 most wishlisted games are Xbox games, that could have been exclusive, and are probably doing pretty well (in terms of being wishlisted) on PlayStation too.
Honestly, it makes no sense for Sharma to realise Xbox needs exclusive games, and then put them on PlayStation. Forget the idea that Microsoft had said the games would be on PlayStation, they should have simply said plans have changed, and made them exclusive to Xbox...
Microsoft owe PlayStation absolutely nothing, and they are trying to build up a portfolio of exclusive games so as to attract people into the Xbox ecosystem. The half-baked way that Microsoft have gone about this just seems doomed to failure to me...
Sorry to pick you up on your statement, @Deformedpye, but the UK is not 'going after Africa'. The UK has invested billions in mining in Africa, that is true, but it is not doing the same as Trump who was talking about seizing or invading Greenland and taking it for America. Their approach was very different.
It is also fair to say that both China and America have invested far more in Africa when it comes to mineral mining...
I think in an ideal world, we would not see the PS6 or Helix until 2030, @AI-Generation. The problem is, all the components for Helix and the PS6 will have been designed, sourced, etc. The factories will have been told when assembly is to begin, and they will have set time aside for the process. All of that has already cost a massive amount of money.
If they build them, but don't sell them yet, then they need to store them, which again, costs money, but not just that, it would mean that they would have tech from 2026 being sold in 2030, and by then, tech would have moved on. People would be unhappy buying into what would effectively be old tech, which would impact sales for both Sony and Microsoft.
They could scrap the consoles right now, but that would mean writing off hundreds of millions in development costs, and potentially having to pay compensation for contracts etc. However, if they did that, they would then have to go through the design process all over again, which again would cost them hundreds of millions, and for all we know, prices for components maybe even worse in 2030 than they are now, and if that were the case then a console that would have cost a £1000 next year, may cost £1300 in 2030.
Put simply, there is no easy solution for either Sony or Microsoft. As a consumer, and as much as I love to have the most up to date tech, I don't really feel the need for a new console right now. However, for both Sony and Microsoft, they pulled the trigger on the development of the next generation consoles a few years ago. They have already invested hundreds of millions in the process, and that's money they want back as soon as is possible. Releasing it in 2027 brings with it a certain set of problems, but delaying it to 2030 not only creates problems now, but may indeed face exactly the same problems then as they would had they released it next year, and indeed, it could be even worse!
Have to say, I wouldn't want to be the one making these decisions...
I have maintained the same line for a while now, @AI-Generation, but I not only think that Helix will be a disaster for Microsoft, but I also think it will be short-lived and the last generation of Xbox in terms of consoles.
Put simply, a decent PC is expensive. Helix will prove this point. It'll either be inexpensive and not particularly good (in terms of PCs), or it'll be expensive and good, but people will not buy it.
37% fewer people bought an Xbox One than bought a 360, and 40% fewer people bought a Series console than bought an Xbox One. If you extrapolate from there, then you would think that Helix would sell something like 40% fewer units than the Series consoles, which would mean that Helix would have around 20 million lifetime sales. However, that is not taking into account what seems like it could be a massive increase in price. Even for those that bought a Series X, they could be looking at paying double, triple or even more than they paid for the their X to buy Helix. But, two thirds of people that bought a Series console this generation, have bought an S. They would be looking at paying 4 or 5 or more times what they paid for the S in order to buy Helix. I just cannot see it. I think a lot of people that bought the X will baulk at paying a £1000 for Helix, but if you got an S for £250, then no way will people want to be paying a £1000 for Helix. The whole point of the S was the cheap entry point, and Helix is definitely not that.
Personally, I think Microsoft will set a target of 10 million lifetime sales, but I also don't think they'll achieve that, as I think the cost will be so prohibitive for most that they will likely sell something like 2 million in the first 3 years, and then stop making them...
I bought my Series X by way of pre-order (in fact I bought 2 by pre-order, one for myself and one for my youngest son), and I paid £450 for both of them. I got one from the Microsoft Store, and one from Argos. I remember being online with two of my mates as we all tried to pre-order our consoles, and everything kept crashing, and the queues were horrendous. I also distinctly remember the relief when I managed to finally confirm my pre-orders, which was obviously complicated by virtue of trying to buy two.
I have no idea what that would be in dollars, so I haven't ticked an option...
Any chance you could have Pounds Sterling, @FraserG? I have no idea what £450 was back then, and whether it still equates to the same now in dollars...! 😂
I have said it a few times now, @Millionski, but if Helix really is this super powerful PC that people seem to be expecting, then it will not be cheap. In light of how much consoles are now costing, I don't think £1500 is out of the question. I think there may be a cheaper option too, but even that will only look cheap when compared to Helix.
As for how many are sold next generation, it obviously mostly depends on how much Helix costs, and then how much the PS6 costs by comparison. If there is a big difference in price, I can see many people looking at the difficulties Xbox is in, the uncertainties that it offers when compared to the PlayStation, and opting to buy a PS6 instead of Helix.
If Helix costs between £1000 and £1500, then I think it will be a very niche device that only enthusiasts will buy. I can see Microsoft setting a sales target of something like 10 million lifetime sales, but then probably selling just 2 million or so within the first 3 years, and then calling it a day. Whether they come back with a cheaper, actual console, I don't know, but I would doubt. Otherwise they will simply leave the console business.
With the expected price of Helix, I just cannot see that many people willing to buy it, and if there is a cheaper option, it will still need to be better than the X, and therefore likely to be more expensive than the X is currently too.
The next generation is going to be a total nightmare on the wallet...
The funny thing is (and it happens every time!), Sony get some bad press because they lay off nearly 300 people from Bungie, but instead of Sony getting some heat, Microsoft swoop into the rescue and give even worse news (for Xbox), and steal the limelight from Sony. Every single time! Sony find a rake to stand on, and Microsoft barge them out of the way and step on it themselves.
Let Sony have some heat for once Microsoft, stop being so greedy...
I've seen people (rightly) blame Microsoft for contributing to this components crisis (or if you are on Push, just blaming Microsoft! 🤦♂️), but the truth is that Xbox is just as much a victim of what Microsoft (and others) are doing as everyone else...
Not into multiplayer on PlayStation, @J_Mo_Money? Where on Earth do you get that idea? Why then does Call of Duty always sell best on PlayStation? Battlefield did likewise...
Absolutely they would, @General-Foley. I still have my Gears of War 3 Collector's console, and also my Gears of War 4 Collector's console. Had they done one for E-Day, I would likely have bought that too...
It is a Live Service game, @J_Mo_Money. The Coalition just do not want to give it that label.
The labelled Gears 5 as a Live Service game, and E-Day has exactly the same set up; campaign, PvP multiplayer, and co-op PvE. They will add more maps to it as time goes on. Sell skins and customisations for the multiplayer aspect. New characters, etc. and will support the game for probably 5 years.
This is the definition of a Live Service game (look it up!):
A live service game is a video game designed to receive continuous updates, new content, and events over time to keep players engaged long after its initial release.
Reloaded may have flopped (to some extent), @Millionski, but it was a very poor 'remaster' of a 20 year old game. E-Day is a brand spanking new shiny game with all the mod cons, and all the modern day console benefits. It is a completely different kettle of fish.
Reloaded was a campaign and multiplayer. Once it was released, that was it. Everything was there, take it or leave it. No further support.
E-Day is a campaign and Live Service that will be supported for 5 years or so after release. It would have thrived on the PlayStation.
They are from the same franchise, but that is pretty much where the similarities end.
Also, if, as people seem to think, E-Day turns out to be a 9/10 game, then that alone would have driven sales on the PlayStation.
It is a massive mistake not putting it on PlayStation. It would likely have sold really well there, and may even have caused some people to buy Reloaded. Not just that, but the guys on PlayStation would have actually bought it, and also poured a tonne of money into microtransactions.
Instead we get to say, whoopie, we got an exclusive, but the consoles are too expensive, so few will buy an Xbox in order to play it, and those already gaming on an Xbox will mostly just play it on Game Pass on Xbox. It'll likely end up being a financial disaster, and so maybe the last Gears of War game we ever get. But hey, it's exclusive...!
Indeed it does, @AI-Generation. Raising the price of the consoles right before E-Day releases is not going to help with bringing new customers into the ecosystem. It effectively means that E-Day will make even less money on Xbox, which could be catastrophic for the Gears of War franchise, jobs, and studio closures.
I've always said that consoles need exclusives, but Live Service games need to be everywhere. This decision has really hobbled the games chances of success...
The problem both Sony and Microsoft have, @AI-Generation, is the design for their next consoles is already set in stone. Components have been ordered, and assembly factories have probably been booked. Basically, they either have to go now, or scrap everything they have done in the design department and start again.
They cannot build the consoles and just store them. Basically, storing them will cost a lot of money, and the tech within them gets old fast. That which is cutting edge today, will be old news in 2 or 3 years time.
So, they are both in a bind right now; if they build them now and put them on sale, they will be sold as cutting edge at today's insane prices.
However, if they scrap the current designs for the PS6 and Helix, they have to begin that design process all over again, which costs money, but if they look to release in 2030, what's to say that the component crisis is not worse still? What's to say that a PS6 costing a £1000 if released next year, won't cost £1300 in 2030? It could easily happen.
Now, where we might be in agreement is that I don't feel that either the PS5 nor the Series X has really been pushed to it's limits on a regular basis. Sure, there have been a few titles that have stretched their capabilities, but for the most part games run perfectly fine on them. Obviously, Microsoft does have some hinderance when it comes to the S as that will have more and more trouble coping as time goes on, and I imagine that Microsoft will be happy to move on from that experiment come the next generation.
Still, I think it all comes down to whether Sony and Microsoft are willing to accept the loses they will incur by starting from scratch, or they believe that going to market now is more sensible than delaying given the unpredictability of the market...
Honestly, anyone that think a full fat Helix is going to cost less than £1000 is fooling themselves. It'll cost more like £1500, and I would not be shocked if it did not cost more...
Having cosmetics, story missions, and stores locked into the top edition only, is Rockstars way of avoiding the controversy that would have erupted had they released the base game at a higher price, @Skinny-Pete.
Had they charged £80 or more for the base game, then people would have kicked up a stink. Still bought it, but kicked up a stink nonetheless...
I've been tempted to buy Blades of Fire as few times, and noticed today that it is currently on sale. Will have to see if I can find time to play it this weekend. Thanks for the heads up, @FraserG.
I'll have to take a look, @ILuvGames. I did give Vermintide (not sure whether I have spelt that correctly) a go, but I didn't like games like that and the likes of Left 4 Dead because I like to take my time and look around, whereas in those games you are literally running from one end of the map to the other, which I do not enjoy.
I actually bought the Collector's Edition of SM2, and it came with all the DLC, so I should take a look at the Horde mode really. In fact they cocked up my delivery, and so they sent me a second copy of the game, which I could send to my mate.
Can it be played with just 2, or would we need to fill a lobby with randoms? Does it have bots if the lobby is not filled...?
I have a feeling that we were told Perfect Dark and Everwild looked great before they were then cancelled. Howard saying that the game looks great does not mean that Blade is safe...
You'd think that by now pretty much everything is in place to begin building Helix, @Millionski. I mean, it takes time to get sufficient stock to meet initial demand, so if it is to release next year, you'd think they would begin building them soon.
As for a second console, I think they need to have one as a cheaper alternative. Something that is better than the X, but cheaper than Helix, which would obviously mean that it would be less capable too.
I think they will do this, and I think Sharma will probably be able to sway Nadella into agreeing that it is needed (because it obviously is!). That said, I think this second device is still likely to be around the same price as the X, and potentially a little more than that. Nothing is cheap right now...
Totally agree, @Coletrain. I am looking forward to seeing what both Sony and Microsoft offer. Not looking forward to having to afford both of them though...!
Not sure whether you have had chance to read it yet, but Push Square have just published an article on the potential price of the PS6. It makes interesting reading...
I have played the campaign for Space Marine 2, @ILuvGames. In fact I buy all of the single-player Warhammer games. I haven't played Darktide because it is not single-player.
I know SM2 was supposed to get a Horde mode, but I haven't tried it, mostly because my mate does not have the game, and I imagine it would be best played in co-op...
I absolutely agree, @kmtrain83, consoles are getting to the point now where the differences are very minimal indeed. I think that is partly why people are excited by the idea of a PC because they see that as being a sizable step up. Problem with that is if you expect a sizable step up in performance, that won't come cheap.
Baldur's Gate 3 didn't run particularly well on my PC when I first tried playing it, and it was the reason that I bought a new graphics card and memory for my PC at the cost of around £1000. PC gaming is not cheap...
The truth is you get what you pay for, @Coletrain. That saying is one that has always been true.
If we pay a pittance (in PC terms) then we will not get much in return. I would say that even with all of Microsoft's potential buying power, if they offer us a PC that costs less than £1500, we will not be getting a decent PC. It may well be a good console at £1000, but it won't be a good PC. It'll get by for a couple of years, but don't expect it to be performing wonders a few years down the line when the games become even more demanding.
Personally, I think Xbox would be better off binning off the PC side of things, and bringing us a better console. I'm sure they could make a console that is better than the X, and in doing so could keep the cost to between £800 and £1000.
Honestly, that is likely what we will see Sony do with the PS6, and if people are going to baulk at £1500 for a semi-decent / decent PC, then Microsoft may as well forget the idea at this time, and just give us an improved console instead.
I'm not keen on PC gaming, and I also believe that having an Xbox with access to Steam will rapidly kill off Microsoft's involvement in consoles anyway, so I would be more than happy with it being just an improved console. I'm probably in the minority there though...
The game has a lot of hype to live up to. Just have to hope that the reviewers don't get to carried away with everything, and give accurate reviews. We all know that this will be the biggest game launch in history (until GTA 7 anyway), but that does not mean it will be the best.
I have never played a GTA game, but if it reviews really well, then I may be tempted, but it would have to be pretty compelling for me to get involved...
It seems sensible to me. So many games were probably banking on avoiding GTA 6, and opted for similar dates only to find other games had the same idea. I also suspect that many were not absolutely certain that GTA 6 would release in November anyway, so now that Rockstar have confirmed the games release, it is probably more prudent to move your game rather than face the GTA 6 fallout.
It is a case of who blinks first amongst all the other developers, but there is some sense in going first because you can pick your preferred date, and it is then for other developers to avoid you.
Anyway, I am looking forward to this game. It looks pretty epic...
I think it will be a case of SaD (Supply and Demand), @Coletrain. I think initially Microsoft will be contracted for something like 3 million in the first year or two, and then after that, it will be SaD. So, if Helix sells well, then they will place further orders, though they will likely pay market prices (with a discount) at that time. So if the price of RAM comes down, then they will pay less, but if it has gone up, they will pay more, and they will pass that on to the consumer.
If Helix sells badly (which I suspect it will because I think it will be out of the price range that most people are prepared to pay), then I think Microsoft will just stop making them.
I agree that Microsoft will likely be able to get components at a better price than Valve, as much as anything because they don't just make Helix, and so they will get preferential rates with some suppliers. However, we are led to believe that the components that are within Helix are better and thus more expensive than those in the Steam Machine in the first place, meaning that even with a discount Microsoft will probably find themselves in a position of expecting us to pay £1500 or more. Honestly, a PC for £1000 will most likely be spectacularly rubbish, and do more harm than good to Xbox. They need to bring out a decent PC, and if we want a decent PC, we must expect to pay a whack for it.
I do think this also points to the PS6 costing at least £800 on release too, and I would not be shocked if it cost more than that, and that would not include the disc-drive either.
These are different times we are living through, and the problem both Sony and Microsoft have is they have three options;
1. Put their consoles out at the time they initially intended (2027), and charge accordingly having paid a premium for components.
2. Delay release of the console for two or three years (so 2029/2030) and hope that the price of components have settled down. If they have bingo! If they haven't their consoles will likely cost more than they would have done had they released it in 2027. Another problem with this is that the tech will be a further 2 or 3 years out of date if they delay and release the same spec'd systems.
3. Scrap the consoles completely and redesign them with different components, with the aim of releasing in 2030, but using different components that are more up to date for that time, but that still does not guarentee that the price of components, nor the end product, will be cheaper.
You might think that Microsoft could source the components more cheaply, @Coletrain, but that all depends on how many of the devices they expect to sell. If Microsoft have set a target of 10-15 million lifetime sales, then that does lessen their ability to source the materials more cheaply. The more components they need, the cheaper the price will be for them. The fewer components, the more expensive they will be, and that cost will be passed on to us.
My view is that 10 million lifetime sales is probably the maximum they are targeting. I also think they will fall well short of that and will likely only sell between 2 and 3 million in the first 3 years. The likelihood is that any contract will be on a rolling basis, so Microsoft will be able to withdraw from the contract if they decide to stop production of the Helix.
Honestly, I have no idea how popular the Steam Machine will be, but it will be cheaper than Helix, and may indeed sell in similar numbers, so the price that Microsoft pay for the components may not be all that dissimilar to that paid by Valve.
I do not think that Microsoft will subsidise Helix, and I think with a limited target of how many they will sell will affect how much of a reduction they can get in the price of components...
It would have to be good to get me interested in playing with people I do not know, @ILuvGames. I would also not be inclined to speak to people because too often they are just abusive idiots. Don't misunderstand me, I swear like a trooper when in the company of my mates, so it's not that I'm a prude. And we rib each other rotten, so it's not a question of me being sensitive. I just find having people that I do not know throwing abuse around particularly irritating. It is what put me off playing Overwatch in the end, well that, and people deliberately trying to spoil the game (usually trying to drop levels), or those that were clearly in a lower league despite being extremely good, and making our lives a misery because they were so much better than us (I never got higher than Gold in Overwatch).
I don't mind the sound of the objectives side of things; I used to play a heck of a lot of Mass Effect 3 multiplayer on PC and on Xbox, including with strangers, and I ended up in the top 1% of the World in the PC leader boards. Never spoke to anyone either during all the time I played the game, so it's a long standing habit of mine.
I think the fact that I do not know whether 5 player Horde exists is making me sour towards the 12 player mode. If I knew of its existence, I think I might be a little more positive towards it. I just hope they haven't thrown the baby out with the bath water in an effort to revitalise Horde. There is no reason why both modes cannot exits at the same time, as is the case with Frenzy.
It'll be interesting to see how Siege gets on, @ILuvGames. Frenzy was meant to be the evolution of Horde in Gears 5, but it never really took off. I suspect the same will be true of Siege, but I only base that on the requirement for 12 people to be playing it. I'm sure it'll do fine for a while, but I think after a year or two, people will find it harder and harder to get that 12.
Of course, right now, I know nothing! Siege could well be excellent, and bring the players in, but if all it is, when you boil it down, is a larger version of Horde, then I'm not sure it'll have the legs because it will get harder to fill the lobbies as time moves on.
However, as E-Day is undoubtedly a Live Service game, The Coalition may well have big plans for the multiplayer. I just hope we don't get a repeat of the silly skins that were present in Gears 5...
Comments 5,492
Re: Marvel's Blade Reportedly In Danger As Xbox Considers Shutting Arkane Studios
I'm not surprised, I suggested this the other day. We've not seen any gameplay at all, nothing since the original CGi announcement trailer, and it is a licensed game, all of which lends itself to being cancelled...
Re: The 10 'Most Wishlisted' Upcoming Xbox Games According To Microsoft
I agree that they got the tone wrong to some extent, @Elbow, but as I say, chances are that we will see more of the same type of writing because it is a different studio to the one that made the original games.
I think people will set their expectations too high, and many will end up being sorely disappointed.
I've already seen people unhappy with the foursome, wondering where Cole and Baird are, and clearly they have not given consideration to the GoW timelines.
It's almost a guarentee that you will see people unhappy with the story in some way because they do not like the direction it is taken in, or it is not dark enough, or it is not a horror game like the original (which wasn't a horror game in any way, but go figure).
As I say, people will have set certain expectations, which are almost guaranteed to be unfulfilled. Certain characters cannot be present, certain enemies cannot be present, and by rights, even the Lancer Chainsaw shouldn't be present at the start because it didn't exist for the first 3 years after E-Day. That said, it wouldn't be GoW without the Chainsaw, and it looks like The Coalition have got round this by introducing it as a prototype. Still, you just know that some people will be unhappy with some of the stuff that will be missing...
Re: Xbox Announces 'Record' Pre-Orders For GTA 6 In Response To New Report
The thing is, GTA 6 could well be selling in record numbers on Xbox, whilst also being sold 8 to 1 in favour of PlayStation. Both are entirely possible, and indeed, potentially right.
We know there are around 93 million PS5s in the wild, and there are around 35 million Series consoles, but we also know that an awful lot of people that own a PS5 also own a Series console (usually an S), which they have as a Game Pass machine. In other words, if someone owns a PS5 and an S, then they are far more likely to buy GTA 6 for the PlayStation as it will almost certainly run and look better there than on the S.
Basically, if you are in a position where you have the choice of where you are going to play GTA 6, then it is likely that you will opt for PlayStation over Xbox...
Re: The 10 'Most Wishlisted' Upcoming Xbox Games According To Microsoft
Absolutely agree, @Weebleman, and it is an argument that I have been making for a while now. When Spencer said that Xbox had lost the most important generation, he was absolutely right. People will have built up their digital libraries, and the majority of them did so on PlayStation. Thus, someone looking to get into console gaming is going to firstly look at where their mates are, and then look at the exclusives. Unless there is a truly compelling game on a different platform, they will always go to where their mates are.
Add to this that for a couple of years the belief (and basically the truth) was that Xbox had no exclusives, and was going to put all of its games on PlayStation. So, with that mindset, and with the strong probabilities being that your mates were already on PlayStation, then what was the point in buying an Xbox? Game Pass was pretty much the only reason, but even that had its price jacked up to the point that it went from the best deal in gaming, to non-essential, and of course PlayStation has its own (slightly inferior) version.
Basically everything screamed buy a PlayStation, and so that is exactly what people did, and Xbox fell further and further behind. Now, Xbox has a community that primarily plays first-party games via Game Pass, and very few exclusive games, and right now, no essential exclusives (although hopefully E-Day will change that), meaning that the question remains why buy an Xbox, and just one or two exclusives will not change that...
Re: The 10 'Most Wishlisted' Upcoming Xbox Games According To Microsoft
Absolutely, @Elbow. The biggest issues players had with Gears 4 and 5 was that twofold; it wasn't Marcus, and then Kait and Del were not liked. In terms of actual gameplay, the robots introduced in 4 were not popular at all, though if you actually follow the story properly, their introduction made a lot more sense. Problem was, their presence was not explained early enough, and so they were very jarring to begin with.
Obviously, there will be no robots in E-Day (or at least there shouldn't be (other than a Jack like model, maybe)), and we return to the Locust, which should make a lot of people happier.
As I say, the problem remains that it is still The Coalition that are making the game, and for many they have lost the trust of the community, so they have their work cut out...
Re: The 10 'Most Wishlisted' Upcoming Xbox Games According To Microsoft
Personally I really enjoyed both 4 and 5, @Elbow, and I would much prefer to have seen 6 over E-Day.
I'd happily have seen E-Day after 6. I don't have a problem with prequels, even though we already know much of the story, but I don't like leaving stories unfinished.
The one thing I would say is that people didn't like 4 and 5 mostly because of the characters involved at the heart of the story, and so a return to Marcus and Dom may solve that issue, but the truth is that it is still The Coalition that are making the game, so some of the other elements that people disliked might still be present.
As I say, I enjoyed 4 and 5, and still play 5 every weekend, so I'm sure I'll enjoy E-Day too. Just have to hope that everyone else feels the same...
Re: The 10 'Most Wishlisted' Upcoming Xbox Games According To Microsoft
I've said it a number of times now, @AI-Generation, but keeping E-Day, of all games, from PlayStation is just a dumb move.
Sony have realised that for a Live Service game to thrive, it needs to be everywhere, yet Microsoft deem that E-Day (a Live Service game) should not be on what would have been by far their biggest console audience. It makes no sense.
One game won't move the dial, and it will take years for Xbox to build up a decent portfolio of games that might attract people into the ecosystem. I mean, just one game this year, and only one game that we know of, (and not a well known franchise at that) so far, next year is not enough by a longshot, and the truth is that Xbox is on life-support, it does not have the luxury of time in which to build that portfolio, and ironically they have a decent number of games coming out in a short period of time, yet they squander them by putting them on PlayStation.
Truthfully though, what irks me the most is the stupidity in keeping a Live Service game off PlayStation. It literally makes no sense, and just seems to me that Sharma is willing to sacrifice that particular game just to appease a section of the Xbox fanbase who are more interested in sticking their middle finger up at PlayStation gamers than they are in the health of the game, the franchise, or indeed Xbox. To me, Sharma has demonstrated a severe lack of judgement, and she has chosen a short-lived dose of positive PR, over the long term impact that this decision will have.
I'll be there day one having bought both the Collector's Edition and the Premium Edition, and I can only hope that many of those celebrating this move choose to support the game by actually buying it, but I think the truth is that most will just play it on Game Pass (if they bother to play it at all) and will move quickly on...
Re: The 10 'Most Wishlisted' Upcoming Xbox Games According To Microsoft
It's not about State of Decay 3, or Halo: Combat Evolved, or Fable or Gears of War: E:Day or Forza Horizon 6, or Clockwork Revolution on their own, @Balaam_. It is about an ecosystem. A collection of games that together people find enticing. Just one of those games may not be enough to make you want to buy an Xbox. Maybe not even two. However, 3 or 4 or all of them, and it could well be a different story.
People buy a PlayStation to play the exclusives, but that is just it, it isn't 'exclusive', it is plural; 'exclusives', and it is for that reason that I say Xbox should be prioritising their own ecosystem just as Sony has done. Instead, it seems to me that rather than face the wrath of some disgruntled PlayStation gamers because they don't get to play Halo or Fable, Xbox has chosen to throw themselves to the wolves whilst hoping that one game (E-Day, because you're right, no one is going to buy an Xbox to play Clockwork Revolution (at least not right now)) can save the platform.
I have long argued that consoles need exclusives, and a few on here said Xbox didn't, and that PlayStation would follow in their footsteps and give us all their exclusives too, and all the time Sony sat on their games whilst Xbox gave theirs away, and Xbox consoles dwindled into virtual insignificance. Then suddenly, Sharma utters the word 'exclusive', and that is the right course for Xbox! Go figure!
Anyway, that aside, Xbox needs more than just E-Day, and Sharma should have been willing to make herself unpopular with the Sony audience because she owes them nothing. Xbox should be her priority. However, in making a half-baked gesture in making E-Day exclusive, whilst leaving everything else on PlayStation, she has managed to potentially cripple the chances of Gears of War, whilst also potentially crippling the chances of Xbox.
It should have been all or nothing, though the truth is that it is likely too late anyway because there is insufficient people on Xbox that buy first-party games, and saving Xbox will require substantial changes to Game Pass in order to push people into buying those games.
Regardless, I would argue that offering us E-Day as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of appeasing the more vocal among the Xbox fanbase, even though it is definitely going to harm the games chances, and most likely offer no benefit to Xbox as a whole, just seems a pointless exercise in futility to me...
Re: The 10 'Most Wishlisted' Upcoming Xbox Games According To Microsoft
It is disappointing to see, @AI-Generation. Maybe if it has stellar reviews people will flock to it. I'll be there day one regardless...
Re: The 10 'Most Wishlisted' Upcoming Xbox Games According To Microsoft
So 3 (not counting Minecraft) of the top 10 most wishlisted games are Xbox games, that could have been exclusive, and are probably doing pretty well (in terms of being wishlisted) on PlayStation too.
Honestly, it makes no sense for Sharma to realise Xbox needs exclusive games, and then put them on PlayStation. Forget the idea that Microsoft had said the games would be on PlayStation, they should have simply said plans have changed, and made them exclusive to Xbox...
Microsoft owe PlayStation absolutely nothing, and they are trying to build up a portfolio of exclusive games so as to attract people into the Xbox ecosystem. The half-baked way that Microsoft have gone about this just seems doomed to failure to me...
Re: Here's How The New Xbox Prices Compare To PS5, Switch 2 & Steam Machine
Sorry to pick you up on your statement, @Deformedpye, but the UK is not 'going after Africa'. The UK has invested billions in mining in Africa, that is true, but it is not doing the same as Trump who was talking about seizing or invading Greenland and taking it for America. Their approach was very different.
It is also fair to say that both China and America have invested far more in Africa when it comes to mineral mining...
Re: Here's How The New Xbox Prices Compare To PS5, Switch 2 & Steam Machine
I think in an ideal world, we would not see the PS6 or Helix until 2030, @AI-Generation. The problem is, all the components for Helix and the PS6 will have been designed, sourced, etc. The factories will have been told when assembly is to begin, and they will have set time aside for the process. All of that has already cost a massive amount of money.
If they build them, but don't sell them yet, then they need to store them, which again, costs money, but not just that, it would mean that they would have tech from 2026 being sold in 2030, and by then, tech would have moved on. People would be unhappy buying into what would effectively be old tech, which would impact sales for both Sony and Microsoft.
They could scrap the consoles right now, but that would mean writing off hundreds of millions in development costs, and potentially having to pay compensation for contracts etc. However, if they did that, they would then have to go through the design process all over again, which again would cost them hundreds of millions, and for all we know, prices for components maybe even worse in 2030 than they are now, and if that were the case then a console that would have cost a £1000 next year, may cost £1300 in 2030.
Put simply, there is no easy solution for either Sony or Microsoft. As a consumer, and as much as I love to have the most up to date tech, I don't really feel the need for a new console right now. However, for both Sony and Microsoft, they pulled the trigger on the development of the next generation consoles a few years ago. They have already invested hundreds of millions in the process, and that's money they want back as soon as is possible. Releasing it in 2027 brings with it a certain set of problems, but delaying it to 2030 not only creates problems now, but may indeed face exactly the same problems then as they would had they released it next year, and indeed, it could be even worse!
Have to say, I wouldn't want to be the one making these decisions...
Re: Here's How The New Xbox Prices Compare To PS5, Switch 2 & Steam Machine
I have maintained the same line for a while now, @AI-Generation, but I not only think that Helix will be a disaster for Microsoft, but I also think it will be short-lived and the last generation of Xbox in terms of consoles.
Put simply, a decent PC is expensive. Helix will prove this point. It'll either be inexpensive and not particularly good (in terms of PCs), or it'll be expensive and good, but people will not buy it.
37% fewer people bought an Xbox One than bought a 360, and 40% fewer people bought a Series console than bought an Xbox One. If you extrapolate from there, then you would think that Helix would sell something like 40% fewer units than the Series consoles, which would mean that Helix would have around 20 million lifetime sales. However, that is not taking into account what seems like it could be a massive increase in price. Even for those that bought a Series X, they could be looking at paying double, triple or even more than they paid for the their X to buy Helix. But, two thirds of people that bought a Series console this generation, have bought an S. They would be looking at paying 4 or 5 or more times what they paid for the S in order to buy Helix. I just cannot see it. I think a lot of people that bought the X will baulk at paying a £1000 for Helix, but if you got an S for £250, then no way will people want to be paying a £1000 for Helix. The whole point of the S was the cheap entry point, and Helix is definitely not that.
Personally, I think Microsoft will set a target of 10 million lifetime sales, but I also don't think they'll achieve that, as I think the cost will be so prohibitive for most that they will likely sell something like 2 million in the first 3 years, and then stop making them...
Re: Poll: How Much Did You Pay For Your Xbox Series X|S Console?
I bought my Series X by way of pre-order (in fact I bought 2 by pre-order, one for myself and one for my youngest son), and I paid £450 for both of them. I got one from the Microsoft Store, and one from Argos. I remember being online with two of my mates as we all tried to pre-order our consoles, and everything kept crashing, and the queues were horrendous. I also distinctly remember the relief when I managed to finally confirm my pre-orders, which was obviously complicated by virtue of trying to buy two.
I have no idea what that would be in dollars, so I haven't ticked an option...
Re: Poll: How Much Did You Pay For Your Xbox Series X|S Console?
Any chance you could have Pounds Sterling, @FraserG? I have no idea what £450 was back then, and whether it still equates to the same now in dollars...! 😂
Re: Here's How The New Xbox Prices Compare To PS5, Switch 2 & Steam Machine
I have said it a few times now, @Millionski, but if Helix really is this super powerful PC that people seem to be expecting, then it will not be cheap. In light of how much consoles are now costing, I don't think £1500 is out of the question. I think there may be a cheaper option too, but even that will only look cheap when compared to Helix.
As for how many are sold next generation, it obviously mostly depends on how much Helix costs, and then how much the PS6 costs by comparison. If there is a big difference in price, I can see many people looking at the difficulties Xbox is in, the uncertainties that it offers when compared to the PlayStation, and opting to buy a PS6 instead of Helix.
If Helix costs between £1000 and £1500, then I think it will be a very niche device that only enthusiasts will buy. I can see Microsoft setting a sales target of something like 10 million lifetime sales, but then probably selling just 2 million or so within the first 3 years, and then calling it a day. Whether they come back with a cheaper, actual console, I don't know, but I would doubt. Otherwise they will simply leave the console business.
With the expected price of Helix, I just cannot see that many people willing to buy it, and if there is a cheaper option, it will still need to be better than the X, and therefore likely to be more expensive than the X is currently too.
The next generation is going to be a total nightmare on the wallet...
Re: Here's How The New Xbox Prices Compare To PS5, Switch 2 & Steam Machine
I agree, @Tasuki. It can get pretty venomous over there, and I also agree that the staff often bait the readers into being hostile...
Re: Xbox Announces Worldwide Price Increases For Series X|S Consoles
The funny thing is (and it happens every time!), Sony get some bad press because they lay off nearly 300 people from Bungie, but instead of Sony getting some heat, Microsoft swoop into the rescue and give even worse news (for Xbox), and steal the limelight from Sony. Every single time! Sony find a rake to stand on, and Microsoft barge them out of the way and step on it themselves.
Let Sony have some heat for once Microsoft, stop being so greedy...
Re: Here's How The New Xbox Prices Compare To PS5, Switch 2 & Steam Machine
I've seen people (rightly) blame Microsoft for contributing to this components crisis (or if you are on Push, just blaming Microsoft! 🤦♂️), but the truth is that Xbox is just as much a victim of what Microsoft (and others) are doing as everyone else...
Re: Here's How The New Xbox Prices Compare To PS5, Switch 2 & Steam Machine
I like the way you have listed the consoles in ascending order, @FraserG. It makes it very easy to follow how much each console now costs...
Re: Xbox Announces Worldwide Price Increases For Series X|S Consoles
Not into multiplayer on PlayStation, @J_Mo_Money? Where on Earth do you get that idea? Why then does Call of Duty always sell best on PlayStation? Battlefield did likewise...
Re: Xbox Announces Worldwide Price Increases For Series X|S Consoles
Absolutely they would, @General-Foley. I still have my Gears of War 3 Collector's console, and also my Gears of War 4 Collector's console. Had they done one for E-Day, I would likely have bought that too...
Re: Xbox Announces Worldwide Price Increases For Series X|S Consoles
It is a Live Service game, @J_Mo_Money. The Coalition just do not want to give it that label.
The labelled Gears 5 as a Live Service game, and E-Day has exactly the same set up; campaign, PvP multiplayer, and co-op PvE. They will add more maps to it as time goes on. Sell skins and customisations for the multiplayer aspect. New characters, etc. and will support the game for probably 5 years.
This is the definition of a Live Service game (look it up!):
A live service game is a video game designed to receive continuous updates, new content, and events over time to keep players engaged long after its initial release.
It is undoubtedly a Live Service game...
Re: Free Play Days: Try These Xbox Games For Free (June 25-28)
Cool. Thank you, @awp69. I'll try to get on it this weekend to see what I think...
Re: Xbox Announces Worldwide Price Increases For Series X|S Consoles
Reloaded may have flopped (to some extent), @Millionski, but it was a very poor 'remaster' of a 20 year old game. E-Day is a brand spanking new shiny game with all the mod cons, and all the modern day console benefits. It is a completely different kettle of fish.
Reloaded was a campaign and multiplayer. Once it was released, that was it. Everything was there, take it or leave it. No further support.
E-Day is a campaign and Live Service that will be supported for 5 years or so after release. It would have thrived on the PlayStation.
They are from the same franchise, but that is pretty much where the similarities end.
Also, if, as people seem to think, E-Day turns out to be a 9/10 game, then that alone would have driven sales on the PlayStation.
It is a massive mistake not putting it on PlayStation. It would likely have sold really well there, and may even have caused some people to buy Reloaded. Not just that, but the guys on PlayStation would have actually bought it, and also poured a tonne of money into microtransactions.
Instead we get to say, whoopie, we got an exclusive, but the consoles are too expensive, so few will buy an Xbox in order to play it, and those already gaming on an Xbox will mostly just play it on Game Pass on Xbox. It'll likely end up being a financial disaster, and so maybe the last Gears of War game we ever get. But hey, it's exclusive...!
Re: Xbox Announces Worldwide Price Increases For Series X|S Consoles
Indeed it does, @AI-Generation. Raising the price of the consoles right before E-Day releases is not going to help with bringing new customers into the ecosystem. It effectively means that E-Day will make even less money on Xbox, which could be catastrophic for the Gears of War franchise, jobs, and studio closures.
I've always said that consoles need exclusives, but Live Service games need to be everywhere. This decision has really hobbled the games chances of success...
Re: Xbox Announces Worldwide Price Increases For Series X|S Consoles
The problem both Sony and Microsoft have, @AI-Generation, is the design for their next consoles is already set in stone. Components have been ordered, and assembly factories have probably been booked. Basically, they either have to go now, or scrap everything they have done in the design department and start again.
They cannot build the consoles and just store them. Basically, storing them will cost a lot of money, and the tech within them gets old fast. That which is cutting edge today, will be old news in 2 or 3 years time.
So, they are both in a bind right now; if they build them now and put them on sale, they will be sold as cutting edge at today's insane prices.
However, if they scrap the current designs for the PS6 and Helix, they have to begin that design process all over again, which costs money, but if they look to release in 2030, what's to say that the component crisis is not worse still? What's to say that a PS6 costing a £1000 if released next year, won't cost £1300 in 2030? It could easily happen.
Now, where we might be in agreement is that I don't feel that either the PS5 nor the Series X has really been pushed to it's limits on a regular basis. Sure, there have been a few titles that have stretched their capabilities, but for the most part games run perfectly fine on them. Obviously, Microsoft does have some hinderance when it comes to the S as that will have more and more trouble coping as time goes on, and I imagine that Microsoft will be happy to move on from that experiment come the next generation.
Still, I think it all comes down to whether Sony and Microsoft are willing to accept the loses they will incur by starting from scratch, or they believe that going to market now is more sensible than delaying given the unpredictability of the market...
Re: Xbox Announces Worldwide Price Increases For Series X|S Consoles
Honestly, anyone that think a full fat Helix is going to cost less than £1000 is fooling themselves. It'll cost more like £1500, and I would not be shocked if it did not cost more...
Re: Xbox Announces Worldwide Price Increases For Series X|S Consoles
There's that rake! I knew it was around here somewhere....
Re: PSA: Xbox Rewards Allows You To Reduce The Price Of GTA 6
Exactly that, @ZeD. If you want some of the game, then it's £70. If you want it all then £90. Pretty sneaky really...
Re: PSA: Xbox Rewards Allows You To Reduce The Price Of GTA 6
Having cosmetics, story missions, and stores locked into the top edition only, is Rockstars way of avoiding the controversy that would have erupted had they released the base game at a higher price, @Skinny-Pete.
Had they charged £80 or more for the base game, then people would have kicked up a stink. Still bought it, but kicked up a stink nonetheless...
Re: PSA: Xbox Rewards Allows You To Reduce The Price Of GTA 6
I have 96,424 points, which I believe is worth something like £78.
Won't be spending it on GTA 6 though as I have no interest in the game...
Re: Free Play Days: Try These Xbox Games For Free (June 25-28)
I've been tempted to buy Blades of Fire as few times, and noticed today that it is currently on sale. Will have to see if I can find time to play it this weekend. Thanks for the heads up, @FraserG.
Has anyone played the full game? Is it decent...?
Re: Gears of War: E-Day's 4-Player Co-Op Will Feel "Like Band Of Brothers Or Saving Private Ryan"
I'll have to take a look, @ILuvGames. I did give Vermintide (not sure whether I have spelt that correctly) a go, but I didn't like games like that and the likes of Left 4 Dead because I like to take my time and look around, whereas in those games you are literally running from one end of the map to the other, which I do not enjoy.
I actually bought the Collector's Edition of SM2, and it came with all the DLC, so I should take a look at the Horde mode really. In fact they cocked up my delivery, and so they sent me a second copy of the game, which I could send to my mate.
Can it be played with just 2, or would we need to fill a lobby with randoms? Does it have bots if the lobby is not filled...?
Re: Abyssus Is Available Today With Xbox Game Pass, And Here's What The Reviews Are Saying
Looks a bit like a cross between the gunplay and environment of Bioshock mixed in with recent Doom gameplay. In other words, pretty interesting...
Re: Arkane Is "Doing A Really, Really Great Job" - Todd Howard's Hopeful Update On Blade
I have a feeling that we were told Perfect Dark and Everwild looked great before they were then cancelled. Howard saying that the game looks great does not mean that Blade is safe...
Re: What Does A $1049 Steam Machine Mean For Xbox's Project Helix?
You'd think that by now pretty much everything is in place to begin building Helix, @Millionski. I mean, it takes time to get sufficient stock to meet initial demand, so if it is to release next year, you'd think they would begin building them soon.
As for a second console, I think they need to have one as a cheaper alternative. Something that is better than the X, but cheaper than Helix, which would obviously mean that it would be less capable too.
I think they will do this, and I think Sharma will probably be able to sway Nadella into agreeing that it is needed (because it obviously is!). That said, I think this second device is still likely to be around the same price as the X, and potentially a little more than that. Nothing is cheap right now...
Re: What Does A $1049 Steam Machine Mean For Xbox's Project Helix?
Totally agree, @Coletrain. I am looking forward to seeing what both Sony and Microsoft offer. Not looking forward to having to afford both of them though...!
Not sure whether you have had chance to read it yet, but Push Square have just published an article on the potential price of the PS6. It makes interesting reading...
Re: Gears of War: E-Day's 4-Player Co-Op Will Feel "Like Band Of Brothers Or Saving Private Ryan"
I have played the campaign for Space Marine 2, @ILuvGames. In fact I buy all of the single-player Warhammer games. I haven't played Darktide because it is not single-player.
I know SM2 was supposed to get a Horde mode, but I haven't tried it, mostly because my mate does not have the game, and I imagine it would be best played in co-op...
Re: What Does A $1049 Steam Machine Mean For Xbox's Project Helix?
I absolutely agree, @kmtrain83, consoles are getting to the point now where the differences are very minimal indeed. I think that is partly why people are excited by the idea of a PC because they see that as being a sizable step up. Problem with that is if you expect a sizable step up in performance, that won't come cheap.
Baldur's Gate 3 didn't run particularly well on my PC when I first tried playing it, and it was the reason that I bought a new graphics card and memory for my PC at the cost of around £1000. PC gaming is not cheap...
Re: What Does A $1049 Steam Machine Mean For Xbox's Project Helix?
I think the PS6 will come in close to £1000 once you add in the disc drive, @Coletrain. I wouldn't be shocked if it was more either.
What would you do then...?
Re: What Does A $1049 Steam Machine Mean For Xbox's Project Helix?
You and me both, @DetJayT...
Re: What Does A $1049 Steam Machine Mean For Xbox's Project Helix?
The truth is you get what you pay for, @Coletrain. That saying is one that has always been true.
If we pay a pittance (in PC terms) then we will not get much in return. I would say that even with all of Microsoft's potential buying power, if they offer us a PC that costs less than £1500, we will not be getting a decent PC. It may well be a good console at £1000, but it won't be a good PC. It'll get by for a couple of years, but don't expect it to be performing wonders a few years down the line when the games become even more demanding.
Personally, I think Xbox would be better off binning off the PC side of things, and bringing us a better console. I'm sure they could make a console that is better than the X, and in doing so could keep the cost to between £800 and £1000.
Honestly, that is likely what we will see Sony do with the PS6, and if people are going to baulk at £1500 for a semi-decent / decent PC, then Microsoft may as well forget the idea at this time, and just give us an improved console instead.
I'm not keen on PC gaming, and I also believe that having an Xbox with access to Steam will rapidly kill off Microsoft's involvement in consoles anyway, so I would be more than happy with it being just an improved console. I'm probably in the minority there though...
Re: GTA 6 Costs $80, Described As A 'Single-Player Experience'
Wait! What, @Coletrain? You can use your points to buy games? I never knew that. I have 96,139 points right now, what does that equate too...?
Re: GTA 6 Costs $80, Described As A 'Single-Player Experience'
The game has a lot of hype to live up to. Just have to hope that the reviewers don't get to carried away with everything, and give accurate reviews. We all know that this will be the biggest game launch in history (until GTA 7 anyway), but that does not mean it will be the best.
I have never played a GTA game, but if it reviews really well, then I may be tempted, but it would have to be pretty compelling for me to get involved...
Re: Lords Of The Fallen 2 Escapes A Stacked September Release Date, Skulks Into 2027
It seems sensible to me. So many games were probably banking on avoiding GTA 6, and opted for similar dates only to find other games had the same idea. I also suspect that many were not absolutely certain that GTA 6 would release in November anyway, so now that Rockstar have confirmed the games release, it is probably more prudent to move your game rather than face the GTA 6 fallout.
It is a case of who blinks first amongst all the other developers, but there is some sense in going first because you can pick your preferred date, and it is then for other developers to avoid you.
Anyway, I am looking forward to this game. It looks pretty epic...
Re: What Does A $1049 Steam Machine Mean For Xbox's Project Helix?
I think it will be a case of SaD (Supply and Demand), @Coletrain. I think initially Microsoft will be contracted for something like 3 million in the first year or two, and then after that, it will be SaD. So, if Helix sells well, then they will place further orders, though they will likely pay market prices (with a discount) at that time. So if the price of RAM comes down, then they will pay less, but if it has gone up, they will pay more, and they will pass that on to the consumer.
If Helix sells badly (which I suspect it will because I think it will be out of the price range that most people are prepared to pay), then I think Microsoft will just stop making them.
I agree that Microsoft will likely be able to get components at a better price than Valve, as much as anything because they don't just make Helix, and so they will get preferential rates with some suppliers. However, we are led to believe that the components that are within Helix are better and thus more expensive than those in the Steam Machine in the first place, meaning that even with a discount Microsoft will probably find themselves in a position of expecting us to pay £1500 or more. Honestly, a PC for £1000 will most likely be spectacularly rubbish, and do more harm than good to Xbox. They need to bring out a decent PC, and if we want a decent PC, we must expect to pay a whack for it.
I do think this also points to the PS6 costing at least £800 on release too, and I would not be shocked if it cost more than that, and that would not include the disc-drive either.
These are different times we are living through, and the problem both Sony and Microsoft have is they have three options;
1. Put their consoles out at the time they initially intended (2027), and charge accordingly having paid a premium for components.
2. Delay release of the console for two or three years (so 2029/2030) and hope that the price of components have settled down. If they have bingo! If they haven't their consoles will likely cost more than they would have done had they released it in 2027. Another problem with this is that the tech will be a further 2 or 3 years out of date if they delay and release the same spec'd systems.
3. Scrap the consoles completely and redesign them with different components, with the aim of releasing in 2030, but using different components that are more up to date for that time, but that still does not guarentee that the price of components, nor the end product, will be cheaper.
There are no easy answers here...
Re: What Does A $1049 Steam Machine Mean For Xbox's Project Helix?
You might think that Microsoft could source the components more cheaply, @Coletrain, but that all depends on how many of the devices they expect to sell. If Microsoft have set a target of 10-15 million lifetime sales, then that does lessen their ability to source the materials more cheaply. The more components they need, the cheaper the price will be for them. The fewer components, the more expensive they will be, and that cost will be passed on to us.
My view is that 10 million lifetime sales is probably the maximum they are targeting. I also think they will fall well short of that and will likely only sell between 2 and 3 million in the first 3 years. The likelihood is that any contract will be on a rolling basis, so Microsoft will be able to withdraw from the contract if they decide to stop production of the Helix.
Honestly, I have no idea how popular the Steam Machine will be, but it will be cheaper than Helix, and may indeed sell in similar numbers, so the price that Microsoft pay for the components may not be all that dissimilar to that paid by Valve.
I do not think that Microsoft will subsidise Helix, and I think with a limited target of how many they will sell will affect how much of a reduction they can get in the price of components...
Re: Gears of War: E-Day's 4-Player Co-Op Will Feel "Like Band Of Brothers Or Saving Private Ryan"
It would have to be good to get me interested in playing with people I do not know, @ILuvGames. I would also not be inclined to speak to people because too often they are just abusive idiots. Don't misunderstand me, I swear like a trooper when in the company of my mates, so it's not that I'm a prude. And we rib each other rotten, so it's not a question of me being sensitive. I just find having people that I do not know throwing abuse around particularly irritating. It is what put me off playing Overwatch in the end, well that, and people deliberately trying to spoil the game (usually trying to drop levels), or those that were clearly in a lower league despite being extremely good, and making our lives a misery because they were so much better than us (I never got higher than Gold in Overwatch).
I don't mind the sound of the objectives side of things; I used to play a heck of a lot of Mass Effect 3 multiplayer on PC and on Xbox, including with strangers, and I ended up in the top 1% of the World in the PC leader boards. Never spoke to anyone either during all the time I played the game, so it's a long standing habit of mine.
I think the fact that I do not know whether 5 player Horde exists is making me sour towards the 12 player mode. If I knew of its existence, I think I might be a little more positive towards it. I just hope they haven't thrown the baby out with the bath water in an effort to revitalise Horde. There is no reason why both modes cannot exits at the same time, as is the case with Frenzy.
I guess we'll find out eventually...
Re: Gears of War: E-Day's 4-Player Co-Op Will Feel "Like Band Of Brothers Or Saving Private Ryan"
It'll be interesting to see how Siege gets on, @ILuvGames. Frenzy was meant to be the evolution of Horde in Gears 5, but it never really took off. I suspect the same will be true of Siege, but I only base that on the requirement for 12 people to be playing it. I'm sure it'll do fine for a while, but I think after a year or two, people will find it harder and harder to get that 12.
Of course, right now, I know nothing! Siege could well be excellent, and bring the players in, but if all it is, when you boil it down, is a larger version of Horde, then I'm not sure it'll have the legs because it will get harder to fill the lobbies as time moves on.
However, as E-Day is undoubtedly a Live Service game, The Coalition may well have big plans for the multiplayer. I just hope we don't get a repeat of the silly skins that were present in Gears 5...