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...
I honestly cannot say how popular any of the multiplayer modes are in Gears 5, @ILuvGames, because the only mode that I play 3 days a week is Horde, and I always play with the same two people (and two bots). All I can say is that there are always several pages of people playing Horde that I could join should I so wish. It certainly gives the impression of being popular, but I am probably in the minority when it comes to how often I play.
All I can hope is that The Coalition do not let me down, and still have the traditional Horde mode as well. Just as with Horde Frenzy, there is room for both...
My bad, @ILuvGames! I probably misconstrued your comment, or mixed it up with someone else's comment. I blame it on my age and the heat...! I actually meant to reply to someone else... 😆
I think my initial thoughts that the reason for E-Day was to introduce the game to PlayStation, is the most likely scenario, @CallMeDuraSouka. I think then came the idea of the film with a view to tapping into E-Day so as to drive interest in the game.
That seems more feasible, but I never agreed with not having Gears 6 first as some of us are invested in that particular story. However, trying to take Gears 6 to the PlayStation first (in terms of new games) would not have worked. Hence we get E-Day instead. However, now that the game is not going to PlayStation, not making Gears 6 seems even more dumb than it did before...
My money is on Microsoft selling Helix for 3 years, @NishimaruX. After that, they will support those they have sold for a few years, but will basically move on. I also think that Game Pass will go the way of the dodo at the same time...
I first got a gaming PC (if we disregard my Amstrad back before consoles were a thing!) in response to my best mates choosing to take the PC route rather than Xbox One after the disastrous decisions that were made at the time, @NishimaruX.
We continued to game on PC for a fair few years, and it is only relatively recently that they returned to Xbox.
I bought a new PC that cost me £2600 about 5 or 6 years ago, and have since upgraded it further to the tune of around £1000, and did so so that I could play Baldur's Gate 3 before it released on console. That was the last game I played on it.
I have always gamed on an Xbox, including pre-ordering the Xbox One because I don't understand how to properly operate a PC. I much prefer the simplicity of a console.
I get that having a gaming PC that I do not use is a waste, but I am perfectly happy to game on consoles...
I would think that Microsoft have far better games that would have made for better films / TV series, @CallMeDuraSouka. the cynical side of me thinks that having a film that might lead to more people playing SoT may well have been a factor in Microsoft's decision. After all, I'm sure SoT makes some considerable coin for Microsoft, so raising interest may well lead to even more people playing it...
As I said on a different Pure Xbox article earlier; I did think the original plan to release E-Day on PlayStation was the initial driving force behind having E-Day rather than Gears 6, but now that it is clear that Delta Squad is the focus of the movie, it makes even more sense to have E-Day instead.
Hopefully, this movie will be as good as the likes of the Fallout and Last of Us series, and will drive interest in the franchise, and maybe even Xbox console sales too...
I have a decent gaming PC, @BoredOfEverything, but I haven't used it to game on for about 3 years now. I just do not like PC gaming, albeit that it is easier these days than it was a decade ago.
I personally would far rather another closed off Xbox console. I do not need the PC side of things.
That said, I am one of those enthusiasts that would rather have the very best console experience, and I suspect that will be found on Helix (Senior), so I will probably end up getting one...
It sounds pretty interesting, @Katiecooh2313, and also a bit like the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer mode, which was simply excellent. I might have to take a look. It sounds cool...
We are in agreement, @ilyn. I can see Helix costing £1500 or more. A decent PC is not cheap, and if it is cheap, then it probably isn't all that capable in the grand scheme of things. Yes, it will be better than the Series X, but not a great PC.
If people want this transformative Xbox PC experience, then they need to be prepared to pay for it...
I've said it multiple times now, but if people expect to pay £600 for Helix, then they are not getting a PC with stellar performance.
Try building a PC for yourself to decent specs, and you will see that it is not a cheap thing to do, and even if Microsoft could source every component at 50%, you would still be paying a significant sum for it.
If people want Helix to be as powerful as rumoured, then they have to expect it to come with a hefty price tag. Honestly, I'd be wary of the capabilities of anything that cost less than £1500, but my guess is that for the best model of Helix (I think there will be more than one) Microsoft will probably be aiming for between £1000 and £1500, but I would not be shocked if it cost more.
Helix was, I believe, conceived with the knowledge that it will be a niche device for enthusiasts, and I think people need to be prepared to pay a pretty significant price to be one of those enthusiasts.
I do think there will be a Helix Junior, which will probably be slightly better than the Series X, and which will cost about the same as it currently does. However, I think that lesser price will mean that it does not offer PC gaming, and that it will be just as the Series consoles are now, offering just a console experience...
I see there's a story going round at the moment that the Netflix film will be an origin story featuring Delta Squad, which would then make the move to having E-Day rather than Gears 6 more understable.
Whilst I understand your thinking, @ILuvGames, if they have been struggling to keep 5 people playing Horde (they haven't, by the way), how would they hope to keep 12 people playing it?
My money is on this being an alternative mode, like Horde Frenzy is in Gears 5, and it will be for fewer waves. Probably 12, like Frenzy...
The quality of the games need to be higher. Yes, we've had Expedition 33, which is a 5* game, but for every 5* games there are 30 or 40 3* games or lower. I think that is what he is talking about.
If Game Pass was filled with 4*+ games, it would be sensational. Something that everyone wants. However, there are far too many games that are just there to fill a quota. Too many games just there to pad out the service.
I would be really curious to see what the actual average score is if every game were totalled up. If we were to look at the average Metacritic score for every single game on the service, I bet the score would sit somewhere between 60 and 70, which, in all honesty, is not good enough, and is, I think, what he is getting at.
Basically, I think the service was better a few years ago than it is now...
If you meant will I manage to Master all 37 maps before E-Day comes out, @Skinny-Pete, the answer is most definitely no. Some of the maps are just too difficult to undertake as a team of 3 on Inconceivable, let alone Master. In all honesty, I reckon we might manage another 3 or 4, but it'll be tough going because it all depends on cover, and where the taps are. Some maps are just too open, and offer too little cover, meaning it is very difficult to survive the Boss waves in particular as if all the team goes down, the run ends on Master. There is no second chance. It is what makes the run so much fun. However, when you realise that 21 successful Master Hordes equates to 1050 waves completed, we have probably attempted at least 20,000 waves to get those 50 successful runs because the vast majority of our runs end in failure...
Myself, my youngest son (23) and a mate attempt a Master Horde each Friday, Saturday and Sunday as a trio, @Skinny-Pete. We've now managed to completed 21 of the 37 maps in this way, which is pretty good going.
I have not played even a single round of the PvP multiplayer since Gears 5 first launched, so I don't know how that fairs, but when I load up a Horde I do notice that there are quite a few matches ongoing every time. I don't play with random people at all as I much prefer going through the games in a team of two or three. Until my son joined myself and my mate, we were doing all the maps on Insane or occasionally Inconceivable as a duo. I'd far rather that than play with people I don't know...
I really hope they get the single-player and the co-op right here. I always go through the game solo twice, before I ever touch the game in co-op. I go through on Hardcore, and then Insane solo (and I'd love it if there was an Achievement for managing that solo too...!
I will then go through the game a few times with different friends in co-op. Probably straight in on Insane, but if they have not played it before, then we may go on an easier difficulty first.
My only hope is that they get that Insane difficulty right in co-op. I do not want Down But Not Out to be available. I want it so that if one person goes down, we all start again (just like it is solo). If you can be revived in co-op, then it will just make the game way too easy, and that is not how Gears of War should be...
You are absolutely right, @Skinny-Pete. For me, whilst I will be playing the campaign first, it is 5 player Horde that is the one mode that will keep me playing the game every single weekend until E-Day 2 comes out.
I have several hundred hours in Gears 5 campaign, but I have over 2000 hours in Horde in the game...
Obviously Marcus and Dom first met Cole and Baird 14 years after E-Day occurred (which is when this new game is set), so it would not be possible have them in the squad now, @nomither6. If The Coalition had brought them into the campaign (particuarly as the other two squad mates) it would have absolutely ruined this new game because it would have made a mockery of every game that has gone before it.
I have said a number of times over the past 2 years since E-Day was announced that people will have to understand that there are certain characters and enemies that simply cannot be in E-Day bearing in mind the lore of the game...
I feel that way too, @Gabrie. Almost every game on sale in this particular event will have been on sale in recent weeks, probably at the same price. It makes going through a thousand or more of the same games a right drag each time...
Is Active Matter a multiplayer only game? Have to say, the music accompanying the video is completely at odds with the gameplay. It seems a strange choice.
Also, has anyone played Salvation: Echoes of War? Is it worth a punt...?
I was interested right up until I read the bit about it being a multiplayer game! I was hoping it meant it was like Titanfall 2, with its excellent campaign. Oh, well, the wait continues...
Whilst I agree the game should have released on the PlayStation too, @Katiecooh2313. 12 hours would be for the campaign played in co-op on easy. It'll be much more like a 30 hour campaign if played solo on Insane.
Also, that is just the campaign. I have well over 2000 hours in Gears 5 Horde alone, and another few hundred hours in multiple runs in the campaign...
That is exactly my point, @YeyoFairy. So long as Game Pass offers us the opportunity to play games more cheaply, that is what we will end up doing. We are not doing anything wrong in taking advantage of such a good deal. It is up to Microsoft to change Game Pass in such a way as to change our habits. Until then, if Microsoft are losing money, then that is on them. I'm sure they have the facts and figures, and know the damage Game Pass is doing to first-party sales revenue, so you'd think they would be a bit smarter about the way they do things.
Personally, I hope that the removal of day one first-party titles from Game Pass is top of the to do list for Sharma, and will be part of the 100 day Xbox reset...
I too loved The Ascent, @Balaam_. I really enjoyed searching everywhere. The level of detail in the game was very surprising, and well done. I have high hopes for this new game...
I'm not blaming you, or anyone else, @YeyoFairy, when I say that people are costing Xbox revenue when they play first-party games on Game Pass, and I never will. It is refreshing to see someone openly admit, and understand, that they are part of the problem, but I still think it is absolutely your right (and everyone else's right) to play first-party games that way. If Microsoft are going to enable us to do so, and we then pay our subs, then we have the right to play the games as we see fit, and if that means not buying them, then so be it. It is for Microsoft to address the issue.
I buy my first-party games, despite having Ultimate, because I prefer to own the games I play. I'm old, and as such seem to struggle with the notion of playing games, or watching films, on a subscription service. I always buy the films on blu-ray I watch too. I'm also in the fortunate position of being able to afford to do so. Not everyone it, and I totally get that. So even though I think more of us should be buying the games, I do not think people are wrong for utilising Game Pass because that is what it is there for.
The first step to making us buy our games, rather than playing them on Game Pass, needs to be taken by Microsoft, and I really hope they do so because it could lead to the salvation of Xbox...
Is that what they were getting at, @somnambulance? I didn't catch on. Clearly a bit slow today...! 😂
I know I can come across as critical of some of the decisions that Xbox makes, but I do so out of concern and passion for the platform. I fear what the repercussions of some of the moves might be. I know I should probably care less than I do, but when you are passionate about something, you don't want to see it turn to 💩
It would undoubtedly cost subscribers, @AI-Generation. Of that I have no doubt at all.
The thing is, you need 4 NEW subscriptions to equate to just one game purchased. In other words, if 4 people sign up to Game Pass Ultimate for one month in order to play E-Day then Xbox will make £68. If one person buys the game, they make £70.
If I were to play E-Day on Game Pass when it releases, I could play it until next June (when my subscription ends) and Microsoft would not receive a single penny from me.
The problem is that most of us have stacked subscriptions, meaning that Microsoft gain no money from us once they received the initial amount, and it's not held in some pot and dished out based on who plays it. Money we give for Game Pass mostly is spent on third-party games. First-party games are basically fending for themselves, and mostly survive (or don't!) on sales.
I do agree that Game Pass would lose some subscribers, but as with the 50% increase one of two things will happen; they will either leave, or they will drop down a tier (which seems to have been the favoured step by many here).
Honestly, when I thought first-party games was working for Game Pass, I was all for it. Then we had the infamous 'just 4 games' moment, and it became clear it was not working at all.
Nothing has changed since that moment, and I think something has to, so I'd argue that the biggest inhibitor of sales of first-party games on Xbox is Game Pass, so surely that is what needs to change, because... well, I cannot think what else they could possibly do...
If you Google is E-Day a Live Service game, @darylb24, it says it isn't. If you Google is Halo Infinite a Live Service game, it says it was, but is no longer receiving support, so it isn't any more.
E-day has a campaign, multiplayer. Has skins, characters, maps and modes added on a regular basis. It resets every few weeks.
Halo Infinite has a campaign, multiplayer. Had skins, characters, maps and modes added on a regular basis. It resets every few weeks.
Please tell me what the difference is?
Also, what is the difference between E-Day and Gears 5? If you Google is Gears 5 a Live Service game, the answer is yes! So if E-Day is offering exactly the same, why is that game not Live Service?
What is a Live Service game? Google it, and then compare what it says to what we know of E-Day offering, and what Gears 4 and 5 offered. The description of a Live Service game fits it perfectly.
The only reason that The Coalition would not want E-Day described as a Live Service game is because people often turn their noses up at the genre.
Honestly, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck. If you apply the duck test to E-Day, it is most definitely a Live Service game. No question at all.
Heck Diablo IV is a Live Service game, and effectively offers less than E-Day will. I think the term is quite broad these days, but undoubtedly E-Day is a Live Service game because they will add more to it as time goes on, and I bet they will do what they did in 4 and 5 and reset your progress every few weeks (which is seasons in all but name).
As an addendum, I think the term multiplayer game has become more synonymous with co-op play, or the tacked on multiplayer that we used to get in the 360 era...
I've said it countless times now, @Millionski, but a console needs exclusive games because it most definitely brings in new gamers. I would cavate that by saying it isn't usually just one game, but a few; so you wouldn't necessarily buy a PlayStation for just Spiderman, but throw in God of War, The Last of Us and Uncharted, and then the temptation is most definitely there.
So, first off, I think E-Day is the wrong game to start with. There were better options, and Sharma didn't pick them. E-Day needs a big community to do well, and it may not find it on Xbox alone. Fable and Halo would have been better options because it doesn't matter if they don't have a community because they are one and done games. You play it once and move on to the next game. E-Day isn't like that, they want people to keep playing it.
The problem that Xbox has when it comes to exclusives is Game Pass, and it is an absolutely enormous problem at that. Most of us have stacked Game Pass subscriptions, so when we play the game we will play it via Game Pass and the game will effectively get no money from us at all. So even if a million of us play a first-party game at launch, if we all play on a stacked subscription, the game will not have earned a penny.
Not enough of us buy first-party games because Microsoft enable us to play the games through Game Pass. That means that every first-party game struggles to break even, let alone make any money for Xbox.
Then of course you have to look at how many of us are actually gaming on an Xbox. Basically we are about a third of what PlayStation has. That means that not only are there fewer of us to buy the game, but the strong likelihood is that we will play the game on Game Pass anyway (as is our right).
So what you have, in the case of E-Day, is the wrong game picked as the first exclusive, a game that needs the biggest possible community in order to do well. Only one exclusive this year, which is unlikely to be a strong enough selling point for potential Xbox console buyers. And Game Pass massively cannibalising sales.
As they say, 'insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results'. And what has changed at Xbox since the 'only 4 games'? Nothing! So how on Earth can we expect exclusives to work now if they didn't back then? All that is likely to happen is weak sales and repercussions. People will lose their jobs. Xbox will reset yet again. Studios will shrink or close. Rinse and repeat.
Now, if Sharma stops putting first-party games on Game Pass day one (and E-Day may be an experiment that facilitate this), then maybe Xbox can pull itself out of the mire by using exclusives. However, until that changes, then out behaviour will not change, and Xbox will just find itself in more trouble. It is absolutely inevitable, and I am surprised that more people cannot see this...
I will say it yet again. Game Pass Ultimate should be scraped thus making Premium the top tier. No first-party day one games should go on to Game Pass until a year after it has been on sale. Game Pass Premium would obviously cost what it does now, which would effectively be a reduction in cost if you are currently on Ultimate.
Xbox needs to be selling its first-party games because they need to be making the revenue that they are currently losing because they are going on to Game Pass day one.
Games need to stand on their own two feet rather than being propped up by Game Pass. If it is not good, then it won't sell. If it is, it will. It really is pretty simple.
Ultimate needs to go. Day one first-party games need to cease, and I am hoping that is the big change that Sharma will make in the '100 day reset' she spoke of. Basically things cannot continue as they did, because it did not work before, and if things do not change, then it still will not work now...
I am quite looking forward to this game. I don't think a bigger map is always what we gamers want. More to do, and particularly more interesting things to do, it much more preferable...
I've played through the game so many times it's frankly ridiculous, but I still find myself pretty excited for this new version. Looking forward to pulling my hair out (well, I would if I wasn't bald! 😂) trying to keep all the Marines alive on the beach, and playing the game through solo on Legendary, which was most definitely a challenge in the original games.
I wonder how many people will get the Platinum in the game on PlayStation, because it is a horrible set of Trophies for them. Plus I was never any good at the grenade jumps you needed to do to get the skulls in the original games (assuming you need to do it still).
Personally, I'm not looking to get all the Achievements in the game, but I will play the game solo on Legendary. I seem to recall that one of the games has an achievement for beating it solo on Legendary, and have a feeling it was the first game, but I might be wrong. I managed it back when the game first released, so I'll definitely try for that again.
I think a lot of people will be very surprised how hard the game is when playing it solo on Legendary though, so I imagine there could be some considerable frustration among new Halo players.
I have the Collector's Edition pre-ordered, but could only get it for PC, but I am hoping that Microsoft will do a resupply for Xbox as that is where I would prefer to own it...
Just so that I knew I wasn't talking out of my butt, @FatGuyInLilCoat, I looked up the following:
What Constitutes a Live Service Game?
Live service games, also known as "games as a service" or GaaS, are designed to be continually updated and expanded with new content, features, and functionality. These games are typically multiplayer-focused and are built around a central concept or theme, such as a first-person shooter or a massively multiplayer online game. They are designed to be played with other people and often encourage players to work together to achieve a common goal. Live service games offer an experience that is different from traditional AAA games, offering a more open-ended experience that can be tailored to the individual player's preferences. They also provide a social aspect, encouraging players to form communities and build relationships with other players.
I think that perfectly fits what E-Day is, and what 4 and 5 were...
Gears 4 had new maps, skins, characters, bloodsprays, and flags added over time, @FatGuyInLilCoat. And every 12 weeks (I think it's 12) your play for your levels is reset to Private, and you work your way back up to Legend again, and are able to unlock all the medals once more. The multiplayer is obviously online, and you can buy various things for the game with real world money. It is most definitely a Live Service game, and it does everything that a Live Service game does. What it does have, which many other Live Service games don't is a decent campaign.
If you think about it, if Destiny is a Live Service game, then Gears of War, since GoW4 has most certainly been a Live Service game, and it will live or die based on its community. The more people that play it, the better its chances. The fewer people that do, the more likely it is to fail.
It won't be it's campaign that sustains the game. It will be the longevity of the multiplayer modes. It's the same with Halo Infinite. It too was a Live Service game, but now that it is no longer receiving updates, it is no longer considered as such.
However, we are in agreement. Microsoft should have withdrawn both Halo and Fable, and never give State of Decay 3. I think the only excuse that Xbox could possibly have is that they want to use one of Xbox's biggest franchises as a test case. They couldn't use the 'new' Halo because it is not big enough to be a system seller. They didn't want to use FH6 because it is a Live Service game for which the previous entry has seen success on PlayStation, but they wanted a big title (a potential system-seller) to test the waters, and E-Day is the first one they had. It's a mistake in my view. Not good for the franchise, or Xbox, and on it's own (Clockwork is unlikely to be regarded as a system-seller) it won't be enough to draw in the masses...
I absolutely get that, @Cakefish, but it makes no sense. What Sharma is doing by keeping Fable and Halo on PlayStation is prioritising their reputation with PlayStation gamers over the health of Xbox itself. Make that make sense!
Even if they were not going to pull Fable and Halo because they had previously been announced, why then put State of Decay 3 on there? Make that make sense!
Forza Horizon 6 is a Live Service game, and so it absolutely makes sense to put it on PlayStation because it needs as many people to play it as possible. Gears of War: E-Day is also a Live Service game, and so they have taken the game away from something like 95 million potential customers. That's 95 million potential buyers of the games, and 95 million potential people who would have bought microtransactions too. If it is the right decision for FH6, why is it not the right decision for E-Day? Make that make sense!
I have said countless times that I believe consoles need to have big, AAA exclusives. Games that sell consoles. Games that make people want to join ecosystems. So I totally get that Xbox needs exclusives, but I would strongly argue that Microsoft are starting with the wrong game because they are actively going to hurt its earning potential.
Let's face it, the reason that Nadella told Spencer to put once exclusive games on PlayStation was because they were not earning sufficient revenue on Xbox (and PC). So how on Earth do Microsoft expect games to earn enough revenue now? What has changed? Are people suddenly going to buy the game instead of playing it on Game Pass? We both know the answer to that one! People have paid their subscriptions, and so they are totally entitled to play the game that way, but that is the point; if we, the gamer, are not going to change our gaming habits, how is anything going to be different this time? Simple answer is it isn't.
Games expected on a certain platform get cancelled all the time (mostly to Xbox), and the simple answer to criticism were Xbox to pull Halo and Fable would be that the game was promised under different leadership, and under different strategies. Both have now changed, and if you want to play the games, they are available on Xbox. Would Sony gamers have been up in arms? Absolutely they would! If roles were reversed and Sony were to do it to us, would we be upset? Absolutely we would! If Sony were to pull a game from us and keep it as an exclusive, would their gamers be cheering Sony on? Absolutely they would, and we have seen exactly that from Xbox gamers (and that is not a criticism).
The point is that If Microsoft had pulled Halo and Fable, there would have been some rage, and then they would have moved beyond it as we always do when things upset us, mostly because there is soon something else to get angry about. Ultimately, Microsoft could have opted to do this, but decided to prioritise the happiness of PlayStation gamers over the health of the Xbox brand, and it makes absolutely no sense...
I did a few Escapes, @ILuvGames, but it didn't really hold my interest for long truth be told. I have played through every campaign so many times it is frankly ridiculous. Just Gears 5 I have probably completed nigh on 20 times including solo Insane and then solo Inconceivable. Then I have gone through on the same difficulties with a few friends. In fact, when I think about it, I've probably gone through Gears 5 campaign nearer to 30 times.
I loved the Hivebusters DLC, and have gone through that a few times now, including playing it on the hardest difficulty with one mate. Man that final boss is a pain on Inconceivable!
Like I say though, for me it has always been about Horde in every game from 2 onwards. 5s is the best, then 3s, then 4s, then 2s, then Judgements. I have spent over 2000 hours playing 5s Horde mode, and probably not far off that in 3s.
I played a bit of Beast Mode, which was alright, I guess, and I have done a couple of runs of Horde Frenzy, but I didn't enjoy that so much because the last time I tried it, 2 of the people dropped out towards the end of the game, and so I gave up on the mode after that.
I really cannot see me enjoying Horde Siege, it just does not strike me as a decent evolution of the game. It feels like they are changing things just for the sake of change, and much like Horde Frenzy, I don't think many people will bother playing it, but I guess we will see in due course...
Most of my closest friends I have met playing Horde in Gears of War, @ILuvGames. When playing Horde in Gears 2 I met 2 guys who live 200 miles from me. I have met them in person a few times, and I am Godfather to one of their children. I speak (via text) to one of them every day because we play a bunch of word games, and then compare our scores, and we are about to embark on a run through of Resident Evil 5 co-op campaign.
The guy that I play with today in Horde in Gears 5 I met playing Horde in Gears of War 3, and I have a few other friends that I play Horde with occasionally too.
However, I have met my fair share of idiots in online games. So many in fact, that I stopped playing Overwatch because of people either being abusive or deliberately throwing matches so that they could drop down the ranks. I also have tried playing Horde online with random people, and nothing irks me more than when one or two of them drop out after an hour and leave you in the lurch. I've even had people come into a Horde and just spend all the coin in the fabricator buying useless items, and then, having spent everything, just leave. Ruining other people's fun seem to be a sport for some.
As for my friends list, I think I have about 10 people on there that I game with on occasion, but in reality, probably just 2 or 3 on a regular basis. I don't think I've added anyone to my friends list since the end of the 360 era... 😂
I certainly think Microsoft will use it as a test case, @somnambulance. Gears of War is one of the big beasts on Xbox, and if it cannot sell copies, subscriptions, or consoles, then pretty much nothing can.
Once Microsoft are armed with the full statistics, then we may see a further shift in strategy, be that a doubling down on exclusives (if the experiment with E-Day goes well), or another 180 if Microsoft cannot get the experiment to work.
The truth is that for exclusives to continue, they have to generate income for Xbox. There needs to be an uptick in console sales, Game Pass subscriptions, and a steady income from microtransactions. If they get that, then game on. If they don't, then everything could change once more.
I still think that having E-Day as an exclusive is a huge risk, particularly bearing in mind the readiness of the PlayStation version, and also the fact that it is a Live Service game meaning it needs to get to the biggest possible audience (something that Sony have acknowledged only today). The fact that it is such a big risk is what lends me to thinking that there is a reason why Xbox have picked this particular game to lead the charge, when both Halo and Fable were far more obvious choices. I mean, Microsoft are still putting Forza Horizon 6 on PlayStation because it is a Live Service game. So you would think that what is good for one would be good for the other, would you not...?
Comments 5,498
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...
Re: Gears of War: E-Day's 4-Player Co-Op Will Feel "Like Band Of Brothers Or Saving Private Ryan"
I honestly cannot say how popular any of the multiplayer modes are in Gears 5, @ILuvGames, because the only mode that I play 3 days a week is Horde, and I always play with the same two people (and two bots). All I can say is that there are always several pages of people playing Horde that I could join should I so wish. It certainly gives the impression of being popular, but I am probably in the minority when it comes to how often I play.
All I can hope is that The Coalition do not let me down, and still have the traditional Horde mode as well. Just as with Horde Frenzy, there is room for both...
Re: 'Sea of Thieves' Movie Joins 'Gears Of War' In Xbox's Hollywood Push
My bad, @ILuvGames! I probably misconstrued your comment, or mixed it up with someone else's comment. I blame it on my age and the heat...! I actually meant to reply to someone else... 😆
Re: 'Sea of Thieves' Movie Joins 'Gears Of War' In Xbox's Hollywood Push
I think my initial thoughts that the reason for E-Day was to introduce the game to PlayStation, is the most likely scenario, @CallMeDuraSouka. I think then came the idea of the film with a view to tapping into E-Day so as to drive interest in the game.
That seems more feasible, but I never agreed with not having Gears 6 first as some of us are invested in that particular story. However, trying to take Gears 6 to the PlayStation first (in terms of new games) would not have worked. Hence we get E-Day instead. However, now that the game is not going to PlayStation, not making Gears 6 seems even more dumb than it did before...
Re: What Does A $1049 Steam Machine Mean For Xbox's Project Helix?
My money is on Microsoft selling Helix for 3 years, @NishimaruX. After that, they will support those they have sold for a few years, but will basically move on. I also think that Game Pass will go the way of the dodo at the same time...
Re: What Does A $1049 Steam Machine Mean For Xbox's Project Helix?
I first got a gaming PC (if we disregard my Amstrad back before consoles were a thing!) in response to my best mates choosing to take the PC route rather than Xbox One after the disastrous decisions that were made at the time, @NishimaruX.
We continued to game on PC for a fair few years, and it is only relatively recently that they returned to Xbox.
I bought a new PC that cost me £2600 about 5 or 6 years ago, and have since upgraded it further to the tune of around £1000, and did so so that I could play Baldur's Gate 3 before it released on console. That was the last game I played on it.
I have always gamed on an Xbox, including pre-ordering the Xbox One because I don't understand how to properly operate a PC. I much prefer the simplicity of a console.
I get that having a gaming PC that I do not use is a waste, but I am perfectly happy to game on consoles...
Re: 'Sea of Thieves' Movie Joins 'Gears Of War' In Xbox's Hollywood Push
I would think that Microsoft have far better games that would have made for better films / TV series, @CallMeDuraSouka. the cynical side of me thinks that having a film that might lead to more people playing SoT may well have been a factor in Microsoft's decision. After all, I'm sure SoT makes some considerable coin for Microsoft, so raising interest may well lead to even more people playing it...
Re: 'Sea of Thieves' Movie Joins 'Gears Of War' In Xbox's Hollywood Push
As I said on a different Pure Xbox article earlier; I did think the original plan to release E-Day on PlayStation was the initial driving force behind having E-Day rather than Gears 6, but now that it is clear that Delta Squad is the focus of the movie, it makes even more sense to have E-Day instead.
Hopefully, this movie will be as good as the likes of the Fallout and Last of Us series, and will drive interest in the franchise, and maybe even Xbox console sales too...
Re: What Does A $1049 Steam Machine Mean For Xbox's Project Helix?
I have a decent gaming PC, @BoredOfEverything, but I haven't used it to game on for about 3 years now. I just do not like PC gaming, albeit that it is easier these days than it was a decade ago.
I personally would far rather another closed off Xbox console. I do not need the PC side of things.
That said, I am one of those enthusiasts that would rather have the very best console experience, and I suspect that will be found on Helix (Senior), so I will probably end up getting one...
Re: Poll: What Do You Think Of Call Of Duty's Delay To Xbox Game Pass?
It sounds pretty interesting, @Katiecooh2313, and also a bit like the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer mode, which was simply excellent. I might have to take a look. It sounds cool...
Re: What Does A $1049 Steam Machine Mean For Xbox's Project Helix?
We are in agreement, @ilyn. I can see Helix costing £1500 or more. A decent PC is not cheap, and if it is cheap, then it probably isn't all that capable in the grand scheme of things. Yes, it will be better than the Series X, but not a great PC.
If people want this transformative Xbox PC experience, then they need to be prepared to pay for it...
Re: What Does A $1049 Steam Machine Mean For Xbox's Project Helix?
I've said it multiple times now, but if people expect to pay £600 for Helix, then they are not getting a PC with stellar performance.
Try building a PC for yourself to decent specs, and you will see that it is not a cheap thing to do, and even if Microsoft could source every component at 50%, you would still be paying a significant sum for it.
If people want Helix to be as powerful as rumoured, then they have to expect it to come with a hefty price tag. Honestly, I'd be wary of the capabilities of anything that cost less than £1500, but my guess is that for the best model of Helix (I think there will be more than one) Microsoft will probably be aiming for between £1000 and £1500, but I would not be shocked if it cost more.
Helix was, I believe, conceived with the knowledge that it will be a niche device for enthusiasts, and I think people need to be prepared to pay a pretty significant price to be one of those enthusiasts.
I do think there will be a Helix Junior, which will probably be slightly better than the Series X, and which will cost about the same as it currently does. However, I think that lesser price will mean that it does not offer PC gaming, and that it will be just as the Series consoles are now, offering just a console experience...
Re: Gears of War: E-Day's 4-Player Co-Op Will Feel "Like Band Of Brothers Or Saving Private Ryan"
I see there's a story going round at the moment that the Netflix film will be an origin story featuring Delta Squad, which would then make the move to having E-Day rather than Gears 6 more understable.
Are you aware of this @FraserG...?
Re: Gears of War: E-Day's 4-Player Co-Op Will Feel "Like Band Of Brothers Or Saving Private Ryan"
Whilst I understand your thinking, @ILuvGames, if they have been struggling to keep 5 people playing Horde (they haven't, by the way), how would they hope to keep 12 people playing it?
My money is on this being an alternative mode, like Horde Frenzy is in Gears 5, and it will be for fewer waves. Probably 12, like Frenzy...
Re: Poll: What Do You Think Of Call Of Duty's Delay To Xbox Game Pass?
Wait! What, @Katiecooh2313? TLoU has a Horde mode? I did not know that...
Re: "The Catalogue Was Just Nowhere Near Good Enough" - Ori Creator Likens Xbox Game Pass To A "Slop Factory"
I think he has a point, to be fair.
The quality of the games need to be higher. Yes, we've had Expedition 33, which is a 5* game, but for every 5* games there are 30 or 40 3* games or lower. I think that is what he is talking about.
If Game Pass was filled with 4*+ games, it would be sensational. Something that everyone wants. However, there are far too many games that are just there to fill a quota. Too many games just there to pad out the service.
I would be really curious to see what the actual average score is if every game were totalled up. If we were to look at the average Metacritic score for every single game on the service, I bet the score would sit somewhere between 60 and 70, which, in all honesty, is not good enough, and is, I think, what he is getting at.
Basically, I think the service was better a few years ago than it is now...
Re: Gears of War: E-Day's 4-Player Co-Op Will Feel "Like Band Of Brothers Or Saving Private Ryan"
If you meant will I manage to Master all 37 maps before E-Day comes out, @Skinny-Pete, the answer is most definitely no. Some of the maps are just too difficult to undertake as a team of 3 on Inconceivable, let alone Master. In all honesty, I reckon we might manage another 3 or 4, but it'll be tough going because it all depends on cover, and where the taps are. Some maps are just too open, and offer too little cover, meaning it is very difficult to survive the Boss waves in particular as if all the team goes down, the run ends on Master. There is no second chance. It is what makes the run so much fun. However, when you realise that 21 successful Master Hordes equates to 1050 waves completed, we have probably attempted at least 20,000 waves to get those 50 successful runs because the vast majority of our runs end in failure...
Re: Gears of War: E-Day's 4-Player Co-Op Will Feel "Like Band Of Brothers Or Saving Private Ryan"
Myself, my youngest son (23) and a mate attempt a Master Horde each Friday, Saturday and Sunday as a trio, @Skinny-Pete. We've now managed to completed 21 of the 37 maps in this way, which is pretty good going.
I have not played even a single round of the PvP multiplayer since Gears 5 first launched, so I don't know how that fairs, but when I load up a Horde I do notice that there are quite a few matches ongoing every time. I don't play with random people at all as I much prefer going through the games in a team of two or three. Until my son joined myself and my mate, we were doing all the maps on Insane or occasionally Inconceivable as a duo. I'd far rather that than play with people I don't know...
Re: Gears of War: E-Day's 4-Player Co-Op Will Feel "Like Band Of Brothers Or Saving Private Ryan"
I really hope they get the single-player and the co-op right here. I always go through the game solo twice, before I ever touch the game in co-op. I go through on Hardcore, and then Insane solo (and I'd love it if there was an Achievement for managing that solo too...!
I will then go through the game a few times with different friends in co-op. Probably straight in on Insane, but if they have not played it before, then we may go on an easier difficulty first.
My only hope is that they get that Insane difficulty right in co-op. I do not want Down But Not Out to be available. I want it so that if one person goes down, we all start again (just like it is solo). If you can be revived in co-op, then it will just make the game way too easy, and that is not how Gears of War should be...
Re: Gears of War: E-Day's 4-Player Co-Op Will Feel "Like Band Of Brothers Or Saving Private Ryan"
You are absolutely right, @Skinny-Pete. For me, whilst I will be playing the campaign first, it is 5 player Horde that is the one mode that will keep me playing the game every single weekend until E-Day 2 comes out.
I have several hundred hours in Gears 5 campaign, but I have over 2000 hours in Horde in the game...
Re: Gears of War: E-Day's 4-Player Co-Op Will Feel "Like Band Of Brothers Or Saving Private Ryan"
Obviously Marcus and Dom first met Cole and Baird 14 years after E-Day occurred (which is when this new game is set), so it would not be possible have them in the squad now, @nomither6. If The Coalition had brought them into the campaign (particuarly as the other two squad mates) it would have absolutely ruined this new game because it would have made a mockery of every game that has gone before it.
I have said a number of times over the past 2 years since E-Day was announced that people will have to understand that there are certain characters and enemies that simply cannot be in E-Day bearing in mind the lore of the game...
Re: Xbox Summer Sale 2026 Set To Begin Soon, Here's What You Need To Know
I feel that way too, @Gabrie. Almost every game on sale in this particular event will have been on sale in recent weeks, probably at the same price. It makes going through a thousand or more of the same games a right drag each time...
Re: These Are The 10 Most Popular Games In The Xbox Demo Fest 2026
Is Active Matter a multiplayer only game? Have to say, the music accompanying the video is completely at odds with the gameplay. It seems a strange choice.
Also, has anyone played Salvation: Echoes of War? Is it worth a punt...?
Re: Titanfall-Inspired Shooter 'EMPULSE' Makes Its Xbox Debut Next Week
I was interested right up until I read the bit about it being a multiplayer game! I was hoping it meant it was like Titanfall 2, with its excellent campaign. Oh, well, the wait continues...
Re: Poll: What Do You Think Of Call Of Duty's Delay To Xbox Game Pass?
Whilst I agree the game should have released on the PlayStation too, @Katiecooh2313. 12 hours would be for the campaign played in co-op on easy. It'll be much more like a 30 hour campaign if played solo on Insane.
Also, that is just the campaign. I have well over 2000 hours in Gears 5 Horde alone, and another few hundred hours in multiple runs in the campaign...
Re: Talking Point: How Well Do You Expect GTA 6 To Run On Xbox Series X|S?
I've never played a GTA game, @Lanmanna, they just don't appear to be my type of game...
Re: Poll: What Do You Think Of Call Of Duty's Delay To Xbox Game Pass?
That is exactly my point, @YeyoFairy. So long as Game Pass offers us the opportunity to play games more cheaply, that is what we will end up doing. We are not doing anything wrong in taking advantage of such a good deal. It is up to Microsoft to change Game Pass in such a way as to change our habits. Until then, if Microsoft are losing money, then that is on them. I'm sure they have the facts and figures, and know the damage Game Pass is doing to first-party sales revenue, so you'd think they would be a bit smarter about the way they do things.
Personally, I hope that the removal of day one first-party titles from Game Pass is top of the to do list for Sharma, and will be part of the 100 day Xbox reset...
Re: Talking Point: How Well Do You Expect GTA 6 To Run On Xbox Series X|S?
I have a feeling it won't run at all on my console, mostly because for it to run I would have to buy it, and I won't be doing that... 😆
Re: No Law Aims For 'Quality Over Quantity' With Its Cyberpunk Open World On Xbox Series X|S
I too loved The Ascent, @Balaam_. I really enjoyed searching everywhere. The level of detail in the game was very surprising, and well done. I have high hopes for this new game...
Re: Poll: What Do You Think Of Call Of Duty's Delay To Xbox Game Pass?
I'm not blaming you, or anyone else, @YeyoFairy, when I say that people are costing Xbox revenue when they play first-party games on Game Pass, and I never will. It is refreshing to see someone openly admit, and understand, that they are part of the problem, but I still think it is absolutely your right (and everyone else's right) to play first-party games that way. If Microsoft are going to enable us to do so, and we then pay our subs, then we have the right to play the games as we see fit, and if that means not buying them, then so be it. It is for Microsoft to address the issue.
I buy my first-party games, despite having Ultimate, because I prefer to own the games I play. I'm old, and as such seem to struggle with the notion of playing games, or watching films, on a subscription service. I always buy the films on blu-ray I watch too. I'm also in the fortunate position of being able to afford to do so. Not everyone it, and I totally get that. So even though I think more of us should be buying the games, I do not think people are wrong for utilising Game Pass because that is what it is there for.
The first step to making us buy our games, rather than playing them on Game Pass, needs to be taken by Microsoft, and I really hope they do so because it could lead to the salvation of Xbox...
Re: Poll: What Do You Think Of Call Of Duty's Delay To Xbox Game Pass?
Is that what they were getting at, @somnambulance? I didn't catch on. Clearly a bit slow today...! 😂
I know I can come across as critical of some of the decisions that Xbox makes, but I do so out of concern and passion for the platform. I fear what the repercussions of some of the moves might be. I know I should probably care less than I do, but when you are passionate about something, you don't want to see it turn to 💩
Re: Poll: What Do You Think Of Call Of Duty's Delay To Xbox Game Pass?
It would undoubtedly cost subscribers, @AI-Generation. Of that I have no doubt at all.
The thing is, you need 4 NEW subscriptions to equate to just one game purchased. In other words, if 4 people sign up to Game Pass Ultimate for one month in order to play E-Day then Xbox will make £68. If one person buys the game, they make £70.
If I were to play E-Day on Game Pass when it releases, I could play it until next June (when my subscription ends) and Microsoft would not receive a single penny from me.
The problem is that most of us have stacked subscriptions, meaning that Microsoft gain no money from us once they received the initial amount, and it's not held in some pot and dished out based on who plays it. Money we give for Game Pass mostly is spent on third-party games. First-party games are basically fending for themselves, and mostly survive (or don't!) on sales.
I do agree that Game Pass would lose some subscribers, but as with the 50% increase one of two things will happen; they will either leave, or they will drop down a tier (which seems to have been the favoured step by many here).
Honestly, when I thought first-party games was working for Game Pass, I was all for it. Then we had the infamous 'just 4 games' moment, and it became clear it was not working at all.
Nothing has changed since that moment, and I think something has to, so I'd argue that the biggest inhibitor of sales of first-party games on Xbox is Game Pass, so surely that is what needs to change, because... well, I cannot think what else they could possibly do...
Re: Poll: What Do You Think Of Call Of Duty's Delay To Xbox Game Pass?
Sorry, @PennywiZe666, I don't follow you...?
Re: Xbox Creates New 'Exclusive' Label For Eligible Games On Console
If you Google is E-Day a Live Service game, @darylb24, it says it isn't. If you Google is Halo Infinite a Live Service game, it says it was, but is no longer receiving support, so it isn't any more.
E-day has a campaign, multiplayer. Has skins, characters, maps and modes added on a regular basis. It resets every few weeks.
Halo Infinite has a campaign, multiplayer. Had skins, characters, maps and modes added on a regular basis. It resets every few weeks.
Please tell me what the difference is?
Also, what is the difference between E-Day and Gears 5? If you Google is Gears 5 a Live Service game, the answer is yes! So if E-Day is offering exactly the same, why is that game not Live Service?
What is a Live Service game? Google it, and then compare what it says to what we know of E-Day offering, and what Gears 4 and 5 offered. The description of a Live Service game fits it perfectly.
The only reason that The Coalition would not want E-Day described as a Live Service game is because people often turn their noses up at the genre.
Honestly, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck. If you apply the duck test to E-Day, it is most definitely a Live Service game. No question at all.
Heck Diablo IV is a Live Service game, and effectively offers less than E-Day will. I think the term is quite broad these days, but undoubtedly E-Day is a Live Service game because they will add more to it as time goes on, and I bet they will do what they did in 4 and 5 and reset your progress every few weeks (which is seasons in all but name).
As an addendum, I think the term multiplayer game has become more synonymous with co-op play, or the tacked on multiplayer that we used to get in the 360 era...
Re: Xbox Creates New 'Exclusive' Label For Eligible Games On Console
I've said it countless times now, @Millionski, but a console needs exclusive games because it most definitely brings in new gamers. I would cavate that by saying it isn't usually just one game, but a few; so you wouldn't necessarily buy a PlayStation for just Spiderman, but throw in God of War, The Last of Us and Uncharted, and then the temptation is most definitely there.
So, first off, I think E-Day is the wrong game to start with. There were better options, and Sharma didn't pick them. E-Day needs a big community to do well, and it may not find it on Xbox alone. Fable and Halo would have been better options because it doesn't matter if they don't have a community because they are one and done games. You play it once and move on to the next game. E-Day isn't like that, they want people to keep playing it.
The problem that Xbox has when it comes to exclusives is Game Pass, and it is an absolutely enormous problem at that. Most of us have stacked Game Pass subscriptions, so when we play the game we will play it via Game Pass and the game will effectively get no money from us at all. So even if a million of us play a first-party game at launch, if we all play on a stacked subscription, the game will not have earned a penny.
Not enough of us buy first-party games because Microsoft enable us to play the games through Game Pass. That means that every first-party game struggles to break even, let alone make any money for Xbox.
Then of course you have to look at how many of us are actually gaming on an Xbox. Basically we are about a third of what PlayStation has. That means that not only are there fewer of us to buy the game, but the strong likelihood is that we will play the game on Game Pass anyway (as is our right).
So what you have, in the case of E-Day, is the wrong game picked as the first exclusive, a game that needs the biggest possible community in order to do well. Only one exclusive this year, which is unlikely to be a strong enough selling point for potential Xbox console buyers. And Game Pass massively cannibalising sales.
As they say, 'insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results'. And what has changed at Xbox since the 'only 4 games'? Nothing! So how on Earth can we expect exclusives to work now if they didn't back then? All that is likely to happen is weak sales and repercussions. People will lose their jobs. Xbox will reset yet again. Studios will shrink or close. Rinse and repeat.
Now, if Sharma stops putting first-party games on Game Pass day one (and E-Day may be an experiment that facilitate this), then maybe Xbox can pull itself out of the mire by using exclusives. However, until that changes, then out behaviour will not change, and Xbox will just find itself in more trouble. It is absolutely inevitable, and I am surprised that more people cannot see this...
Re: Poll: What Do You Think Of Call Of Duty's Delay To Xbox Game Pass?
I will say it yet again. Game Pass Ultimate should be scraped thus making Premium the top tier. No first-party day one games should go on to Game Pass until a year after it has been on sale. Game Pass Premium would obviously cost what it does now, which would effectively be a reduction in cost if you are currently on Ultimate.
Xbox needs to be selling its first-party games because they need to be making the revenue that they are currently losing because they are going on to Game Pass day one.
Games need to stand on their own two feet rather than being propped up by Game Pass. If it is not good, then it won't sell. If it is, it will. It really is pretty simple.
Ultimate needs to go. Day one first-party games need to cease, and I am hoping that is the big change that Sharma will make in the '100 day reset' she spoke of. Basically things cannot continue as they did, because it did not work before, and if things do not change, then it still will not work now...
Re: No Law Aims For 'Quality Over Quantity' With Its Cyberpunk Open World On Xbox Series X|S
I am quite looking forward to this game. I don't think a bigger map is always what we gamers want. More to do, and particularly more interesting things to do, it much more preferable...
Re: Halo Studios Unveils Six Hours Of Footage From Campaign Evolved's Main Menu
I've played through the game so many times it's frankly ridiculous, but I still find myself pretty excited for this new version. Looking forward to pulling my hair out (well, I would if I wasn't bald! 😂) trying to keep all the Marines alive on the beach, and playing the game through solo on Legendary, which was most definitely a challenge in the original games.
I wonder how many people will get the Platinum in the game on PlayStation, because it is a horrible set of Trophies for them. Plus I was never any good at the grenade jumps you needed to do to get the skulls in the original games (assuming you need to do it still).
Personally, I'm not looking to get all the Achievements in the game, but I will play the game solo on Legendary. I seem to recall that one of the games has an achievement for beating it solo on Legendary, and have a feeling it was the first game, but I might be wrong. I managed it back when the game first released, so I'll definitely try for that again.
I think a lot of people will be very surprised how hard the game is when playing it solo on Legendary though, so I imagine there could be some considerable frustration among new Halo players.
I have the Collector's Edition pre-ordered, but could only get it for PC, but I am hoping that Microsoft will do a resupply for Xbox as that is where I would prefer to own it...
Re: Halo Studios Unveils Six Hours Of Footage From Campaign Evolved's Main Menu
I've watched all 6 hours, @themightyant, and it's well worth it. Ends on a cliff-hanger too. Can't wait for 6 hours of the end credits next... 😂
Re: Xbox Creates New 'Exclusive' Label For Eligible Games On Console
Just so that I knew I wasn't talking out of my butt, @FatGuyInLilCoat, I looked up the following:
What Constitutes a Live Service Game?
Live service games, also known as "games as a service" or GaaS, are designed to be continually updated and expanded with new content, features, and functionality. These games are typically multiplayer-focused and are built around a central concept or theme, such as a first-person shooter or a massively multiplayer online game. They are designed to be played with other people and often encourage players to work together to achieve a common goal. Live service games offer an experience that is different from traditional AAA games, offering a more open-ended experience that can be tailored to the individual player's preferences. They also provide a social aspect, encouraging players to form communities and build relationships with other players.
I think that perfectly fits what E-Day is, and what 4 and 5 were...
Re: Xbox Creates New 'Exclusive' Label For Eligible Games On Console
Gears 4 had new maps, skins, characters, bloodsprays, and flags added over time, @FatGuyInLilCoat. And every 12 weeks (I think it's 12) your play for your levels is reset to Private, and you work your way back up to Legend again, and are able to unlock all the medals once more. The multiplayer is obviously online, and you can buy various things for the game with real world money. It is most definitely a Live Service game, and it does everything that a Live Service game does. What it does have, which many other Live Service games don't is a decent campaign.
If you think about it, if Destiny is a Live Service game, then Gears of War, since GoW4 has most certainly been a Live Service game, and it will live or die based on its community. The more people that play it, the better its chances. The fewer people that do, the more likely it is to fail.
It won't be it's campaign that sustains the game. It will be the longevity of the multiplayer modes. It's the same with Halo Infinite. It too was a Live Service game, but now that it is no longer receiving updates, it is no longer considered as such.
However, we are in agreement. Microsoft should have withdrawn both Halo and Fable, and never give State of Decay 3. I think the only excuse that Xbox could possibly have is that they want to use one of Xbox's biggest franchises as a test case. They couldn't use the 'new' Halo because it is not big enough to be a system seller. They didn't want to use FH6 because it is a Live Service game for which the previous entry has seen success on PlayStation, but they wanted a big title (a potential system-seller) to test the waters, and E-Day is the first one they had. It's a mistake in my view. Not good for the franchise, or Xbox, and on it's own (Clockwork is unlikely to be regarded as a system-seller) it won't be enough to draw in the masses...
Re: Xbox Creates New 'Exclusive' Label For Eligible Games On Console
I absolutely get that, @Cakefish, but it makes no sense. What Sharma is doing by keeping Fable and Halo on PlayStation is prioritising their reputation with PlayStation gamers over the health of Xbox itself. Make that make sense!
Even if they were not going to pull Fable and Halo because they had previously been announced, why then put State of Decay 3 on there? Make that make sense!
Forza Horizon 6 is a Live Service game, and so it absolutely makes sense to put it on PlayStation because it needs as many people to play it as possible. Gears of War: E-Day is also a Live Service game, and so they have taken the game away from something like 95 million potential customers. That's 95 million potential buyers of the games, and 95 million potential people who would have bought microtransactions too. If it is the right decision for FH6, why is it not the right decision for E-Day? Make that make sense!
I have said countless times that I believe consoles need to have big, AAA exclusives. Games that sell consoles. Games that make people want to join ecosystems. So I totally get that Xbox needs exclusives, but I would strongly argue that Microsoft are starting with the wrong game because they are actively going to hurt its earning potential.
Let's face it, the reason that Nadella told Spencer to put once exclusive games on PlayStation was because they were not earning sufficient revenue on Xbox (and PC). So how on Earth do Microsoft expect games to earn enough revenue now? What has changed? Are people suddenly going to buy the game instead of playing it on Game Pass? We both know the answer to that one! People have paid their subscriptions, and so they are totally entitled to play the game that way, but that is the point; if we, the gamer, are not going to change our gaming habits, how is anything going to be different this time? Simple answer is it isn't.
Games expected on a certain platform get cancelled all the time (mostly to Xbox), and the simple answer to criticism were Xbox to pull Halo and Fable would be that the game was promised under different leadership, and under different strategies. Both have now changed, and if you want to play the games, they are available on Xbox. Would Sony gamers have been up in arms? Absolutely they would! If roles were reversed and Sony were to do it to us, would we be upset? Absolutely we would! If Sony were to pull a game from us and keep it as an exclusive, would their gamers be cheering Sony on? Absolutely they would, and we have seen exactly that from Xbox gamers (and that is not a criticism).
The point is that If Microsoft had pulled Halo and Fable, there would have been some rage, and then they would have moved beyond it as we always do when things upset us, mostly because there is soon something else to get angry about. Ultimately, Microsoft could have opted to do this, but decided to prioritise the happiness of PlayStation gamers over the health of the Xbox brand, and it makes absolutely no sense...
Re: Gears Of War: E-Day Continues To Look Incredible In New 60FPS Xbox Series X Footage
I did a few Escapes, @ILuvGames, but it didn't really hold my interest for long truth be told. I have played through every campaign so many times it is frankly ridiculous. Just Gears 5 I have probably completed nigh on 20 times including solo Insane and then solo Inconceivable. Then I have gone through on the same difficulties with a few friends. In fact, when I think about it, I've probably gone through Gears 5 campaign nearer to 30 times.
I loved the Hivebusters DLC, and have gone through that a few times now, including playing it on the hardest difficulty with one mate. Man that final boss is a pain on Inconceivable!
Like I say though, for me it has always been about Horde in every game from 2 onwards. 5s is the best, then 3s, then 4s, then 2s, then Judgements. I have spent over 2000 hours playing 5s Horde mode, and probably not far off that in 3s.
I played a bit of Beast Mode, which was alright, I guess, and I have done a couple of runs of Horde Frenzy, but I didn't enjoy that so much because the last time I tried it, 2 of the people dropped out towards the end of the game, and so I gave up on the mode after that.
I really cannot see me enjoying Horde Siege, it just does not strike me as a decent evolution of the game. It feels like they are changing things just for the sake of change, and much like Horde Frenzy, I don't think many people will bother playing it, but I guess we will see in due course...
Re: Gears Of War: E-Day Continues To Look Incredible In New 60FPS Xbox Series X Footage
Most of my closest friends I have met playing Horde in Gears of War, @ILuvGames. When playing Horde in Gears 2 I met 2 guys who live 200 miles from me. I have met them in person a few times, and I am Godfather to one of their children. I speak (via text) to one of them every day because we play a bunch of word games, and then compare our scores, and we are about to embark on a run through of Resident Evil 5 co-op campaign.
The guy that I play with today in Horde in Gears 5 I met playing Horde in Gears of War 3, and I have a few other friends that I play Horde with occasionally too.
However, I have met my fair share of idiots in online games. So many in fact, that I stopped playing Overwatch because of people either being abusive or deliberately throwing matches so that they could drop down the ranks. I also have tried playing Horde online with random people, and nothing irks me more than when one or two of them drop out after an hour and leave you in the lurch. I've even had people come into a Horde and just spend all the coin in the fabricator buying useless items, and then, having spent everything, just leave. Ruining other people's fun seem to be a sport for some.
As for my friends list, I think I have about 10 people on there that I game with on occasion, but in reality, probably just 2 or 3 on a regular basis. I don't think I've added anyone to my friends list since the end of the 360 era... 😂
Re: Xbox Creates New 'Exclusive' Label For Eligible Games On Console
I certainly think Microsoft will use it as a test case, @somnambulance. Gears of War is one of the big beasts on Xbox, and if it cannot sell copies, subscriptions, or consoles, then pretty much nothing can.
Once Microsoft are armed with the full statistics, then we may see a further shift in strategy, be that a doubling down on exclusives (if the experiment with E-Day goes well), or another 180 if Microsoft cannot get the experiment to work.
The truth is that for exclusives to continue, they have to generate income for Xbox. There needs to be an uptick in console sales, Game Pass subscriptions, and a steady income from microtransactions. If they get that, then game on. If they don't, then everything could change once more.
I still think that having E-Day as an exclusive is a huge risk, particularly bearing in mind the readiness of the PlayStation version, and also the fact that it is a Live Service game meaning it needs to get to the biggest possible audience (something that Sony have acknowledged only today). The fact that it is such a big risk is what lends me to thinking that there is a reason why Xbox have picked this particular game to lead the charge, when both Halo and Fable were far more obvious choices. I mean, Microsoft are still putting Forza Horizon 6 on PlayStation because it is a Live Service game. So you would think that what is good for one would be good for the other, would you not...?