Fiendish-Beaver

Have to say, I am incredibly worried by the lack of mention of a standard Horde mode. All we have heard is of a 12 player Horde Siege mode (which holds no interest for me), and even then it was barely touched upon.

If The Coalition think that making it bigger is the way forward, then I think they will find it not appealing at all. Horde Siege is 3 teams of 4, but all I want is the usual team of 5 that has always existed.

The fact that The Coalition has been totally silent on the issue has me thinking that they've put all their eggs in the Horde Siege basket, and I don't think that is what the Gears of War community is wanting...

Beta code, @ILuvGames? Was that with the Collector's Edition...?

I've pre-ordered the Collector's Edition of E-Day from Xbox Game Studios online, @FraserG, do you know whether that would be eligible for this offer? It's obviously not the Microsoft Store, but it is one of their official outlets...

Xbox needs to be a lot smarter about the games they make. They need to take charge of their studios and instruct them what games they want them to make.

Right now, Xbox needs games that get people talking, get people buy Xbox consoles, get people taking out new Game Pass subscriptions, and crucially, buying games (preferably upon release at full price).

To do this Microsoft either need to offload those studios that are not making the bug AAA games it needs, or they need to get those studios to help with making such games.

There is a place for games like Keeper on Xbox, but that kind of game does not lend itself to the success of Xbox. No one is going to buy an Xbox just to play an exclusive like Keeper. It is as simple as that. If Microsoft want to sell more consoles then they need to gives people reason to buy them.

I genuinely feel for the developers and studios affected, but right now, Xbox does not need the likes of Double Fine, but they do need to be making a new Fallout and a new Elder Scrolls, and if Bethesda cannot get the games made pronto, then the Xbox management need to get another studio to do so. It really is as simple as that...

My biggest concern is for the longevity of my favourite franchise. I fear the response from management when (if) E-day does not break even, or have the desired effect of selling more consoles and subscriptions. If the only place that saves E-Day from being a financial disaster is Steam, why are we even calling it an exclusive in the first place?

The thing that troubles me most is that E-Day is a Live Service game. Yes, it has a big campaign, but it is not that which will bring in the money by way of microtransactions, it is the multiplayer component. And not putting it on PlayStation means there are over 90 million fewer potential customers who would likely ensure the games profitability.

The problem for Xbox is that not only do they have little more than a third as many gamers as PlayStation, but the vast majority of them will play the game via Game Pass, and many of those will either play the campaign and move on to the next Game Pass game, or maybe play the campaign, and dabble in the multiplayer until Call of Duty comes out, but not spend a penny in microtransactions. After all, if you do not own the game, what is the point in buying skins for it?

To be clear, I am not against Xbox having exclusives, but I do think Game Pass is a massive hinderance to the financial success of any first-party game, and I do feel that the number of gamers on the Series consoles is too low to sustain big, expensive, exclusive games. Add to that the fact the game is a Live Service game, and you have to query the rationale in making this particular game an exclusive.

So, as a huge Gears of War fan who has put well over 2000 hours into Gears 5 alone, I fear the reaction of the bosses should E-Day be seen as a failure. All the praise and Game of the Years awards amount to nothing if the game is not a financial success, and if Microsoft instruct Xbox to wield the axe once more, will The Coalition, or the Gears of War franchise survive the bloodbath...?

We'll see. The problem is that as Sharma said herself, "the plan is the plan until it is not the plan".

So, right now, the plan is to have more exclusives, but if the plan does not work out (in this case E-Day finding financial success) then the plan could well change.

I know these are senior people within Xbox that are making these comments, but first off we have seen Xbox change direction multiple times recently (heck, returning to having exclusives is a change of plan!), and do we cannot say with absolute assuredness that they will stick to what they are saying.

Secondly, you can hardly expect the bosses to come out and tell us, "We might change our minds, we'll let you know!". Obviously they are going to come out and tow the party line.

I'd love to see E-Day find financial success, but if the game really did cost $400 million to make, then I do think they are going to struggle to get that back. Then the question is how will Microsoft respond? Will the franchise come to an end? Will The Coalition close down? Will the financial loses affect other studios instead? Right now we do not have those answers, and just have to hope the game finds the success it truly needs...

It does look very high budget, @themightyant, and the Coalition have clearly thrown everything at it.

If the game really did cost $400 million to make, then they basically will not make it back. I just cannot see them managing it. Had it released on PlayStation, then they likely would, but right now Microsoft are relying on Steam to pull them over the finishing line here, which makes calling it 'exclusive' laughable.

I've said it a few times now, but this was Sharma throwing some red meat at the more rabid Xbox fans, and now, in light of the rumoured studio closures, it kind of makes more sense because Xbox will need the positive glow that having as an exclusive will create.

Sharma clearly felt compelled to act, and the problem she faced in deciding which game to have as an exclusive is Fable has already been promised to PlayStation and is too far out. Halo is closer, but has also been promised to PlayStation, and it is a (arguably high quality) remake of 25 year old game. Forza Horizon 6 is a Live Service game and so needs a big audience, and it had been promised to PlayStation. That just left E-day, which is also a Live Service game, but was the only one of the lot that had not been promised to PlayStation.

Bizarrely, it seems that Sharma has sought to keep the promises made to PlayStation over what would be good for E-Day, and also the finances of both The Coalition and Xbox in general.

The only reason I can think of as to why Sharma would do this (other than the good PR it affords her in certain quarters of the Xbox community) is that when it fails to achieve the required revenue on Xbox (so not Steam) she can then tell that same Xbox community that the exclusives experiment has failed and cannot be further pursued.

The only problem with that is for Microsoft to articulate to us how the experiment has failed they would have to be open and transparent about how much the game cost to make, how many more consoles were sold, how many more Game Pass subscriptions were taken out (and whether they were for just a month or for longer), how much revenue the game made on Xbox, and also, I would suggest, tell us how much it made on Steam because it would then be possible to demonstrate how much the game could have made on PlayStation.

In an ideal world, they would give us these details. Treat us like adults, and explain everything, but this is Microsoft we are talking about, and they are a very secretive organisation who only give us positive information when it comes to revenue by finding those titbits that paint them in a good light.

I'd like to think that if things were clearly laid out for us, we would better understand and be more accepting of the decisions that Microsoft are making, but instead they just seem to lurch from crisis to crisis without explanation, and that rabid element of the Xbox community seem to remain completely oblivious to what's really going on, and the problems that Xbox faces.

Anyway, the long and short of it is I think having E-Day as an exclusive is a terrible idea that could negatively impact the franchise, and potentially the studio, though I think the chances are that Microsoft will spare The Coalition and wield the axe elsewhere instead. Whatever happens, I don't think it'll be pretty...

I have said it a number of times now, @Millionski, but I think Helix will only have around a 3 year life cycle. Microsoft will stop making them at that point because they simply will not sell well enough to warrant the costs of manufacturing them. They will probably sell something like 2 million of them over the course of 3 years, and then Microsoft will call time on it. That is, assuming the price is indeed north of £1000, and also that the PS6 is seen as a much cheaper alternative.

As for the Series consoles, I can definitely see Microsoft supporting the X in particular for a least the first 3 years of the lifetime of Helix, and quite possibly a fair bit longer than that. We could be in the bizarre position wherein Microsoft end up supporting the current generation far beyond them cancelling Helix, and therefore effectively going back a generation.

I do foresee Xbox leaving the console space at some point between 2030 and 2032.

Once they no longer have a console, what happens with Game Pass is up for debate. They could create a first-party only tier, which they could then put on PlayStation, and they could also revamp Game Pass more generally and have it as a Cloud only service on televisions etc.

Assuming they can gain control of their studios and have them producing high quality content at a regular cadence, then I can see them having a lot of success there.

For me the problem remains Game Pass though, because making that profitable is clearly something that Microsoft are finding very difficult, particularly once they factor in their first-party content...

I said earlier today on another article that I thought there would be a bloodbath today, and that Sharma's halo will slip as a consequence.

Honestly, I think any studio that is not making games that are seen as potential system sellers is at risk. Right now Xbox needs those big, bombastic, AAA games that get people talking, get people interested, get people playing and most importantly, get people spending.

These studios that are making often high quality but niche games are not what Xbox needs right now, and they make the sort of content that can be bought elsewhere by Microsoft to fill Game Pass. Xbox does not need to own these sort of studios when they are in the position they currently are.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will just be 2 or 3 studios. I think it could easily be 4 or 5. I really feel for those that work in these studios, and hopefully they can either find a way to go independent, or they can find a buyer elsewhere. I can definitely see there being interest in them, they're just not what Xbox needs in order to help it grow out of the crisis it is in right now. Whatever happens, I hope the staff in these studios find employment elsewhere (if they cannot remain with the studios)...

Yes, @Weebleman, hopefully a buyer can be found for whichever studio Xbox decides to get rid of...

I think Game Pass feeds into those stats though, @themightyant. If Game Pass were to either offer less, or not exist at all, then people would likely be buying more games. It's a real conundrum, and I have little idea how it can be sold.

As for my buying habits, I bought 37 games in 2025 (which is good by my standards!), and I spent £1566.37 in the process. That did include 3 Collector's Editions, mind you, with a combined cost in excess of £600.

I know I am the exception to the rule though...

Very sorry to hear this, and it is devasting for the people that work there.

However, the truth is, I don't think Microsoft can, or will, stop there. Shuttering such a small studio will not make a great deal of difference to the woes that Xbox faces. They need to take much more drastic action, so I fear Compulsion would just be the first that we hear about. There will almost certainly be others...

So the obvious one is probably Double Fine. I know their games are beloved by some, but they are also particularly niche, which is probably not what Xbox needs right now.

The other one I think could be at risk, and which would come as a shock to some, is Arkane Studios. I think Blade could well be cancelled, and the studio shuttered.

I don't think The Coalition or Halo Studios is at risk, not those that have ongoing Live Service games...

Thank you, @FraserG. Little bit confused how you can have the PvP side of things if the game can be played solo, unless they mean you can join the game on your own and then play against other players. If that is the case, it is not for me. If I can play the game without seeing another living person, then that suits me. I'll have to see if we get some reviews that make things somewhat clearer...

Whilst I totally get you thinking when it comes to be people staying subscribed to Game Pass, @themightyant, I think that only works if people are, in the case of first-party games, if people play no more than two AAA games in a year because buying 3 such games on release would bring in more money than being subscribed to Game Pass for an entire year, and Xbox are putting out many more than 3 games a year now. Obviously, that assumes that people would buy that many first-party games, but bearing in mind that people are likely to play far more than just 3 games a year on Game Pass, and that Microsoft have to pay for each and every game that goes on the Service, I do wonder whether they would rather that we bought our games, and subscribed to Game Pass but barely used it, which seems counterintuitive. That is why I think it makes more sense for Microsoft to cease the inclusion of day one games because then we would be buying the first-party games, and using Game Pass as a means to playing all the third-party games on there.

I really don't know what Microsoft are going to do when it comes to Xbox. I am expecting a particuarly savage round of job loses, game cancellations, and studio closures, but I still feel they need to do something when it comes to Game Pass too because right now it is costing them money, which makes sense when you consider what a good deal it is to us customers, but it makes no sense to keep going as they are from a business perspective.

It's all going to be fascinating to watch, of that there is no doubt. Just have to hope they can succeed in their endeavours...

I didn't feel it was descending into an argument, @Froggyman1. I just felt we were laying out our thought process. Regardless, as you and I have both said, we are discussing future steps and so right now, neither one of us is wrong, but equally, neither one of us knows what will actually happen. It's always fun to debate these things though. It shows a good level of passion for all things Xbox.

When it comes to an Ad filled Game Pass, I'm not entirely sure how that will work. If it is just an add whenever you start a game, then that's one thing, but if it is a case of playing for an hour, and then you're interrupted by an Ad then I can see that being very annoying.

I think the other issue I have with Ad filled Game Pass is, let's say it is cheaper than Essential but offers the same things, then isn't there a chance that all those on Essential will just accept the Ads and move to that tier, which will save them money, but mean that Microsoft is not receiving as much money because people will now be paying them less each month? What I'm getting at isn't possible that it will effectively cost them money? I'm just not sure how that will work, yes, they will get money from those that are advertising, but will that be enough to offset the reduced revenue from people paying their subscriptions?

Reading your last comment has me thinking that you may feel the same way that I do, in that the upcoming round of job loses, game cancellations, and studio closures could be the worst yet. If it achieves what Microsoft are aiming for that is one thing, but it could be a pretty savage bloodletting, which is never good to see...

Again, I think we are generally in agreement, @themightyant.

Many of the things that Microsoft need to do to fix Xbox are long-term strategies, and I personally do not think that Xbox has the luxury of time. I don't think Microsoft will afford them that time, and I think, from Nadella's statement, that he has basically lost patience with Xbox. I'm sure he understands that these things take times, but I also think he wants rapid progress, and he is basically putting Xbox on notice.

So, as much as I firmly believe that taking away exclusives from Xbox was a mistake (albeit I understand why it was done), and as much as I see that as one of the main ways that the issues Xbox faces can be sorted, I do believe Microsoft should have been more extreme in their moves back towards exclusivity, including making the likes of Halo and Fable exclusive, and also not putting either Senua or State of Decay 3 on PlayStation. The only first-party games that should be PlayStation are those that have Live Service attached to them, which right now would actually include E-Day, although if Microsoft were to turn things around, and the player-base on Xbox were to substantially grow, then they could bring it back as an exclusive at a later point.

The truth is that Sharma has thrown some red meat at Xbox gamers in the form of E-Day, when in fact Halo or Fable would have made more sense. I guess the problem is that E-Day is imminent and arguably bigger than a Halo remake, and Fable too far away, thus they opted for E-Day instead.

Truthfully, I think E-Day will be seen as a test case because it is one of the biggest franchises on Xbox. If it succeeds, and people buy the game in serious numbers on Xbox (so not Steam), or if there is a substantial uptick in Game Pass subscriptions, then we will see more big exclusive games on Xbox.

If, (as I suspect) gamers on Xbox will just continue to do business as usual, play the game via Game Pass, and fail to buy the game in serious numbers, then I think Sharma can hold it up as an example as to why Xbox is not in the right place to have these big exclusive games right now.

This is why I'd truly love it if Sharma gave us specific details about sales numbers, subscriber numbers, the cost of developing the game, and how much revenue it bought in on Steam, but also crucially detailing that on Xbox too. I don't think it will happen, unfortunately, but what better way to explain to the community why we can, or cannot, have exclusives, than giving us a spreadsheet explaining why?

Lastly, I do agree about Helix being a huge hurdle, because it will be an exceptionally difficult thing to do to convert those gaming on an Xbox One or Series S console, for which they paid two or three hundred, into people willing to spend 4 or five times as much on Helix.

I think too many people see themselves as examples of why people will buy a Helix, when the truth is just because they (and myself) are happy to upgrade from a £450 console to a £1000+ console, I think we are actually very much in the minority. Your hardcore Xbox gamers maybe content to do so, but the majority will vote no with their wallets.

It's going to be fascinating to watch, but not necessarily pleasant viewing...

Oh! I didn't realise it was only PvP, @FraserG. I was aware it could be played in co-op, but had hoped it could be played solo. If it only includes PvP then I assume it is not something that can be played solo...

I don't disagree at all, @themightyant. Game Pass saved Xbox from extinction, and it was sold as such by Spencer to Nadella. The problem, is, as I said in my comment at #59, when Spencer persuaded Nadella to give Xbox another go, he did so on the basis that Game Pass would reach 100 million subscribers by 2030. It was on that basis that Nadella has a performance bonus attached to attaining that many subscribers, something he swiftly removed once it became clear that it was not going to be achieved.

As I also said in the same post, the fact that Game Pass fell substantially short of what was first envisaged now leaves it as a poisoned chalice for Xbox.

Without Game Pass, Xbox is probably toast as it does not have a big enough install base, and not enough to differentiate itself from PlayStation.

So whilst Game Pass probably saved Xbox in the first place (for which I don't think Spencer receives enough credit), having not achieved its lofty goals, it is now the thing that risks sinking Xbox because things cannot continue as they are. Something has to give.

It's why for probably 2 years now, I have been saying that I think Game Pass will cease to exist around 3 years after the launch of Helix (which I think will also cease to be sold at the same time). However, that is not to say that there does not exist the possibility that it will not go down fighting, and it does not mean that big changes cannot save Xbox.

I absolutely agree about the restructuring and substantial job loses, and I have said so very recently. Indeed, I said that all those worshipping Sharma right now may well soon witness her halo slip because job loses, game cancellations, and studio closures never go down well (although you know how some are on here, and Xbox can do no wrong, and so they may well continue to worship at her altar).

I think these job loses etc. could well be amongst the biggest we have seen at Xbox, and I cannot help but be reminded of the comments that were made when Sharma was first promoted to Xbox boss about her being brought into to sunset Xbox. I'm not suggesting that this is precisely what she is going to be doing, but I do think there is a possibility that she will be seeking to redefine Xbox and putting it on the path to becoming a more attractive proposition to potential suitors should it need to be sold off.

If she can save it, then great, but if the hail Mary of restructuring (and maybe Game Pass changes) do not work, then she will have put it into a position where it could be sold off as a going concern to another interested party...

Just to clarify, @Froggyman1, but I have worded my comments somewhat badly, because I am in agreement with @PsBoxSwitchOwner & @Weebleman (I think), in that when I say Game Pass should no longer be getting first-party games, I am strictly speaking about those games that someone might buy an Xbox in order to play. So just those big AAA games, E-Day, Fable, Forza, Halo, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Doom, etc.

When it comes to the smaller, indie-like games, they tend to be far more family friendly, and I can see them needing the crutch that Game Pass can provide. That's not to say that no one bought an Xbox in order to play Keeper, or Psyconauts, but I'm sure not many will have done so.

As I said previously, I know that Microsoft included their Game Pass statements in the trailers shown at the Showcase, but had they not done so, the community would have been in meltdown with not how good the showcase was, but instead bombarding Microsoft with questions about whether the games were indeed coming to Game Pass.

If we think back to the only 4 games moment, prior to that no one thought that Microsoft would be putting Xbox games on PlayStation, and yet when those games were shown at prior showcases, the word EXCLUSIVE was splashed across their associated trailers on their prior showcases.

My point is, that Microsoft can change track, and Sharma herself said, 'The plan is the plan until it is not the plan'. And the truth is, right now, including the games on Game Pass may well be the plan. However, that does not mean that the plan cannot change.

We might get one of Microsoft's favourite, 'case by case' statements, in which select games skip Game Pass on launch, and just as with the 'only 4 games' moment, that will probably extend to more and more games as time goes on, though in all honesty, I'm sure Game Pass subscribers would rather have certainty over what will, or will not, be included in the future, and if Microsoft's endgame no longer putting all their (big) first-party games on Game Pass day one, I think it would be better to just say so.

Would it hit subscriptions if they no longer did this? Yes, I think it would, but the truth is that it is not working for them now, and I think the hope would be that loses to subscriber numbers (and therefore Game Pass revenue) would be more than offset by profits from selling their first-party games on Xbox instead.

I do not pretend to have the answers, and never have, but when the biggest obstacle to success on your platform is the way things are done with Game Pass, then surely the obvious thing to do is to address that first...

I said this the other day, @oopsiezz, but Microsoft sold a bunch of Xboxes to millions of people who only use it as a Game Pass machine. If you take a look at the poll held on Push Square the other day, last I looked 20% of them owned an Xbox as well as a PlayStation. I imagine for the vast majority, Xbox is a secondary console (ignoring Nintendo).

There is a sizable percentage of Xbox Series gamers that buy very few, or indeed no games at all on Xbox because it is their Game Pass machine. Nothing wrong with that, but it does go someway to explaining why first-party games sell so badly on Xbox.

It needs to be remembered that at the launch of the Xbox, it was more easily found than the PS5 was, and so many people bought it instead just so as to enter this generation.

Also, the ratio of Series S's sold compared to Series X's is something like 70/30.

So I know a lot of people are seemingly pinning their hopes of Helix, but how many people are going to go from a console that cost them £250 at a time they could not get their preferred PS5 to buying Helix, which will cost something like 4 times as much? I'd argue not that many, in reality...

Firstly, @Froggyman1, yes, I buy ALL my games, even those first-party games that go on Ultimate. I buy them all digitally, unless I buy a Collector's Edition, which is what I have done with E-Day. In fact, when it comes to E-Day, because I do not want to unseal my Collector's Edition, I have also bought the Premium Edition. So my use of 'we' was meant in respect of all those that game on an Xbox. In all honesty, I used the word 'we' quite deliberately because I don't want to make out that I am better than everyone else simply because I choose to buy my games. I do so because that is my preference. I do not for one moment blame people for finding the cheapest option to play games on Xbox, as not everyone is as fortunate as myself.

I don't ever suggest that what I am saying is factual. It would be impossible for it to be so because I am talking about things that need to happen in the future. Until they happen, they cannot be facts.

As for you point about; "XBOX could grow gamepass subs, introduce tiers, add an ad supported tier, improve monetisation, increase engagement through stronger first party releases, focuses resources on bigger fracnhises, expand PC revenue, improve third party publishing revenue."

If it were so simple, why is it that either Xbox has not done this before, or, if it is has, why has it not brought the desired success?

The point is that what Nadella is talking about are the things that need to be addressed in order to return Xbox to profitability. However, pretty much all of them require time to reap any rewards, and I would suggest that Xbox does not really have the luxury of time. It is bleeding revenue, and losing ground to its competitors. It needs to take action that will see instantaneous results, and with that in mind, I can only see one course of action.

Now, that is not to say that Microsoft's approach will not be multi-pronged, because I am sure it will. However, alongside those actions that take time to turn things around, Microsoft will want to do something that stems the bleeding straightaway, and I can see no other recourse than to fundamentally change Game Pass because arguably it is the biggest inhibitor to its profits.

When Game Pass was first birthed, it was envisaged that it would be a roaring success, bringing in new players to the Xbox ecosystem, and grow beyond 100 million subscribers. So convinced of this were the management at Microsoft that Nadella had a bonus attached to attaining that mystical 100 million. Of course subscriber numbers petered off somewhere just beyond 30 million, and Nadella quickly removed the bonus, and likely opted for something he was assured of.

The point being that Game Pass is not, and has not proven to be, the cash-cow that Microsoft first envisaged. Indeed, it has actually turned into a bit of a poisoned chalice for them because they made the service into something that altered the buying habits of most Xbox Game Pass subscribers. It was most definitely a case of an unintended consequence, and it is something that Microsoft now desperately needs to address...

Undoubtedly something needs to change, @NeoRatt. As for your regional content idea, I think that could prove divisive because you would risk gamers ire if a game they wanted to play on Game Pass was available in one region but not theirs and yet everyone was paying the same for the service.

Otherwise, I broadly agree...

As for Microsoft continuing to tell us that games are coming to Game Pass, @Froggyman1, I think it important to note what Sharma herself said; the plan is the plan until it's not the plan.

Now think for a moment about that Xbox Showcase. It is widely considered as the best of the 4 showcases this June. Particuarly, and somewhat obviously, amongst Xbox gamers.

Now consider the reaction to that Xbox Showcase had Microsoft not included that 'COMING TO GAME PASS' statement on each of the first-party games. Would the reaction have been so positive then?

I'd argue not. Indeed, instead of a positive buzz around Xbox, the community would have been in meltdown.

So, with Sharma's statement in mind, and with there being no obvious other route out of the problems that Xbox faces other than fundamentally changing Game Pass, plus this 100 day deadline that is now in place, it does surely become a possibility that an announcement on the future of Game Pass could be made within the foreseeable future.

If I were in Microsoft's shoes (and I am glad that I am not!), I would decide to remove day one games, and get rid of Ultimate completely. To those that have pre-ordered the Premium Game Pass Upgrade for E-Day, I would offer them either a full refund, or an opportunity to buy the game at a reduced price.

It's not a very satisfactory way of doing things, but I firmly believe that Microsoft need to rip the band aid off and make the necessary changes. And personally, I would start with E-Day, and remove it from Game Pass as a day one game...

I absolutely get where you are coming from, @Froggyman1, but as I have said a number of times now, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So now tell me what is going to change at Xbox to make things turn out differently?

From what we are being told by Sharma and Co. Xbox is actually in a worse place than it was when Nadella instructed Spencer to begin putting Xbox games on PlayStation.

So, if things are worse, what can Xbox actually do to improve things now?

We, the gamers, are still not going to buy first-party games on Xbox. Why would we when Game Pass offers us the opportunity to play those games much more cheaply than buying the games instead?

So, if we are not going to buy the games, and the games are not going to make the desired revenue on Xbox, how can we possibly expect the results at Xbox to improve? Yes, E-Day is an exclusive, but up until the point that the 'just 4 games' moment happened, Xbox had loads of exclusives, so how will having one more help the situation now at a time when Xbox is actually in a worse position than prior to the 'just 4 games' moment?

Do you see where I am coming from? Something drastic has to change, and other than fundamentally changing Game Pass, I really cannot think what else they can do. Somehow Microsoft need to get us buying games on Xbox. They need us to change our buying and gaming habits, and I can see no other way of that happening other than changing the way Game Pass operates...

I knew me mentioning Psyconauts would attract some attention, @somnambulance! 😉

I'm not saying the games are bad, far from it. All I am saying is that they will not move the dial (currently) in terms of bringing new gamers to the Xbox ecosystem. I'm sure there would be a few, but I don't think the pay off is sufficient as far as Microsoft are concerned.

As for making more of their franchises in order to grow those franchises, I could not agree more. We can but hope they do so with the lesser known games (and I do not mean that rudely), but we also have to hope that the currently in development Gears of War film will have the same kind of affect on the franchise as the Fallout series has had on the Fallout games.

Microsoft need to be much smarter over games too. Bethesda simply take way too long to make games, and so Fallout should be either handed to a different studio, or Bethesda should be grown in order to get these games out more quickly, and at a regular cadence. Microsoft should not be content with 20 years between games. It should be more like 5, and that goes for everyone of their big AAA franchises. They have the games to make Xbox succeed, but seem reluctant to interfere with their studios. Studios Microsoft own! Xbox management should be telling their studios what games to make, not leaving it to them to get round to it when they feel like it...

The more I see this 100 day reset that Sharma is undertaking, the more I think Game Pass will be the one that changes the most. In the next few weeks we will see job loses, and potentially one or two studio closures (I think Double Fine is in real jeopardy right now) too. I also think that we might see a couple of announced game cancellations, and probably a few unannounced ones too. Blade could well be a victim here because I think that it being a licensed game in early development makes it an optimal target. The Xbox diehards will be out in force telling us this is Xbox readying itself for the future, seemingly completely oblivious to the fact that the reason Microsoft are doing this is because Xbox is in trouble. Somehow this simple fact seems to completely pass them by, but hey ho.

When it comes to Game Pass in particular, I can see Sharma doing what I think is best for the service, and getting rid of Ultimate completely, or at the very least choosing to not put their first-party games on the service day one. Instead Microsoft will treat them in much the same way as they do with Premium right now and put the games on there a year after it was first released.

If Microsoft were to stop the first-party games, then the most sensible option would be scrap Ultimate entirely, but then that creates a problem when it comes to putting day one third-party games on the service because they would either have to stop that as well, or put them (or some of them) on Premium instead. However that would probably necessitate an increase in the cost of Premium, which may not be well received by the community, particularly not if it was deemed that the increase in price is too great. Personally, I think a small increase but added day one third-party games, and first-party games a year after release would be acceptable to the community, but Microsoft need to get it right, and not repeat the CoD / 50% increase debacle.

Anyway, I think we will see some pretty substantial changes to Game Pass within that 100 days, and Microsoft does need to make them. Interestingly, E-Day releases in 114 days, so you heard it here first. That said, I don't think they can change E-Day now because people will have bought the Premium Upgrade for Game Pass, and so unless they refund that, E-Day will still release on Game Pass, but I do think the changes are coming... 😉

And I have said for years that Game Pass is not sustainable, @BoredOfEverything. I think that only a clever way with words on the part of Microsoft has given the impression that Game Pass is profitable. I think if you only take into account third-party titles, then it is probably profitable (just about!), but once you factor in first-party titles, then the service is simply losing money...

I actually think the opposite is true, @eduscxbox, and I seem to recall very recently that Microsoft themselves suggested that the opposite it true.

I'm fairly certain that Microsoft have hinted that they want to double down on AAA and AA games, and make fewer niche A games (so basically I think Double Fine are in the firing line right now).

The truth is, you are not going to see masses of people buying an Xbox in order to play Kiln or Psyconauts, but they will turn up in some numbers to play an exclusive Fallout or Elder Scrolls, etc.

Microsoft know this, and so I believe this is not only the path they will take, but also the one that makes most sense...

I don't disagree, @AI-Generation. It is Microsoft that are driving Xbox into the ground by continuing to put their first-party games on Game Pass. As I have said a few times now, how can Xbox gamers expect exclusives to work now, when they were not working at the time that Nadella instructed Spencer to port Xbox games to PlayStation? If we do not change our habits, then how can we expect different results? And if Microsoft do not force us to change our habits, and make us buy games, then what other means is there to make us change? The answer is simple, we won't change. Game Pass is a great deal for us gamers, so why would we not continue to use Game Pass rather than buy the games?

It seems to me that everyone knows the strategy is not working, but I can only think that Microsoft are worried that if they stop doing it, that two things might happen; first off there would be a mass exodus from Game Pass, and if the service is struggling to be profitable then that could spell a really big problem for both Game Pass and Xbox itself as Microsoft see Game Pass as one of the big reasons that people buy into the Xbox ecosystem.

And secondly, maybe Microsoft believe that they will face some kind of class action in the form of law suits from gamers who have stacked Game Pass on the basis of the inclusion of day one first-party games. Maybe they think that someone who is stacked for 3 years might have a winnable case in Court if Microsoft withdrew day one first-party games from the Service if that person argued that they only stacked 3 years based on those games being included. You can say with certainty that Microsoft would face some kind of backlash from gamers, and quite possibly be dragged through the legal system if they tried to change that element.

Ultimately though, it is absolutely Microsoft that are at fault here. I have said a number of times now that Microsoft should scrap Ultimate, and have Premium as the top tier in its place. They should then commit to putting their first-party games on Premium one year after they release, and I would go further still and say that those games should then release on PlayStation 2 years after that (so 3 years after their initial release on Xbox). That would allow games a chance to sell first on Xbox, be timed-exclusive on Xbox for 3 years, and also a chance to be sold on PlayStation too.

My only hope is that E-Day forcefully demonstrates to Sharma that we have not changed our buying habits when it comes to first-party games, and that she makes the difficult, but ultimately sensible decision to remove all big day one first-party games from Game Pass. I see that as the most sensible way forward, which obviously means Microsoft will not do that...!

Exactly that, @Weebleman. One month when Sony nose-dived. Things need to be kept in proportion...

I think we are about to witness some savage cuts at Xbox, @Millionski. Maybe some games cancelled, and even some studios closed. That will certainly cause Sharma's halo to slip in some quarters!

If we are at our most cynical; Xbox is too unwieldy right now. It effectively has too many studios providing games of varying quality and appeal at a very slow cadence. It is not a going concern that many companies would be interested in acquiring as it stands, so maybe Sharma is looking to trim the fat and make Xbox appear more attractive to any potential suitors?

I'm not suggesting that is what is happening as such, but with that cynical thought in mind, you could see the benefit of trimming the fat, can you not?

I think that if Sharma can turn things around, that Microsoft will be happy to keep Xbox going. Should she fail, she will be there to get things to a point where other companies could acquire it.

You could suggest that Xbox could be broken down into 3 separate entities; consoles, Game Pass, and game development and publishing. I think if Microsoft were minded to sell parts of the business off, then that is the order in which they would do so. It is also the order in which they would cease to be. I think the first thing that Microsoft would move away from is selling consoles, the second would be Game Pass, but I don't think they will stop making and publishing games, albeit they may offload a few studios in order to make that side of the business more streamlined and manageable.

I have to say though, that I do think that Sharma is using E-Day to test the Xbox community, and how the game does on Xbox. If the game performs well on Steam, then that is great for the game, but ultimately, that is Steam and not Xbox. Xbox console gamers need to turn out in numbers not just to play the game via Game Pass, but also buy the game.

The truth is we cannot, as a community continue to behave in the way we have and expect to see different results. The only reason Nadella began putting Xbox games on PlayStation was because they were making insufficient revenue on Xbox and Steam, so if we treat E-Day as we did Starfield, and just play the game via Game Pass, but not buy enough copies, then how can we expect Xbox to have more exclusives, or indeed simply survive...?

I agree 12% is not necessarily a bad result, @AI-Generation, but 12% up on what?

If the original number of consoles they were selling monthly was just 100, then 112 consoles following the release of FH6 is not quite so impressive, is it?

And that is the point, we simply do not know how many more consoles it equates too. Obviously it is unlikely to be as low as an additional 12 consoles, but we simply do not know how many more it is. 12% sounds pretty impressive, but without knowing how many consoles it really is, it is difficult to know how impressive it actually is.

However, we may be able to work out how many more consoles Microsoft sold once we know how many Sony sold as it will be 400 fewer than whatever Sony sold. From that figure we would also be able to work out how many consoles Microsoft normally sell by taking 12% off of that number. Basically, once we know how many consoles Sony sold, we will be able to establish how impressive that 12% is because if it is 100s of thousands more consoles, then it really will be impressive. If it is just a few thousand, then not so much.

Of course, whilst Xbox may have almost caught up with Sony in terms of consoles sold (in the month of FH6), it does need to be remembered that Sony had just massively increased the cost of their consoles, and they themselves had sold 50% fewer consoles.

In Quarter 4 of the 2025 fiscal year, Sony sold 1.5 million consoles, which would mean an average of 500,000 consoles each month worldwide. However, that actually does not cover the period when FH6 released, as that released in Quarter 1 of the 2026 fiscal year. Thus, whilst we know Sony sold fewer than 500,000 consoles in the month of May, we don't know the actual figure.

As I say, once we know how the PS5 sold in Q1 of 2026, we will be able to have a rough idea of how many Xbox's were sold.

What I would also say is that we believe (because Microsoft no longer provide us with actual figures) that Microsoft have sold between 30 million and 35 million consoles. Recent estimates suggest that Microsoft is selling around 300,000 consoles per month worldwide. That would mean, with a 12% rise due to FH6, that consoles sales will have risen by 36,000 more consoles.

I'm not going to suggest that selling an additional 36,000 consoles is insignificant, but unless they can keep doing that, and an awful lot more, then it is but a drop in the ocean of what Xbox actually needs...

A few things occur to me over this;

1. We keep hearing this kind of rumour, and as much as people don't want to believe it, Xbox is clearly in some trouble. We cannot keep hearing these kind of thigs and there not be some truth to it, even if things are not as bad as is being rumoured here. Undoubtedly though, discussions have been held as to how to deal with the current woes faced by Xbox, and maybe decisions have been settled upon, maybe they haven't. Yes, Sharma has made E-Day an Exclusive, but this maybe a case of Microsoft attempting to see whether they can make a go of Xbox before making a final decision one way or another. In other words, if E-Day is a success ON Xbox (so not on Steam), then maybe the console side of things can be saved. If E-Day is not a success on Xbox, then maybe the conclusion will be that the division is unsalvageable at this point.

2. Sharma has been appointed head of Xbox with a view to either completely saving Xbox, or, as was suggested when she was first appointed, with a view to sunsetting it. Her task maybe to either get it into a better position for Microsoft to continue to run, or indeed to sell off, though personally, I don't think Microsoft will want to do that. I can see them walking away from the console side of things around 3 years after the launch of Helix, assuming it does not grow Xbox (which I think it will be very difficult for it to do), but I think Microsoft will still want to remain in as a developer and publisher. Worse case scenario would be that Xbox is completely sold off, but I don't think there is anyone that is in a position to buy it as an entire entity, so more likely individual studios would be sold off.

3. Game Pass is a huge problem for Microsoft, and I am not sure if they know how to deal with it. On the one hand it is an attractive proposition for gamers, and thus people enter into the ecosystem in order to utilise it. However, it is not running at a profit, and I would assume that it hasn't been for a while. If only third-party games are taken into account, then it is possibly profitable, but once first-party games are taken into consideration, I think the service pretty much falls down. Problem there is twofold; a lot of people opt for Game Pass because it enables them to play first-party content, but in doing so, the individual games do not make enough revenue, and that harms Xbox, the studios, and revenue. Basically, it is very difficult to be both profitable and attractive to gamers.

What Microsoft can do about it is going to be unpalatable for a lot of Xbox gamers; it will basically need to be fundamentally changed, and Microsoft will need to stop putting first-party games on the service. This will impact the number of gamers on Game Pass, and I would assume that Microsoft will feel obliged to reduce the cost to reflect the absence of day one first-party games, which will in turn affect revenue.

There are no easy answers, but I do think people need to accept that Xbox is in trouble, no matter how much hope Sharma tries to instil in us. Hopefully she can turn things round, but honestly, I have a feeling that Xbox, as it currently is, is too weak to survive in the market...

I think the game looks pretty fantastic, @Droopy, but that is not my issue.

I do not think that Xbox can grow and compete with PlayStation without exclusives. Xbox gamers have proven in the past that their preference is to play first-party content via Game Pass, and it is because first-party games sell so poorly on Xbox that Spencer sought to put Xbox games on PlayStation in the first place.

With that in mind, what has changed at Xbox? In what way has the buying and playing habits of Xbox gamers changed? You only have to look at the last two Call of Duty games to see that they prefer to play via Game Pass. What makes us think that E-Day will fair any differently?

So, the problem is us, the Xbox gamers, and Game Pass and the fact that first-party games go day one on the service.

So when E-Day releases, the majority of Xbox gamers will play it via Game Pass, which means that the revenue it brings in will take a hit. It will have to be saved by Steam, just as Forza 6 was., but then that hardly makes it an exclusive, does it?

Then the issue becomes, what will Microsoft do about it? Will they have a round of job lay-offs? Will The Coalition suffer those job loses? With the Studio close? Will there be another Gears of War game if the E-Day is not viewed as a success?

This is my problem with it being exclusive. One big title, and one title of unknown quality is not enough to bring new gamers to Xbox in the tens of millions, and for Xbox to compete on an equal footing with PlayStation, they need to add more than 50 million new gamers. More than that if they want to keep putting games day one on Game Pass, because sales of games are only successful enough on PlayStation because they have to be bought there. They do not go on PS Plus.

Had Microsoft announced Forza 6, Clockwork Revolution, Fable, Halo: Combat Evolved, Senua, and E-Day would all be exclusive to Xbox, then maybe there would have been a sizable uptick in sales of Series consoles, but quite simply E-Day and Clockwork Revolution alone, with no big game on the horizon, are not enough to turn the tide...

I imagine it was just a timed exclusive, @Elbow. Probably either a 2 or 3 year period of exclusivity because the game launched on PlayStation in April 2024.

It is a great game. One I really enjoyed. I might even be tempted to double-dip on Xbox...

Honestly, @Droopy, I think that Sharma has made her first big mistake, which will come back to bite her. Making E-Day exclusive when the PlayStation version was ready, and where it would likely have sold very well makes no sense. Surely she does not think that the Xbox gamer has changed their buying habits since Spencer first began putting Xbox games on PlayStation?

Undoubtedly, history will repeat itself, and most will simply play the game via Game Pass. Steam will make sales look healthy, but that is Steam, not Xbox. Steam may well the platform that saves E-Day's embarrassment, but I'm not really sure how that helps Xbox and its drive towards having exclusives again.

The number of people playing via Game Pass will make the game look like a success, but how many of those will be new subscribers, because if it is just being played by those of that have the services stacked, then Microsoft will not make a penny out of us outside perhaps microtransactions, and those that choose to buy the Premium Upgrade DLC.

My only thought is that Sharma needed to test the water with one of the big 3 on Xbox to see how it performed. Keeping a smaller game exclusive would not have helped inform her because it is not a system seller, and it may not have had success anyway. E-Day, on the other hand, is a game synonymous with Xbox, and if it does not do well on Xbox, then it clearly demonstrates whether Xbox can return to having exclusives, or whether Spencer was right to put their games on PlayStation. Basically, if E-Day cannot move the dial, what will?

As a footnote to that, I think E-Day, if it is not a success on Xbox, will still be ported to PlayStation. If it is a disaster, then probably a year after release. If it is a problem, but not a disaster, then two. Either way, it makes no sense to have a big game that has underperformed on Xbox ready to go for PlayStation, and not release it there. I know Sharma has said it is a permanent exclusive, but as she also said, "The plan is the plan until it's not the plan"...

I'll be buying at least one of the Elite 2 E-Day controllers, @HonestHick. I say that because I normally do not open my collector's controllers, but I might be tempted to open and use one, meaning I'll need to buy two. I'll be buying the standard version too.

I missed out on the Gears 5 controller because I realised too late that they had done one. So it you do see it become available please shout at me...! 👍

I agree, @Millionski. I have said a few times they could just keep putting out the X. Maybe tweak it so that it is slightly better, and slightly cheaper too. Have that as the little sister to Helix. I do think they need a second console next generation because if Helix is as expensive as is rumoured, it is not going to sell in great quantities, and if Microsoft want exclusives for Xbox, they need to increase the number of people gaming on an Xbox. They cannot do that if the only option is Helix and those left on the Series consoles. It's going to be very difficult for Microsoft to grow Xbox as is next generation, without having just one really expensive entry point, no matter how good Helix might be...

Thank you, @HonestHick, . I cannot imagine a 12 player Horde. It would be absolute chaos, and just trying to keep everyone in the game for the whole run would be a nightmare, unless it is short like Frenzy (which I didn't really play).

My son and I watched the reveal, and the bar for the reload with the yellow strip was one of the things I said I didn't like. Good to know you can change it to what we are used to...

I think success is very difficult to gauge on Game Pass, @Millionski. I mean, if I were to play it via Game Pass, then Microsoft will not have received a single extra penny from me. Same is true of every one of us that has their subscription stacked.

I think the true test will be how many more people subscribe to Game Pass once the game comes out, but it needs to be remembered that it takes 5 people subscribed for one month to equate to the same cost as buying a single copy of the game.

Game sales on Xbox console will probably be pretty disappointing, though there may be a reasonable number of people that buy the Premium Upgrade pack for the game, and then play it through Game Pass, but people actually buying the game on Xbox will not really be that impressive, I imagine.

I've bought the Collector's Edition, and (because I don't want to open my Collector's Edition) I also bought the Premium Edition, and that is despite having Game Pass Ultimate. Problem is, the thinking is, among those that have Game Pass that they (rightly) have paid their subscription fees entitling them to play the game that way. The issue with that is that Microsoft began putting their first-party games on PlayStation because that is precisely the way Xbox gamers behaved, and that meant that actual game sale revenues tanked. Thus if we continue to behave in exactly the same way (which we will) then I do not see how we can expect a different result, which in turn will mean that the probabilities are that Microsoft will determine that the only way forward for Xbox is to return to putting their games on PlayStation...

I said the same thing in these forums yesterday, or the day before, @Millionski. Helix, all singing and dancing PC access and PC stores, etc, and then Helix Junior, which will have basically the same guts, but will not grant access to the PC side of things. So think PS5 and PS5 Digital; but instead of disc-tray / not disc-tray, it would be PC access / no PC access. So you'd have a cheaper model, but it would either have the same guts, or slightly less powerful guts.

The only problem with both models having the same guts is that it would not really reduce the cost of the inferior model. It would just prevent access to the PC side of things, which whilst perhaps beneficial to Xbox, is not going to make it much cheaper, and thus why would buy that over the full fat Helix, which does give access to PC.

Honestly, my view is that Microsoft should ditch the S next generation, introduce the Helix, and then also provide a slightly better Series X as the entry point to Xbox for the next generation. I imagine that it will, by now, be possible to slightly upgrade the X now for much the same cost as the X costs now. As it is intended as the entry point for the next generation, it just needs to be that little bit more powerful than the X is, just as the S is only slightly more powerful than the Xbox One X was. This generation, if you wanted something significantly more powerful than the Xbox One X you bought the X. Next generation, you would buy Helix for the significant upgrade.

If Helix does indeed come in as significantly more than £1000, then Microsoft will need a junior console to keep moving Xbox forward, and it needs to be seen as more affordable than £1000, bearing in mind that it is unlikely to be as powerful as the PS6, which will be its nearest competitor. Helix will lead the way, then PS6, and then Helix Junior. Junior needs to be cheaper than the PS6, but more powerful than the X, which I imagine will be possible...

I wonder what difficulty the 14 hours is based on? Is that on Easy, Hardcore (or Advanced if they have stuck with that) or Insane? Does it include collecting all the COG Tags, etc., and the time spent searching for them?

Insane is where Gears of War really shines, and they usually take a lot longer on that difficulty. I'm so looking forward to getting my hands on the game...

I've bought the Collector's Edition of E-Day, @mac_da_man, but as I will not open that one, I have also bought the Premium Edition for the Xbox.

Had the game released on PlayStation, I would have bought the standard version in addition to the two above, so as to play the game through on my Pro as well. I might even have been tempted to get the PlayStation Collector's Edition too.

I still think it will release on PlayStation, but it will likely be at least one year, and probably two before it does...

I bought the Collector's Edition for this, the included model looks fantastic. As for the game itself, I really cannot wait. I played the first games when they first came out, and really enjoyed them, though for whatever reason, I bought the Collector's Edition of the third game (which looks like a thick book), and never unsealed it or played it. I still have it to this day...

Really looking forward to this. I'll do my usual; go through it first on Hardcore, and then re-play it on Insane. Both runs will be solo.

Then, I'll play through it on Insane with my youngest son, and also on Insane with my mate. If I'm really lucky, I have another two mates that were into Gears of War, whom I might be able to go through on Insane with, but one doesn't game much these days due to family and work, and the other is going blind, so it might not be possible now.

Either way, I'll likely go through the campaign 4 times in short order, and maybe more if I'm lucky. Then E-Day will go into my rota during which I play each games campaign each year playing them in timeline order (which up until now has meant Judgement first, though I am still none the wiser as to exactly when it is set).

I have put around 2000 hours in Horde in Gears 5, and assuming they have a 5 man version in E-Day, I expect to do the same again. If the 12 man version is the only Horde mode, unless it is possible to play it with just 2 or 3 people, I won't bother with it, which as a huge Gears fan would be an enormous shame...

When was the profitability 15%, @Nall3k...?

That is exactly my thinking, @PsBoxSwitchOwner. A big part of me thinks that we will get a rare moment of transparency from Microsoft probably around May next year in which they will detail how E-Day performed in terms of sales numbers on Xbox and PC, and also how it has done with regards to player numbers and microtransactions.

I think E-Day was deliberately chosen because it is one of the biggest franchises on Xbox, and if the numbers are not good, then Sharma can make the argument that exclusivity does not work on Xbox, and they will return to multiplatform.

I honestly believe that the thinking is that the management can use E-Day as an example because if they cannot do the required numbers with one of Xbox's biggest franchises, then basically exclusivity cannot work.

I say they will give us this information in May so as to set up expectations regarding their multiplatform approach in time for the June showcase next year.

You never know, that might also be when they announce E-Day for PlayStation too because it really is pointless leaving all that money on the table.

Anyway, that's my conspiracy theory... 😉

I think Xbox fans have been given hope by warm words and suggestions of what they want, @PsBoxSwitchOwner, but the reality is somewhat different.

It seems absolutely bizarre to me that Microsoft cancel the PlayStation version of E-Day when the game is ready for the platform, and it is basically a Live Service games meaning it needs to reach as many people as possible. Will the game shift some extra consoles? Maybe some, but probably not that many in reality. So with that in mind, what was the point? To appease the vocal few on Xbox? If so then it is an incredibly short-sighted approach to managing Xbox because whilst they may have made some happy now, the facts are that Xbox needs the money that the game would have generated on PlayStation, and not receiving that money could well result in further job loses and studio closures further down the line. The Coalition might survive, but that money will need to be found from somewhere, so Xbox will suffer the consequences at some point.

I have to say it is tiring to see people constantly saying everything is okay at Xbox, and also getting shot down when I suggest otherwise, when the evidence is there for everyone to see (should they wish to see it), and even the boss is now saying Xbox is not in great shape.

I honestly do not think that Xbox is in the right place to dabble with exclusives, and the decision with E-Day is going to come back to bite us, I'm sure of it...

Absolutely, @somnambulance. You probably know by now, as I have mentioned it before, but I am 62. I was only talking to my two sons yesterday and telling them when I was a child I did not see a television programme in colour until I was 9. It was an episode of Doctor Who, and I always remember my shock that my Nan had a colour television!

I also remember that at the age of 8 I received a radio for my birthday, I mean what child gets a radio for their birthday these days? Times are definitely different.

My father died when I was 6 weeks old, and my mother had to work through the Summer holidays, and so I used to be sent to my Aunt's house for 6 weeks each Summer. I always remember in the Summer of 1973, at the age of 9, playing with my Cousins on something I had never seen before; a games console! Pong was all they had, but I spent hours and hours playing it, and they always beat me because they had spent months mastering it, and it was brand new to me.

It was then that I fell in love with gaming, though it was not until the age of 17 that I got my first console which was an Intellivision that I had to buy for myself from my first job. Obviously times have moved on now and consoles are something parents buy their children at a much younger age. Heck, I bought my youngest son an Xbox 360 when he was about 7 or 8. It's a different world, but I honestly believe that it is a better place because of gaming, and I would not be without it...