BAMozzy

@get2sammyb How do you know the Artist didn't intend or want their game to look like that but had to dumb it down - including the lighting and more 'blur' on the character due to the Hardware limitations.

These 'games' are trying for a 'realistic' look, but are limited by hardware. The 'look' of a game maybe just the way the Artist was willing to compromise on their vision, the concessions they had to make to get their game 'running' at reasonable frame rates on modern Hardware, and would have looked like this had they had the Hardware to run it like this.

Many Games that have existed over many years, multiple generations have seen similar changes - Kratos for example because the newer Generations have allowed Devs to get 'closer' to their vision. Goldeneye (N64) tried to get as close to the Actors likeness with the limitations of the N64 restricting them yet nowadays Keanu Reeves or Norman Reedus look far more 'Human'. I bet Rare's artistic vision for Goldeneye would look very different if made today...

AI is still a TOOL - I think that Devs should be able to decide if they think that DLSS 5 is getting closer to their Vision or NOT and choose to allow it. You as the gsmer should ALSO have the choice to use it or not - much like you have a choice to use AI upscaling or AI frame Generation - both AI, both introduced by nVidia and now the standard that other AI (inc PSSR) are chasing...

Why would PC gamers want to buy a PS5 just to play a few games? The vast majority of games will be bought and played on their preferred Platform which no doubt beats a Console on Frame Rates and/or Graphical quality. Why spend that much money on hardware that's nothing but a dust collector as they wait months and months for the 'next' Exclusive they want to play - all the other games they play are on PC.

Last gen, you could just buy a PS4 for less than £300 for the Exclusives but Consoles aren't that cheap anymore and on top of that, they still expect you to pay a Sub fee to ulock the full range of Content and Features available, have a monopoly on the Digital storefront and generally higher Game prices too.

I can totally understand that people don't want to spend £500+ on Hardware, £70 for the game and maybe an additional £120+ on PS+ Essential over the next 2yrs. Even if you don't need or want to Sub to PS+ for the features (not just the Online Content and Social Gaming), that's still a LOT of money - so no wonder they would rather 'miss out' on playing a few games so Sony get 'NOTHING' than pay them.

They could still release on PC in 6-12months after releasing on PS5 - it won't hurt Sony - anyone wanting a PS5 to play, wanting to play first/earlier etc would have bought one and so its getting money from those gamers that otherwise would NOT be contributing to Sony's revenue. The only people it 'hurts' are Sony Fanboys who hate the fact that others will get to enjoy games they can...

Sell consoles at a reduced profit margin more like and use Exclusives to make gamers buy their hardware and 'lock' them into their Store, their Subscription service required for Online Social gaming and to unlock the full library of games, their ecosystem and giving them a Monopoly on their hardware...

Fanboys will defend this anti-consumer practice though and 'justify' why a big corporation should continue to get away with this...

@Pandalulz It may have a 'custom' chip but it will still be an AMD CPU and GPU and I bet it will be no different from many other 'AMD' PC's with Windows OS - just like RoG Xbox Ally vs Lenovo Go or MSi Claw.

Sony's games are sold through Steam and run through the Steam App and linked to your Steam Account - regardless of the Hardware and the OS is generally Windows (Microsoft owned) unless you limit it to Steam OS ONLY which would impact Windows PC users and PC users have a wide range of CPU's from AMD, let alone intel.

Just because your 'installed' games can all be collected and 'launched' from the Xbox FSE, if you launch a Steam game, it launches Steam so is still playing through Steam on your Steam account - not on Xbox!!!

@datamonkey Its NOT bought via 'Xbox' at all - its bought via Steam on Steam and runs through Steam like it does on a MS Windows PC.

PC's and Xbox both have CPU, GPU, RAM etc and a Microsoft OS - Steam is an App that's running on MS Windows PC (unless you are using their SteamDeck which runs Steam OS but still has a ProtonLayer to emulate Windows as the games are built for Windows PC). The games are bought on Steam, run through the Steam App and are added to your Steam Account - its a '3rd Party' Platform on Microsoft Windows PC, just like Epic or Battlenet. You load into 'Steam' when you launch a Steam Game or App and the Steam Store is NOT available through Xbox.

If you want to 'buy' games - even on a RoG 'Xbox' Ally, you can buy from Xbox (and the Xbox FSE is solely linked to the MS store so can't even find Sony games to buy) or you leave the Xbox/Windows to go to Steam to check out what games they have for sale. Steam doesn't sell the 'Xbox' versions of Xbox games, it sells Steam locked versions requiring Steam accounts and play through Steam.

Steam and Xbox on PC are two 'seaparate' Platforms - like Sony and Xbox Consoles are. Just because they share the SAME Hardware and OS/API's so Software runs properly on that Hardware, you don't get the PS, Steam, Epic or other platform versions buy buying Xbox games on Xbox and just because Steam maybe on an 'Xbox' branded PC, isn't suddenly going to affect Steams Store and purchasing through it...

Block a Windows PC version of a Game that's sold through Steam from running through Steam on a 'Windows' Xbox PC doesn't seem possible to me.

Just because its 'running' on a Box thats branded as 'Xbox' - like the RoG Xbox Ally handhelds, it still runs through the Steam App, through your Steam account and not your Xbox account.

If you 'block' them, you'll probably end up blocking them on ALL PC's because the Windows OS and Steam App those games released on would be affected regardless of the 'brand' on the box. It would be like trying to block them from running on Asus built PC's but work on Lenovo and MSi...

@Fishmasterflex96 And that's the issue in my eyes - the fact that Exclusives are used to sell Hardware and big corporations know this so its forcing Consumers to buy 'Hardware' just for a few games instead of buying hardware based on Specs, costs, preferrences, aesthetics, etc, etc. You wouldn't buy 3 different Bluray players just so you could watch all the movies or diffferent CD players because different publishers want you to buy 'their' Hardware.

Hardware should be bought because you as a Consumer chose to buy it on its own merit, not forced to buy just to play a few games not available elsewhere. I don't have an issue with them releasing games up to a year early, timed exclusivity, as a bonus for those that chose their hardware, but I do think they should release on every platform so ALL gamers can enjoy.

I also think its pathetic that some gamers need 'exclusives' to justify their hardware purchase and would be very angry/upset that other gamers would get to play the SAME games they enjoy - maybe its fear that they'll get a 'better' experience on PC with higher Graphical settings and frame rates...

No body should have to buy 3 or 4 different boxes, each with a CPU, GPU and RAM capable of playing EVERY game released, but won't get every game because some Publishers want to force you to buy their Hardware or miss out on their games...

Games are costing more and more to make and taking much longer too - its not the 'same' situation it was several generations ago. Studio's like Naughty Dog barely release 'new' games these days yet on PS3, you'd get a new game every couple of years - Uncharte 1-3 and Last of Us all released on that gen. We also had several Killzone games from Guerilla and several Infamous games from SuckerPunch - now we are lucky to get 1 game a generation from these Studios.

Console numbers aren't growing either so why not release on PC to maximise revenue? They don't have to release Day and Date but could release a year later when that game is no longer selling Hardware, is 'yesterdays' news and not selling games either anymore as PS gamers that wanted to buy it, already have...

I doubt it would hurt Console sales much, if anything at all because the games would still be 'exclusive' on Console for a period of time, still be built and optimised specifically for Playstation Hardware etc and ported to PC at a later date to be sold to gamers who aren't buying a Playstation anyway - its money from gamers that Sony wouldn't have got ANY money from whilst Sony Gamers still get Games to justify their Hardware purchase...

For someone that only has a few hours to game and ONLY has a Playstation, surely they'd prefer to be able to play whatever game they wanted including games made by Nintendo (Mario, Zelda etc) so they don't have to buy a Switch?

If you are buying Hardware solely because of Exclusives, I think that's a problem - you shouldn't be spending £400+ on Hardware just because of exclusive software. Software should be universal and you buy Hardware because you prefer the UI, the OS, the cost for its specs, the aesthetics, the controller, the services it offers etc.

As a 'gamer' you should want and expect all games on whatever hardware you choose, not expect to miss out on some of the games release each year because you didn't choose a certain box with a certain brand on it that still has a CPU, GPU, RAM and storage like the box you chose, miss out because you can't afford or justify owning multiple boxes that could play all games if devs/publishers wanted to.

They even know that 'exclusives' are there to sell Consoles - that's anti-consumer and purely beneficial to big corporations, wanting to 'lock you' in to their ecosystem and make as much money off of you from their store which they have a monopoly on and keeping Content/Features behind a Subscription Paywall so you have to keep paying them every month after buying their Hardware to keep playing some of the games you may have bought. Stop paying PS+ for example and some of the Games you paid £70 to play are now not playable at all until you pay Sony. Exclusives are used to trap you into that and they can control what games you get access to and can even censor them if they choose.

Each to their own, but in 2026, I think that Gamers should expect better, should demand better and want ALL gamers to have access to ALL games regardless of Hardware choice.

@GamingGod Real Gamers like ALL Games and want to play ALL games on their Favourite Hardware, not have to buy multiple Hardware to play ALL games. Fanboys want Exclusives to justify their Hardware, to make their favourite Hardware the #1 best seller and get angry/annoyed that 1st party games are playable by Gamers on OTHER hardware, that they are available to play by Gamers on their favourite hardware too that's different from their hardware...

That's the difference - true gamers want ALL games available to ALL gamers on ALL Hardware, fanboys want Exclusives for their Hardware and get upset/angry if those games are released on other platforms so other gamers get to play and enjoy them too...

How can you NOT see that, there is a big difference between a Gamer loving ALL Games and wanting them ALL available on EVERY platform so EVERY gamer can play and enjoy them too - a fanboy may enjoy games but want 'exclusives' for their Hardware to justify their Hardware choice and get Angry/upset if those games are made available to gamers on other Platforms. Why do you care that other gamers get to enjoy the same games you do?

I think Halo should release on Playstation - if not Day 1, then certainly within the first year of release so that EVERY gamer can get to play it and enjoy it to. At most, these games should be exclusive for a period of time as a 'bonus' for buying that hardware, but mostly so the Devs can focus on that Platform first instead of trying to work on multiple simultaneously. Its got to be easier to port a stable and optimised version to other platforms than trying to get all done simultaneously - although if they can, that's even better as Halo would benefit from having as many Gamers in its Multi-player lobbies as possible for the best Match-making and ping - something Gamers should care about MORE than Exclusivity and/or Hardware Sales charts...

Halo may have started on Xbox, where its fans may be, but that doesn't mean I think that's where it should stay and not allow other gamers to become fans, to enjoy that game too - same with Gears or Fable. MS would benefit by having more 'fans' of their IP's just like I think Sony should release their games to make more fans of their Games and IPs and maybe become as popular as GTA or Minecraft or CoD because EVERY gamer can become a fan of that IP/Game, not just the ones who bought a box with a specific Brand on it...

@nomither6 I'd agree those eras of Gaming were some of the best - but that was not really down to 'exclusives' as much as the combination of factors that contributed.

The games were great and plentiful, relatively short development times of a few years and plenty willing to make something 'new' - so many great new IP's with well written stories. Console Hardware was also cheap and affordable compared to PC so it was a lot easier to own multiple Consoles and still cost less than a decent gaming PC. Because the development times were shorter, there was also more Exclusives - you weren't paying £500+ 1-2 exclusives a year, but less than £300 and getting 4-5 exclusives a year so they weren't dust collectors.

It was a different time back then but I do think that the industry should 'evolve' and I think Exclusivity shouldn't exist in 2026 - at least not full exclusivity and think 'timed' exclusivity of First Party ONLY software is acceptable. I'm not saying that EVERY game should release day/date everywhere, but nothing should be 'permanently' exclusive.

This Generation of 'Console' gaming has been Garbage - Sony's first party releases haven't really been that numerous - relying a LOT on remasters to bulk out their Releases and Xbox, whilst it now has games, you don't need the Console so many haven't bought the hardware. Its not 'Dead' though as Xbox is NOT just the Console, its ALL of MS's Gaming and as its bigger than Sony and Nintendo with more Studios and Games now, its not 'dead' at all. Xbox is on Cloud, Xbox is on PC and built into Windows so that may have 'killed' the Xbox Console Hardware, but is bigger and stronger than it ever was as its ALL their Studio's, IP's and platforms, all of MS's Gaming division.

Again I go back to that 'Fanboy' mentality, that blinkered Console ONLY mentality where 'PC' doesn't really exist, its just about Console vs Console, my box is better than your box, my exclusives are better than your exclusives, my console is more popular than yours because sales charts say so. I don't care about the box, I care about the games and I'm OK with MS releasing their games on Playstation, being day/date on PC etc.

A decade ago, when Xbox merged with Windows and all games released day/date on PC, everyone said that there was NO reason to buy an Xbox (other than preference/price) and now they wonder why its not selling like Playstation because gamers aren't forced to buy it for Exclusive Games like they had been in previous generations - It still 'sells' Millions despite not being required so it must be some peoples 'preference' to play on that Hardware instead of Cloud or PC!!

@GamingGod Fanboys just buy their favourite console and demand Exclusives for it, that those games can't be released for OTHER gamers to enjoy and get really upset if their Console isn't the #1 best selling console, defending both their decision to buy that Console and the Company's decision to keep their games away from other Gamers.

Real Gamers don't care about Exclusives, they care about games and are more likely to be annoyed that some of the games they want to play are ONLY available on certain Hardware that they are 'forced' to buy because they want to play that game. They may have multiple Hardware devices to play ALL the games but several of them are 'dust' collectors for the majority of the year as they are ONLY used to play the 1 or 2 exclusives as they play the vast majority of games on their 'preferred' platform that may also deliver the highest Frame Rates and/or graphical quality. PC gamers may only buy a PS5 to play the few games Sony release that interest them.

Casuals don't really care about Exclusives and will likely buy the Hardware that's cheapest and still allows them to play the multi-platform games they enjoy. They perhaps won't buy a 'new' Playstation at launch, but instead wait until they can pick one up used or cheap in a sale and as Casuals will also buy based on aesthetic, cost, controller design, UI and even familiarity based on what platform they've gamed on before.

Fanboys are those that want exclusives and defend the big corporation for gatekeeping those and keeping them 'exclusive' to their cheap box, defend them from making those games available to ALL gamers because they want to be playing on the 'best selling' Console and terrified that if they released those games everywhere, their favourite brand won't be the best selling Hardware.

Gamers care about GAMES and not the Hardware - they'd rather all the games would be Cross-platform (to play with other gamers regardless of their preference for Hardware) and multi-platform so ALL gamers get to play and enjoy the games - certainly don't get annoyed/upset that gamers on other platforms will also get to enjoy the games they enjoy too - unlike Fanboys!!

@UnlimitedSevens That's an issue as far as I am concerned - the Hardware should be good enough or unique enough to sell on its own merits and not have to rely on Exclusives. In my opinion, that shows a lock of confidence in their own hardware that they have to rely on Games to shift it.

They perhaps know that few care about the brand on the box and it can also make them uncompetitive on specs, pricing etc knowing that they'll still sell regardless because gamers want to play their games. I personally can't justfify buying a Switch just for Zelda for example and already spent over £1000 on a PS5 and Series X, let alone the £100's on Subscriptions just to unlock the full library of games/modes as well as features like Social gaming.

I'd think it was far better if consumers had a 'choice' to buy whatever hardware they prefer based on OS, UI, Controller design/features, aesthetics, services etc etc - if you don't want to buy or play on a Microsoft based Product (whether that's Windows or Xbox OS), prefer the DS5 and its features, you should still be able to play Every game, inc Zelda or Mario.

Exclusives only matter to 'Fanboys', not real Gamers as real gamers would want to play ALL the games on whatever Hardware they prefer, their favourite Platform with their preferred OS/UI etc, not be forced to buy multiple devices just to play a handful of games they can't play on their favourite. If you prefer PC for example and spent a LOT on the best Gaming rig you can buy, you are only likely to play 1 or 2 games a year on a Console (PS5 or Switch) because they are 'Exclusive', and having to spend £500+ for Hardware, another £60+ a year just for a Subscription and then £70+ for that years Exclusive you want to play is ridiculous. Chances are, they'll not bother - especially as the frame rate and graphics will be 'lower;' than they are accustomed to and just play the countless games they can on their 'preferred' hardware.

I just think that ALL games should release on ALL platforms and at most, the games should be exclusive for a limited time only as a 'bonus' for owning their hardware too - no 3rd Party exclusives just 1st party timed as a reward for purchasing their hardware. That delay also gives Devs the opportunity to port the game to other hardware post release and can focus on optimising it for their own Console first/foremost - but ultimately, it will release elsewhere so the Publishers/Developers can reach ALL gamers, not just fanboys!

Personally I don't need 'exclusives' to justify my hardware purchase and see exclusives as nothing more than a way for these companies to sell 'inferior' hardware or that they are scared their hardware won't compete in the market on its own merit.

I think that Hardware should sell on its own strengths and/or value - not because it has some great games that you have to buy the Hardware for or 'miss out'. Its not just Sony, but all consoles - you should buy a Switch because you want that flexibility, buy a Playstation because you prefer Sony's UI, OS and/or Controller etc not because 1 or 2 games a year are Exclusive and only playable on that hardware.

I don't have an issue with their own games being Exclusive for a period of time as a bonus to those who chose to buy their Hardware - but I do think that no game should be permanently exclusive and forcing gamers to either purchase their Hardware or Miss Out on playing the 'few' exclusives they would actually want to play.

I really don't think games should be limited to a single platform just to sell that hardware and that hardware itself should sell on its own merits, not because it has a few games that can't be played elsewhere.

I've always said that Steam is not the most accurate or even best guage of player numbers - its not even the ONLY PC Platform although it is the ONLY PC platform to provide Gaming data. It may not always be the most popular choice for some games either as they have other options like Battlenet, Epic, etc

Steam also has a lot more competition so gamers may move on quicker than console, not be as 'engaged' for as long having more games to play - but it can show a 'trend' and when all other platforms decline to show ANY data, its often used as a indicator for other Platforms too.

If you look at the graph, Steam may well have had he lowest numbers by playerbase, but each platform showed quite a decline with the final 'block' of all 3 platforms smaller than Xbox or Playstation had and maybe as much as Steam had at its peak. Therefore decided that it can't continue with that low a Playerbase with only a 'percentage' of that playerbase likely to spend money...

@ButterySmooth30FPS That's a VERY different thing as you don't have to pay £500+ before you can dine on something different.

If you own a PS5 and want to play Tears of the Kingdom, you have to buy a Switch which makes that 1 game VERY expensive. If you decide you want a Curry instead of a Chinese, you don't need to buy a different Restaurant or 'miss out' on eating Curries - there is NO up-front costs like there is with 'exclusive' games.

The point is that you have to buy Hardware just to play the 1 or 2 games you can't play on your preferred/favourite Hardware or miss out on playing that game. If you have a PS5, you maybe can't justify spending £400+ on a console, and £70 on the game just to play Tears of the Kingdom so you 'miss out'. The only reason they have exclusives is to force you buy Hardware you don't really want or to lock you into their Ecosystem where they have a Monopoly and can hide content/features behind a Paywall. That £500 console isn't £500 if you also want to play online with friends over the next 5-8yrs - its closer to £1k with PS+ Essential or Game Pass Core.

But 'fanboys' will happily defend their favourite brand despite the fact that brand only wants to extract as much money from them and use Games to get them to buy Hardware, subs etc - scared that if they made those games available to ALL, no-one would want to buy their box, no-one would want to Sub to their services, that they couldn't compete with other Hardware....

@LogicStrikesAgain Exclusives are ONLY to get you to buy their Hardware and then be 'locked' in to their ecosystem, buying from their Digital Storefront where they have a Monopoly, locking Content/features (like Online Social Gaming/Games) behind a Subscription Paywall that adds hundreds to the cost over a Consoles lifetime etc.

What differentiates Hardware is more the Controller, the OS, the UI etc - the vast majority of Games are the same across many platforms. Its only a few games a year that are different, unique to that Hardware.

I get it - if those games released simultaneously on EVERY Platform, Gamers would have the freedom to choose their Hardware based on whatever preference they have - whether its the Controller, the OS, the Services they offer etc. But maybe they wouldn't sell 'many' Consoles because PC has a much bigger Library with no Monopoly storefront, free Online Social gaming etc and can use a PS controller too.

Instead of letting Gamers play their games on their 'preferred' platform, they expect you to buy their 'Hardware', which makes playing the 1 or 2 exclusives you want to play very Expensive. It maybe OK if the 1 platform you prefer also has the majority of exclusives - but if you also want to play the other Exclusives, having to buy multiple different Hardware and pay for multiple different Subscriptions is ridiculous - so you end up missing out on them.

I'd prefer to buy 1 Hardware and have access to ALL games - even if that meant waiting a few months or so for release on your preferred platform because its exclusive on their own platform as an added incentive/perk for those that chose that Platform - but no-one misses out. For example, if you prefer Sony's hardware, their OS, Ecosystem, Controller etc, then you still get to play Nintendo and MS published games without having to spend hundreds on their Hardware too and get to play 'most' Sony Published games first before they release 'everywhere' else.

Hardware then would be bought because of its USP, which maybe because its a Hybrid Handheld (like Switch), has its own UI, OS etc, maybe even just because you prefer a certain Controller layout and unique Features (like the DS5) - but you'd never 'miss out' on Games. TV's compete with ALL having the same 'Content' available, you buy whatever 'brand' for its Aesthetic, its UI or features, its specs - not for exclusive content...

The future 'plans' are always Subject to change in such a Dynamic industry - things are always changing and its not always just the 'Games' industry, but external factors that have an impact on Gaming - such as AI and RAM shortages pushing up prices for example.

Its not just Microsoft, but Sony too who a few years ago was 'all-in' on Live Services, until they decided to change their Plans, cancelling games. What 'pl;an' did they have with Bluepoint before deciding to close that studio.

Point is, even if MS do decide to make games 'exclusive' - at least certain IP's as Minecraft and CoD will remain multi-playtform anyway - if that doesn't shift Hardware and/or sell enough. those games will likely end up releasing on other platforms to make 'money'. I wouldn't be surprised if most/all exclusives are only exclusive for a period of time...

Plans will no doubt change as circumstances dictate. That can even be 'release' schedules/windows as games end up being delayed so 'plans' are never set in stone and always subject to change regardless of company. What may have been 'true' yesterday is now different today and will be diffferent again tomorrow because this industry is so dynamic.

There will always be some that will use that to their 'advantage' - either to justify their own allegiances with whatever 'brand' they love or to attack the Rival - but the reality is the industry itself is forever changing so plans will change too.

If by 'end' of Xbox, he means as purely the 'Console' and direct competitor to Playstation & Switch, I would agree.

However Xbox stopped being 'just' the Console and since Xbox was merged into Microsoft and Windows too, Xbox has become the entire Microsoft Gaming division on PC, Cloud as well as on Console - hence Day 1 simultaneous releases on ALL those platforms.

Microsoft made games before they made a Console, before they made Windows too - Microsoft Flight Simulator is OLDER than Playstation. MS made the Xbox to bring 'their' and other PC games to a mainstream audience and establish DirectX as an 'essential' gaming API - so their Console was DirectX in a Box - which became Xbox. 25yrs later, PC's are now so much more affordable and far more mainstream for gamers. DirectX is well established and so the reasons they built an Xbox are now obsolete.

Microsoft also have many studios now, far more than they did when the XB1 launched in 2013 and grown Xbox into one of the biggest Games Publishers in the world - bigger than Sony and Nintendo.

Therefore I can't see them sunsetting 'Xbox' as Xbox is much more than just the console - but as the reasons they made the console in the first place are now obsolete - PC's are not just for the very rich and now mainstream using DirectX - I can see the Console disappearing. MS also has their own PC platform built directly into Windows - not a 3rd Party App like Steam, Epic etc.

MS may not leave the Hardware business but could leave the Console business - choosing to make a PC in a 'Console' like Format and/or licensing out the Xbox brand name to other PC manufacturers - they all have MS Windows OS anyway...

EVERY game has a Pay Extra to play early price - at least as far as I am concerned. No game is worth the 'launch' price - especially as the price has jumped up significantly above £50 whilst the 'quality' and even the content is at it worst at launch as the games are releasing with Post-launch road maps to bring Content/features in the future and in need of patches to fix bugs.

I also don't think the games are significantly better in many key areas, as if the Devs are spending the majority of that time just working on 'Graphics', whilst the Story, Game-play loops, Mechanics, Physics etc are generic, predictable, cut & paste from the previous game(s) etc and whilst they 'look' more impressive, they aren't 'better' than last gen or even the Gen before.

That's a big reason I feel that no game is worth buying at launch - paying more to play it early (within the first few weeks/months of release) when it will be at its most expensive, most broken and/or least amount of Content/Features. Old games have been patched, complete and on sale so much better value whilst waiting until the 'new' releases are on sale and much better value too...

A few days 'early' costs the Publisher absolutely nothing - the game is 'finished' and gone Gold weeks before, most Review copies have been played and has NO value or incentive to gamers after release - unlike Artbooks, Cosmetic bundles, Steelbooks etc that had a cost to produce and 'value' to the gamer post release.

I'm sure they got paid for their work and I doubt that MANY poured their Heart and Soul into a project, working to create someone elses idea and help that come to fruition.

No-one wants to hear of job losses, but they may have been 'hired' to create that one game and now that game is out, their work is done. If I was hired to help paint a massive mural art project to ensure its finished on time, I'd be surprised if the Artist keeps me 'employed' once that work is finished.

I also don't know if they'd keep people who obviously haven't made a very popular product, one that sells and brings in money to not only recuperate that investment cost, but also bring in enough revenue to keep them employed. You could argue that they've worked on a product that few wanted, is 'average' at best and likely forgotten in a very short time. I doubt I'd keep staff employed if what they produced is mediocre and not very successful. Not saying that's the Staff's fault, but its also not grounds to keep them either. Unless you think you can turn its fortunes around, its better to cut your costs/losses at the earliest point.

People are worried about AI making Slop, but there are plenty of Humans making mediocre games, trying to jump on a trend and do their version of anothers Success, lacking any real creativity, innovation or unique qualities.

Spending 6 years making a game means that someone has had to pay for 6yrs worth of Salaries, Tax, Rent, Insurance, Electricity, maintenance costs of the building and hardware, Voice Actors costs, any other External costs (like studio hires to record Voice, Musicians, mo-cap actors etc) etc etc, let alone the Marketing costs, the production and distribution costs, the ongoing support and post-release content etc that would need to recouped from SALES.

If it doesn't sell enough to cover those costs or barely breaks even, then either its NOT popular enough to justify making a sequel or that they can't justify spending 6yrs on Making games that won't sell enough to warrant that investment. Therefore they either focus on 'bigger, more popular' games or focus on games they can build in much quicker time frames so the 'Budget/investment' cost is much easier to recuperate.

Go back a decade, games would take a few years to make - hence you'd see multiple games from a Studio on a console Generation - Naughty Dog released several Uncharted and the Last of Us on PS3 - a game every few years but now you wait 5yrs+ between 'new' games. How many years between Horizon Zero Dawn and Forbidden West, between God of War and Ragnarok, between Infamous 2nd Son, Ghost of Tsushima and now Ghost of Yotei?

So not only has the Time it takes to make a game doubled (if not trebled), the wages and overheads too have significantly increased leading to Budgets ballooning whilst Gamers themselves aren't buying games like they were (partly because of rising costs leading to less disposable income themselves and partly because they have MANY cheap options like sales inc BC games, Subscription Games and a big backlog thanks to BC so can wait to buy/play 'new' releases when they are on sale or offered in a sub service) making it much harder for Publishers to recoup their escalating Costs. It has to be a 'Special' game, a BIG IP and highly rated/anticipated game for a LOT of gamers to buy it at/near launch these days. Most will likely wait for Outer Worlds 2 to drop in price if they buy it at all...

@orvisbean101 You have to remember that MS approached ABK to buy them years before they actually did acquire them and then had to 'fight' for the right to acquire them and agree to numerous deals to appease just a few different 'Glodal' authoroities. They were 'expected' to take over a few months earlier as well but the case dragged on.

When the agreed on the takeover, the Games industry was still in a 'boom' after the Pandemic in 2021 and before the world went into a massive global Crisis - partly brought on by the events in Ukraine from Feb 2022 and the resulting Sanctions raising Oil/Fuel prices which in turn raised general living expenses.

Arguably no-one would have predicted that 'War' would occur and thatwould have such an impact - Part of those sanctions also affecting the Games industry as they pulled out and ceased trading - losing a massive chunk of revenue from that region as well as seeing a drop in sales as people tightened their spending on leisure activities.

That led to massive restructuring across the whole industry - every major publisher now 'struggling', deciding to close studios, cancel games because they 'project' that they will run out of money before those games get made and/or won't sell enough to recoup their costs. Its not 'just' MS that cut their Staff and cancelled games - Sony has, Ubisoft has, EA has, Square Enix has, WB has etc etc etc..

I know that Politics shouldn't be discussed and many of us use Gaming to escape the 'real' world, don't want to consider what is happening outside of the gaming 'bubble', but the reality is that is having a MASSIVE impact on the industry - people are choosing not to buy 'new' releases - certainly not in the quantity they were - opting to wait for sales whilst playing games like Roblox and Fortnite. They may still buy the odd 1 or 2 'new' games, but being far more selective and picky. Instead buying both BF6 and CoD, deciding which one they will buy until the other is on Sale (if they buy at all) for example or waiting for reviews and if it doesnt score a '9/10', deciding to wait for a sale instead for example.

The costs have risen - its not just 'developer' overheads (wages, electricity, rent etc) that's gone up, but also the costs of manufacturing and distributing their Products 'globally' - the fuel cost to send their Discs around the world, but the sales aren't going up to cover those rises.

The last couple of years have been very rough for the industry so we have seen many publishers do whatever they can - MS has increased the number of games it now releases 'everywhere' to try and maximise its revenue. I doubt Fable would have been a 'Day 1' release on PS but after nearly a 'decade' of development costs to try and recover, they need that sales revenue - Forza 6 hasn't been that long so a few months of exclusivity can be afforded and 5 may have bought them 'time' too...

Got to make their money back after so long in development - so sell it EVERYWHERE day/date as PC/Xbox customers may well Subscribe to Game Pass to get to play it cheaper.

Glad to see its looking very faithful to the OG Fable Trilogy despite a new Development team - I had concerns they would lose 'something' with a new Developer (Halo and Gears did) but it seems they really do understand what made Fable the games they were, inc the world, the humour, the game-play loop etc...

Anthem's initial reveal and the way they described the project left me excited and interested - I think it had a LOT of potential and even when it released, there were certain aspects that came close to realising that potential.

However I do think it was perhaps too ambitious and/or needed a LOT more time and resources to reach the full potential. The Story, Hub and looting system were so weak that it was obvious the game was never going to reach its full potential without massive investment and a lot of time - something I could never see EA giving Bioware. Therefore it was destined to be shut down rather than become the game we anticipated, reach that potential it promised!

And these games are still a result of Koticks management and organisation of the Studios.

Black Ops 6 and 7, just like MW2 and MW3, were in development and 'planned' before Microsoft officially took over and basically took over 'funding' the development to see them through to completion. These are still a 'legacy' of the schedule and demands Kotick and his management of ABK set out and established - in case the deal fell through.

MS didn't come in and greenlight the development of these games, haven't 'interfered' or 'changed' how the Franchise and its annual cycle has been run etc. If you didn't know that its now under Micosoft, you'd not notice any difference - certainly doesn't feel or seem like its 'under new management' or that anything has changed. It was very apparent to me Naughty Dog and 'Uncharted' was under 'new' management after Amy Hennig left - 4 has a very different vibe to it...

A lot of potential - but never realised and the initial release felt so 'empty/hollow', a LONG way from realising its potential, it probably needed another '5yrs' or so to sort its Narrative out, to actual have the polish and game-play loop, inc loot and looting, the hub etc all functional and engaging so it actually pulled players in and kept them playing - instead, it pushed them away and they never returned...

@dskatter Well they are seemingly getting out of the 'Console' business and returning back to their PC platform - but whether they get out of the Hardware business completely, I don't think that will happen 'soon'

25yrs ago, MS were only making games for their Windows platform on PC but Gaming PC's were not affordable to the Mainstream so MS had to enter the Console space to sell their games to a mainstream audience, to make DirectX an integral part of Gaming (hence X-Box as it is DirectX in a Box).

Now, 25yrs later, you can play modern PC games on a Handheld 'Switch' or PC at 'Console' like settings/performance and of course Hardware Price. PC's are much more 'mainstream' and Direct X is well established. Therefore, the reason the Xbox existed in the first place is no longer relevant and in fact for the past 'decade' (yes decade as MS decided to merge their 'Console and PC' platforms and rebrand their Gaming division as 'Xbox' to include PC & Cloud as well), their Console has been 'optional' - one of a variety of choices to play/access Xbox first Party games/services inc Game Pass. If you own a PC, you don't need to buy an Xbox anymore or miss out on Halo, Gears, Forza etc.

Therefore, I think MS are more likely to return to their PC roots, get out of the 'Console' Hardware business, but may well offer their own 'PC' Hardware - like they do with their Surface PC range despite Asus, Lenovo, MSi etc also making similar hardware. They'll still have their OWN platforms on PC/Cloud so it won't be like Sega giving up on Dreamcast to become a 3rd Party Publisher only...

Slop is Slop regardless of how it is created - whether its by Human or AI. There has been many examples of 'Human' created Slop over the years and I expect that we will see more AI created slop in the future.

If you want Humans to cease calling Generative AI slop 'Slop', then stop using Generative AI slop in Content. After all, a Human had to command the AI to produce that content/slop and a Human that decided that content/slop was 'good enough' to use in their Product - so maybe 'train' those Humans to not accept AI slop, to 'amend/corrrect' the AI Slop to be 'usable' or better still, use it to inspire a perfect piece.

The ONLY reason people will call it 'Slop' is because the final product reaching them is 'Slop' - regardless of who made it, but obviously its 'AI' created Slop because Humans wouldn't make those sloppy mistakes - the Human Mistake is accepting and using that 'slop' in their Product!!!

@Jaz007 I'm also not saying that Sony shouldn't make their OWN hardware and use their Hardware to make the 'most' money from their Software - that Sony's Hardware isn't the 'best' value for money, the best looking, the best 'controller' or whatever else Sony do to compete on 'Hardware' - I just think they shouldn't use Software to make their Hardware Essential, a requirement.

If you 'prefer' to play on say a PC, then you can still play Sony's games - you pay Sony to access their Games on your preferred hardware. The 'incentive' to play on Sony's hardware maybe you get 'better' deals or Services, maybe some months of 'earlier' access as a result of supporting 'Sony' direct through their Hardware and/or services. The only way to play Horizon, GoW, Uncharted etc a 'bit' earlier or via a 'service' (like PS+, Game Pass, EA Play, Ubisoft+ etc) is through their 'platform/ecosystem'#

You can't get Uncharted on PS+ or even a 'bigger' discount through Steam (or ANY 3rd Party that Sony chooses) - so to take advantage of Sony's services/deals, you need to be in their Ecosystem and thats the incentive to be in their Ecosystem specifically but you should still be able to play 'elsewhere' if you prefer and pay 'Sony' for the 'right' to play on your preferred platform/ecosystem rather pay Sony for hardware and Sub services just to play 1 or 2 games a year you can't play ANYWHERE else.

@Jaz007 Consoles are sold at a loss (to start) to get you in to their Ecosystem and make money off of you and hold you to Ransome, hold content from you unless you pay a Subscription for the full library and feature set make back that 'loss' on that Sub fee alone to play the 'games' you want to play.

Take Battlefield - you can buy it or subscribe to EA to play it on whatever platform you have - however, if you have a 'Console', you also have to pay the Console manufacturer to play a game you've just bought. You can't play some 'exclusives' (or at least have access to all content/mode/features) without paying a Sub fee for opting to play on Subsidised Hardware.

PC gamers get a LOT of those Console 'exclusives', can buy direct from EA, Ubisoft etc or even shop around between Steam, Microsoft, GoG platforms - pay for the 'content/service' and able to play anywhere on a wide range of 'devices' made by different brands. Also are never expected to pay Asus, Lenovo etc to play games just because they also made the Hardware.

That's the point. EA games are still 'exclusive' to EA - that's EA's 'content' , owned by EA, made and published by EA so you have to 'pay' EA to access - just like you can buy DVD or Vinyl record to access TV/Music, or a Sub to 'netflix' to watch their content. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have to pay to access Content on whatever Hardware, I'm saying that you shouldn't have to buy specific branded Hardware for Content and then be held to ransome (sub fees for features/content) for 3rd Party Content too...

@AverageGamer Couldn't agree more - maybe for some, it would be about the most powerful Hardware but then they would buy and play 95% of their games on PC over a Console regardless today now anyway - only buying a console (if they do) for the 2-3 exclusives they release a year they want to play.

Why buy a PS5 when a PC plays 95% of the PS5 'library' at significantly better quality - Higher Res, higher grahical settings, higher frame rates etc.

People buy Switch or Playstation because it suits their Budget and/or their gaming preference. Maybe want to game 'on the go' a lot or can't afford to spend $1k+ and PS5 offers a good enugh bang for their more limited budget. Services, controller layout, UI, aesthetics, Cost etc can be the 'difference' - not the Content which is predominently the same across most Hardware these days

@MichaelNau If you go back to the Original idea of Video Games, they were very much 'built-in' to the Hardware - the Code and everything was built in. Whether it was Pong or Nintendo Game & Watch, Asteroids or Space Invaders at an Arcade for example - only 'Computers' could play 'multiple' games.

Console Gamess were also Hardware - they were built into Cartridges and so were ALL 'exclusive' - even if you had your own version of Pac-man or Space Invaders built into that Cartridge. Atari, Nintendo, Sega etc had ONLY 'Exclusives' - even if they shared 'some' titles, they were 'exclusive' versions built into Hardware (cartridges) for that Hardware to run - but they were the exception as the vast majority of games were made exclusively for specific Hardware by the Platform Holder to 'support' their Hardware.

Nowadays, the vast majority of Releases are made for Gamers wherever they 'choose' to play. They are not exclusive to any specific Hardware and the modern Consoles share the vast majority of titles. The only reason exclusives exist nowadays is to 'force' gamers to buy that Hardware specifically when 95% of the games you actually play every year could be played on ANY Hardware.

@LogicStrikesAgain You have to pay for the Content you want to access - not the the Hardware as WELL with Netflix. If you want to play a Sony game you also have to buy their Hardware. If you want to watch Stranger Things, you just buy access to that Content and can then access that Content wherever you want, on whatever Hardware you want at NO EXTRA Cost.

You also aren't paying for 'Specific' shows as such but the entire access to EVERYTHING on Netflix and that is just paying for 'Content' - exclusive or not to that service, you aren't Paying Netflix for Hardware to run that content 'exclusively' as well as having to pay them for their Content.

It's very simple - you pay Netflix for their Content, just like you can buy a DVD orn Bluray from any other TV/film content provider, but don't need to buy their own Hardware as well just to access that Content. You only pay for the CONTENT you want to Consume and are NOT FORCED to buy their Hardware just to consume their Content which you also have to pay for....

Sony could release their Content EVERYWHERE and you 'pay' them to access it - either by buying their Game or by Subbing to a service like PS+ - you on;y need to pay for the Conternt you 'consume' but aren't forced to consume that Content on their Hardware.

You don't buy a 'Netflix' TV/Player just to watch Netflix and have to buy a Disney made TV for Disney+ content - even if they, like EA, Ubisoft, and most other Content makers, make exclusive Content that only they can make. Battlefield is Exclusive to EA as in if you want to play Battlefield, you need to pay EA buy 'buying' their game (or an EA Subscription - EA Access or EA Play for example), same with Assassins Creed and Ubisoft. Those Publishers have their own 'Exclusive' content, just never require you to also buy 'their' Hardware or 'miss out' on ever playing/watching/accessing.

@AhmadSumadi You are 'forced' to buy a Playstation to play Sony's games or 'go without'. If you own and/or prefer to play on a PC, own hardware already that plays '90%' (if not more) of the games you enjoy (multi-platform), then having to buy 'Hardware' just or a few Exclusives, that's anti-consumer.

The difference between say Netflix vs Apple or Amazon Prime is that those 'services' are not Hardware dependent. You don't need to buy a different Display because Stranger things is 'exclusive' to Netflix - netflix is on Everything so you 'sub' for the Content. Its no different from EA content being available on ALL hardware and you either 'buying' it directly or Subbing to EA Play/Access on Whatever Hardware.

There is a massive difference between something being available ONLY on a piece of Hardware that you must spend $100's to own to access that content and that Content being available on ALL hardware only requiring a 'small' fee to access or own and doesn't matter what 'hardware' you own, you can still access your 'content' - you can watch Stranger Things on a PS5, on your Samsung Mobile, on an Asus PC, on an Xbox, on a Smart TV etc etc etc even if 'exclusive' to Netflix.

@Dr_Rocanlover Well there was a time that companies would use bespoke connectors, bespoke parts etc so that you had to buy their products or could only be repaired by certain people. However, that is becoming rarer as Laws are written to end Anti-consumer practices and ensure that Consumers actually have Choice, their 'rights' etc are protected etc too.

As a Consumer, you should feel annoyed if (for example), Sony Playstation Hardware would ONLY connect to a Sony TV - not via a 'Universal' Connector like HDMI but some Sony ONLY cable so you'd be forced to buy their Hardware just to 'Game'. You may 'excuse' that with a 'relatively' cheap and subsidised Console with a 'few' games exclusive a year - the vast majority available everywhere else anyway, but you'd be extremely annoyed if you had to buy various different TV's, Hifi/Music players etc because each Publisher/manufacturer also want to selll Hardware so keep their content Exclusive to their plastic box.

I'm not saying they shouldn't offer some 'incentives' or differences to compete, but Services, aesthetics, spec choices etc - some may 'favour' their Products more at that price point - like Frame rates or Resolution for example - but that's what 'competition' is. It is not keeping Content away so that your 'competitors' can't compete but making sure that your hardware is the 'best' option for ALL content.

@AhmadSumadi

Loss of exclusivity would give you no reason to choose one console over another. This notion rings true in every facet of entertainment. And why would any company not want you to have reason to choose them over their competitors?

Instead of being 'forced' to buy Hardware for 1 or 2 games a YEAR that are Exclusive and you want to play, you buy Hardware because its the 'best' option for you - whether that's because it fits your budget, your aesthetic, your 'preference' of Controller/spec etc - just like pretty much all other 'Entertainment' media.

Sony have to compete with Samsung, LG, TCL etc with their TV's for example as they all offer the same 'Entertainment' content. You never had to buy a specific brand of TV, Video/DVD/Bluray player, Record, CD, or Cassette player or 'miss' out on Content. You bought the Hardware based on price, specs etc and how well it 'competed' within that market.

Being forced to buy some Plastic box of electronics just to play a certain game, A game that could run equally well, If not Better elsewhere but refuse to release it elsewhere, is Anti-consumer. Its taking 'competition' away - you could build the 'worst' hardware, have the worst 'consumer' practices and reputation, but still 'sell' just because its the ONLY option to play 'Mario' or whatever 'exclusive'.

The whole point about Competition is that consumers are 'free' to choose, not 'forced' to buy because of 'exclusive' content. If Sony 'can't' compete with MS on specs, Controller layout or whatever other areas are 'Hardware' based, that's tough - do better 'next' time. How do you think PC builders 'compete' without 'Exclusive' content? They compete by making the 'best' hardware they can or at whatever popular Price-points so people choose which suits them best - they don't need to buy a MS Surface for Windows, MS Office etc 'exclusively'....

The ONLY advantage to building 'exclusives' is that you build the game to the Hardware. For example, if you know the amount of polygons, the tick rate of the chip, the amount of Data it can move per 'cycle', you make sure the Game you build keeps within those parameters. If you have an area that 'exceeds' the Polygon count for that hardware, you just change the way the Area was designed.

However, if you are building a game first and foremost, maybe you have some 'minimum/maximum' parameters to aim between depending on the range of Hardware you aim to release on. It then becomes a case of trying to fit as much as you can to the hardware whilst keeping it 'uniform' across various different SKU's.

There is technically no reason that companies couldn't port their games to other Platforms if they wanted but Financially, it may be more beneficial to keep them Exclusive so they can bleed their User base dry on ALL purchases - inc 3rd Party Multi-platform games they get money from just because they are a 'Platform' holder and keep their users spending Money on Subs etc to line their pockets - exclusives are the sweetener, the 'blackmail' to make you buy their Hardware and then keep you 'locked' in to paying Subs and bleeding you dry of your 'Gaming' funds...

Advancing Technology has always impacted the Human Labou/workforce and I bet EVERYONE - especially those babies crying about 'job losses' - have benefitted and/or own Prooducts where minimal 'Human' labour is involved.

Food, clothing, Education materials - whatever products you 'consume', there Machinery, Tools, Computers etc that have replaced Human Jobs and so if you 'refuse' to buy a game because they used AI to create some in-game assets that you NEVER own (they are owned by Studio/Publisher), why not refuse to purchase anything that wasn't made entirely by Human 'hands'.

AI is also far more efficient and accurate in Humans in assessing Xrays, scans etc in spotting health issues. So many areas where 'technology' has proven to be more efficient, more accurate, more reliable etc than employing a Human and practically everything you consume, whatever category (Agriculture, Food, Clothing/Textiles, Leisure, Education etc etc), there has been technological advancements that have replaced Humans in that workforce and many Skilled 'Jobs' from yesteryear are obsolete, or becoming obsolete.

Its not as if they are using 'AI' to create 'ART' - they are creating 'in -game' assets that they OWN, that are NOT sold as Art or that you can 'use' as Art. Even a Cosmetic Loading screen or emblem/badge they 'sell' so you can customise the 'look' in-game is still just an 'in-game' asset you don't technically own...

Refusing to buy a game because some Devs chose to use AI to 'generate' a realistic looking Jungle Biome for example instead of employing Hundreds to grind out making all those different bushes, trees etc and then having to place them all tediously by hand over months/years adding to the Cost/time to publishing, seems extremely ODD when EVERY other consumable you've bought has involved AI, Technology etc replacing Humans in that workforce!!

@theheadofabroom You believe what you want, but at the end of the day, in the context of the Gaming Industry, a 'leisure', not a vital or essential trade like food, clothing etc, these are just tools of the trade. They aren't creating 'art' but in-game Assets for a 'non-essential' product.

Mass Produced can also produce high quality, precision tools/equipment far more precisely, more consistently and in far more quantity than Humans. AI can detect or analyse thousands of Medical scans/images and spot medical issues 'missed' by Humans and do it in seconds.

If you think I care about whether 'Humans' with their faults, their inconsistency, their unreliability, their 'cost' to use, their own issues, especially in some leisure activity, you are wrong. Artists will still sell 'art' to Humans - if they are 'good' enough and/or their art appeals. Point is, Hand-made isn't necessarily always the 'best' and often Machinery, tools, AI etc have enabled Humans to produce far better and more consistent products, higher quality etc due to the advancement of technology and scientific advancement, precision tools and CNC's. Its still controlled by Humans so Humans are 'employed' to use these tools - even if those tools replaced 'humans'. Hand -made often has 'human' errors, human inconsistency, human imprecision etc - which may add to its 'charm', but that doesn't mean its 'better', higher quality or superior to some mass produced extremely consistent and accurate tool

@theheadofabroom And yet there are still many other machines and/or technological advancements that have replaced Humans because they are much faster, more consistent/accurate and/or reliable. The ability to weave cloth or transport 'grain' to a mill, turning cloth into clothing or grain into flour/bread. 1 Combine Harvester replaced dozens of Labourers required to harvest - you have 'affordable' clothes, food, distribution/communication etc etc because of technological tools, you have more 'free/leisure' time as a result too.

Quality is relative, Mass Produced doesn't necessaily mean they use 'low quality' materials and can be much higher quality, much higher degree of precision, more consistentcy etc than if produced by a Human. Humans are prone to mistakes, not consistent (which can add to its charm/appeal, but not quality) and why these tools, machines etc 'replace' Humans...

@LifeGirl Ever since humans have created tools and machines, Humans have been 'replaced'. Whether its just farm labourers nreplaced by Machinery or skilled craftsmen replaced by CNC, Robots and/or machinery/tools.

Where are all the Skilled Knitters, Weavers etc that used to be involved in the textile trade or workers in the Food/agricultural industry?

I think its ridiculous to care about who creates some 'in-game' ONLY asset (its not 'Art' as such, sold as art etc - its an 'in-game' asset), complaing about potential 'job' losses in what is 'non-essential (leisure), and often a 'hobby' - yet buy mass produced Products - all of which have used 'tools/technology' to minimise the workforce and maximise productivity.

A lot of old skills are LOST now due to Technology because they made those 'workers' obsolete, those 'jobs' redundant so people stopped training.

Tools still require Human control - Its still a Human that tells AI what it wants it to 'produce', still a Human that will assess and decide if that 'result' is worthy of use - its a Human mistake to let AI slop, slop that a Human asked AI to create BTW, in to their Game. Its just 'cheaper' than paying some Human to create slop in minutes to meet deadlines and content demand - NOT for Art, but for some n-game 'asset'...

@Flaming_Kaiser But AI is NOT creating 'Art' - its being asked to create in-game assets, in-game only cosmetic items by HUMANS and then the Humans are putting it into their game. If those humans are not issuing the right instruction and/or certainly not assessing the results of the tool, that is HUMAN error - not tools like AI.

They are not asking AI to create 'paintings' to be displayed inside a Gallery and charge people to view, to be sold as 'Art' etc. These are in-gamev assets - like creating all the other assets used in game - trees, cars, bushes, trash etc

Only out just over 2 weeks in November yet sold enough to top Novembers chart in the US and jump straight into the top 10 for the YEAR. Its sold more in just 2 weeks than the thousands of games released and/or available to buy from Jan 5th onwards despite the negativity and fact its on Game Pass on 2 out 3 of the release platforms.

It maybe down on some other games in the Franchise, but I'd hardly say its a 'disaster' or a Flop as the negativity and hate comments would want you to believe. I bet Sony would love to release a game that sold as many copies in just 2 weeks as CoD as would many other Publishers and they don't give their games away on a Sub service.

I'm not saying that to belittle 'other' games, but that in just 2 weeks, CoD has outsold all but 6 games (3 annual sport releases, MH:W, B4 & BF6) - inc all those Award winners at GotY shows, many gamers Game of the Year regardless and its 'sales' are expected to be decimated by Game Pass users. Its done that in just 2weeks since release to be the 7th 'best sellin' game in the US for the year (Jan 5th-Nov 29th) so far.

@Flaming_Kaiser Its not really 'ART', It's just in game 'assets' that are locked the game and not sold as 'art'. You can create a 'tree' or an entire Forest of trees if needed 'quickly' and easily. Its not always just some in game Loading screen, emblem or badge.

It also doesn't matter what is used to train - Whether that it is Photographs, Human created Art, or whatever - its no different from Humans 'copying' other Humans until they have developed and gained enough experience to create their own style or work on Commissions. And MANY are 'inspired' by others work too - copying enough but tweaking enough to avoid plagarism. And every Portrait or Landscape, every 'real life' piece of Art is copying what came before.

AI is still just a tool, it takes a 'Human' to give it instruction as to what is required and humans that have to assess and decide if what it produces is 'good' enough. It is a conscious decision by HUMANS to use a 'tool' for their 'Project' and its their Game - they own the code, the assets etc - and may not outright own 3rd Party created assets/art/music etc that they've had to licence - so create those with a 'tool' instead.

Whether a 'tree' or an in-game 'graphic', it really doesn't matter who creates the 'asset', its not 'sold' as Art, its just an 'asset' for the game code to pull in at certain points and you can pay a person to sit there for years creating tree after tree after tree for some environmental artist to use or have AI create a bunch you can stick in, maybe create a bunch of in-game branded products to avoid 'copyright' but adds to the overall world detail.

Point is, Humans are involved and have to be involved - Games are not being made by AI, they are still made by humans. Humans that decide which 'tools' to use to enable their vision, humans that decide whether what they've created (with/without assistance from AI) is 'good enough' to release and Hiumans that will decide whether or not its worth playing...

So is this related to that statue thing that has been attributed to Diablo, GoW etc? Last I heard Crystal Dynamics were 'behind' schedule after layoffs, and that was before PD was cancelled and more staff layoffs. I've been half expecting to see Tomb Raider cancelled and CD closed as they've been culled so much in recent years...

Hopefully, that won't happen and things improve for Crystal Dynamics as I've really liked their Tomb Raider games.

@arto Your internal SSD cannot be expanded big enough to play the entire game - hence it relies on Streaming to bring you the world at a 1:1 scale with that much detail and accuracy. You don't have enough storage space to save all the assets and data for the entire 'Earth' so its install size is relative low.

Therefore its not all on disc and wouldn't even fit on 2 or 3 discs if they were to supply 'everything'.

@Flurpsel Exactly - I don't buy slop or mediocre products made entirely by Humans so I won't accept that from Humans using AI tools either. There are many games that Humans have poured their Heart and Soul into, games they've spent years of their life working on that I wouldn't buy for various reasons because they didn't do enough to convince me they were worth my time or money.

Every game has to convince me its worth my time, let alone my Money and if I don't think the 'quality' is there, regardless of who made it and/or what tools were involved, I vote with my wallet.

@Max_the_German Couldn't agree more - AI itself isn't the problem - its incompetent 'Humans' that are not using AI effectively and/or 'accepting' whatever mistakes it makes.

Lets be honest here, if a Human created art with the amount of 'mistakes' (6 fingers, alignment/perspective mistakes etc), it would be 'rejected' or at least 'corrected' before it would be used. Bad 'AI' is the result of incompetent Human usage of that Tool.

AI doesn't just make 'art' - it has to be given Human input and that human has the option to accept, decline or even give more 'input' to the AI to get a more appropriate piece.

They aren't really creating 'ART' anyway, they are only creating in-game assets that you don't own and are not being 'sold' as ART, but as in-game assets for customisation for example.

It's a bit like saying CNC's are ruining guitar making as it replaces Skilled Luthiers with machines but Humans have to be 'involved' in operating the tools and assessing the results to decide if its usable or not, look for 'errors/mistakes' before proceeding - let alone making it to market.

If I see AI assets used in ANY game with mistakes - like six fingers for example, I don't blame 'AI' for that, but the 'Human' that accepted that Asset without correcting/amending and used it in their game. AI doesn't randomly create these, doesn't force humans to use it etc - Its still a Human not using the tools effectively to get the 'best' results.

As with all tools, its about the Human user/operator. A bad workman blames his tools but its 'humans' that control and decide to use the 'bad'. Whoever decide to use that 'AI' generated asset is the problem, not the AI itself...

@SuntannedDuck2 But that's on the developers and what their aim is - is it to 'sell', to tell their story, to 'create' that 'something' you find fresh, new or unique enough that it feels like you've waited a lifetime for someone to make - the 'tools' and technology are all there and have been so that's why its 'iterative'.

If you wanted to do something in game, by the 360/PS3 era, you basically could and since then, its all about 'refining' and improving on QoL aspects - loading times, seamless transitions between environments (inside and outside for example) because 'every' game-lay mechanic has been done and in full 3D with home cinema quality audio and resolution - now just need to bring the 'quality' of the visuals and frame-rates up to show 'meaningful' technological upgrades but nothing stopping 'Devs' from creating ANY game, but arguably they are most likely looking to win a 'Popularity' contest and appeal to the Most people to maximise revenue rather than try and invent some new or bring back some 'obsolete' game-play mechanic and risk their Studio/Career if it fails to meet expectations 'financially'. Regardless of how critically acclaimed or 'beloved' by the few that bought, if not 'commercially' successful, it can kill their studio/career so the risks to trying something 'different' - when even making some changes in sequels is 'too much' for some gamers, is perhaps too high for many to gamble on.