BAMozzy

@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.

@SuntannedDuck2 I know what you mean, they were more creative with 'less' - where are the car 'combat' games or other 'niche' variations on those basic game-play mechanics.

Well that comes down to cost as they make them to 'compete' graphicallly and on performance (unless indie - but then its also likely 'nostalgic' look) and potential revenue. It's cost vs potential sales revenue and ideally as a producer of product, you want the cost low and revenue high to be successful. Selling a 'small' budget game to a small global audience can be profitable but through more budget, more sales required and with so much competition and even decent games struggling to hit their required sales, mediocre or even 'Niche' games are certainly going to be a big gamble.

That's also why they are iterating on 'past' successes and big sellers (not those with 'cult' followings) - its expensive to invest 'years' of staff work hours, all their expenses and marketing etc to bring that to public access so they want to invest in the 'least' riskiest ideas...

That's why independent Studio's are more likely to see the more 'experimental' or niche game-play styles being offered and triple AAA is becoming the big mainstream versions of the most popular styles of games. But really its down to popularity, cost, potential revenue, can they do something 'better/different' enough to become successful when so many others already exist....

@SuntannedDuck2 The last 2 generations are basically iterating on what really were the final hurdles of 'Game-play' creation - since then, its only improving upon and/or speeding up what essentially was created before.

Once you transitioned into actually being able to tell 3D stories with Movie Quality Audio and set Game-play in any type of situation or setting you could imagine, the rest will always be more about 'refining' and improving on what came before. Racing games went from pixels to very boxy polygons to looking like the real thing on film in certain Photographic modes. Big open expanses to explore have become quicker to travel across, more densely packed and far fewer (if any) loading areas between zones - the equivalent of elevator rides or door opening cut scenes....

Point is, if you want a game that offers a specific 'Game-play' style, chances are there are games that offer it - even in Indie that you maybe surprised to find some more unusual Game-play loops/Mechanics. There is always something 'similar', something that came before it and perhaps did it better becausse it was also 'new' and 'fresh' feeling - something newer games can't deliver...

Its new Stories or combining ideas/mechanics with maybe genres not most expect, but still deliver a very polished and cohesive package to establish itself amongst 'others' in its genre, having unique settings or at least a unique interpretation of in the case of post apocolyptic game setting.

Its more about improving Graphics for more immersion and realism which also ties into their second area of improvement, doing thatand at faster frame rates. Whatever game-play mechanic or loop has already been done so its up to developers to 'create' a reason you want to play their game through story, through its genre and its aesthetic.

No dev sets out to make a 'bad' product and in most cases, they 'believe' in their ideas, their concepts etc and pour their heart and soul into the project. But that doesn't mean that it deserves 'Commercial' success or that people should buy their Product.

A game releasing today isn't 'competing' for your time/money with just the other 'new' releases, but all the other games, products, services etc that also 'compete' for your time. These generations of Hardware have some of the 'biggest' Libraries ever - thanks to Backwards Compatibility and years and years worth of releases. Not only that, you also Services (even 'basic' Sub services) that give access to games at no extra charge and Free to Play has grown too giving gamers a LOT of choice to fill their time wihout needing to spend 'money', let alone the cost of new releases. Why spend $70 on something to play when you have 100's of games in your backlog you can play at 'no' cost, 100's of Free to play games (F2P and Sub service offerings) and if those don't appeal, 100's of Cheap games in sales before considering a full price new release.

That's just in gaming, but other distractions for your time, like youtube/twitch etc can easily fill your 'time' at no extra cost, entertain etc that you don't have the time to play games and with cost of living going up, people are not spending money as 'freely', opting to either save money or only spend it on the 'few' new products they can't 'live without'.

As much as Devs pour themselves into a project, it doesn't make it essential or necessarily enjoyable for all. Some may think Picasso's Art is 'awful' and not worth your time or money to see

@Flaming_Kaiser Just like EVERY other industry that has 'evolved' to use tools, machinery, technology etc to replace humans. Every industry has developed tools etc that inevitably reduce the 'workforce' and/or time required to produce something - thus 'cutting' costs (less wages - but someone has to operate, maintain etc those tools - to increase profitability, yield or even time to market)

With games escalating not only in Costs to manufacture but also time taken, they either have to raise prices or find ways to cut the time and/or costs down - which is what happened with every other industry. You had to go to a metalworker (or have the skill) to make your own Cutlery set, yet now you can buy a complete family set for the cost of 1-hand-made piece of cutlery.

The fact the Rich don't share is irrelevant - it never stopped those that bought in Machinery to replace the hundreds of human Labourers required by Farmers and the Textile industry, Virtually everything you buy today is manufactured by 'minimal' Human involvement operating (or overseeing) modern day tools, machinery etc that have replaced the vast majority of People required for that company to produce their products.

I don't think Sequels are necessarily to blame, its more down to fact that they seem like all they've done is improve graphics over 5yrs and not create something that feels 'new/fresh' or meets expectations as they can be 'elevated' after such a long development time - its almost long enough that the game doesn't look that different to how you remembered the first which often is better than it looks compared to the newer version.

It's a case of just more of the same with 'minor' tweaks or additions on game-play and a slight graphical jump (even if its quite large in technical levels - overall perception is the reason) rather than feeling like a Full sequel that evolves the Game-play after so many years. CoD is still CoD, but maybe they need to change something again (engine, style, structure) as its too much a 'Sequel' in that sense - even if the Game-play is Solid, fun and more bigger, its just more of the same CoD game-play loop.

@Flaming_Kaiser That's the American Corporate System that protects the Businesses and looks after the ones that Donate the most to their Senators to ensure they can continue to exploit the individuals, the citizens with little/no employment laws.

However, that's a 'political' topic and not one for a Gaming website - but all I say is where are all the skilled clothes Makers for example. Since the Industrial Revolution, EVERY trade has seen the 'loss' of Skilled Labour to machinery, technological advancement etc, replaced by 'tools' that still need Human control, supervision, maintenance etc.

Instead of maybe Americans having to work 90hr weeks to ensure that they don't get fired, maybe they too could get a 37.5hr week and a 'fair wage' instead of relying on tipping culture, minimum 5wks Annual Leave, Maternity/Sick Pay etc etc - but maybe I'm just more Optimistic because I don't live in Corporate America where Humans are respected and have many laws protecting us from Big Corporate BS...

@Flaming_Kaiser Standards?? If that's your standards, I'm glad thatI don't share them - particularly the education as Slave Labour is the abuse and exploitation of Humans and completely abhorrant, but the use of AI, Computers, Robots, machines etc etc to replace 'humans' in the workforce is NOT even close to the same thing.

Do you really care if your clothes are hand-made by humans in every part or maybe we should ban Computers entirely as they take 'jobs' away from people, maybe everyone should be back in the factories sewing, weaving, knitting etc ettc instead of using powered Machinery.

I don't care if a group of 1000 people were needed to make a game or, with AI, they can cut that down to just 10 people, that still made 'by' humans. It doesn't matter if you use a Computer or some machine/robot to manufacture 99% of the products Humans consume everyday without - work that used to be done by 'skilled' Humans that were replaced by more efficient and cheaper (long term) tools.

I am against things like Slave Labour, crunch in Studio's, people expected to work more than 'contracted' hours and not 'paid' for every hour, etc - delays cost money and time too. The thing about 'Tools' is that they require at least 1 human to 'operate' and ensure that AI is 'functioning' as intended. I don't care how many 'tools', machines, robots etc are used to make products I enjoy - they are still ultimately made by 'humans' - just a lot less than before. Just like you have far less Humans working in Factories as machinery has replaced the majority, or far less working in offices as Computers/tech have replaced a lot of Staff there too.

There is a big difference between Forcing Humans to work on something or using tools to make those Humans unnecessary in the first place!!! Those people can still 'work', still earn money, still make 'Art' to sell as 'real' Human art, AI can't perform on a Stage in front of People etc and Humans are still 'in control' of the tools and ultimately, the product - So I don't care if it's made by 10 people (with the use of AI) or 100 people (without AI). I'd care more if that Studio with 100 were under pressure, crunching and/or working any 'minute' without Pay - the conditions for the 'human' element...

I'll never understand the issue with using AI - its not as if the Art is being Sold as 'art' - its some throwaway content in a game that will be replaced in a year with yet another iteration. It was never intended to be 'displayed' in an Art Museum, its a 'token' for completing a challenge or ranking up, they are 'free' extras generated to bulk out the content and be a bit more aesthetically interesting than 'nothing'.

You aren't paying for a 'Game' and all its Art/Assets - they are owned by the Publisher/Developer anyway. You are paying for the right to access and enjoy their software in your home instead of going to an Arcade and paying for everytime you want to play a 'match', like paying to go and watch a Movie or paying for a 'pass' at Disneyland to go 'anywhere', go on the rides, have the Disney experience.

Point is, you aren't buying Art or the Game, you are paying to experience their Game. I'd rather have AI art than no Art and its not as if I'm going to want Prints to hang on my wall as 'Art'. I have no issue at all with Humans using Tools to make their jobs easier/quicker etc and see AI as no different from a CNC machine that replaces 'skilled' artists/craftsmen from doing 'repetitive' boring work to mass produce in quantity and much, much quicker and far loss costly too.

I still think a Human has to be in control of the tool and have the final say on whether the product is acceptable. I don't have an issue with the AI drawing 6 fingers instead of 5, I have more of an issue with the Human who either controlled the AI or approved the resulting product. Its not the AI's fault, its the person who used the AI tool, the person that chose to use that creation instead of amending, correcting or selecting a different option.

AI is just a 'tool' - driven by Humans and Humans have the final say on whether or not, what the AI has produced was acceptable for their game. Its 'human error' as far as I am concerned if 'bad' Art (regardless of whether it was AI or Human created) gets into a game - a Human should use their own eyes, judgement etc to decide whether or not that 'art' is acceptable - just like we as Humans will decide if we think their 'Game' is worth paying for, waiting for a sale or just not worth their time at all - even if FREE to play through some service or whatever.

I buy guitars made by CNC machines that 80yrs ago would have been made by skilled woodworkers or at the very least, trained machine operators (trained to use the various Power Tools that made production a Lot faster and/or reduced workers - before Powered Machines/Robots replaced them). Now a Single Person running a CNC machine can make hundreds of identical Guitar bodies every week where before it would take 30+ to make that many. Quality is arguably better and much more consistent too for the cost (which includes time/wages) - as a Human to make 20 different Emblems, Calling Cards etc and see how long that takes and how much it costs if you also want to see Drafts for approval, make amendments etc...

I don't know enough (or care) what Success would mean for Sony. If they expect to reach 20m and only reach 10m is that a failure - even if it makes money? We've seen games sell well enough compared to other similarly priced games, yet the Publisher says the game failed to meet expectations.

As I don't care about gaming on Mobiles, I couldn't care less. I do know that Mobile gaming is by far the MOST popular way people game globally - although many gamers wouldn't consider the majority as 'Gamers'. If I want to game on the go, on a handheld device, I'll own a dedicated Gaming Handheld (in fact I own a few).

I think with Cloud Gaming now a viable option and on the Rise, Sony can reach more Gamers with their traditionally console releases and having a 'mobile' presence could lead those to try other R&C or Horizon games on their Mobile via cloud too which could contribute to 'success'.

A tough few years for Crystal Dynamics - forced to make Marvel Avengers into a Live Service 'Flop' by Square Enix who then sold them off (and other Western Studios/IPs). Since then, have been 'involved' in two projects, 1 of which was cancelled and the other had reports of being 'behind' when they cut staff the first time.

I really liked their Tomb Raider Reboot and follow up, but its not looking good for them or their next project right now...

Exactly as expected! You cannot have a definitive rule to suit EVERY game. Some games are reliant on Online servers and ongoing Anti-cheat support - without that, the game is NOT the same experience.

Piracy is illegal but selling you a Licence to access their Software is NOT. Whether you 'like' that situation or not is irrelevant, the fact is that you don't own the Game/Software, just a Licence to access - you 'paid' to play agreeing to the terms and conditions of that License and use of their Software. Breaches can result in them revoking your Licence - for example getting banned/blocked because you used a cheat or insulted another player.

Every game is also different - you have F2P games for example you didn't buy a Licence for and AA, AAA budget alternatives, Online only games, offline only and combination games, some with Bots others relying on human players to fill lobbies enough to 'work' at low enough ping. You also have game licences you don't own outright, have conditions attached - like PS+ games that require an Active PS+ subscription to keep your access.

Devs don't necc=essarily want 'crippled' games on the market or remaining 'accessible' when they are barely 'playable' or can't offer the same experience anymore.

I do think that maybe Publishers should be Clearer that you are ONLY buying a License to 'play', paying to access someone elses Software and enjoy it too - like buying a Ticket to a movie or theatre show, paying for the right to play/use something that doesn't belong to you - similar to paying for a Licence to use another's IP (Marvel, MLB etc)

@naruball different in the fact that one plays games natively whilst the other does not - but both are gaming handhelds, both are designed for gamers looking to play games on the go, on a portable device.

Its the same as a Switch or a Steamdeck too in that these are ALL handheld portable gaming devices for the purpose of gaming. The only difference is the cost - one is cheap so has NO Native gaming capability whilst the rest go up in price depending on specs and capabilities. They can ALL stream games, all let you play games on the go or in bed.

Point is, they are NOT vastly different and designed for gamers to let you game away from a TV. They would all come under Gaming section for hardware, bought by gamers and considered Gaming Handheld devices. The difference is 'cost' which determines its gaming capability/spec. A Portal is about ergonomics and screen rather than technical ability to deliver games natively and as you go 'up' the price, the 'more' ways to play games and/or more Gaming platforms (both Native and Cloud enabled) it has access too - Handheld PCs having the most Games and Platforms - inc Sony's streaming platform that Portal uses, Xbox's Cloud, nVidia's GeForce Now etc.

The only reason to buy a Portal, a Steamdeck, a Switch etc is for Gaming. I can understand that if you don't have the 'budget' or happy to accept more 'limitations' on what that gaming Hardware offers (Cloud and/or Native gaming, higher graphics/performance, Storage capacity, Screen Quality etc) then cheaper options may well be 'adequate' for their needs.

Like I said though, I would never buy a Streaming ONLY device - I don't care if it is made by Sony, Microsoft or a 3rd Party, if it doesn't play games natively, I won't buy. If I needed to 'stream' because the TV is out of action, I'd make do with devices I already own - my Laptop and a DS5 for example - can't get 'cheaper' than that.

I'd save that £200 and put it towards buying something that will play games natively as that too will likely do ALL the streaming functionality I'd want/need and play games where a Streaming only device is nothing more than a useless, pointless £200 gaming machine that can't play ANY games - the reason you buy a Gaming handheld!!

As I have said before, I believe AI is nothing more than a tool and will still require Humans to have the ultimate say. It just replaces a LOT of the 'grunt' work (repetitive work often carried out by many people to cut down on time taken) regardless of 'how skilled' you had to be - many involved in clothing trade were highly skilled before machines that can sew, knit, weave, spin etc were required, same with all Manufacturing of products that have gone from purely 'hand-made' by skilled craftsmen and them then using power-assisted tools to machines, robots, CNC's etc etc that have replaced a LOT of those skilled workmen.

Things that may have taken a 100men a week to do can be done in hours today, if not less with modern technology. If you are also making products for Humans, it makes sense that Humans will at least have the final Quality Assurance checks and Human Consumers will at the end of the day not buy 'defective' products - Humans will review and influence its success.

Bad Workmen Blame their tools as far as I am concerned and I have no issue with them using AI if the 'product' they deliver is at the quality expected, if not higher! If not, that is 'HUMAN' failing to utilise AI effectively or relying on it entirely without doing any checking yourself.

I just hope we don't see that many bad workmen blaming tools when its driven by Human input and they are responsible for the final product.

@antlion Couldn't agree more - although I would say that more fore PureXbox as I don't currently game on Nintendo so I don't frequent that site, but in the family, I agree.

On topic though, Sometimes I'm happy to know how long a game has taken me to complete or surprised how many hours over the years have amounted to, but I don't know that I'd want all the time broken down into every session with dates too...

I'm also OK with an Annual Gaming report - Total Hours, top 5 games in time spent etc but it seems a bit excessive - unless you are trying to manage something.

@UltimateOtaku91 Its possible - but then the RoG Xbox Ally's are NOT Consoles and limited to just 1 store/platform. There are plenty of alternatives from other brands/manufacturers too - inc Lenovo and MSi. Even the 'non-Xbox' branded Ally's are all part of exactly the same platform.

That's a bit like saying I bet PS5's sell more than a specific Gaming Laptop made by Alienware for example despite all the other Gaming Laptops/Desktops and Handhelds.

As far as Gaming goes, actually they play modern games much better than you make out, and, if you really are 'concerned' about Battery life, can Stream for 8hrs+. Most games will run on 'Silent' mode and get 3-4hrs and quite a lot games run at 1080p/ultra/120fps with ease - particularly Indies and older/last gen games. There are more that run well than don't - but at least runs them better than Portal can.

Its not as if those Handheld PC's can't do everything Portal can too and with decent battery life too. The fact that you have choice to play natively is why its 10x better despite not 10x the Cost as far as I'm concerned

@CallMeDuraSouka Actually, I'm NOT a diehard MS fan - I am a Gamer first and foremost and I see NO point in buying a 'Streaming' Only device - I wouldn't buy one just to use Xbox Cloud so I equally wouldn't buy one for Playstation.

The only reason I mentioned the 'Xbox' Ally in particular was because of ALL alternative Handheld gaming devices, its the most 'similar' in design principals - ie that full size Console Controller ergonomics with a Screen built-in. Neither cheaper Steamdeck/Switch handhelds or other PC Handhelds offer same degree of comfort.

I too can use my Handheld PC's whilst sat on the sofa next to my wife/kids whilst they watch something on TV and use Streaming to extend the Battery life to 8hrs+ if I wanted or play natively plugged in at more than 60fps with far less lag/latency. I can play Spider-Man, God of War or many other Playstation games - inc old Playstation console games ANYWHERE.

It also gives me access to Steam, Xbox, Battlenet, GoG etc. It does everything Portal does as well as Portal does it but also isn't so limited or restricted, isn't a useless paperweight if you actually use it 'on the go' as a Handheld is designed for etc.

I wouldn't buy ANY of the other Streaming only devices - just like I had no interest in Google or Amazon's Streaming only gaming boxes and wouldn't buy a Console that only allowed streaming. If its more about playing on the sofa whilst the TV is in use, I'd use my Laptop with a DS5 rather than waste £200 for those moments.

Its because I am a gamer that I won't accept 'streaming' only - not because you think I'm anti-playstation/Sony - I again wouldn't buy an Xbox streaming only product either or ANY 'brand' for that matter. It has nothing to do with fanboyism, but of course I'm not praising Sony so I must be an Xbox fanboy despite owning and playing on Every Playstation for the past 30yrs.

Defending it makes you seem like a gullible Sony Fanboy, one of the Whales that Sony relies on to buy their pointless products. Yes it is 'pointless' as it does nothing you can't do with devices you probably already own (a device with screen to stream to and/or controller).

@naruball, I too have owned EVERY Playstation Console, inc a PS4 Pro and various Handhelds over the years - starting with Game and Watch Nintendo Handhelds before 'consoles' came out but the one thing they have ALL had in common is that those devices ALL played games natively.

That also means that you can game at ANY time, maybe not play 'Any' game as some are reliant on Internet to play, but its better than being stuck in Hospital, stuck on a long haul journey or happen to be somewhere where you CANNOT play games on a Gaming Handheld.

Yes it may be 'adequate' for those few times your TV is being used by Kids/Partner, but it will also let you down in more places too.

@naruball @LogicStrikesAgain Are they targeting different audiences - because to me they are still Handheld Gaming devices aimed at 'gamers' who maybe want to game away from the 'home' set-up, who maybe can't always access their Console and/or TV.

The only real difference is the price point they've targetted and that has governed their Features/Functionality. I'd still rather pay 2-3x more for something that will play Natively and enable me to literally play ANYWHERE, not just where the internet is strong enough, the ability to play natively and what makes it even more 'worth' paying more for is the fact that it not only has a significantly much larger library of games, it also will play old Console games natively via Emulation - inc PS1-PS3 era games and does everything a Portal can too.

I'm sure that people buying a Portal would hope to be able to use it on the go as a 'portable' gaming device, use it outside the home to game as well. Not just use it when their partner/kids are using the TV - but maybe on the bus/train, on holiday, waiting at the Drs/Hospital, on an aeroplane!!!

As I said, its not as if these Handheld PC's won't allow to do EVERYTHING the Portal can so is effectively offering exactly the same functionality/feature too. I'd also use a mobile/laptop and my DS5 controller over 'buying' a dedicated Streaming device, products I already own just to 'stream'.

I get that people maybe won't spend £600 on a PC Handheld, but I'd buy a Cheaper Steamdeck over a Portal because I want to know that I can play games 'Anywhere', inc Offline. Handheld means, untethered gaming to me and bbeing tethered to ONLY areas of decent internet access is NOT worth paying for imo. That's why I would rather pay more for a Handheld gaming device because the whole point is to play 'games' on it and if you find yourself in an area where that 'functionality' is not available due to 'weak/intermittent' internet service, you have a useless £200 piece of plastic...

@Flaming_Kaiser Not necessarily - it may mean more games get released every year because they aren't wasting 2-3 years of grinding out making all the 'assets' for the game, take more 'game-play' risks because you have much smaller 'teams' and much faster development times etc.

Tools are developed to make Human 'work' easier/quicker, tasks once impossible or extremely labour intensive are now done by 'tools' built by Humans to make their life easier. AI is just a 'tool'. Its the 'Human' behind the tool that matters - a Bad Workman blames his tools and it still comes down to the 'Human' who is using 'AI' tools in their Development process!

Some people may well 'abuse' AI and use it to make quick 'slop', but like I said, games made by Humans that don't release 'perfect' and 'complete', don't score at least 8-9/10 etc struggle to sell today so I can't see 'slop' selling regardless of whether AI was used or not.

@ButterySmooth30FPS @LogicStrikesAgain and again 'NO' I'm not saying a £200 device should compete with a £550 device (Xbox Ally - white version) so definitely not a £800 device (Xbox Ally X), I'm just say that I wouldn't waste £200 on what is basically a Playstation Controller with built in Screen/Wifi.

If I was 'OK' with a Streaming ONLY option, I have my mobile, Laptop or even my OG RoG Ally for example - all capable of streaming Playstation and yet also offer a whole lot more versatility, native games and utility.

I'd rather pay more for a Steamdeck, than buy a Streaming ONLY device that's completely useless without a decent internet connection - something a 'portable' device often struggles with 'on the go'. Having the option to play games Natively is essential on a Portable device imo and the ability to play games like Spider-Man, God of War, Horizon, Last of Us etc ANYWHERE regardless of internet strength is worth the difference in cost - I'd even pay 5-10x as much on a Handheld that plays games natively than for one that relies solely on streaming!! Its not as if these devices won't let you 'stream' PS games to if you want as well...

@naruball The Xbox Ally costs £550/$600 yet is a full Gaming PC dellivering at least Steamdeck Quality/Performance equivalent on a similar Battery power mode.

It may cost 2-3x more than a PS Portal, but it also plays games like Spider-Man, Horizon, God of War etc natively, offline wherever you want to play - not limited to streaming only and only where 'internet' is strong enough. It has a 1080p 120hz VRR Display and full size Controller layout - and, if you want to stream, you can do that too.

Point is, I wouldn't waste £200 on something that is 'useless' for travel when it seems designed most with travel in mind, for what is essentially nothing more than a Controller with a Screen and wifi. I can take my Handheld PC on holiday and know that I can play games regardless of whether I have internet access because it has actual 'Hardware' inside to run the game and the ONLY reason I mention the 'Xbox' Ally as opposed to all other Handheld PC's is because that too offers full size ergonomics instead of 70% scaled down versions you find on all others.

For £550, I'd rather buy an 'Xbox' Ally (white one) to play games NATIVELY on a device that 'feels' like a normal controller in hand. In fact I have an OG RoG Ally that I'd rather own than ANY streaming only device as that too can be used to 'stream' if you really want...

@PsBoxSwitchOwner I never said it should compete with a £900 (in fact the Xbox Ally costs £550 which is MUCH closer to the £200) or even a Steamdeck makes 10x more sense to me than buying some crap streaming only device that can't play games natively and completely useless without a decent internet signal, Something that's incredibly likely with travelling.

Point is, for double the Cost, you can buy a Steamdeck and less than 3x the cost, buy something that not only plays games natively, it also has a much larger Library and can do EVERYTHING that the Portal can too.

Unlike one of the most pointless gaming handhelds on the market, Handheld PC's at least let you play games like Spider-Man, Last of Us, God of War, R&C, Horizon:ZD etc Natively on the go - your Playstation Portal doesn't!!!

The reason I picked 'Xbox' Ally was because there is a £550/$600 version which is not that unreasonable for an ALL in One device that plays modern games natively - I certainly didn't say the Xbox Ally X, although both do have a 'full size' controller layout like the Portal for the best ergonomics.

I'd rather pay 5x more for something that not only plays games 'Naively', but that also allows me to play a much larger library of games.

I find it odd that a 'streaming only' device is somehow popular when the idea of Streaming games (something MS has offered for years now), seems to be very 'unpopular'. I also find it funny that they accept a 'Playstation' Handheld that doesn't play ANY Playstation Games natively but then question an 'Xbox' branded Handheld that does play games Natively as well as Stream their 'Console' ONLY games.

Personally, I won't buy any device that relies on Streaming ONLY but each to their own. I'd rather buy a Handheld PC for example and play games Natively - maybe only dipping in to a Streamed game for convenience (for example quicker than installing, not buying a 'PC' specific version, want to prolong battery life etc). If I was that 'desperate' to play a PS game away from my console, I would use something I already own. I'd never buy something that is Streaming ONLY - especially not a 'Portable' device I'd want to use away from home.

Remasters make the MOST money because they require the LEAST amount of work/effort. Most are just ports of the OG to newer hardware with just the settings tweaked - was capped at 720/30, now playable at 4k/120, had a selection of 'low/medium' settings, now mostly Ultra with a few set to high...

A 'remake' is built from the ground up, all new Assets, all new Animations and coding etc.

I won't buy an old game unless it brings something new to the experience. Some extra depth, adress some of the criticisms of the old, bring it up to date in terms of Game-play - not just visuals, add depth or more background - make it as if being made for the first time for 'modern' gamers without the restrictions/limitations of 'old' hardware.

Just because Publishers make more money from doing the least amount of work, doesn't mean that they'll make any money from me...

Of course it can free up creativity as a 'tool'. You don't need to spend weeks creating a diverse and different looking crowd of NPCs or labouriously place every asset by hand into a world, you can let AI do the 'grindy/boring/repetitive' work whilst you focus on the story, the Mechanics or that creative spark that will set your game apart from others.

Basically saying that Spy games work best as a Linear and curated story game - not an Open-World game with lots of 'distractions' - like Side Quests, Collectibles etc.

Most Spy stories are quite time dependent, being in the right place at the right time to 'spy', to stop the countdown, to save the world etc. You don't really have the 'freedom' to go off exploring, tie up some Side Quests etc when your supposed to 'rush' off to stop the villain from carrying out their plans.

@RobN Microsoft merged their 'Xbox' Console Gaming division into Microsoft about a decade ago and since then, Xbox has been their entire Gaming brand.

Microsoft started as a PC ONLY developer, making games for their Windows platform - games like Flight Simulator for example, one of their oldest IP's and older than 'Xbox'

However, about 25yrs ago, PC gaming was extremely niche as many different Graphics cards were all being developed to deliver 3D gaming so MS decided to 'neglect' their PC Platform to focus on mainstream affordable gaming, a way to make their DirectX API essential for devs who had to use it for their Console and so would use it for PC. That's how Xbox got its name - DirectX in a Box.

Merging into MS about a decade ago though killed Xbox Console sales as 'Competition' to Sony/Nintendo Consoles as that meant ALL their games would now release on BOTH their Platforms - their 'neglected' PC platform and Console.When they announced ALL games coming to PC Day/Date back then, EVERYONE said 'Why buy an Xbox when Xbox is on PC?' yet still struggle to comprehend why Xbox hardware doesn't sell like other Consoles or why MS claim PC's as part of their 'Xbox' ecosystem despite Xbox being their gaming Brand. However, it also meant with the full might of MS backing and making games for their PC, Console and Cloud Platforms, MS went on a massive gaming expansion spree, buying up Studios etc...

Of course Xbox PC doesn't play Xbox Console versions or ice versa, but that's why you have Game Pass on BOTH their Xbox Platforms, both locked to Xbox and MS store. Also why Play Anywhere and Smart Delivery give you both the Xbox PC and Console versions and deliver the correct version for whatever 'Xbox' platform you are on.

3rd Party Published multi-platform games are NEVER Xbox or Playstation games as they are owned entirely by the Pub/Dev and chose to release a version for your specific Platform. However, if you buy a Xbox game on a 3rd Party Platform, like Playstation or Steam, you are contributing to Xbox revenue and engagement - you are a Microsoft customer who bought their product...

Like you say, Both a PC and Xbox both have Microsoft OS driving the Hardware, both have MS's DirectX in a Box (so both Xbox) - but is a 'different' Xbox platform and the PC is also open to 3rd Party Gaming Platforms too - not locked only to MS's store/gaming Platform..

@BLKxHER0 That's my experience and understanding of the sitution too. I guess there are more 'Solo' players looking to play now than when they were playing for Review and they do say they'll try and match Solo's with Solo's where possible but they may fill spots with 2 or 3 player squads to get rounds going as quickly as possible.

It's still very tough out there with Robots and players to be aware of - especially when you try to exfil....

I'm completely fed up of having to pay for at least 'Essential' tier just to be able to play the Games I want and have 'purchased'. Some games, not just Multiplayer games, are locked behind a Paywall - you can't play some games, even if you've bought them without paying for a subscription.

I know you can get it cheaper if you buy in bulk, but a month of Essential is currently £10, which if you pay for 'monthly' over 5yrs adds another £600 on top of the Hardware costs and lets be honest here, Hardware isn't that 'cheap' compared to PC these days with a much more limited library and locked to a single store and owner who has complete control over what games are on their Platform.

With Sony now releasing on PC, Xbox is already on PC and of course you have the other PC Platforms/stores like Steam, GoG, Epic, Battlenet etc - all without Games, features etc locked behind a paywall. Social gaming should NOT be locked.

I didn't expect to be buying the next Xbox, but if its a Xbox PC (more like their Xbox Ally Handhelds) and not Xbox Console with a Subscription fee for 'basic' features like Social Gaming or Cloud Saves, then I'll consider that over a PC and certainly over ANY Console with 'Essential' Sub fees.

Sony are releasing their games on PC now - ok so I won't play them Day/Date on a Playstation in the future, but to be honest, Sony's games aren't that 'special' to me. There Single Player games have been good, but now feel like I've played them before, that they are nothing 'special' as some AA or even indie games deliver more compelling Game-play loops that are just as polished or 'cinematic'.

I'm sure MS will still do Game Pass - maybe like their curent Game Pass tiers on their Xbox PC Platform, but that will be optional, not necessary to unlock the entire library and features you buy Hardware to play/use. I cannot play probably half the games/content in my Playstation Library without a Sub and don't get Cloud Saves either so I feel BLACKMAILED to pay which has now reached breaking point for me so I intended to leave Consoles behind next gen for that reason as PC Hardware, whilst it may have a higher upfront cost, has much cheaper ongoing costs and far more games - inc Playstation games (inc old PS1-PS3 era games via Emulation, as well as Nintendo, Sega, Xbox, NeoGeo etc console games too)

£300 and a £5 a month for a console and Social Gaming was a great value way to play the latest 'biggest' game releases that you'd need a £2k+ Gaming PC to play otherwise, but now a £500 Handheld Gaming PC will play those games too at 'Console' like settings for the Hardware. Computer Gaming Hardware is cheaper now and you don't need the Latest/greatest GPU's to 'beat' Console performance, its achievable for little more than Console Hardware so the 'better' value is becoming the PC...

loved the Turok series on N64 but they look and feel very dated today - even the 'remasters' are what I consider more a 'Port' with different Res/Frame rate caps.

I don't play Horror games just because its Halloween, I'll play them as and when I buy them. If I happen to play a 'Horror' game (even CoD Zombies) around Halloween, its just coincidence as I'd play that game anytime of the year.

I must admit though, that I would avoid any Christmas based games - especially around Christmas.

Everyday is just another day to get through as far as I am concerned, I don't celebrate Halloween, even though its arguably my favourite annual event. As such I don't play any games specifically because its Halloween...

I hope Sony FAIL!!!

Its not using Sony's assets, code or even the exact same 'look' - yes there maybe similarities, but there is enough 'difference' too. Gibson tried to sue PRS over their Single Cut guitar, but the differences were enough that PRS won and why so many companies make their own distinctly different, but also similar models.

Since the first Souls/Borne game, there have been MANY games with very similar look and/or game-play loops - it spawned a whole genre of Copycats. Uncharted itself is a Tomb Raider copycat, borrowing elements from Gears of War to add some differences. So many games have taken what 1 studio made, added some of their own tweaks and borrowed elements from other games.

How many FPS games share the same basic mechanics and Game-play loop - even if the aesthetics are very different. How many Publishers want their 'Call of Duty' or GTA or Battle Royale or Extraction Shooter or Hero team game?

If they change the colour palette a bit on this so it 'looks' more different, I doubt Sony can 'win' as Dinosaurs, robot dinos and pretty much the Game-Play and Mechanics were NOT originally created by Sony. Even the Paraglide thing was 'done' in other games before Guerilla put it in Horizon.

Dinosaurs were around before Humans so you can't exactly claim 'copywrite' on their look, shape etc. Robots too would be 'similar' because they would still have the same bio-mechanical movement etc and fit that shape. Zoids did Robot Dinosaurs long before Sony did...

@Flaming_Kaiser Each to their own - as I said I couldn't care less if a game is using AI to generate crowds of diverse people, populating a blank space with life (trees, animals etc) and human infrastructure (buildings, roads etc) - even if a Human doesn't feel the need to 'tweak' what the AI created as it 'works' for their game.

Of course, if it doesn't work, just like Humans are completely imperfect and don't make great, engaging games all the time and their 'stories' are so generic, cliched and boring (might as well of been writtenby AI and saved paying writers for drivel), I won't buy. I couldn't care less who or what makes a game, if the final product doesn't appeal, isn't polished and complete at launch or has noticeable 'issues' that 'Human' players (reviewers and gamers) are impacting their experience, chances are I won't be buying/playing regardless.

But if a great game, maybe even a GotY contender, that appeals to me and its polished/complete, even if it was made entirely by AI with 'minimal' Human hands involved, I'll still want to buy and play.

Point is, I don't care who or what makes the games I play and its the 'final product' itself that will determine whether I buy or NOT. It maybe 'risky' to rely on AI, if it goes 'wrong' in any way - because I won't buy the Product if it doesn't meet my expectations. But I could say the same about ANY game regardless of the Studio, the people 'employed' to build it, the Publisher or their use of AI.

The final product is all I care about and not who or what went into its creation, the publisher etc. A good game is still a good game regardless! I'll play it regardless just like I won't buy 'Bad' games regardless of who makes/publishes etc.

@Americansamurai1 Why keep paying money out to make something over the next 4-5yrs to get enough progress and content made to release knowing that it will never sell enough copies to make back the costs of a 7-8yr development cycle. It it was ready to be released in the next year, that may break even or make a bit of Profit but with Progress so 'slow', its better to write off what you've invested than keep pouring money in...

@Max_the_German Xbox doesn't need to offer their 'OWN' compelling streaming hardware, there are so many devices already that are perfectly capable of streaming and playing games at exactly the same quality as any first party built device would.

Even the Xbox branded Asus built Handheld PC's offer Remote Play and Streaming of 'Xbox' console games yet also plays some Xbox games natively too.

So arguably, they don't need a 'streaming' only device when there are millions of devices already out there that already offer streaming and/or much cheaper than a 'first Party product'. You can turn your Mobile into a 'streaming' handheld with a controller type peripheral for a fraction of the cost if 'streaming' is an acceptable way for you to play.

Every Microsoft Gaming Product or Service is essentially 'Xbox' - Xbox games, Hardware, peripherals, Game Pass etc are all 'Xbox' if they generate revenue for their 'gaming' division.

'Xbox', so called because it has MS's DirectX API's in a Box, applies to PC, Console and the servers in the Cloud, it is required for their games to run on MS Operating Systems. Even if you buy an Xbox game on PS, you are contributing to Xbox revenue and engagement statistics, still an 'Xbox' customer of a Microsoft Product!!

25yrs ago, MS got into the console business to bring PC gaming to the masses in an affordable 'Console' format. After neglecting their own PC platform to build up 'Xbox', about a decade ago, Xbox merged into MS and became their entire gaming brand - hence Day1 releases on PC, Console and Cloud (all Xbox Platforms as MS's 'own' gaming platform on PC is Xbox too) and they've been trying to 'merge' the two Xbox Platforms (Xbox PC and Xbox Console) into 1, become more streamlined, Make just the Xbox PC version instead of having to port down for their Console too and offer Play Anywhere and Smart Delivery to play on any Microsoft Platform.

@kmtrain83 Just think of all the 'clutter' in games that could make a game world feel more authentic, Shops with various brands and products on the shelf, different brand junk food boxes or more than the same few poster or other set dressing we usually get.

AI can help 'create' the variety and diversity of life, environments and 'clutter' neccessary to make them look more 'realistic' and less gamey with the same few elements (even if various versions of) being used over and over and over again - fighting the 'same' faced enemies you've killed multiple times isn't game breaking, but noticeable.

There is so much 'grind' work and time is money - so if AI can do a LOT of that grind work to leave a 'small' team of humans to control the AI and their own project to see their Vision come to life and then release as a Shipped Game.

As long as its polished, enjoyable to play and I feel it was worth my time, I couldn't care less about the Studio, the Publisher, the 'business' side, and whether or not they used AI. Obviously I hope those people find employment elsewhere, but throughout modern history, tech comes along that replaces People, sometimes very skilled people, so that the 'products' humans consume can be 'produced' quicker, more efficiently, and often at more consistency and higher quality too.

Unless that tech nails it first time, it will improve over time. Despite the development of the Typewriter over the years, inc electronic typewriters and even Word Processors, these are obsolete now, a lot of those people that used to type from dictation are now obsolete with modern tech able to turn voice to text...

Tech moves on... sometimes it benefits 'everyone', sometimes at the expence of some humans in the 'short' term. They may benefit from the tech advancing in their life...

A lot of big companies have passed on WB because their gaming Studios have no IP's or tech that they may want/need - apart from Mortal Kombat (unless that is owned by the Publisher now, not the Studio). All the rest are owned by WB and tied to their Movie rights.

You maybe buying 'talented' Studio's - although Monolith who created the Nemisis System and was making Wonder Women was closed down and Rocksteady's last game was a huge flop. Unless you have IP's you want a Studio to utilise and see them as a good fit based on their history, you wouldn't really be interested in buying a Studio with 'no' IP's and no idea if they have the creative skill to make their 'own' IP with its 'own' lore and identity, something 'new' without tons of resources inc the Original vision from the creator themselves in their work.

I know a lot of Studios these days are making 'sequels' and/or only make a handfful of IP's at most with some only making games in 1 IP, but they generally created them and are successful (to varying degrees) with that. Managing a Studio that's all focused on making the next game they are experienced at making is quite different from a studio with lots of creative ideas and then having to all agree and 'focus' on just one project, not let too many 'creative' ideas get in the way of and/or significantly increase cost and build time to get the project out as a shipped Game. A Lot easier if everyone knows they are working on a DC Character based game with all the 'creative' side of the game and then comes the 'technical' side of bringing that lore, that iconic character and backstory with plenty of 'interpretations' of the source since they were Originally introduced, the combat ability, movement etc to a game

Everyone is feeling the rising costs and economic uncertainty. Consumers are not spending as much on Leisure activities, such as gaming - opting to play F2P games like Fortnite or Roblox, playing games they've owned for ages like Minecraft or GTA, maybe at most buying 'old' games in sales rather than buying 'new' games on release.

If they aren't getting the customers spending Money in their games/services, then they aren't generating 'revenue' they can invest into their current games in devlopment. Also, if they think they'll sell 6m+ copies and had budgeted for that, but then the game doesn't sell that well, they can lose money. Also if they think a game will even se;ll 4-5m copies but if they spend another year or more making the game, they'll need to sell 6m+ to break even, its better to cancel now than keep pouring money in...

I don't want to bring 'politics' and real world situations to Gaming when most use gaming to escape from those, but unfortunately they are having a big impact on our favourite leisure activity. Sometimes it may work for us - like Loot boxes and gambling laws but sometimes Global events impact on everything.

Covid could have been bad for Leisure activites but people spent money as they were stuck at home - Games and Guitars saw a boom in sales as people had time on their hands, but some thought Gaming would be hit as people wouldn't spend 'limited' money on Leisure, now they are working to try and make ends meet, have little free time and disposible income so 'leisure' is being hit hard.

@D6rkLordS6t6n Exactly - I don't care if my Games have utilised AI or Not, I just care if they are enjoyable and playable onwhatever hardware/device I am playing on.

I don't care who makes and/or publishes a game, I only care if the game appeals to me and delivers on its promise. If it does, I'm likely to enjoy it...

Games fall into 3 categories to me - Must play, wait for sale or won't play. IF AI is not used well, chances are it will fall into the Won't play category - but that is full of games built by Humans right now.

Like I said, I have zero issue with new Technology being used to make whatever products quicker, easier etc to make because AI can 'grind' out a LOT of the Labourious tasks that take teams of people months, if not years, to make. I do think that Humans have to be involved in the process, have the 'creative' idea even if they don't have the technological skill to realise it - AI can help.Never understood why AI voices can't be used - especially for 'AI' Characters....

@D6rkLordS6t6n Each to their own dude!

I'll play the games I want regardless and if 'AI' has a negative impact that is 'noticeable' in the reviews of 'real' players, then I'll unlikely play that game - just like I don't play a LOT of the games made by 'humans' that are cliche, repetitive, not very innovative or not even 'ready' to release with bugs, glitches etc.

I play guitars where a lot of construction is done by computers and Robots to ensure the instrument is consistent and precise - no 'human' error or human failings from doing a 'repetitive' task over and over again.

Everything these days has been manufactured by machines/robots etc. Programmed and run by a small team of Humans, but a lot of the labourious and repetive tasks are generally done by Tech. Tech is invented, created to save Human labour. Most appliances in your house were invented to make household chores and free time a LOT easier, quicker, enjoyable.

AI is still just a tool for Devs to 'use' and replace 'teams' of people turning 'concept art' or the Directors artistic vision into 'reality'. I couldn't care less if 20, 100 or 0 human people were employed to make all the NPC characters or the entire map and its Biomes. I do expect that a 'human' would be involved in 'directing' the AI and then ensuring that it 'works' for the Game they envisioned, tweaking and amending bits and of course 'Play testers' to see if the 'Game' works as a Game from a human perspective - although I also think AI could be used to play test for bugs, glitches etc too.

A new 'Game' Engine like UE5 cutss out a LOT of Staff that would have been baking in shadows or turning assets into various different LoD versions for example. You don't need 'coders' now to make a game - just someone who can use the tools in a Game Engine. AI is used to make games 'look' 4k.

Point is, tech improves and tools are created to make Human life 'easier' and/or quicker, reduce the Human Labour involved in those chores. Whether its Harvesting food, Making clothing, making products for Consumers etc so unless you want to live an Amish lifestyle, you can't avoid all the tech that has 'replaced' Humans in labour, manufacturing etc - AI could actually make 'innovative' games and/or better games than some Human based Studios and if it appeals, I'll play it because I don't care about the Studio, I care about the 'game' and game-play experience I get. So many times I've bought games that 'Humans' have made that I wish they'd had more time, more tools at their disposal or something to ensure the Product actually delivers on what was 'promised' - because the product I got shows how 'inadequate' or incompetent they must be to release something that bad, that 'generic', that repetitive etc...

So Every Publisher is going the AI route - with MS, Krafton and EA now taliking about AI Development.

Part of me (the bigger part) doesn't care and see's AI as no different from Computers and Robots making a LOT of the products we use today that used to be made by 'Humans' - Same with Agriculture or Clothing industry at the start of the 'industrial' revolution - tech replaces many 'Human' hands for the 'benefit' of the Consumer - more production and lower costs.

I'd rather use 'AI' to create a 'Random' Crowd of people with a mix of ethnicities, clothing and colours etc rather than have to make each 'NPC' by hand, tweaking a few parameters and items of clothing, changing colours etc. I'd rather AI can create a lush forest for example with randome trees, bushes, plants, wildlife, rivers/streams etc rather than create every individual asset by hand and place them on to a blank 'map'. So much time can be saved by using AI and/or Procedural Generation to do the mindless, repetitive work that devs had to grind through.

Certain aspects still need a Human hand - just like an Electric Guitar needs a 'Human' to refine and do a lot of the most important (to a musician) parts of manufacture, CNC and Robots ensure that the repetitive work is done as consisently and as quickly as possible.

I doubt we will see games completely made by AI - the mechanics, the story, the game-play loop, the setting/environment etc. Its more likely going to be used to create a range of in-game branded goods to avoid copywrite or create a large diverse group of NPC's where everyone is unique. Create environments, inc towns, villages etc in whatever style/era - instead of humans repetitively making building after building by hand just to place in a map to look 'right' and similar archetecture to the other houses.

@Rich33 Not necessarily as the Pro is still expensive for 'little' more in the way of hardware specs and don't forget, Sony are saving money by not including a Disc Drive and all the extra plastics, weight etc that adds to the cost (inc Shipping).

Its probably not worth the extra cost of producing that chip for a 5yr old console when it also doesn't really offer any 'benefit' to the consumer - other than a small reduction in power consumption - but Sony have to raise the price again to cover for the extra 'expence' of 4nm production. I bet that 4nm is expensive and in high demand for a LOT of tech based products.

Reducing the power consumption by a small amount is no incentive for Sony or Consumers - especially not if it bumps up the price of the Hardware and doesn't run games any differently to previous versions.

Giving people a 'Choice' by offering a 'Low Power' mode that significantly reduces the power consumption but also affects the way a game runs is giving Consumers a choice on the Hardware they already have (or will buy in the future), that's already on the market and has been for 5yrs. People won't 'upgrade' to another PS5 just because it uses less power than their Original PS5, but plays games exactly the same as their current PS5. But they may use a low power mode.

Of course the 'next' Playstation will likely be built on the 4nm process if that's the most efficient and cost effective process at the time. It will be as 'energy' efficient as they can make it, but maybe offer a Low Power mode as well in case some people would prefer to either save money on their electric bill or play for more hours at the same cost. Without a Low Power mode option, you have NO choice to lower the power for cheaper or longer gaming times.

The point is, this offers a Consumer choice to choose whether to run the console at 'full' power (regardless of whether its a bit higher/lower in consumption than other Consoles ) or actively choose to play on lower power modes. If they made a slightly more efficient PS5, it still doesn't offer consumers a 'choice' to reduce the power consumption 'further' like this method does.

The Library is like it was because Bungie had to rush what they had built and try and turn it into a Playable release with some Cohesive story to it - It was barely ready in time as it was, but NOT what they really envisoned or planned to build.

With games that are 20+ years old, a LOT of games were limited by that eras Hardware - not just visually, but in the level design, the enemy count (hence a LOT of Halo:CE was not that well occupied with vast empty areas devoid of life/action).

I don't want to play the exact same game with the exact same game-play and level design, enemy placement etc. I don't care how much work you do on the Graphics - whether thats a 'Lazy' port with exactly the same graphical look not with Higher res assets and textures or a complete 'rebuild' using the old game as your template to ensure itss 'exactly' the same. If I wanted to play that game, I'd just play the Original - or more likely, played the Original when it was 'fresh' and 'new', when it was the best looking game and/or unique in the Console space at the time - not playing some OLD and very Dated game (mostly because of Hardware limitations of that era) even if it looks like a modern game.

I think all 'remakes' should be made as if they were about to make that 'Story' for the First time and the 'OG' is more like Concept art for the new game. Areas they can expand on should be, the encounters too should be expanded on too.

I think of Peter Jacksons 'remake' of King Kong which hits every main Story beat of the Original but adds a LOT more depth to it, lot more background and Context to the story and its characters etc. Kong fights just 1 T-rex in the Original but 3 in the remake because it goes 'bigger' and expands on what came before. Its telling the Same Story, but it does it in a way that still 'honours' the Original but adds more deptch and modern visuals to it.

There is something about Ray Harryhausen and his stop-motion animation they used in King Kong, but the 'Digital' CGI of the Peter Jackson movie is much more 'lifelike' and fluid, far more 'believable'.

I won't play 'OLD' games remastered unless they bring something 'new' and I don't mean just a visual upgrade. My rose tinted memory thinks games back then looked 'amazing' and life-like, but today, look awful and dated with very dated level design and game-play loops due to lack of hardware resources to really add depth and life to a game and its worlds...

I won't be buying it on PS but then I don't have to buy at all to play it Day 1 on Xbox or PC. The closest answer I could give though was no, I'm buying on another Platform (for me, should be No, I'm playing it on another Platform)

I'm not surprised that Microsoft are using one of their most Iconic and famous games from nearly 25yrs ago out on PS. I doubt that 'many' Xbox gamers would buy yet another Halo:CE game after all it had a 10yr Anniversary update release and was also part of Halo:MCC which is still playable today.

As for its MP, it was a 'token' effort in the first game as very few subscribed to 'Gold' for Online Social gaming when Consoles at most had only been 'couch co-op'. Halo 2's MP was what really took off and established Halo's MP and a reason to Subscribe to Gold - although by the 360 era, CoD was a massive 'Gold' seller and bigger than Halo for that.

I think MCC has a much better MP but I think that Infinite MP is the 'best' Halo MP and what's more, its also current with active players and F2P so I expect they'll bring a F2P Halo MP mode alongside the Campaign - much like they did with H:I.

If, as expected/rumoured, the next Xbox is more of an Xbox PC and open to other PC based platforms like Steam or Epic, like the RoG Xbox Ally's are, then it makes NO sense to charge for Social gaming as EVERYONE would buy their Multiplayer games on 3rd Party platforms as they won't require a Subscription fee.

If you buy CoD on a Console, you can't play it without paying a Sub fee to the Platform holder forbuying and playing on their Subsidised hardware, locked to a single store.

If you buy on PC, you don't have to pay an additional Subscription just to access the game on your Platform. That can save hundreds over years of a console lifecycle.

I do expect the next Xbox to be 'Expensive' compared to Sony's PS6 hardware - but I also think it may end up 'cheaper' in the long run if I don't need to spend an additional £10 a month just to play the games I want to play. If I choose to Subscribe, it should be because the service offers something I want but it feels like a Blackmail charge - pay us a sub fee or you can't play the games you PAID for to play...

@Rich33 I believe they are on 5nm now and 4nm is barely anymore efficient - its not like dropping from 90nm to 45nm as they did with the PS3 and PS3 slim - that's also why we aren't seeing price drops because the die space saving is 'negligible' too and require much of the same cooling etc

It doesn't make sense to move to a more costly manufacturing process to save a fraction of die space that won't see you save 'money' elsewhere by reducing the size significantly - its probably cheaper to stick with the 5nm.

Its also about cost, if they move to 4nm and the console goes 'up' again that sends a message when they can say they are trying what they can to keep their gaming platform 'affordable' and offering a 'Low Power Consumption' mode may help persuade some to buy thinking it will save them 'money' over time.

I've never upgraded because the 'new' hardware saves about 20-30w/h, I only upgrade if the 'new' hardware offers something 'more', like a big size difference or upgrade in Graphical (and/or Frame rate) performance. Each to their own of course...

Anyway - all I was saying is that its better to offer choice and for some, playing on Low Power, even on a mains powered device, maybe beneficial to extend their play-time OR reduce their bills a bit - rather than quit or reduce hours as bills increase. For others, the compromise may not be worth the financial saving or their financial status allows them not to worry about their own power consumption...

@Rich33 It is cumulative and if your bills are rising say £50 a year but your salary is not, then trying to cut back on your energy usage without impacting too much on your 'leisure time' - ie you don't have to cut down on your gaming time or pay the increase in your Bills.

It lets you play 'longer' for the same cost essentially or as bills go up, you can save some money without necessarily cutting back on the hours you spend gaming.

If you are out of work, then chances are, as your Bills go up but your 'income' is limited, you don't want to cut your gaming time and be less occupied d/more bored, then whatever 'money' you have to live on each month isn't going to cover the increase in those bills. So either you cut down gaming time or switch to energy saving to try and keep your bills down.

I myself, as a bill-payer too for ALL my household needs/usage, would be unlikely to choose to play on a low power mode - unless it suits me more than just saving a few pence per hour at most. With my Handheld, dropping from Turbo to Performance or even down to Silent - especially in Battery mode is something I do and will use to extend Battery life. I'm willing to sacrifice 1080p or 60fps for 720p or 30fps for double or more the playtime.

I also always think its better to offer a choice because it may suit someone and their situation, if its beneficial for consumers, even if they 'choose' to use more Energy for higher Graphical Settings/frame rates, then why not offer that choice. I'll game at 15w quite happily on a Handheld - even if it can be boosted to 35w for 'better' graphics/frame rates because I'd rather game for 4-5 hrs on battery rather than just an hour or so...

@Deljo I do most days - if not more. I often have over 2000hrs a year across various games and gaming devices. Some games I play 'daily' for a couple of hours or more end up with over a 1k hrs a yr just on 1 game. Let alone 50-60hrs on completing some Single Player games and all side Quests.

I completed H:ZD to Platinum in 5 days, GoW (2018) to Platinum in 4days - easily playing more than 10hrs a day. Destiny 1 I had over 2.5k hrs in over the few years before D2 released.

@Jrs1 very true, and if you opt to use some power saving mode that maybe saves you about 3p an hour, your Electric bill will be lower and therefore not have to spend as much out on Bills every month/quarter...

All I was saying is that how a 'little' saving - whether its pence per hour or £1 per day in a savings account, how that adds up over time. Many people also don't think about the 'ongoing' costs of playing games on a Console - especially if you enjoy Social gaming.

Essential tier Subs don't seem that 'outrageous' in cost - if you buy months worth in bulk, but £10 a month (if you pay monthly) is an additional £120 a year or £600 over 5yrs. So your PS5 that cost say £500 in 2020 and 5yrs worth of Essential to play online is (up to) £1100 before you consider £70 games or the Electricity/ISP costs.

It just seems that your 'disposible' income is disappearing on Bills/ongoing costs (like Sub fees) leaving you less to actually spend on 'Games' and if Sony (or anyone else) provides 'cheaper' ways to game but still give access to the SAME library, some may well take that option. It maybe a 'small' saving but that along with other 'small' savings (not buying the most expensive Brands of food or cutting down on Socialising and dining out, choosing to stay at home instead of vactioning away etc) all add up and can make a significant difference annually.

Of course some gamers won't compromise - even though they bought a Console which does 'Compromise' on Graphics/Performance compared to the latest tech in PC's - the Compromise being that it still offers arguably the 'best' performance for its 'upfront' cost (as its subsidised by Subs and a Single Storefront) but don't expect Native 4k/120 and full path traced RT. They just won't compromise for a 'small' power saving regardless.

If it 'works' with a big power drawing device, then maybe it can work with a Handheld too.

Handheld PC's tend to offer 'customised' power settings - you can turn up the power or reduce it - depending on whether you want more gaming performance at the cost of Battery life or extend your playing time.

Of course with connected device that's always plugged into a mains supply, reducing the power consumption is arguably unnecessary - unless you are trying to cut your Carbon Footprint and/or Electrical consumption down.

A Power save mode could do things like reduce the resolution or frame rate caps on a Handheld too - maybe going from 25-30w down to 15w, like switching from Performance or Turbo to Silent mode on a Handheld PC.

@Rich33 but 3p an hour can build up quickly if you game regularly. I've played over 100hrs in a week before, and 3p an hour difference would be over £3 extra just on gaming use. 1000hrs is £30 difference in cost. Over a 5hr gaming session 15p difference doesn't seem significant - but game 5hrs a day every day for a year and that's an additional £55 on just electricity which if you pay the bills maybe 'significant'...