BAMozzy

I don't think they 'remade' the PvP because that would compete with Halo:Infintes F2P MP that they've spent years on improving, updating and of course all the Forge creations.

I can see them either releasing this as a F2P MP (alongside Halo: CE) on PS5 OR Converting it to a 'new' Engine (UE5), renaming it from 'Infinite' (and removing whatever Stigma is attached to that name) and releasing that simultaneously.

I can't see them not bringing a 'Halo' MP mode to PS5 but I don't see it as part of a 'paid' package as Halo MP is Free to Play on Xbox. Either they bring that to PS5 or rebuild it on a new Engine to match Halo:CE. They'll want to sell Season Passes, Cosmetics etc etc but I do think they'll bring a Free to Play version...

I don't think Halo:CE was that popular as a MP - it was the Story and Campaign that everyone wanted to play - MP was hidden behind a Gold tier Subscription, which only a 'small' fraction of OG Xbox owners had at the start of the Xbox console lifecycle. Halo 2 though, now that was a game that sold 'Gold' as the Online MP was much better and enticed people to subscribe. Of course the 360 era was really when Online gaming took off - CoD4:MW was massive for MS and their Sub service. Therefore I can understand that Halo:CE isn't really remembered for its MP and why its not been remade.

If gamers are opting to spend their time flicking through Social Media - like tiktok, twitch and youtube, watching other gamers play or whatever else they are watching to occupy their 'leisure' time, they are NOT spending time/money on gaming - regardless of whether that's on Xbox, Playstation or Steam.

If they are spending time on Playstation, they can still engage and spend money on Xbox Products. Buy and Play FH5, CoD, OW2 or Halo:CE, they are spending time/money on Xbox games so MS gains engagement and revenue. Of course they get 'more' revenue on their PC/Console platforms, but their biggest competition is 'Social media' as a LOT of people are choosing to 'watch' instead of 'Play' games.

MS know that they are competing for your 'time' first and foremost - you spend time playing games, you'll spend money to keep enjoying that activity to fill your leisure time, but tiktok, youtube, twitch are also competing for your time....

@Flaming_Kaiser Well I can't disagree on the Beta thing - about that being free for EVERYONE to access, but I also don't have 'issues' with it being 'limited' to those that have pre-ordered as a bonus 'freebie' if they are looking for feedback from those that will and do play and/or only have limited server space.

Most Beta's these days are 'closed' off, limited to fans of the franchise/Studio, those who Pre-order, those 'Streamers' who play those IP's etc, before opening up for more Public to access. Arc Raiders and Delta Force had closed and/or Limited Betas to certain people only.

CoD's Beta may have started with a 'few' days of Closed Beta access for those that pre-ordered or have Game Pass, but it that was opened up to 'EVERYONE' over the weekend - at NO cost/obligation to buy for them.

I don't see 'Early Access' as a major problem either. Its a 'free' bonus for Publishers to give (isn't costing them anything - unlike making/producing Cosmetics, Artbooks etc) to incentivise pre-ordering and worthless as soon as release day arrives. So 'Pre-order weeks in advance for a few extra days of playing or pay the same on the day of release and get the exact same game.

If you don't pre-order, then maybe you will have to wait for 'Open' Betas, just depends on whether the Publisher wants to offer 'Loyal' fans the opportunity to go 'hands-on' first or not. Most do have an open Beta at some-point. If you don't 'pre-order', then you can't play the game 'early' either because if you intend to 'buy' Day 1, its too late for early access...

These are nothing more than 'incentives' to try and get you to pay 'upfront' for something before its actually due to release, start recouping some of their money back - no different from Limited Edition Versions that go on sale MONTHS before releases that if you don't pre-order, could be sold out by release. Whatever 'bonuses' - even if they don't offer Beta/earlier access, are still trying to get you to pay money 'upfront' for their game in advance for those.

SSD's in modern Consoles have made a big difference in Load times and Data Transfers. Fast Travel is now Fast, games load in seconds and I don't recall seeing Textures pop-in as they load-in.

As for the DS5 and Astrobot - I really didn't enjoy it. I hate Gyrocontrols and blowing on mics, really don't like the adaptive triggers or speaker built in and find the touchpad a nuisance - to me they are 'gimmicks' and Astrobot is NOT enjoyable to me with these features. I hated Gyro in Second Son to 'simulate' using a Spray can so having to use it to control a character just annoys me - so I've never completed Astrobot. I turn what I can off by default...

Gaming innovations can only come 'once' and then everything after seems iterative and/or refinement of what came before. Going from B&W to 8 Colours, to 32 Colours had a big impact, more so than the jump from 16m to 1bn colours, Audio has seen a big jump from beeps, to digitised, to full home Cinema Surround sound Audio quality - but Dolby Atmos isn't that much of a step up from 7.1 surround sound. going from a small grid of Pixels to much more density and colour, then to Polygons and increasing numbers of Polygons, its very much diminishing returns.

As for Games/Game-play, what game or feature in a game has never been possible before? I think if any Dev wanted to make a game, I don't think there isn't anything they could do that has not been done before to some degree. I think every game has been 'made'. Its just the 'unique' story they want to tell in a 'unique' setting or artstyle but the Game-play, mechanics etc will all be familar.

I don't think there isn't anything you can make that will feel 'revolutionary' today because all the 'revolutionary' steps have already happened, now more Power just means iterating on the Graphical presentation and maintaining high frame rates - at least high enough to play.

Things like Nanite or Lumin (and equivalents) may make games look more detailed, reduce pop-in, appear more Stable and lit more accurately so it doesn't have those more 'Gamey' aspects.

No doubt Sony will have Some Exclusives on their PS6 - even if they could run on PS5 to incentivise buying their Hardware. It may well be offering Native 4k at 120fps, but 1080p (FSR upscaled to 4k) 60fps on PS5, but for many, they would be happy with their PS5 rather than spend $500+ and $70+ for the game just for sharper looking image and double the frame rate.

Now of course, you can buy Gaming PC's too that play the latest Games at 'console' like settings - even if you have to settle for as low as 720p and/or Low settings to play on a 'battery powered' cheap (as in Console priced) Gaming Handheld PC - but you never have to pay for a Subscription. PS+ Essential is $10 a month (yes I know you can buy cheaper in bulk) so that's (up to) $120 a year or $600 for just 5yrs, add $700 for a PS5 Pro or PS6 and you could have bought a Decent Gaming PC for $1300.

Of course, it will be more about the games, the console exclusives and the Library of OLD PS games you own - whether its worth buying a PS6 or just keeping your PS5 and investing in other Hardware. At the moment, I'm considering the PC route as it has Steam, Xbox, Epic, EA, Ubisoft, Battlenet, GoG etc gaming platforms as well as releases from Sony on it. I can also play a LOT of the OLD Console games via emulation so I can play most/all my old Console games too and never 'need' a Subscription to play Any game with friends online!!

Maybe its costs and distribution costs were too high for the number of 'pre-orders' they received.

I can't imagine it being massively popular and small runs will be more expensive than large runs manufactured and shipped in bulk.

I can't imagine them saying their Soundtrack was not popular enough to procede with Manufacturing a Physical version for the handful of people that showed interest. Its not as if the Soundtrack isn't available or 'owned' by the majority of people that wanted it.

By popular enough, I mean that they can make enough money back from the costs involved in manufacturing and distributing and may have a 'minimum' number they have to produce. Say they have to produce at least 100k Physical units to make it worth all the costs involved - the Vinyl/Plastic, the printing and packaging, the cutting of vinyl, the distribution to retailers etc as the companies don't want to do 'small' runs as they cost time and money every time they stop to switch over to the 'next' product. but only have 1k pre-orders, they'd either have to much 'product' unsold to make their money back or can't do such small runs cost effectively enough...

@DenzelDM Of course each may have their own 'tweaks' and/or design/style - but a soldier carrying an M16 in FPS games running around 'realistic' looking settings has a LOT more similarities in visuals than this.

I do admit there are a number of similarities in the design - but Horizon borrows a lot of its 'design' from other sources too. Its game-play loop is not 'unique' and 'robot' Dinosaurs are not unique but the Story and specific lore details are unique. Post apocalyptic settings aren't, neither is the concept of humanity being thrown back to more tribal times and machinery now roaming the world.

Horizon has borrowed from others and delivered a 'unique' Story and IP for Sony but its only 'unique' as a complete 'package'. CoD is 'unique' with its Story/Campaign, Zombies and its lore but MP borrows from other games.

Palworld has similarities to Pokemon, but it also has a lot of unique features and a different game-play loop making it very different from Pokemon but doesn't really hide its inspiration.

I haven't played the Tencent game to see if its a 'clone' in a similar looking aesthetic or whether its 'inspired' by but alsohas a different game-play loop. Lets say for example that tencent go for much more of an open-world 'Survival' game where you also build your own 'base' from the resources you gather from Hunting in this Post apocalyptic setting - that makes it quite different from Horizon as a Story based open world RPG offering a very different game-play loop/experience. It can be 'tweaked' enough to avoid copywrite - looking 'similar' is not always good enough to win a case...

So many games have borrowed from and/or been 'inspired' by other games. The whole industry has been built up on building their 'own' version of some Publishers big hit.

Yesterday, we had the story of Zampella who left EA and its MoH to go and create CoD - very similar in a LOT of ways and Delta Force borrows heavily from Battlefield and god knows how may FPS games have been inspired by Doom, Goldeneye or Halo.

At one point, every Publisher was almost expected to have their own competing version of anothers biggest games. Whole genres end up being created because of all the clones, copies and/or heavily influenced games that release after - how many different Souls-like games now that ALL bare some similarities to the Souls/borne games in some or multiple ways.

Unless its using their Art and design, then how is any different from all the FPS games using very similar weapons (MP40 has been in so many different games - even if not called MP40 for copywrite issues) but the gun, arms and reloads are all 'very' similar...

It's not an Xbox Console - its an Xbox PC.

Microsoft started with Windows and building Games on Windows PC but 25yrs ago, to go mainstream, created a Console and branded it 'Xbox' for the first decade or so, they focussed solely on building up their Console Gaming and neglected their own Windows Platform allowing other Gaming Platforms to 'take over' and establish themselves - Steam, Battlenet, Epic, GoG etc..

About a decade ago, their XB1 was a 'flop' and other than scrapping it, they merged it into Microsoft instead of a 'side project'. They started releasing every game Day/date on their PC platform (and competing PC platforms like Steam), buying studios, created Play Anywhere and Game Pass to get people on 'their' platform - regardless of whether you played on cloud, bought their console or bought a Windows PC. Xbox is built into Windows as Xbox is their Gaming Brand regardless of whether that's Cloud, PC or Xbox Hardware.

This boots to the Xbox FSE and all the games, game pass and/or store games are 'Xbox PC' games - but you can load up alternative platforms like Steam or Epic, but, like on a Full Windows desktop, you don't 'need' to load up a 3rd Party Platform, although in fairness, its been a 'better' option in the past because MS 'neglected' their own PC Platform

Windows and Xbox team have and will continue to refine 'Windows' for Gaming - which should also benefit 3rd Party Platforms, but a device like this also reminds people that base 'windows' is an Xbox gaming Platform, the Xbox bar is built in and you don't 'need' to use 3rd Party apps like steam, but they are 'open' to buy games that some Publishers refuse to put into MS's PC store for example and you can understand why with Sony.

Asus make the Hardware, but using a lot of Microsoft design and format, using Microsofts OS and boots up to Xbox FSE and the Xbox PC platform...

@Rich33 That's basically the history.... LOL - except the IP's he helped create were 'never' his, they all belonged to the Publisher which was part of the 'issue' - particularly with CoD and Activision who were letting Treyarch make 'CoD' games and would be 'permanently' making CoD games alongside IW....

But that's what a lot of Studio Heads that lleave big Publishers to go to other Studios. Glenn Schofield tried to better Dead Space after EA killed that IP - although the DS remaster killed his game/studio. I'm sure Jak & Daxter wasn't just to create a new PS Mascot, but to kill Crash Bandicoot after they lost the rights to their creation.

I know that consoles these days seem 'iterative' and that this gen hasn't really even got started with so much 'cross-gen' releases - but the hardware is already 5yrs old and in that time, technology has advanced - RT and ML/AI is becoming more important.

I don't know that I want to buy the next gen of Consoles or move to PC. With costs of Hardware going up as well as Consoles requiring at least 'Essential' tier Subscriptions just to play ALL the games and content, unlock all the features etc. Multiply that up by however many Consoles you have (I have had at least 2) and the 'cost of 5-7yrs of Subscriptions (at the 'current' rate but could go up) and I could build a very high end PC for that cost and have a MASSIVE Library of games I can play - inc ALL Xbox releases, some Playstation releases and a LOT of old gen Console games (Sony, Nintendo, Xbox, Sega, NeoGeo etc) via Emulation. Being on PC, there are Handheld Options and Cloud streaming options to other devices too but NO Sub fees to play online with friends.

Cost, Games, Hardware/Tech, aesthetics & BC are very important to me. If I can't bring my Library forward or the Games aren't 'unique' just look/play better, the difference between next and current gen isn't that impactful or the console is ugly and won't fit in my AV Unit (horizontal slot), these will all have a big impact on whether I buy a next gen Console or not - I may just keep my PS5 for all my old PS games and move to PC. My PS5 may still play the IP's I want to play exclusive on PS or wait for them to release on PC.

I do think we need to have new Hardware, but I don't think it will be Transformative, more iterative and therefore may not be 'necessary' to upgrade to and/or better to invest in other Hardware as the long-term cost is better value. Time will tell, its still a few years away and the Gaming landscape could be quite different....

I enjoyed the Infamous games and would love another in the series. I never played Festival of Blood but really wanted to at the time but for some reason I can't recall, I never got round to it before the PS4 released and moved on to that hardware...

It makes sense on a technological level and the 'direction' of gaming Hardware over the past 5yrs. Since the release of the PS5, RT and ML/AI has become the main areas of growth with increasingly competent AI upscaling and Frame Gen.

There is a 'reason' to upgrade as more aand more games will rely on RT/ML - but I do think it will be more iterative. You can't 'reinvent' 3D or Surround sound Movie quality audio, with 16m colours, moving to 1bn made little difference compared to the change moving fromn 8 to 32 colours had. Point is, as technology allowed devs to create brand 'new' genres, game styles etc, the hardware felt transformative. But now, hardware is more iterative - increasing graphical quality and/or frame rates rather than enabling devs to create games they couldn't before. All new Hardware allows is for them to 'iterate' on what they could make before....

Beta felt like Battlefield 3/4 in the best era for Battlefield MP and it seemed fairly solid and polished back then - which led me to believe this would be the Best Battlefield for years - but I had concerns they would not match the best Campaign in BF - BF:BC2's campaign is the best.

Still don't know how they intend to finance their long term Post Launch content, that's surely going to be funded by the sales of season passes, cosmetics and other MTX's so that could break BF6

I'll probably buy it on sale at some point - unless they screw up with MTX, or wait for EA Access - there is only so much of Battlefield MP I can play before I get fed up with the game and as the campaign is mediocre, there is no rush to play from my perspective - not at its current price anyway...

Live Service games live or die based on the amount of Whales they can attract and KEEP playing, keep spending Money to keep the devs employed and actively working on the content for the Whales to buy. If they don't attract 'enough', they still have to make the Content and keep devs employed for their customers who have bought it so it eats into any 'Profits' they may have made and unless they attract whales quickly, they will either have to end/shut down their game or risk Bankruptcy.

Gone are the days of Games releasing as 'Complete' at launch and then being so successful with so many players retained that want more Content, want that game 'expanded' that DLC is made - more as a 'thank-you' for making our game so successful.

Nowadays, DLC is planned and/or even made with the MAIN game but 'kept' to encourage people to buy £100 version of their Game or get 'pre-orders' from Sub Services - pre-order the 'expensive' edition (or Upgrade to it for the difference in cost between Standard (free on Sub service) and premium edition) and get early access.

Games these days often release with the bare bones content and expect people to pay money up-front and be drip fed the rest of the game over time. Unless they get enough people staying and spending money on Cosmetics, they burn through any profits and eventually go Bankrupt because the costs are exceeding the revenue coming in.

I have zero interest in this game. I am not surprised its not attracted the audience and whales it needs to survive and grow...

I really don't know what else to have expected. The game is on the Disc with 'Some' of the DLC - but its too big to fit on a Disc in it's entirety and ALL DLC (Downloadable Content) was supplied originally by the internet. Even if you owned the Original game and ALL its content as 'supplied' with the Remaster, unless you keep it installed on your System, you would 'lose' all that DLC when that hardware no longer connects to the internet - unless BC (inc for DLC) allows you to play on newer hardware.

Physical was a 'need' when Hardware had NO internal storage or Internet connetion to deliver their Software and a License to access. since the PS4 era, games have required Downloading and installation on 'internal' storage because Physical media (discs and disc players) don't have the Bandwidth or data transfer speeds to 'run' from Disc. The contents on disc are only there to 'deliver' the software to your system

Of course it can 'deliver' the software to that hardware it was designed for (unless BC allows you to use the Licence embedded in it to 'play' on newer hardware) long after any Internet connctivity for obsolete hardware has been turned off. If you want to redownload and play EVERYTHING in 30yrs time, maybe it will be an issue, but in 30yrs time, will you still want to play this 'version' - maybe ES6 or 7 maybe released, maybe even a full remake has released for newer hardware.

I don't play PS3 games and rarely touch last gen games, I'm spending 99% of my time in games released on current gen - occasionally playing some last gen game via BC with 'Hardware' based upgrades. Everything else is too 'dated/old' and/or far less interesting/appealing than 'newer' releases I haven't already played....

The next 'Xbox' will likely be a PC in a more Console like form factor. Whether you'll be able to boot to the full Windows Desktop or be locked into the Xbox FSE, time will tell, but it will be open to other stores like Steam/Epic - the RoG Xbox Ally's giver us a glimpse of MS's Future Hardware - coming full circle from being a PC ONLY dev to console only, to both back to PC.

Sony on the Otherhand, will stick to the more traditional console - locked to ONLY Sony's store, network etc. Maybe will be cheaper, more subsidised, but less open as a result. It maybe 'weaker' but I bet it will still be a step up from current Hardware. Hardware these days is more 'iterative' than transformative so it will just be about pixel counts or frame rate differences more than innovation - more adoption of RT or ML but more Graphical iterations than radical Game-play improvements/innovations.

@Cvantez Go back to when those Gen X and early millenials were their age - Games were expensive but overall seemed cheaper than today. You didn't really have F2P games with Microtransactions to fund the F2P aspect. If you wanted to play, you had to buy and ownership had benefits like being able to trade/sell, lend/borrow with friends etc. Social gaming meant everyone sat around the TV with up to 4 people playing simultaneously in the same Room - all focussed on their little quarter of the screen.

I was in my mid-late twenties when playing Mario Kart or Goldeneye around the TV was the 'extent' of Social gaming. It wasn't until the OG Xbox era that Online Social gaming really took off and the PS3/360 era was really the point that Online social gaming became the juggernaut - so much so that many Single Player IP's were forced to put 'Online' modes in their game - Bioshock, Dead Space, Assassins Creed etc all had 'online' modes in sequels before dropping them (or dying). That was also the generation of Micro-transactions - after DLC was the ONLY way to expand games.

CoD 4:MW only had 1 DLC pack - but W@W and every subsequent CoD had 4 packs - now most play Warzone and those that buy the Annual CoD get all their Maps, Weapons etc for FREE, just paying for 'Cosmetics' - the Blackcell Season Pass doesn't give 'exclusive' game related content, just Cosmetic Blueprints that they hope will 'look' great to encourage purchases.

Point is, that if you were gaming before the PS3/360 era, F2P would be 'Zynga on Facebook' or games like snake on a PC/Mobile. DLC was rare but if you wanted to play games you had to buy upfront - but since then F2P has grown and the games can be AAA quality and because they are keeping players, those players are spending little amounts of disposable income - £5 here, £10 there instead.

Us older folk remember £60 cartridges for example and have more disposible income than our youth, we were brought up with having to buy 'anything' we wanted, taking out loans or mortgages for big items, but Kids are happy to rent, borrow, subscribe to services (TV, Music and now Games) - I still buy ALL my Music on CD's - I don't have ANY digital accounts for music. I don't buy Films as I have Sky so wait for them to come there.

I do buy 'Digital' games but don't play any F2P game. I'm 'OK' renting games after years of being 'burned' by buying games I only played less than an hour before giving up because it didn't live up to my expectations. I've bought games I played and enjoyed on Sub services because I feel the need to 'own' that licence rather than rent indefinitely. But kids these days seem to not want to own 'anything' really, no clutter/mess, everything avaiable on whatever devices they do have to buy etc...

@Flaming_Kaiser well a free beta is great for those that want to try it first. Campaigns have never beenn sold separately really - only Halo Infinite (I guess) as the MP was F2P

CoD games these days require online access anyway so I don't know why they'd sell just the Campaign on Disc. Black Ops 7 has a co-operative option for its campaign and co-op end-game on completion.

CoD has offered multiple modes for years and expanded into F2P as well - each has its own category - Campaign, Multi-player, Co-op Zombies or Battle Royale and in recent years, you can install or delete sections. You can delete the Campaign if you've finished with it to save some storage space. But all 4, plus the part that is universal across all (guns, textures, characters etc) will take up a lot of space.

Maybe it would be cool to be given the choice of what you want 'installed' when you initially put the disc in, allowing you to just install the Campaign if that's ALL you want to play.

I still think MS could re-release the Campaigns ONLY and/or make MP F2P like Halo Infinite - use the 20+ yrs of Call of Duty MP maps, modes etc to keep that in content and not release 'Annual' games. They could focus on certain CoD games per season - this season its Modern Warfare with Modern Warfare 3 Maps and weapons to use, next season its Ghosts (and they had some fantastic DLC maps never brought back they could remaster)

Point is, they have decades of Maps they could easily just keep the MP going for years and years, adding 'new' maps too if they wanted, so many weapons over the years and so much potential.

That way they could sell just Campaigns as and when they are ready to release - any 'military' based story with CoD connections would sell. Zombies too could be its own thing and expanded on - maybe even benefit if its not ALWAYS tied to the current CoD campaign/MP.

Well it seems better than most Battlefield games in recent years but won't take the crown of 'best' BF camp[aign ever - which currently is held by BF:BC2 in my opinion.

I do enjoy playing the Campaign before jumping into 'Competitive' Multi-player - I like to get a feel for the Game, the vibe, the weapons etc before I face opponents - although I did enjoy the BF6 beta.

It seems the MP is the best since BF3 but I also think the lack of Campaign was a big mistake for 2042 - who thought that their MP/Portal would be 'enough' as few played or finished their Campaigns. I expect the campaign will be somewhat generic and relatively short, but I'd rather that than nothing...

Both Sony and MS are working Closely with AMD and recently we heard that MS had its new AMD Xbox chip leak and we know both Sony and MS are commited to AMD architecture.

It makes sense for AMD as Consoles always punch well above their Specs and both MS/Sony have years of experience of designing 'bespoke' chips with bespoke features that obviously help them perform better than equivalent PC versions. If they can 'learn' from those as well as have a good idea of what Devs (as each also has a collection of Studios) are building, the issues or limits, their needs to make those games, they can build their PC chips with 'optimisations', features and/or other benefits that would help them compete with nVidia on Performance but at lower costs - punch above their specs on PC for a change...

And the majority that are buying games are Gen X age - the older person with a decent income and more disposible income. The Gen Z are NOT buying games that often - if at all. Their Games are F2P (Fortnite, Apex, Roblox, Warzone etc) and that's where they spend most time and money.

I used to buy more games - but back when they were £40 (not that long ago), I'd take a chance on a 7-8 rated game, now at £70, even a 10/10 would have to be my favourite IP and appeal so much that I'd buy Day 1. Now I prefer to wait for games to drop below £40 (not that long) or come to a Sub service I have - inc Essential tiers necessary to play games I own.

Price has gone up, Day 1 Quality and/or Content has gone down to be fixed and added to post launch, so many games like their 'predecessors' with minor iterative differences but ultimately feel very similar, not 'New', Innovative, exciting. Backlogs are much larger with Back Compat and so many 'cheap' old games and games offered on Sub tiers that buying 'new' at such high prices is limited to games you'll play ALL year with friends (BF, CoD, Fifa etc) and the rest are 'wait for sales or sub service' because you can wait to play them and they'll be much cheaper in months...

How things come full Circle - Sony back to Battlefield after Microsoft bought ABK and thus gained Call of Duty back after 8/9 yrs away...

Black Ops 7 is the 'next' game so why not Hype it up with free access to its immediate Predecessor just in time for the final season of Halloween based content to get you excited for BO7 after its FREE Beta

Bungie are not the same Studio and living on Past glories and borrowed time right now. I don't know if they'll survive when Marathon doesn't make the money they 'need' to justify ongoing costs of support work and maintenance.

I bowed out of Destiny 2 years ago - the Game-play Loop was extremely solid but the story content, the way it was delivered, the way they made your 'time' in the game completely worthless, completely devalued as a waste of time, I'd had enough. Solid game-play kept me in Destiny but the rest pushed me out. I have zero interest in Marathon or Destiny 3 and I doubt a lot that left would return for a restart of a 'new' Game that does the same....

Bungie were bought as part of Sony's big Live Service push and in that respect they have been doing Online multi-player and co-op based experiences for years and arguably one of the biggest Live Service IP's in Destiny. But that's been plagued by issuees - inc Plagarism, and angered some in the Sony fanboy club over there interference with Factions and Live Service games in general so I wonder if they will get enough Wales to keep the game going long term, let alone last a year or more. Will it beat Concorde??

@Rich33 It's still 'cheaper' with less 'expensive' materials to save money on its manufacture cost - it maybe a bit more complex but overall the cost to manufacture would be cheaper than to continue producing the 1TB revision with its design.

They can't exactly 'shed' size like Slims used to do because of diminishing returns - 90nm to 45nm is a massive drop in die size so hardware can shrink to cool a much smaller chip. Going from 5nm to 4nm is a tiny difference in die size so you can't shrink much to save money.

A lot of us use gaming to escape the realities of the Real World but its major Global Events and Political tensions that are affecting the businesses, so their costs are escalating and that impacts the Consumer too who see prices rising fast in the Real World and its impacting their gaming.

No thanks - too many much better looking and far more appealing games out - like Arc Raiders and BF6...

@Rich33 Yeah Hardware can't be shrunk by much these days - the PS3 went from 90nm to 45nm chips when the Slim came out and there were similar die-shrinks over other gens too

But when you are down to 5nm the difference between that and 4nm is tiny. The raw materials needed -inc the Silicon, the copper etc all have gone up so that has a knock on effect to the price of the Hardware to make. Then you have Shipping costs and the fuel required to distrbute them every Wholesaler for distributing to retailers. Then any import duty/tariffs etc, its maybe not Surprising. 5yrs ago, the 'Market' was also a lot larger for Global countries but now some are not 'open' to these Companies anymore - loss of Revenue from those regions, as well as the fact costs are rising for ALL not just Groceries, but everything - inc the cost of all their overheads and whatever stuff they have to buy in (Sony doesn't make everything in the console - it buys parts -like SSD, RAM chips, APU's, Fans etc and probably buys in parts specialy made for PS hardware and assembled by Sony.

They can't exactly 'shrink' the die to save money so they have to design with 'cheaper' materials and/or go for cheaper parts (like a smaller SSD) just to keep to the same price-point - otherwise the price has to go up. Sales can often be triggered by the Wholesaler who has too much stock they want to shift and will sell without their 'cut' so cheaper, enabling the retailer to sell with $100 off with limited Stock and then put the revision on the shelf after the sale...

@GamingFan4Lyf I left the PC gaming space when the N64/PS1 era of consoles arrived and been a Console gamer since. I've preferred the ease of use and cost, more than happy to play at 30fps - in fact most of the Games/Game of the year winners were 30fps on Console anyway and I thought many deserved to win despite 30fps.

I don't have room now for a traditional Desktop PC with its own Desk, Monitor, Speakers etc so its not something I've really considered, but I would consider a more 'console' like PC designed for Front Room and TV displays.

From my perspective as a person that has always owned at least two Consoles per gen, this Gen cost me $1k+ just on Hardware, let alone both PS+/Game Pass (at least Essential tier) to play the games I want. Next gen, I can save that $1k+ and whatever Sub Fees are required for the full Library and Features and put that into a 'home' PC. I have a Handheld PC (as well as the RoG Xbox Ally X on pre-order) and a RTX 5070 Laptop already. With GeForce Now, I could have a better Streaming option than MS's too - although with a Handheld PC, I can game Anywhere without necessarily streaming...

It used be affordable to own both Sony and MS's Hardware with the 'minimum' Subscription tiers, but now with cheaper Gaming PC's and parts, I'll save money by moving to PC only...

@UnlimitedSevens Yeah I know - but go back to when MS joined the Console market to bring PC games to the Mass Market, building their console with Internet and HDD's, built around DirectX API's etc for 'Console' money. To play games like Morrowind, you'd need a very expensive (several thousand) PC to even get close to the 'Console' performance. Nowadays, the costs are so much closer

Now you can buy a Steamdeck, a Handheld PC or even a decent Laptop/desktop for 'Console' money that play games at 'console' like performance - maybe not the resolutiion too but maybe higher frame rates.

I know its not Plug and Play or 'optimised' for gaming and controller inputs, they are built for multi-tasking, for versatility - but they are not 'Subsidised' like Consoles so they don't rely on Subs or locking to their Store to offset that. But when the Hardware is now over $500 and you expect to own it over 5yrs (or more), paying out another $600 just to play with friends is a 'decent' GPU these days with DLSS and more AI NPU's than a PS5 Pro.

The Xbox Console is literally for those that 'prefer' the Console 'ease' but its optional as you have cheaper options (Cloud - inc Streaming to older gen Consoles so you don't need to upgrade) and of course PC's - Day 1 Game Pass Subscription is almost half the Price than on Console and every Xbox release is on PC Day 1. At least with Sony/Nintendo who only have their 'Console' platform, those games are exclusive to their Hardware only so if you want to play Mario or Wolverine Day 1, you have to buy their Hardware. With MS, you can stream to countless devices or play on PC. That's why Series consoles don't sell well - its only those that 'prefer' consoles or suits their budget better than alternatives - but with cost rising in the Console and services sectors, it's not the mainstream, cheap option it once was and gaming on PC's are now much more affordable too.

To be honest, I'm considering dropping the Console altogether as it's become increasingly more expensive - not just MS, but all of them.

All consoles these days require a Subscription to unlock all content, features and services. You can't play some games without a Subscription regardless of whether you paid full price or not.

Take Call of Duty - which even its campaign will require at least the Essential tier (both PS+ & GPE quoted as $9.99 a month but I know can be purchased for less). On PC, there is no Subscription required so the Cheapest option of all...

CoD on GPU - $360 a year
CoD on Console - $70 + up to $120 a year for Essential
CoD on PC - up to $70

With Sony bringing their games to PC and affordable Handheld PC's, as well as Steamdeck, it maybe makes more sense to move to PC. Use the money I'd have to pay out on Subscriptions and New Hardware to invest in decent Gaming PC.

I don''t think this is down to Game Pass, but that the Global situation has had a BIG impact and significantly impacted both the size of Market (Some regions are Sanctioned) others are hit hard financially (Tariffs, Exchange Rates, Taxes, Cost of Living etc) leaving far less with disposible income or 'time' to play.

Point is, it maybe not sustainable to build a console you expect/hope to sell 100m units of - each with their own Chips, RAM, Storage etc, shipped globally and tariffed etc making them too 'expensive' for the majority who stick with Hardware they have, playing F2P games and older games on sale. Not get enough gamers in to 'Subsidise' with higher costs and forced Subscriptions...

Gaming, a Leisure activity, is struggling as a whole right now because of Global situations and their impact on both Businesses and Consumers. More and more are playing F2P games like Fortnite/Roblox and not buying games - at least not until they are heavily reduced.

MS, with more platforms are certainly going to struggle with their Console - Cloud is so much cheaper and can play 'next gen' games on last gen hardware so you don't 'need' to upgrade or buy a new Console. PC too are now much more affordable to deliver 'Console' like Performance and don't charge for Online access/social gaming. Their only realistic choice is go more 'PC' and/or maybe have 3rd Party manufacturing build 'Xbox' branded devices to sell their games and/or services on. They won't sell enough consoles to subsidise heavily and maximise sales/services revenue so maybe won't make a Traditional Console again...

Oh and of course the entire industry has NOT cancelled games, raised prices/cut specs, laid off staff etc in recent years...

EVERY Company has suffered since the 'boom' of the Pandemic and subsequent Global events - losing trade in certain regions, Trade wars and escalating costs, exchange rate fluctuations and other international crises have impacted EVERYONE - the only difference is that MS acquired ABK and Zenimax - two massive companies and ABK was a 'shambles' under Kotick - so had seen the most growth during the 'boom'

Point is, EVERYONE has been counting the cost of their investments and rationalising their Business. Sony have closed studios, laid off staff and of course have raised prices too, Nintendo raised game prices, EA sold out, Ubisoft have cancelled games and laid off staff, Square Enix sold off half their studio's/IP's, WB shut studios and cancelled games etc etc

Its somewhat scraping to the barrel to conclude that this level of rationalising and price hiking was 'inevitable' - after all some would be inevitable at some point as you don't need 3 Publishing departments each with its own management structure or 3 payroll departments and inflation would lead to eventual price increases.

This is someone trying to claim Victory after embarrassingly defeated and made to look stupid Globally. The situation is not just impacting MS - although maybe hurting them 'most' having spent nearly 80bn on Zenimax & ABK before things Wars, Sanctions and Tariffs affected them - can't sell to certain countries (lost revenue), others not buying due to War or cost of living etc leading to massive revenue losses whilst their annual costs are increasing...

All Consoles at the moment seem to be doing things that seem 'anti-consumer' and/or money grabbing. MS raising Prices whilst Sony reducing their quality/spec of hardware but sell it at the same price (still more than Launch price) and Nintendo charging more for its games - all Consoles require Subscriptions to unlock the FULL library, content and features - you can't play with friends without a Sub in most games so all have additiional costs.

It's also easy to accuse the other platforms your not on as somehow doing something far worse than their own platform. Maybe its because the 'exclusives' blinker them - those 'positives' outweigh the 'negatives' but on other Platforms, those exclusives are not games they play to care about.

Lets be real here, Sony have closed studios, cancelled games increased prices and/or reduced quality/value and/or done other things in the past few years themselves too, so they haven't done 'nothing' and I still expect Sony to make more announcements that feel they are trying to extract more money whilst offering 'little' in return. I could say the 'endless' remakes/remasters flooding their releases is a cash grab - especially some games barely old enough or warranting remastering.

Its tough for Console gamers right now with Cost of Living, Subscriptions etc and the Platform holders worrying about their Profit Margins and Shareholders who demand 'growth' and more and more competition for Gamers time making it 'harder' to compete for resources.

10 yrs ago, You'd have bought most of the games you want releasing each month but now it seems a lot are playing their Backlog, F2P games (Fortnite, Roblox etc) or buying games on Sale than spending time/money on 'new' releases - unless its their favourite IP/Studio and/or very highly reviewed. 10yrs ago, you may have taken a chance on a '7-8' reviewed game, but now if its not 9+ (or your favourite IP/Genre/Studio etc), its a wait for sale game.

I think Gaming is suffering from the current state of the world with some regions no longer available to sell to and other regions economically not 'great' so sales are limited/low as only a few can afford to buy, changing economic trade and exchange rates etc are all impactin Global businesses. It maybe 'OK' in the UK, but in another region, you can't sell your games/services to anymore or the exchange rate makes it too expensive, maybe cost of living is escalating and people aren't spending on leisure, they are living hand to mouth.

These games companies are still making games and/or hardware, still paying wages and bills etc, but increasingly worried about whether they'll sell enough to cover their costs with a shrinking market and much less 'disposible income' to spend on Leisure activities. That's where 'desperation' and money grabbing comes in, that's where tightening their expenditure by cancelling products, closing studios and laying off staff comes in. If they can't raise prices, they'll give you less and sell the rest as 'DLC!!

I can see his point - but I don't know that Sony hasn't got 'long term' plans to react to a changing Market Place - should the market move in that direction.

I can see that Hardware is becomming very expensive to manufacture and distribute globally. Make 100m console with 1TB storage, that's a LOT of Storage - maybe enough to store the entire Library of games on in several servers. With hardware starting at £500 these days, streaming to a device you already have maybe the only option some have.

Hardware too has 'fixed' specs which may not be adequate a few years later and may need to 'stream' some aspect because of it. It may only be Environmental Assets because the size of the world and Data is too large to be on 'local' Storage - Flight Sim's 'Earth' is over two Petabytes (over 2000 TB's) so too big to go on disc or Local storage. Maybe AI or Physics is offloaded to the cloud to 'run' on Hardware not built/designed or capable enough at that price point to do it locally.

Music and Film both prove that Hardware and ownership of Physical media is still important to some so I can still see Consoles existing. Whether they can play ALL the big new 3rd Party releases 'Locally/natively', time will tell - but they can still offer 'Streaming' to that Hardware.

I think you'll see more and more cases of games requiring 'online' to stream something - whether its just Environmental Data for HQ presentation or handling some of the Computational demand or having to stream the game playing on a server somewhere...

@MaccaMUFC Its not just Consoles - they get money from PC buyers who get a license for Windows and can sell Subscriptions without needing to sell the Console. If you have a decent PC, why buy an Xbox - you can immediately join Game Pass, buy from Microsoft (and get Play Anywhere versions) and be part of the Microsoft 'Xbox' ecosystem without owning an Xbox.

Sony use 3rd Party PC platforms and don't have their own (yet). So they need to sell hardware to get you into their ecosystem - which is the whole point of Exclusives. FH6 may well sell well on PS, but MS want to incentivise buying an 'Xbox' - not only because those games are releasing 'first' there, but you can also Sub to Game Pass and play it (and many other games too). However, if you 'still' prefer to play on PS, the game will eventually come and be more 'expensive' as a 'new' release compared to Sale Prices on Xbox/PC. Its not just FH6, but Gears, CoD, Outer Worlds, Flight Sim and whatever other games MS release - all on Game Pass so presents 'better' value to tempt Console gamers - even if they just buy a Series S or PC just for playing these games on Game Pass instead of paying $70+ to play on PS.

Even if Xbox hardware will never be #1 best selling hardware because its 'optional', it is still important to MS so Exclusives do matter. Its still the ONLY console you can play those games Day/Date and the only Console with Game Pass so it will help sell some Hardware. But some may choose to Sub to Game Pass on PC/Cloud or just buy the game on PC rather than also buy a Console.

I still think they will have Collaborations lined up and still have skins that are not befitting of the setting or that any Military combat soldier would ever want in a real war - but I think that the 'Cartoon' Collabs - like American Dad & Beavis & Butthead are definitely out. They'll still have their pothead Skins and glowing etheral weird Blackcell variants - it won't all be 'military' and in keeping with the setting, but it will retain the same Artstyle - not 2D Cartoon style

Makes me wonder if they are already preparing a PC Port - whether it releases the same day or not, I wouldn't be surprised if that is why Nixxes are involved.

@MaccaMUFC I'm not surprised - its still a 'big' Xbox IP and Microsoft will still want to sell you Hardware or Subscriptions to play their games first.

It may only be 6mnths (like Indy) or longer, but they too will need Exclusives to try and get people into their platform. MS have several IP's that are Day1 on PS - Minecraft, Doom, CoD etc, but I doubt brand new Forza, Halo or Gears will be 'Day 1' on PS5 and I don't mean 'new' remasters of 'old' games.

I see MS's 'multi-platform' strategy as similar to Sony's PC strategy - the only difference is that Sony has 'fewer' Multi-platform IP's (MLB & Destiny) releasing day/date. Sony only has their Playstation platform where as MS has their own Console, PC and Cloud based Platforms. Therefore MS's games are on 'more' platforms Day/Date than Sony's but doesn't mean they'll be on every 3rd Party Platform (like Switch, Playstation) day 1 too.

I expect a lot of games will come to PS eventually - inc FH6 but I'd be surprised if EVERY game does - I can't see them going to the effort of porting Forza Motorsport to PS5 to compete directly with their established GT series and Loyal fanbase to that IP. Forza Horizon makes sense because there isn't many games like it.

It was not a great trailer, just a teaser for the new setting of Japan after showing the history of the Franchise, the regions its been set in before. But then they normally don't reveal anything until a few months before release. Its almost as if the leaks regarding the setting forced them to confirm it and nothing more... Yet!

Nothing about this strikes me as being 'Next-Gen' and certainly nothing that I didn't see when UE5 and MetaHumans were used to create the Matrix Demo. The Metahuman demo's too look like this so I wouldn't be Surprised if this was a Metahuman rendition of that Actress.

Yet to see it 'in-game' with all the action, see how well it looks then when the Hardware is being pushed to its limits and DRS & FSR are working hardest. Right now, it doesn't look 'next gen' to me...

@Bentleyma I'm not - There are still a LOT of gamers on last gen hardware and a LOT that will buy. BO3 released on PS3 without a Campaign and only got the First of the DLC bundles to be released - it was the 'last' Call of Duty on Last Gen Hardware. So if they can scale it down and keep features (like Campaign) and sell Seasonal content/Cosmetics, they'll release it on Last gen Hardware to 'maximise' revenue potential...

There is NO way this game will be supplied on Disc - its impossible. It relies on Data Streaming because the size of the world and all its Assets won't fit on 10 discs, let alone 1 or 2, won't fit on your SSD even with a 8TB expansion. It streams in the data as you need to keep the installation as light as possible.

I'm sure they'll release a disc if they think it will sell enough, but don't expect everything on the disc...

I was under the impression that Cross-play on was Consoles & PC - although they will 'try' to match Console with Console players and only bring in PC players to fill the lobby. I was also under the impression that Cross-play off would not pull in PC gamers at all but you'd still have a miix of Console ONLY gamers.

In general, I don't mind playing with PC gamers - in fact, I think its great that the entire Community of Fans of a Game can play together and not separated by their choice of Hardware. However, there are a higher percentage of PC users who Cheat and its those that ruin it for the majority - hence we need options to disable cross-play - its not because of the PC 'Gamers', its because of the PC 'Cheaters'.

Its clear that Console gamers are happy to play with others who are also fans of the same game they are and only turn Cross-play off because they are fed up with Cheaters.

@AgentGuapo a dollar or two per 'unit' which adds up - make a million consoles, you've just saved $1-2m.

That $1-2 saving at a manufacturing level can make a more significant difference to the Consumer - although in this case, its not a 'positive'. Each 'step' after adds a percentage increase (to cover cost and profit) so that $1 at 'source' saves $10 at retail after the manufacturer, brand, distributors, wholesalers, retailers etc add their percentage increase on top.

So instead of raising the price (again), they've decided to save a small amount in the 'raw' cost as that has a bigger impact at the final/sale phase.

I don't know what would be worse PR - raising the price - even if by just $10 or slightly less Storage - but I think yet another Price Rise would be worse as some probably won't notice, know or care about the 175GB difference...

Average just doesn't cut it when people are struggling with cost of living and 'high' gaming prices. People aren't going to spend £70 on 'Average' or mediocre, they'll be saving their money for 'must haves'.

As games have risen a LOT as well as the decline of used and trade-in stores, the increase in the Digital sales/Hardware, I just don't buy as many games a year as I used to and I also am far less willing to buy a game I'm 'unsure' of.

At one point, I'd buy a game based on its cover art, its name/title, just because it was a 'new' release, just because I'd heard of it (even if I couldn't remember if that was positive/negative), because an artist had let their music/art be used in their game etd. There were many games I bought, but never finished even the first level/mission etc because I didn't like the 'game-play'. Now, I won't buy a game unless I'm convinced I'll play it to completion or at least spend a LOT of time playing, won't buy any game until I've read at least 10 different reviews and with more 'emphasis' put on the independent reviews (I trust Platform based sites the LEAST when it comes to reviews - especially with First Party releases and/or Rival Platform reviews). Anyway, the point is, I feel I need to do quite a bit of research and/or investigating (inc waiting for User reviews and feedback) before I'll part money and I doubt I'm the only one.

If more and more are being more diligent with their cash, not buying games at launch just because they are new and/or have an interesting concept that appealed but because they actually delivered a fully realised and ultimately 'great' product that lives up to, if not exceeds their expectations, then Publishers who push out 'mediocre' or 'Average' games, broken or unfinished projects (not yet games if barely or not playable) etc and expect 'premium' money are going to be disappointed when gamers don't buy...

I'm a Bond fan - long before the IP moved to Video Games. I've enjoyed many Bond games over the years and will likely play this too. It seems too long since we had a good Spy/espionage Action stealth game...

@Intr1n5ic Again missing the point - For many many generations of Console, they have been 'affordable' at launch for a 'Mainstream' device. That Price point has been around that £300 mark - not 'cheap' but again not Premium.

Expecting Parents, Grandparents, kids/Students and most Gen Z gamers to spend £500+ as well as a monthly Subscription to play Any of the games, modes etc, all the features/functions of the hardware and games, not have these behind a Pay Wall is somewhat a bigger ask than MS/Nintendo that also charge, but also have Cheaper hardware - not 'Premium' Hardware targeting Premium resolutions as 4k Displays are 'Premium' displays.

How many kids have a 4k HDR 120hz TV in their Bedroom to take advantage of a PS5. A series S is much better suited to a 1080p Display, a Switch is too.

Its about the 'cost' to ENTRY. We are obviously affluent enough and dedicated enough to already own Hardware but many people are NOT and that under current Global conditions, getting someone to spend money on 'leisure' is tough.

Sony have the MOST expensive Entry in to play those games on a Console so its has the highest Paywall to Entry which if you haven't upgraded or bought into yet, is increasingly 'prohibitive'. Last Gen, you could easily get entry into the Playstation ecosystem to play CoD for example for under £400 - that would include the Hardware, Game and at least a month of PS+ to play EVERYTHING the game offers as well as the Console (Playing with Friends online are Console features that are locked by the Platform owner behind that Paywall)

The point is that Consoles are Affordable/mainstream devices and when prices 'go up', they become more 'premium' than a Affordable device. When they become more expensive than say a decent gaming PC able to play the latest games at 'Console' like quality, just to offer more 'premium' graphical settings, that's where the line gets crossed...

Consoles were more 'affordable' than even a reasonable non-gaming PC - let alone PC's that can now offer Console like Quality at relatively 'low' cost in the PC space, more 'Premium' cost in the Console space. If your Hardware is now as expensive if not 'more' than some Gaming PC's, then the point of the Console as being the 'affordable' option is gone.

Whilst you do have to pay on Xbox/Switch for Online, they also have cheaper, more affordable hardware. If you add another £300+ on Subs over 5yrs on to the Price, its still more affordable than most gaming PC's that DON'T Charge - but £500+ for Hardware and £300+ just for the next 5yrs of Gaming (before adding the cost of games) is gaming PC money (Premium+ Console money) to many, not 'affordable'...

Call of Duty seems ripe for the Hollywood Movie treatment - after all it is a more Hollywood action movie take on War than the reality of War. Its that Rambo like style where a single person (or very small squad) can take on massive armies with all the Combat vehicles at their disposal and still 'win'.

Its ALWAYS had Hollywood style scripts with Hollywood style set-pieces and Hollywood style big Stunts/explosions/spectacle so why not make a CoD Hollywood movie.

I doubt I'd pay to watch a CoD movie, but then I wouldn't pay to watch Uncharted, Last of Us, Witcher, Halo, Doom, Tomb Raider or ANY movie, not necessarily a Movie based on a Game (that was inspired by Band of Brothers and Hollywood Action movies).

I don't think its a silly idea, like trying to turn some IPs into TV/Film when the Game is more about Game-play than story, character arcs, etc.

@Intr1n5ic Why Sony in particular? Answer very simple - they were the ONLY company offering a 'Premium' priced Product without offering anything aimed at that typical Console Price point.

Nintendo Switch at the time had a $300 console, both the PS4 and XB1S were $300 consoles - with a 'Premium' Console mid gen version targeting around $500.

What I mean is that for decades and decades, Console have been seen as a Low cost gaming device targeting around $300 - the PS3 was the exception at launch and that 'Price' was far too much for a 'Console'. Even a Steamdeck isn't that expensive.

$300 has been 'sufficient' for decades. As technology advanced and they could offer 'more' for £300 than they could 4-5yrs ago, technology advanced Sufficiently to be able to build a £300 console that was a significant upgrade over their previous £300 console.

So al those who were 'happy' with their PS4's or XB1S consoles, didn't feel the need to spend £500 on a Console for their 1080p bedroom TV or parents buying their kids a Console aren't going to spend £500. With Playstation - they decided that their 'baseline' now is £500 targeting 'Premium' display tech features like 4k HDR etc eve though MANY still have 1080p SDR displays.

Sony's 'base' console thos gen is the MOST EXPENSIVE - it costs more than Switch, Steamdeck or Series S. You also need PS+ Essential to use ALL fetures and access ALL content available, all of which adds up and games to have jumped up a LOT in the past decade alone. All those factors have an impact on Sales - especially in Economic instability. The 'cost' to play a game is much higher - even than it was at the 'launch' of these Consoles.

If you want to play CoD (a popular multi-platform game), in some cases, you don't 'need' to upgrade your hardware but lets say you do, the cheapest Hardware is a Series S - but compare the Cost at 'launch' to the Cost today as Hardware and Games have risen so the 'entry' or 'base' point in for that platform goes up.

Sony currently has the 'highest' entry point in to gaming of the Consoles. Their 'cheapest' Hardware is still more expensive than Nintendo or Microsofts cheapest Hardware. Games may cost the same, but if you have to find another £100-200 just to play the 'same' game - albeit with higher resolution (not that it matters if you only have a 1080p TV)

As a Publisher, they see that 'Paywall' as something a Consumer has to get over to access their product but can feel that Hardware and Subscriptions for many are causing them to not buy. I'm not saying Sony were 'wrong' to not offer a £300 console, but in doing so, they have a 'higher' entry point, a bigger paywall than others. Unlike EVERY gen that's come before too, the Base hardware they launched has gone 'up' in price rather than down - increasing that Pay wall further which prices out more and more people...

The ONLY reason I said Sony in Particular was because they in Particular decided not to offer a '£300' Console so the price of Entry into the PS5 ecosystem is Higher than both Nintendo and Microsoft platforms.

Of course this generation - particularly Playstation, targeted a Premium Console Launch Price of $500 - the ~price of last gens Pro/X Premium upgrades. The 'base' Console price point of approx $300, the base price that Many Consoles have considered as Optimal was met by Switch and Series S.

A $500 console still requires a Subscription fee to play online, unlock the full range of content and features inc social gaming. Over 5 years or so, that adds up to additional hundreds on top of the hardware cost. Games too are not 'cheap' on release and with cost of living going up, for some its more important to put food on the table, pay their bills than buy a game!

PC's for example, can be bought for a 'Premium' Console price, provide console like gaming quality/performance, don't charge a Sub fee and have a LOT of Free and cheaper games.

I don't necessarily think its about Hardware costs, more about the Economic Climate and that many don't feel Publishers release games worthy of their 'Launch' price - either because the Price is very high, the game is not finished or optimiesd well, or combination of multiple reasons and in tight economic climates, its more difficult to sell 'leisure' goods as Basic necessities take priority. It's better to wait for sales...

@Vaako007 I never said there was anything wrong with competition and I'm even OK with the 'Banter' that competition often brings to. I do think that some take it far too far, far too 'serious', but I don't see any issue with competition.

All I said was that even if they both played ALL the same games, all at very similar Quality & Performance, People would still argue their Hardware is better and thus perpetuating conflict.

Competition doesn't necessarily mean there has to be a winner and loser, you can have a draw for example. You can both 'winning' or 'losing' - Either Both are equally matched and equally successful (both sell similar high numbers) or both flop (maybe force gamers to move to PC) - but even if they were Equal and basically identical, some will still find something to argue and fight about...

@MrPeanutbutterz @Questionable_Duck The two games have something in Common that help BOTH - that being a Solid and Robust Online Component - both offer Co-op, to play with Friends, and can only 'grow' that Online Community, bring new players in and help make new friends, allow friends on different platforms to play together and make money because a happy strong community is a lucrative one...

That's why Microsoft and Sony are releasing games like that on more Platforms - and Microsoft have been making more Social Games - games with Online connections whilst Sony have ocused on Single Player experiences that players love but rarely return to after finishing their 12-20hr Campaign - they want more of your time - keep you playing all year like online games do but 'bloat' can ruin it so trying to devise ways to keep you playing for 50hrs, 100+hrs etc.

Most of Xbox First Party 'Single' Player games are still Exclusive or at least were exclusive for a period of time. There are exceptions like Doom and Outer Worlds 2, but Flight Sim, Avowed, South of Midnight, Starfield etc haven't released on PS5 (yet) and Forza Horizon is an Online game too with DLC to sell, so will any new Gears game with its Co-op and MP modes, Halo is known for its MP as much as its campaign so there is a big market for post release content if you release games on all platforms, not limit that down to just 1 or 2 at most.

Single Player games sell hardware and sell well themselves in the first few months of release before declining and drifts away from public talk. The 'new' big releases are now selling Consoles, that game is not generating much revenue so port it out to a 'new' market to extract whatever extra revenue you can. Might 'hurt' fanboys, but makes logical business sense.