BAMozzy

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'...

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