BAMozzy

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.

@Questionable_Duck You also only have 1 Consle, and its not the biggest of the two in terms of sales, that actually has a Physical Disc Drive and 80% (generally) of sales are Digital on Xbox, you are catering to a 'small' percentage of the Xbox Community to make discs for when most will still play it on Game Pass or buy it at some point 'digitally' if they want to play that version specifically.

Microsoft have certainly scaled down Physical production - that includes Consoles as their 'Digital' (and that includes their PC Platform and Cloud) is growing in demand whilst Physical is declining or 'hanging on' because there are still 'enough' people that want or still have Physical Libraries they want to access.

Most Gen Z's and younger don't own 'Music or Film' Libraries and generally prefer the ease and convenience of Digital Libraries - its us 'Old' gamers still clingingon to 'Physical' but more and more are consuming Digital.

When you have the smallest market share that an even use a Physical version and know something isn't really going to sell on Xbox because its just the 10yr old game ported forward so it can be 'sold' on Playstation - that's why they gave 'free' upgrades to owners of Ultimate because its basically a native port of a 10yr old game that's also been ported to PS5 for the first time ever!!

Its not as if Xbox owners can't buy a Disc version of Ultimate if they wanted - I own both the 360 and XB1 versions Physically...

@Rich33 This is nothing but a Port of the Ultimate edition with a few settings changed - output to a higher Resolution, game now offers an unlocked 120hz mode which was certainly capped to 60 on last gen hardware.

As you can play the exact same content on a Series S/X if you already own the Ultimate edition, it seems pointless to 'buy' again or even rush to play on Game Pass. Its a 10yr old game with a 20yr old heart that's been on Game Pass forever and cheap in the store.

Microsoft wanted to release it on PS5 and can't really have a PS5 version whilst not supporting their next gen hardware with a 'Native' version, can't have PS5 owners playing at 120fps whilst Xbox is locked to 60fps because of XB1 hardware. I bet they didn't expect to sell any so gave away Free Upgrade codes to owners of Ultimte edition - how I got my copy. I bet they don't expect 'many' to play a game they've been able to play for the past 20yrs. If don't you have friends on PS5 to take advantage of Cross-play or if you just want to play the Campaign, the Ultimate edition is cheaper and exactly the same content...

The console war won't end just because of a few games 'eventually' releasing on their Rivals platform. There are still too many differences that will still lead to arguments and conflict driving the Console War.

Even if every game released day/date on these consoles, the war will still continue because different controller layout, different approach to services, different business model etc but just because both Helldivers 2 (a year old game) and Gears of War (a 20yr old game) are finally on both Xbox and Playstation, doesn't mean that they have the exact same Libraries - there are many Playstation/Xbox games that aren't on their Rivals platform and many that won't or didn't release day 1 - so Consoles still have some Exclusives.

There is a chance that the next Xbox won't be a Console - in the Traditional sense - even if it looks like a Console and has Xbox on the Box. It could just be a Windows PC but in a console format and of course is an 'Xbox' Platform as Xbox is their entire gaming brand on PC, Console and Cloud.

There will likely always be Console Warriors who will state their 'preferred' box is the best which of course then leads to conflict as each defends their box whilst belittling the other(s) so the war continues...

@Scottyy Exactly - it doesn't matter what Characters they collaborate with, they are all created with the same 'Fortnite' Artstyle so don't have that Clash.

As long as CoD sticks to the same Artstyle, I beleive the vast majority will tolerate the Skins. There will be some that think certain characters or designs still don't belong - like the Animal heads, Nikki Minaj, glowing Dragon skins etc...

@Scottyy The Cel-shaded stuff has been in CoD a few years now and I really don't like that artstyle but it seemed the Community accepted it and even saw some Cel-shaded LTM's and Maps too - but there wasn't too much 'Backlash' so I can see why they thought they could get popular Cartoon Collabs to sell.

Whilst I don't really want to see Cartoons (or Cel-shaded) characters, even the glowing, bright and crazy outfits - inc the Blackcell versions - are very easy to see. Its the dark skins that are the most difficult to see and I'd rather my enemies were using Beavis/Butthead skins than Terminator, Groot, Rose skins that are impossible to see in shadowed areas.

At least these Skins are not conducive to a 'Camping' type Playstyle - unlike Dark skins and Ghillie suits that allow people to hide in plain sight.

I don't think they'll stop doing 'Blackcell' style Skins that are completely unrealistic and certainly wouldn't work in a 'Mil-sim' game as these Sell - I just don't think they'll do 2D Cartoon art in a 3D more realistic art game. If Beavis/Butthead had been made in the same artstyle as Terminator or Replacer or Squid Game or Seth Rogan or their 'default' Characters, I doubt they'd have had ANY backlash, and those BO6 Skins/weapons etc would carry over into BO7 like MW2's did for MW3 that people were happy about - especially as MW3 launch content was very 'light' compared to MW2 and a 'year' of extra content arriving.

I don't want to see Cartoon (Beavis/Butthead, American Dad) style skins that are a completely different Artstyle to the rest of the game - same goes for the Cel-shaded type designs as these too contrast too much with the more realistic type rendering.

I don't have as much of an issue with the other cosmetics, inc the Turtles because these at least use the same artstyle - even if they aren't Mil-sim or realistic style outfits. But its more the clash of Artsyles that I draw the line.

Of course they'll still need to make skins that SELL to pay for Warzone and all the post launch Seasonal content - Maps, modes, weapons, etc are ALL FREE because they are funded by a F2P business model. If their skins don't sell enough, then the 'Free' content will suffer!!

They have to sell Cosmetics to fund all the F2P elements - otherwise these will end up disappearing to a Paid model (again in the case of MP/Zombies Maps, weapons etc as these traditionally were sold as DLC).

I just hope we don't get contrasting artstyles as its gnerally those in particular that generate the most 'hate'. I do hope they offer more Military based options too, but as long as we don't get 'Cartoon/cel-shaded' cosmetics, that's where my tolerance is tested...

Where is the Option - nope, I'm playing it FREE on Xbox - and not because I have Game Pass, but because Microsoft gave me a FREE Code because I own the Ultimate (and 360) edition.

Its NOT exactly the same as the 360 version as the Remastered version added in a PC ONLY chapter which was the first time Console gamers got to play that.

Technically, its more a 10yr old remastered game, with upgraded servers too. Ultimate was a remaster of a 10yr old Game so I do understand that the 'core' and story is 20yrs old, but some aspects were improved on for the Ultimate - Additional features include mechanics from newer Gears of War games, such as spotting and switching weapons while roadie running and adds five single-player chapters, which were exclusive to the PC version of the original game, to the campaign's fifth act as well as tweaks to the visuals, geometry etc but still keeps the same overall design philosophy.

Point is, its NOT exactly the same as the 20yr old game, its been 'changed' and modernised a decade ago and that is the 'version' you get today. Gears was revolutionary when it released, but like Uncharted, the 2nd game was significantly 'better'. Uncharted no doubt feels very dated and lacking compared to Uncharted 2 does today so I understand some points.

AI was not great, and it doesn't seem to have improved which is frustrating for Single Players. When your AI companion is the reason you 'fail', either because they keep getting downed and so you get killed going for revives or they get killed outright which is an instant fail, then it becomes frustrating/annoying and the AI in this is not great especially on the high difficulty settings. I say that as a Fan too.

Whilst some may well still be happy playing on their PS4 or PS4 Pro, there are others who would want to buy a PS6 if it enables them to play their games at improved Frame Rates and Graphical quality. Some gamers are OK with their PS5's too - at least its still allowing them to play those games and the performance is certainly more than adequate in most cases (or will eventually be patched).

As you can't exactly re-invent 3D or full surround sound Audio, going from very limited Colour Palettes to millions of colours or Sprites to Polygons were certainly more impactful than going from millions to billions of colours or Polygons is more iterative.

Ray Tracing is 'real time' Lighting but is more an iterative improvement over the methods they used to create the look of real lighting, Nanite and similar are more dynamic Polygon scaling methods etc. As there isn't really games you can't make, its more about the scale and/or detail that is hardware limited, you aren't going to get that 'First' time moment - its all going to be more 'iteration' over previous games, more Polygons, better Lighting, AI and/or larger scale. With Streaming now, they aren't necessarily limited on 'disc/storage' capacity as Flight Sim would never fit on a disc, let alone internal console storage as it has the whole earth. So even that 'limitation' on scale can be bypassed already too.

To me the PS4 was more iteration than innovation and the PS5 is again more 'iteration' as the games have only really evolved Graphically and with much shorter loading times and better frame-rates. I don't think we've really seen genre or game-play mechanic that wasn't possible on PS3 era hardware (inc PC space too which Consoles are chasing in terms of Specs/features

Hardly surprising as CoD has only revealed its very 'experimental' Campaign - a co-op Campaign with an 'end-game', something never been done in CoD. The campaign is where the majority of time, money and resources go, yet its also the area that players spend the least amount of time on. Many never finish, if they even start as they spend their time in Multi-player and/or Zombies. Apart from a few Theatrical clips, the CoD community have yet to really see the areas they are most interested in.

Battlefield 6 on the otherhand for example has not only given their community a LOT more information about the Multi-player, they have also held several Betas now too so their Community has had actual Hands-on experience too. Its also out 'sooner' and why 'pre-order' BO7 when you haven't even seen any game-play of MP/Zombies? Why pre-order when its not out for months and the 'only' benefit is a BO6 skin (Reznov).

All the other games have also been available to pre-order a lot longer so chances are will have more pre-orders over the month than something that's only been available for a few days.

If its still terrible after CoD next and the Beta, then maybe Activision/MS will be more concerned, but CoD Campaign's in general aren't going to appeal to the 'majority' of CoD gamers who spend their entire time in MP/Zombies and/or Warzone modes. They probably think that their MP/Zombies mode will make their CoD community 'happy' and maybe even see more playing Campaign to get the End Game experience and Campaign Camo's...

Point is that this isn't necessarily representative or a fair comparison - a game that's been available for a few days compared to those that have been available the whole month, a game that's yet to reveal its 'biggest' modes or even give players any 'Hands-on' time to convince them to pre-order.

I still expect CoD to be successful and sell well on Playstation. I expect CoD to have a 'bigger' playerbase than the others in this list - time will tell, but how many times have CoD campaigns been so negatively revealedbut still go on to be one of the years biggest seller and I see history repeating...

@Kidfunkadelic83 Every time CoD has tried to do something different, its met with negativity. W@W was not liked at launch, felt like a step back after MW and treyarch were just filling the Gap in the release, MW2 was too bright, too arcade like, too much pop-ups with Points and Killstreak rewards all 'popping' up like arcade games of that era., MW3 was too much like MW2 and by Ghosts, CoD was cut & paste every year but still beating Battlefield 3/4 and Titanfall too. Then came the 3 years of Advanced Movement which had innovated for a 'CoD' game but the CoD fanbase were begging for a return to Boots on the Ground and 'traditional' CoD.

Battlefield tried to innovate and deviate from its 'traditional' and/or most Successful eras of Battlefield and failed - That's why they have made BF6 to be more like a Traditional Battlefield. Battlefield 6 feels like BF3 or BF:BC2 era but with higher quality 'visuals'. A few small differences with classes and their role, but the Gun-play, the Vibe, the feel of combat and movement, the 'traditional' Battlefield game is still at the Core - much like CoD and MOST AAA games that are successful to the point of becoming a regular release - let alone Annual like Sports games are.

CoD is more like going Paintballing with your mates, more like a Sporting competition than a Battle/War. Winning a match is much like winning a football, tennis or Hockey match - maybe why its also an eSport that will also help it retain its 'top' spot. Battlefield has had to go back to its roots, go back to what made Battlefield a 'Battlefield' game and not a 'CoD' clone. CoD has more in common with Goldeneye, Halo and Doom - Battlefield has more in common with Arma, Delta Force and Battlefront.

It seems the Majority don't want too much change in their Favourite games - whether that's a FPS like CoD or BF, or not. Battlefield have had to go back to their Traditional game because trying to do something Different to 'compete' with CoD led to them disappointing BF fans - just like CoD trying to be Battlefield would likely see them lose their CoD fanbase....

@Oram77 I don't expect BF6 to fail but I don't expect BO7 to fail either and still bring in more money than it cost to make. I don't expect BF6 to overtake BO7 though - in terms of player numbers.

Steam is likely to be much higher as CoD on PC is more popular on Battlenet and of course there is Game Pass on PC too which isn't linked to Steam/Steam numbers. CoD 'free' on Game Pass on PC whilst BF6 is going to cost and we don't yet know how EA plan to monetise BF6 post launch. It may not have 'silly' cosmetics, but doesn't mean that it will not upset the community.

Even Xdefiant - the closest any game has tried to get to that 'CoD' Style Game-play and FREE to Play couldn't dethrone CoD so I really don't expect BF6 to do it but like I said, that doesn't mean that I don't think BF6 will be a Success, take 'some' players - although I think a lot will still own both and some play hours away from CoD, but lets be honest here, so many FPS games release and everyone has been a 'Potential' CoD killer but inevitably didn't kill CoD. The Finals, Valorant and numerous other F2P FPS games exist too so its not just the AAA FPS games. Titanfall was a CoD killer because it actually innovated on Movement, then CoD did Advanced Movement and the Community demanded they return to their Classic Boots on the Ground that was deemed 'cut/paste', lacking innovation etc and why Ghosts was disliked at the time...

Even Vanguard, CoD's lowest point couldn't be dethroned by BF5/BF1 which today are seen as excellent BF1 games, especially after 2042.

All I can say is that BF6 seems to be listening to their Battlefield Community to make the Best BF game they can and for battlefield fans, that is what they want - they don't really want them trying to be Call of Duty and going more 'Arcade' to appeal to the masses. I wouldn't be surprised if it is the biggest selling BF game, but its also likely to be the most expensive 'launch' price, likely on EA Access in the near future and go on sale within a 6mnths so whether people 'buy' or wait and CoD is 'Free' on Game Pass on PC/Xbox. FPS fans may choose to buy BF6 and play CoD on Game Pass, others may choose to play CoD on Game Pass until BF6 is on EA Access or cheap on sale. CoD gamers also can pretty much tell what the Post Release Roadmap and Content will likely look like, how its priced and works - yes it maybe silly cosmetics, but its also 'Free to Play' - you don't need to spend more money for seasonal Maps, weapons, modes etc - the sales of Beavis & Butthead cosmetics are why you get free Seasonal content and Warzone modes. EA may not sell silly cosmetics, but we don't yet know how their post launch roadmap will look or be funded yet...

@Oram77 I disagree - Battlefield 3 and 4 - arguably the Best and most beloved Battlefield games couldn't 'beat' CoD, including CoD Ghosts which at the time was seen as just a Copy/paste pf previous games that still lacks destruction and Combat Vehicles that BF offered.

Battlefield is more Sim - it was always more Physics based and grounded (although the Physics and game Mechanics led to 'Only in BF' moments that are not necessarily realistic). It feels very different to play - despite it being a FPS and military set like CoD, but CoD has more in common with Halo, Doom and Goldeneye - other 'Arcade Arena' style combat. It uses Hit-scan rather than 'Physics', has no destruction, rewards for kill streaking and a more Hollywood/Action Movie take on Combat/movement than the more grounded approach of BF.

Battlefield doesn't offer the same experience, same 'feel' or vibe - its a very different take. Its much more about the 'Battlefield' with Army vs Army, CoD is more like a paintball competition in a Static Arena between small Squads - it's more an (e)Sport than Military Sim.

Therefore it won't have the same appeal to Gamers - some FPS gamers will prefer the more grounded/serious tone and 'big scale' battles BF offers, but those that prefer the Game-play of CoD will likely find BF less responsive, less consistent, less 'fun' with more Campers and frustrating deaths due to destruction and Vehicles, more Explosive spam too.

To me, BF6 could be the Best Battlefield game in decades, but that doesn't mean that those that prefer Call of Duty and its more Arcade style will suddenly jump to BF when it feels so different. The only thing it has in common is the 'military' setting and both FPS games but BF has more in common with Delta Force and Battlefront than CoD which has more in common with Goldeneye and Doom...

@GeeEssEff And you can extrapolate from Activisions MAU's as given in that trial and the corresponding Steam figures for that same period and it would indicate around Steam itself is not the most popular option - Battlenet is more popular, often runs 'better' and now steam has more competition from Game Pass too.

So unless Activision were lying - not to say that Steam isn't still important - but that it isn't the most Popular platform for CoD. What that report says is that 5-10% on Steam is 'better' for them than making it exclusive on Battlenet, that they wouldn't get those 5-10% steam numbers on Battlenet so they'd actually sell less on PC by making it 'exclusive' as some will only buy/play on Steam/Steamdeck.

Regardless, Steam is still not an accurate way to assess a game and how its Popularity is. Steam itself isn't the ONLY PC platform so doesn't represent the entire PC space which is my point. Its like saying Heinz sell 100m tins of Baked Beans a month and Tesco sells 12.5m a month so you can work out what percent buy from Tesco - even if you can't work out how that compares to Sainsbury, Asda or Co-op. You can't say Tesco is more Popular than Sainsbury's unless you know that Sainsbury's and Tesco combined accounts for 30% of the market and see Tesco is 12.5%, you'd can say Tesco isn't as Popular as Tesco for Heinz Beans even if you can't breakdown the other 70% who buy elsewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2lNImKrVPY

This person did the maths and came out with 9% and everyone else who extrapolates based on Activision Data in Financial and Shareholder reports with Steams Data tend to come out with figures between 5-15%. Point is, this is using Available Data provided by Activision and Steam.

My Sources for the Numbers are Activision and Steam - both Activision and Steam provide numbers so its possible to extrapolate and work out what Steams numbers represent relative to Activisions number, how much of a percentage their own numbers represent compared to numbers Activision state. It may not be 'precise' - as in exactly 8.23% or 22.838%, but you can work out a ball park figure based on Activision/Steam data.

@GeeEssEff Unless Activision/Kotick lied in the Trial regarding the Microsofts buyout or Steam Lie about their numbers, if you do the maths, it works out at about 9%

Where is your evidence to prove that Steam is the most Popular platform for Call of Duty when all the evidence and comments from official sources indicate the opposite. Yes I can use ANY search engine, not just Google - and it still returns the same 9-12% which is decent, but as a lot more people play on PC not through Steam, Steam is not the most popular.

The point is I actually bothered to try and find out before I make statements - I don't care whether you 'believe' me or not, but to refute it without providing ANY sources yourself to prove me wrong - like a typical Fanboy, you'd rather believe whatever fantasy you want - better to be ignorant and your belief remain in tact than be educated and change your 'belief' as Facts counter it...

From doing my 'research'
Based on industry estimates and platform trends:

• Steam likely accounts for 5–15% of CoD’s total active player base.
• Warzone and mainline titles like Black Ops 6 have seen spikes on Steam, but console and Battle.net remain dominant.

But Google will say 9-12%...

@GeeEssEff Typical response from an uneducated fanboy that refuse to believe anything that doesn't align with their OWN extremely Bias opinion.

It was only reported about a month ago - after people used 'Steam' numbers to try and indicate CoD was dead , then Activision themselves published their figures which indicated that Steam would account for about 5% based on their numbers during that SAME Period.

The 9-12% was from before the game launched on Game Pass which as Battlenet is now Microsoft Owned, also accessible to Game Pass subscribers. It's not too far of a stretch to imagine that impacted on SALES of the game via Steam. Why buy on Steam when you can play free with Game Pass elsewhere on PC. According to Activision, CoD is more popular on Xbox too as roughly the same number of people play roughly a third play on Xbox and a third on PS5 so a higher percentage due to a lot less users - consoles accounting for 2/3rds of the playerbase - Steam is not the most popular option for CoD on PC.

Whether Battlefield will be most popular on Steam, EA Access or another PC platform, whether its more popular on PS5 and/or Xbox, time will tell - but Steam will still be the ONLY option for gamers to have any 'numbers' to fuel their own agenda!

@Flaming_Kaiser The game was like BF3 - for better or worse. It certainly was a good Battlefield game but Battlefield has never felt or played anything like CoD, never felt as smooth/slick, never as responsive or consistent.

Asfor the Skins, apart from the 'Base' game, ALL the Post Launch content and of course Warzone which is a BIG part of CoD too are both F2P so have that F2P Monetisation - you don't need to buy season passes, cosmetic bundles, CoD points or any DLC because all the Maps, Weapons and post launch gaming Content is FREE to Everyone.

EA have a terrible reputation for Monetisation and egregious post launch practices. Battlefront 2 had the infamous Pay to Win Lootboxes and that was made by the Battlefield team too. Battlefield 6 hasn't yet given you indication of their Post launch roadmap.

@GeeEssEff Google is a good place to start - 9-12% on steam, 66% on console or 2/3rds leaving 22-25% on PC but not on Steam. I've seen various - some saying as low as 5-6% based on statements about Monthly Active Users in Activision reports and comparing that with Steams Numbers, the maths would indicate around 5-6%.

@ilyn and Battlenet has the History as well as being owned by Activision - the Publishers of the game. Why buy from a 3rd Party and Steam also has a 'bad' rep in CoD - its where the cheaters go to play, its where they can create multiple accounts with ease to get straight back in after being banned and a reputation for being more problematic on Steam.

It maybe more popular than it was, but that doesn't mean that its caught up and/or overtaken Battlenet.

Call of Duty is MORE Popular on Battlenet than Steam. Steam accounts for about 5-6% of the CoD market and about 1/3rd play on PC so Steam represents a tiny fraction of the overall Player base and not representative of the overall at all. Its too small a percentage but it's the only one providing numbers that enable others to make up stories/headlines for 'clicks' and Ad Revenue.

Battlefield is much more likely to be more popular on Steam and no doubt its free status and of course the recent success of Battlefront 2 which has far more in common with BF6 (unsurprisingly) than CoD, probably help those numbers. From a BF fan perspective, its the most popular era, returning to Destruction, 32vs32 and more traditional Classes - its the BF3/4 era Sequel that Fans have wanted for the past decade+ so I do expect it to be more 'popular' than their more historic settings and 2042.

I spent a few hours this morning playing Conquest in the Early Access beta. It seems like a typical Battlefield game that 'feels' like BF3 but graphically modern. It has more in common with Battlefront (unsurprisingly) than CoD and that also means movement, gun-play, pacing and 'feel' of playing.

It feels and plays like Battlefield 3/4 with maybe a bit of BF5 too. If you enjoyed BF3/4, this should feel very familiar and a return to form but if it you didn't like being killed by Tanks or Aircraft, being sniped across the Map or dying as your building collapses, Campers and 'long' matches, maybe its not the FPS for you...

Whilst nothing is too big too fail - the bigger they are, the harder they fall LOL - I don't see Battlefield being that detrimental to Call of Duty - and as Someone who plays both and has spent time playing BF6, they offer very different experiences.

BF is at its best in big scale combined arms battles - multiple squads vs multiple squads and destructible environments. CoD is much more Squad vs Squad in small arenas with no destruction and more focused on gunfights. Movement too is very different - BF more grounded (you can dive/slide but can't fire during) compared to CoDs more Arcade/Action Movie style twitch/more responsive movement.

Apart from the fact both are FPS games and with a 'Military' setting, Battlefield has more in common with Sci-fi shooter 'Battlefront' (unsurprisingly) than CoD.

You cannot get the 'same' experience from CoD that BF offers and vice versa - so just like history has shown, I doubt those looking for a more Arcade style shooter with ''rewards' for going on streaks and the pacing that CoD offers will buy/play BF6 that much - just like those that prefer BF don't tend to enjoy CoD as much, if at all.

Battlefield and CoD have gone 'head to head' many times over the decades, and Call of Duty tends to be more popular than BF but BF has still been successful and sold well.

@gipsojo Not really - because the story is based on Pinocchio and 'lying' is also a very human trait. It also plays into the Story and a vital part of the Game-play.

@Flaming_Kaiser How can you say they don't announce it when they have now stated they make nearly 5bn a year Net from Game Pass. Sales of those 'same' games still have money coming in too combining with the Subs and sales of all the 'extra' content bought for those games - many of whom wouldn't have purchased 'extras' because they wouldn't have bought the game or at least not until its on sale years later and all that seasonal content is now not available to buy, not spending money on Cosmetics as the games 'life' is over.

Those Skins and Battle Pass system were introduced under Bobby Koticks Management, under Activision and those 'terrible' skins as you put it is what pays for all the FREE Content (maps, weapons, modes, events etc etc) that other games (and Call of Duty) sell as post launch DLC.

Black Ops 3 had 4 DLC packs - each with 4 maps and a Zombie Map and then released a Zombies only pack - you either bought or missed out. Some of the most Iconic Maps (both MP and Zombies) were only available as DLC. Now EVERY extra Map (MP or Zombies), weapon, modes, events etc are FREE because they sell MTX to fund all seasonal content and Warzone too.

You get a LOT more Free these days than you would have 6yrs ago. They may run Warzone and Seasonal content more like a F2P game but that just means you don't need to spend money at all. That was the system BEFORE Microsoft agreed to purchase, let alone before they took over and the 'two' releases they have Published (as owners) were both greenlit and built with Activisions 'management' and funding method.

Everyone on a Console has to pay to play online - even on Xbox. You need at least Game Pass Core/PS+ Essential to play Black Ops 6 and to play Black Ops 6 all year on PS5 vs Game Pass on Xbox, its cheaper on PS5 and that includes the annual sub fee.

Its cheaper on Xbox to Buy CoD and pay for Game Pass Core for a year than spend $20 a month for 12 months and then 'lose' access if you stop paying $20 - of course, if you play other games too via Game Pass, the more value you get from your Sub fee as a consumer, and from MS's perspective, its still regular income contributing to that $5bn a year just from GP

Regardless of what you think about GP, MS themselves are seeing increased 'revenue' from their gaming division in every area - inc Sub services and software sales - only Hardware has declined - which makes sense as Xbox is everywhere, not just their OWN hardware...

If they get you to play via Game Pass (as opposed to Steam or PS), they get 100% of all revenue - inc on all the Cosmetic MTX sales as they are sold through their Store so make 'more' money from each individual bundle sold, from each player who spends money on their Platforms. They may lose the 70% 'game' sale on PS5 but gain from an extra Subscriber and all the money they spend through their store. Every game these days - inc Single Player games - has DLC or some Post release content - none of that is 'free' with Game Pass so they get 100% of the revenue of ALL sales of their Content, 30% from all 3rd Party Published content and the Sub Fee for GPU all contributing to MS's Profits and everyone, regardless of Hardware is contributing to MS's profits and MAU's by spending time/money in a MS product or Service!

@Flaming_Kaiser I know they can - but my point stands that they had major Backlash for using Females and Disabled characters front and centre of their 'Historic' world war based game. Those Characters, despite looking and dressed in period correct outfits.

Black Ops 2 had some outrageous Animated Camos for weapons that no Soldier would want to take as it draws attention to them, their position and makes them an easier target. But back then, Characters were generic and not customisable - just the weapons and reticles but soon expanded as technology and resources grew - as well as their 'greed' for additional ways to monetise. By the time we got to Infinite Warfare, random Lootboxes and never selling complete sets of Crazy cosmetics had taken over but they still had wacky Cosmetics. Battlefield really hasn't so it really would be a dramatic change if they did where as CoD, it would be a dramatic change after more than a decade if they stopped...

Makes sense, its a completely different game and has never been 'arcadey' like Call of Duty or fortnite. Dice has always attempted to create a 'realistic' look in their games and got absolutely trashed for trying to be 'inclusive' during BF5 trailer, let alone doing any, lets say colourful and/or out-of-place for any soldier to be fighting in that setting in 'reality' which is why Dice don't go there, or shouldn't...

CoD has always been arcadey and ever since they found a way to sell Cosmetics, they have and some were definitely out of place, but its now become so that everyone is 'outrageous' and its 'normalised'. It makes them easier to spot in most cases - stand out across great distances in warzone if you can Snipe.

Point is Battlefield has its own style and Game-play that separates it from other FPS games. Its Large battle 32 vs 32, multiple Squads vs Multiple Squads in Combined Arms warfare on Large scale maps, Cod is just Squad vs Squad in fast paced gun on gun combat with rewards for going on streaks, much more arcade or Action-film Stuntman style special effects assisted movement and gun-play - if you've seen it in a movie, you can probably get a kill like that in CoD sliding or diving any direction....

Some would say CoD is all just running around like headless chickens shooting each other with no tactics or squad dynamics, relying on them for revives, ammo, meds, repairs etc, far more strategy and awareness required etc etc. They can be so different to play that some FPS fans like one but not the other - depending on whether they prefer the more sim/serious tone games or the fun/more arcade/arena style shooters. CoD fanboys will still buy, play and enjoy CoD, BF fanboys will still buy BF and some FPS fans will buy/play both...