BAMozzy

@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...

@Andy22385 I was talking in Dollars by the way and whilst there are some that only pay a few dollars for Game Pass Core or got some special stacked deals, most of those loopholes are closed now - you don't get a year for upgrading. On Xbox, it costs $20 for Ultimate which is more than double the amount for Core and why I decided to use just $10 - more to illustrate than give accurate or precise figures. MS announced over 35m Subscribers and so if you take an 'average' of just $10, that's $350m - some are paying $20 which offsets some that may only pay $5 a month for core. Its more about illustrating how 35m+ people every month paying a 'relatively small' amount adds up to a Sizeable income - that equated to about $4.2bn a year - but has now grown to nearly 5bn since they last reported they had 35m Subscribers.

MS themselves has stated they got 4.2bn a year Net, where as that 350m would be Gross. MS today has come out and said Game Pass is generating nearly $5bn a year or about $420m a month...

@Flaming_Kaiser They still made 'Bank' as you put it with Call of Duty - despite it being on Game Pass because believe it or not, it still SOLD very well and whilst BO6 maybe 'Free', the Battle Pass, Cosmetics and Premium Rewards from Events aren't free - the place where the 'money' is made now. Arguably, its got more people in and spending money on those extras where they get 100% from each sale and 70% from every Playstation or Steam gamer that bought the game and all those extras that fill the game today...

Whether they bought the IP's or NOT, they also bought the Studios that created them, The only difference is that the 'Publisher' who released the games before are now owned by MS but the Studios behind those IP's are also now MS owned - just like Sony has the Studio behind Halo, Destiny, Marathon despite only one of those games ever being associated with or releasing on Playstation, although was an Activision Game. I believe Sony/Insomniac own Sunset Overdrive although Microsoft own/owned the Publishing Rights but Destiny is a Sony Game and own the Creators behind Destiny. The only reason they don't own Crash is because they only bought the Studio who created it, not the 'Publisher' who owned the rights to it as many devs gave up their rights to get published or were owned by the publisher anyway. Creators of CoD left that IP years ago, Activision hasn't 'managed' its IP's or Studio's very well at all but I digress...

It doesn't matter who 'published' and/or owned the IP's, what matters is the Studio's behind those, the creators of. If Sony doesn't buy IP's, although I'm sure they've acquired them through Publishing deals (they keep the IP whilst the dev gets their creation published) which may help when Sony decides they'll add to their Studio collection, but they also acquired Destiny!! MLB is a licenced property, like Spider-Man but Destiny is a Sony game now.

Its not as if Doom was made by some MS studio created just to make Doom from now on - like they did with Halo and Gears when Bungie/Epic stopped making them for MS and part of Bungie going independent was making two more Halo games (ODST/Reach) and give MS everything Halo - inc the rights. They weren't independent for long as Activision, the Publisher they'd partnered with for Destiny, bought them and now its a Sony game so why aren't these any different??

@MFTWrecks First off, it is concurrent Subs and growing - not as much as they predicted/hoped but still growing in concurrent Subs. Whether some do leave or not, they are 'replaced' by new Subscribers to keep over 35m Subscribers in their ecosystem.

That $4.2bn is 'net' btw before you consider what money is spent out on Games. Yes they do pay money to 3rd Party - but again with 350m, their Studios aren't likely to be costing 10m a month to develop their game - they may cost maybe 100m or so over 5yrs+ which equates to less than 2m a 'month', including all the 'external' costs, paying voice actors, hiring Voice recording studios etc. Its not as if they are adding the latest AAA 3rd Party Developed games day/date which would cost MS 'millions', but mostly indies which only cost upto 100k to make and some 'AA' games from smaller studios with 'little/no' Marketing budget for their game to 'compete' with AAA.

Some Publishers want to 'boost' their numbers and hope to get more on board early in the game than others and some won't put their game in a Sub service at all - but regardless, with that much money coming in, You can give each studio 4m per month to keep making games so they effectively are 'paid' for by Game Pass, Sales of them and all the 'extra' Content that releases will of course be 'Profit'. That still leaves a massive chunk of cash to 'buy' games that month for Game Pass and of course still earn money from ALL those that still BUY games (especially those not on Game Pass), and content through their Store. You don't Sub 1month to play games like CoD, Oblivion, FH5, Sea of Thieves etc, these are games people play for months and months.

Its not a 'straightforward' money maker - you have to balance your Subscription Revenue with all the Costs and that includes ensuring a good variety of 3rd Party too. When MS started, they only had 5 Studios, but Game Pass has grown and Grown - so have their Studios in number. They have a DIFFERENT model to Sony, one more Service driven than Sony's Sales. MS are more about how many people use their Products/services in both Business and Leisure activities, Sony are more about how many units they've shipped. That too will make it 'risky' for others to do but Ubisoft and EA do with certain tiers of their Subscription services so they must believe that selling isn't the ONLY option to get revenue in - just like Game Pass Subscribers still spend money on extra Content, cosmetics, DLC etc - Indiana Jones DLC costs money whether you played the game 'free' via Game Pass or not, Same with Doom and Starfield. It gets them in 'their' ecosystem spending their time and money! It's not just limited to their Console either.

As for the studio closures, in case you hadn't noticed, that's happened Globally across the entire industry - Sony closed Savage Games after acquiring them in August 2022, cancelled numerous games and lost about 10% of their workforce. MS has lost a bit more, but also Expanded the most and needed to 'reorganise/restructure/integrate' 3 separate companies into 1 'functional' and more efficient company - you don't need 3 separate Publishing divisions and ALL the marketing/PR and HR etc that each has.

@Shaun2018098 Irrelevant - Minecraft and ALL the updates for over a Decade now have been owned, published and funded by Microsoft. These IP's are Microsoft Owned IP's and Microsoft funded their development, greenlit these projects etc.

It doesn't matter if 'Doom' was on PS in the past, Doom the Dark Ages was entirely funded by MS and Published by them, they OWN Doom. Since Sony bought Bungie, Destiny is a Playstation owned IP as is Marathon that had NO history on PS hardware.

They 'could' have decided NOT to release on Playstation and expected Playstation gamers who want to play Doom or Minecraft or Oblivion (which was Exclusive on Xbox for some time) to buy their Hardware or 'miss out'. However, you are still buying a Microsoft Product, spending money on their games and spending your time in their titles regardless of the 'box' you choose to play on. Its still a Microsoft owned and Published game whether you 'like' the situation or not. Tomb Raider is not a Square Enix game anymore, Destiny is not an Activision title anymore - Doom , Minecraft, Oblivion, CoD etc - these are Microsoft owned IP's made by MS owned Studios and funded by MS's money.

@Shaun2018098 @Andy22385 Of course there are some that pay 'less' or have managed to stack a deal for a few years so barely pay, but that is also why I chose $10. All those Ultimate Subscribers on console are paying Double that which balances out someone getting it free that month or two people only paying $5.

Point is, $350m is a very conservative estimate and MS state it brings in 'more' than that a month. It was more to illustrate that huge sum of money every MONTH coming in to MS so they can keep making games. If a game costs 100m to make, they can effectively make 3.5 games a month, yet only give one away every couple of montths - its still sold too btw so it still gets revenue from Sales.

The fact that MS are choosing to sell on PS is no different to Sony expanding to PC. Microsoft already release on PC and have their OWN PC platform to support - unlike Sony who release on 3rd Party PC platforms. Therefore the only 3rd Party 'hardware' MS can target is Playstation and Switch for additional revenue.

FH5 will likely sell more than FH3 did (before Game Pass hit 'sales' because it will sell more on PS5 alone. If FH3 was 'profitable' on Xbox, just think ow much more that IP has generated now, how much larger its Community is, how much 'growth' that IP has shown.

At the end of the day, you are still buying Microsoft products and spending your time in their games - dominating both 'Sales' and 'engagement' metrics on a Sony platform - yes Sony get money from that but the narrative of Xbox has 'no games' is now Xbox games dominate on Sony's platform, where are Sony's games?

@MFTWrecks But think of how much money they'd lose over the MANY years they hope to keep Game Pass subscribers still in their Ecosystem, buying all their DLC, Battle Passes, etc through their store because that's where they play these games. With 35m+subscribers paying just $10 (some pay more and Ultimate for Day 1 on Console is $20 but just for ease, lets say $10), that's $350m in revenue per month. How many Studio's can you keep open and keep paying their development Costs with $350m a month, effectively paying for the Games 'in advance' over time instead of 'hoping' thy sell.

And most games don't sell 10m copies in the first month or two when the game is at its highest, it may sell 2 or 3m in its first few months, but most of its '10m sales come after big price cuts. Also doesn't stop 'sales' on those platforms, it reduces them in favour of player numbers, getting those 10m+ others that wouldn't have bought to play it. You can't say they've lost sales as the vast majority probably wouldn't have bought and the rest would only buy in a sale 6-12+ months later.

Forza Horizon 3 wasn't a 10m seller, PS5 sales of FH5 will probably beat it and that's not including ALL the sales from PC and Few on Console that prefer to buy. Some people still want to 'own' their games - even if they use Game Pass to access games earlier but they'll buy in a sale later as usual...

Box Art inspired by Horizon, Game-play is far more Palworld with 'robot' animals and surely Guerilla doesn't own the copyright to Robot Animals (inc Dinosaurs) as an enemy type.

Unless the assets are taken from Horizon, the gameplay and look to be honest seems as different as CoD to Fortnite - it looks more like a more cartoon like version of the more realistic approach that Horizon took.

It looks far more like Ark: Survival crossed with Palworld for more widespread appeal.

Whether it releases 'Day 1' on Playstation or should be the more pertinent question. I don't doubt that it will release on more than just Xbox/PC eventually, but I do think that they'll focus on the Xbox Console version first and maybe release it a few years later like Sea of Thieves and FH5.

Gears of War may well be a Day 1 release on Playstation, but its not likely to 'sell' on Xbox/PC as Xbox/PC owners have had access to it for many years. I got a FREE upgrade code from Microsoft just because I own the 360 and XB1 'remaster'. I don't see South of Midnight, Avowed, Starfield, Flight Sim/Flight Sim 2024 or a number of other Xbox first Party releases and apart from a few IP's (CoD, Minecraft, Doom and Outer Worlds), all the rest where playable on other platforms before Playstation gamers could play.

It doesn't make sense to leave that potential revenue untapped, let these games, their 'assets' stop generating revenue for them because everyone in their 'limited' bubble have bought. That only leaves the gamers outside their Platform bubble to generate revenue from their 'assets'.

If Sony decided to port the Last of Us or Uncharted to Xbox/Switch, that's not 'harming' Sony or its ecosystem. Playstation gamers aren't buying PS5's to play OLD PS3 games or buying them/remasters today because they bought them at least once before. The only way to try and make money on these Assets is to either 'remaster' again and hope that their ecosystem will buy again or port it to other Platforms and sell it at 'current' New Release pricing knowing that those gamers aren't able to buy these cheap on Sale or older versions to play via BC like they are on Playstation.

I don't doubt that MANY games/IP's owned by Sony/MS will release on multiple platforms eventually - Games like Uncharted, God of War, Spider-man, Horizon, Last of Us, R&C, etc are not Exclusive to Playstation today - even if they aren't on Xbox Consoles. If Xbox does become more 'Open' and allow Steam, then Sony's PC releases will be 'cheap' and 'playable' on that hardware due to the fact they are 'older' and on sale games. It maybe makes more sense to port and release 'Xbox' versions they can sell at full price rather than get a lot less money from Steam...

@Balaam_ How would you feel about them porting Uncharted or Last of Us to Xbox - they are OLD games and no longer likely to be making Sony money? That's no different from MS using their 'older' games - even if they are still relatively 'current' to extract revenue from gamers that otherwise wouldn't have, money they can invest into their Ecosystem?

Some Games, like Live Service, may well benefit from Day 1 releases on EVERY Platform so you build up a Community all invested in your IP 'early' rather than exhaust that Community, then try and inject new comers in who missed out on all that 'build-up' to the point they are invited in and time investment, experiences that they can never get because those 'events' were seasonal, didn't get involved in shaping the game its become etc.

Other games - particularly their 'Strong' Single Player IPs are perhaps best left until they've joined PS+ at least because by then, everyone who would buy or buy a Playstation to play would have. Its not really making them 'much' revenue anymore so port it to other Platforms (PC and whatever other hardware its likely to sell enough to justify the porting and releasing costs.

Releasing on Switch/Xbox (as appropriate) is no 'different' to releasing on PC - it still stops it being Exclusive. Steamdeck and now PC Handhelds are 'Consoles' in form factor.

Certain games will be Exclusive because that makes sense maybe - Gran Turismo for Sony or Forza Motorsport for Xbox because porting to the other with its built up and Loyal fanbases probably won't sell enough to make sense.

I think these gaming Publishers as Sony and Microsoft both are, know that they have a LOT of Products that they've 'exhausted' in terms of revenue generation within their 'small' bubble audience that could be a 'goldmine' of revenue if you sell it off to the rest of the gaming world. FH5 isn't 'new' yet I bet MS will make much more money from selling it on PS5 than FH4 probably did over its lifetime, let alone the revenue from their own platform. Sony has a Catalogue of Games not making them any revenue that with a bit of work, can make them a lot more - and 'plan' ahead for future too

Spider-Man is an OLD game now and unlikely to be making money for Sony so its a 'dead' asset. They could release it on other Platforms and get some extra revenue. It may even be the 'best selling' game on those Platforms too for a while.

FH5 has been out for years on Xbox, yet I bet its made more money in the last few months than it had in the last year or two on Xbox.

Sony has a LOT of Assets yet aren't making money on them, aren't using them to their Advantage and Profit margins. They could release Uncharted or Last of Us games on Xbox/Switch hardware to get additional revenue, reach new 'milestones' and have more money to invest in their own Ecosystem. It doesn't mean that Sony will release their games Day 1 on Xbox/Switch, just that they won't necessarily be exclusive 'forever'. After all, games like God of War, Spider-Man, R&C, Horizon, Helldivers 2, MLB. Last of Us etc aren't Exclusive today as they are on PC.

I'm sure that Microsoft won't release all their First Party games Day and Date on Playstation and/or Switch either. Most will be ported at least months after its been released on Xbox. Gears of War: Remastered may well be releasing Day 1 on PS5 next month, but its still a 20yr old game.

Both Microsoft and Sony have a large history of Games that they could 'monetise' rather than leave in the past by remastering and/or porting to other Platforms. If people wanted to play on Playstation, they'd have bought a Playstation so its more about reaching the players that they otherwise wouldn't have, extract money they would never have got otherwise....

Also, with Microsoft merging Xbox more and more into their Windows PC platform, its possible that their PC games will be 'playable' on the next Xbox anyway - but they could also Port to Xbox to release at 'Current' new release price (rather than Steam's 'sale' prices for older releases)

Steam gets so much attention because its the only one that publishes any 'data' on player numbers - although doesn't really tell you how they get and choose to present that data.

Steam is NOT the only PC platform so doesn't even represent the whole PC gaming community. Some games may not be as 'popular' on Steam compared to Battlenet or GoG for example and/or maybe more drop off from Steam than from other platforms because they have so many games releasing...

Take Call of Duty, that's more popular on Consoles than PC, and Battlenet seems more popular than Steam for CoD (it is Activision, now MS owned) so maybe they play CoD on Battlenet consistently where as more of those that buy on Steam drop off.

When you hear they have 20m monthly worldwide users yet steam seems to indicate only 130k, steam is such a small percentage that losing 10k a month seems 'drastic' but if you have 10m and 100k drop off, it seems barely a dent...

@BennyTheCat In theory its totally possible as 40fps is perfectly divisible into a 120hz display - 3 refreshes per single frame rendered for 40fps.

However, that doesn't mean to say the software isn't set to allow a '40fps' mode if it doesn't also detect VRR or whatever it specifically wants from your Display to unlock 40fps in that game.

Your display should send its specs to your Console via HDMI so it knows whether your display is set to receive 1080p or 4k, whether its 60 or 120hz+, whether its HDR, VRR etc compatible too and has to 'communicate' to enable the refresh rate to vary based on frame rate delivery from the hardware. If its not set-up right - some displays may require you to 'enable' certain modes/functions as they aren't on by default or you haven't adjusted the settings in your PS5 to 120hz, the game may not let you select a 40fps mode.

Unless you have VRR, capping to 60fps makes the MOST sense - even if the game can run at over 60fps consistently. Most TV's are 60hz if they don't offer VRR so capping it to 60fps guarantees it to sync with the display. You don't want it to get 'out of sync' by running at variable frame rates.

120hz also helps with 40fps modes and unlocks those in Some games that aren't available for users without 120hz displays and these are more likely to have VRR too.

VRR tends to benefit games that run at over 48fps and/or not consistent with their frame delivery a 'variable' frame rate requires a Variable Refresh Rate. If your display is only 60hz, its better to 'cap' the frame rate to 30/60fps - even if the game runs at above those, its better to have an even frame rate synced to the refresh rate of the Display rather than run it as 'fast' as it can go in any scene but constantly fluctuating...

I doubt its a very 'complex' game graphically or in terms of processing power - Pool/snooker games have been around for decades with 'accurate' physics. Yes the Graphics have improved over the years, but I'd be more surprised if it couldn't do 8k/60. It could probably run at 4k 60 on a PS4 Pro

Have Sony forgotten the disaster of XB1 as a 'media TV box'?

Has Don Mattrick Joined Sony?? LMAO

@Balaam_ You are aware that if your Physical Hardware/Media gets stolen/damaged/destroyed or breaks down, you lose access to them too. Its only preserved if you do what you can to 'protect' it but that may not be enough from an accidental fire for example.

I'm not on about Game sharing, I'm on about playing on MY account where I choose to sign in and play. I can jump between my Xbox, PC and Cloud enabled devices all playing the same game I bought on Xbox without needing a disc to prove I own it - I just sign in.

As soon as I signed into my Playstaton 5 account the day I set it up, I had my entire PS4 digital library waiting to download/install and I expect them on PS6 too whether it has a Disc drive or not.

I can't play my PS3 library today on my PS3 Slim because none of my DS3's are actually working anymore - at least not wired. My Mario Kart 64 Cart won't let me play on a Switch and if I still had working N64 controllers, a way to plug my N64 into a Display, I could check to see if my Cartridge still works after all these years... but some Carts were temperamental when I last tried to play 20yrs ago. I own Goldeneye on Cart too and Perfect Dark but had to buy Rare Replay to play today...

In 20/30yrs time, you can enjoy playing Oblivion on your PS5 as long as it still works and your disc hasn't corrupted/rotted etc whilst I play it on the latest hardware or even without needing hardware because I bought it digitally.

It can't fit on one disc so I doubt you'll get it ALL on disc and be feature/content complete and I doubt they'll put it on 2 discs either - just like they did with Indiana Jones. It doesn't mean you can't 'preserve' your right to play in 20/30yrs, you just don't 'delete' from your storage.

Buying Digital may 'preserve' your Library better. Games are locked to your Digital Profile which carries forward across generations, regardless of distribution media. I can play my Digital PS4 games on a PS5 all-digital, they are all in my Library ready to download and if PS6 is all-digital and BC with PS4 onwards, all my Digital games come with me, but none of my Physical games - as long as I sign in with my Playstation Account that has ALL my Digital Licences to play Playstation versions of those games, where ever Playstation goes in the future, my Library is there too...

Otherwise, you'll need to keep your OLD hardware to ensure you can still play Physical games you bought 20yrs or more ago....

@kmtrain83 I don't know about MS buying Nintendo - Nintendo could continue to make Hardware but you won't be playing the latest games 'locally' on it. They may continue to make their games and choose to only make them 'accessible' on Hardware or through their Digital platform.

At the moment, Cloud cannot surpass Hardware in quality but it can enable those on older or weaker hardware to play games that won't run on their Hardware. Xbox Cloud is 'better' than XB1S native ports (Some are Higher Res, Higher quality settings and higher Frame Rates as its the 'Series S' version - FH5) and other games never got released on their Hardware. You can play Starfield on a XB1S - hardware it doesn't run on.

From an economic perspective, as well as environmental (Carbon Footprint) and sustainability perspectives, building Consoles is getting tougher. Silicon is in high demand, let alone all the plastics, the copper, rare elements and of course even the fuel costs to distribute them globally is an issue today, let alone a decade from now. If you put a 1TB SSD in every Console, that's 100,000,000+ TB's of Storage you need to 'buy', get delivered, install into your hardware, ship out and sell to retailers at lower cost so they can sell it to you at the price it is?

They could build Servers and use a fraction of that 100m TB's Storage to save money - that's more than all the Playstation or Xbox Games ever made combined would occupy so Save money. Their Platform becomes a Digital Platform that is now accessible ANYWHERE you can sign in and play games. Your entire 'Digital' Library is locked to your digital profile so you can 'access' every game you've bought because the License is on your account, not some bit of Plastic.

Games like MSFS cannot fit on a Disc or your own Hardware locally because it has the entire Earth at 1:1 scale - that has to be 'streamed'. Indiana Jones alone is bigger than can fit on a disc and discs are an environmental hazard.

Unless Quantum Computing enables some form of cheap Hardware that can surpass Internet Quality to entice gamers, because I can just see that hardware becoming too expensive to appeal to the masses - so either for very dedicated enthusiast or most affluent gamers. The quality of Streaming will improve and you don't need hardware, storage etc and can play 'anywhere' inc your big screen TV you plug your console into and games can be so much bigger, better, more if they are 'not' limited to running on 'limited' hardware that restricts developers in so many ways to realise their games.

@kmtrain83 I can see a day when you are playing on your 'Virtual' Playstation/Xbox/Nintendo depending on which platform you signed into that allows you to play games. The actual game won't be running locally and you'll have a Digital library with each you have an account with.

If Sony had a Playstation app on PC that you could download your games and play on day/date at the best your PC can play it, even though that's locked to Sony as their OWN Platform, it would hurt their Hardware sales so I really don't see why they expect MS to keep pace with Single Platforms. Microsoft have basically added more platforms so they are not limited to or limited by Console Sales - they don't need to sell consoles to sell Game Pass, but the Only Console its on is Xbox for example.

Cloud may not be quite ready for 'mainstream' gamers but the infrastructure is improving and technology too. With Hardware and Software going up in price, Cloud could become the only option for the more budget limited rather than buy another $500+ Base Console requiring a $5 a month Subscription to play online with friends when they can spend $20 and play on ANY device, inc their TV and have access to hundreds of games that month and decide next month if you can spend another $20 for another month.

Gone are the '$300' consoles and Console gamers expectations are very high leading to increasing costs as they try to keep up with the latest technology to play the latest games because they don't make enough games to sell their own console on its own. Nintendo still make a 'relatively' affordable Console but won't get the Latest games and the few it will probably won't be Day 1 but heavily scaled down ports.

And don't forget Minecraft so actually have 5 titles in the top 10. When it comes to Xbox, you don't need to buy the Hardware and their messaging keeps reiterating that - this is an Xbox, this is an Xbox - So whilst they aren't making money from all the 3rd Party 'Hardware' you can play Xbox on, they are making Money through their OWN platform on those devices.

Game Pass Cloud is a Microsoft Platform - albeit a more 'Virtual' Xbox, but you must Subscribe in order to play 'Xbox' on whatever device - play on Xbox hardware built into servers.

PC is a Multi-platform device - you have Steam as one of the most well known PC Platforms, but you also have Epic, Battlenet, Bethesda.net (those last two are now owned by Microsoft) and of course you have Microsoft Windows/Game Pass PC. If you buy on Xbox, you get to play on ANY Microsoft Platform - you don't get the 'Steam' PC version. If you buy CoD from Steam, you play on Steam, buy CoD from Battlenet, you can't play on Steam despite it also selling the PC version. So Microsoft have their OWN PC Platform too - unlike Sony who 'could' but choose to use 3rd Party Platforms - never Microsoft platforms. That's why you can play Spider-man on Steam or Epic with Steam/Epic being the PC Platform you play on, its not on Battlenet or Microsofts PC Platform.

Therefore MS has more than one Platform - not just their Console. Whether that is a 'good/bad' thing is dependent on your view, but My Xbox Profile is my Windows PC Profile and Game Pass Profile. My Games, game saves and achievements all carry across and progress. Its just one 'Ecosystem' - it would be like you signing into your Sony account on a Handheld or PC and being able to play Playstation' games, your progression and trophies are all carried across etc. But Sony only have their Console. Yes MS may also use 3rd Party Platforms on PC - like Steam, but they have their Own and its linked with their Game Pass PC platform - the games, DLC and everything is Sold through MS and you get the Xbox Console version too with Play Anywhere.

MS may not 'need' to sell 100m consoles to have 100m users on their Platform. They could sell 35m Consoles with 8m accessing via Cloud and 57m in their PC (not Steam/Epic) Platform for example around the world...

I only care about the Games, not the Hardware or brand on the box, I couldn't care less who publishes or even who made a game, I just care about being able to play the Games I want, when I want - I have a PS5, XSX and PC because I need all those for ALL the games I want to play despite the fact that '90%' are playable on just 1. I couldn't care less if MS decided to copy Sega and drop out of the Console business and wouldn't care if Sony did too. As long as I can still play all the new Games I want and/or the Games I already own, and preferably without needing multiple Consoles, the better. I don't want to have to buy multiple Hardware - so I doubt I'll buy the next Xbox (unless it is more PC and 'better' than my current PC) and maybe won't buy a PS6 if Sony continue to release games on Steam - I don't need to play Day 1 and have to pay to play online, play with friends etc.

@soy Not necessarily - I can download DS2 from the Internet and keep it on my Internal (or even an external Storage) and then I have the game installed on my System in 20yrs or 30yrs...

Games being 'delisted' do not mean you cannot redownload if you already purchased. It just means that no 'new' customers can buy/play the game because it cannot be 'sold' - probably a Licensing issue that means someone can't make money from another's IP.

The ONLY reason you can play ffvii on PS1 is because you yourself took steps to 'preserve' your Game Library. If you lost, damaged or destroyed the Disc or Hardware, you cannot buy a 'new' replacement. Modern gamers don't have the option to buy/play those games. In fact, most (if not all) games that are '15yrs' old can be redownloaded today and certainly the vast majority can still be bought.

You can't put that PS1 disc into a PS5 to play it but if you bought PS4 games digitally, they'd be available to 'download' on your PS5. Obviously you can insert the Disc if you bought the PS5 disc version, but if you buy a PS5 digital or PS5 Pro, your Physical PS4 games are unplayable unless you keep your PS4.

You seem to miss the point that the ONLY reason your Physical Discs are 'preserved' is because you made the effort to look after your own Physical media. If you lost your games/hardware in a fire, your Library is LOST - its not preserved. If your Library is Digital, you only need to buy Hardware and your Library is preserved as its 'locked' to your Digital Account.

Physical games are NOT manufactured forever, they are not 'sold' forever - but because the licence is embedded on the Physical media, that gives gamers the choice to sell. Therefore you may find one 2nd hand/used but that's not the same as 'Preserved'. If its delisted Digitally, its also delisted Physically, its no longer in production so once any excess/unsold stock is gone, you cannot buy 'New' again.

If your discs get scratched, corrupted, lost, broken or 'rot', they are gone forever too...

@nomither6 I never said it wasn't popular on PC/PS5 - I just said that I expect that the SALES of the Game will dry up over time on those platforms and all you are left with are the Hardcore dedicated players who play regularly - but they are not buying the game and/or spending more money every month to keep the revenue coming in 'constant'.

Call of Duty can have a Constant player base but that doesn't mean they have a Consistent revenue - some of those loyal players may decide not to buy the new Season Battle-pass or not buy the Cosmetics having a LOT to choose from already so that revenue drops. Sales revenue of the game drops over time to as those that want to play already have bought.

It's inevitable that the Community stops 'growing', it maybe plateau's for a while before declining, but the Sales of the game will certainly slow, if not stop as EVERYONE on that Platform who would buy, has bought. I bet Steam aren't constantly selling between 30-100k and I bet the vast majority of that 30-100k aren't spending 'money' every month in HD2 to keep their Revenue stream up, giving them the funds to develop more content to keep those 30-100k players in their game.

Selling on a new' platform will see a big injection of Revenue from those Sales but they'll drop over time as more and more already own it. They'll also see a 'new' Core group of players on that Platform who will consistently spend time and some that will also spend money - that Revenue alone could make the difference between another year of Support and Content as opposed to maybe winding down and moving to their 'next' project.

Games can still be popular and still get a LOT of players playing regularly long after the Revenue has dried up, long after Support moves on to the 'new' game etc - ALL I said was that Live Service require a regular Revenue stream to keep them going indefinitely, keep them making more content etc. I don't see this as any different from Sea of Thieves or FH5 - both of which probably have a pretty consistent Community who play regularly but the 'revenue' stream isn't increasing to keep up with the Costs to keep the Game alive. Injecting 'new' players injects more Revenue and will increase that 'Core' base who regularly play and regularly spend money.

I doubt that many PC or Playstation gamers are buying this anymore. Those that want it, have it so its very difficult to keep those players invested and spending money to continue developing more content. The Hardcore PC/PS players will stick around but a LOT will move on to new games and not spend the money (or time) in HD2 they once were.

By opening up this to more Platforms, you'll get a revenue boost from all those 'new' players that will enable the Studio to keep making more Content for their dedicated players. You'll also increase your 'Hardcore' player base, increase the number of 'whales' buying MTX's so overall, the game makes more Revenue to keep the Content coming...

Live Service and ANY game that relies on Social gaming is better off releasing on EVERY Platform. Doesn't matter how good games like Killzone, Resistance, Halo or any other Exclusive FPS, they cannot compete with Multi-platform shooters because they don't get as big a Playerbase, can't let some friends play together, and when you are just left with the 'hardcore' dedicated players, there isn't enough to justify making more content for.

Its still been 'exclusive' to Sony Consoles so they've had the benefit of Exclusivity, now they are selling on Xbox to players that won't buy a PS or PC to play, bring in revenue when their current revenue is drying up - people aren't buying HD2 or PS5's to play it on so the revenue is likely declining so the ONLY option is to sell it elsewhere to those that otherwise wouldn't give them ANY money...

@nomither6 I wrote that before I saw a Poll on PureXbox where 41% voted they were 100% going to buy and another 16% think they'll buy at some point. 6% unsure and 4% maybe in a Sale with 22% already playing on PC/PS5 hardware.

My concern with Live Service is often that these games build up story, lore and it can be hard for 'newcomers' to jump in - especially with the majority having years of experience.

Gears is somewhat different as it comes with a Single Player Campaign which can help newcomers get to grips with the mechanics, the lore etc and its also the first game - a great place to 'jump in' for the first time. MP maybe a bit tough as you learn the Maps others know very well, but these are quite small and relatively easy to get to grips with.

It seems like it could do well on Xbox based on the Poll. Gears 1 is still being played 20yrs later and wanted/anticipated on Playstation. Its also been 're-released' once before too and wasn't a 'Live Service' game that evolved over time. People moved on to Gears 2, then 3, Judgement, 4 and now 5 for the Online gaming. I doubt HD2 will still be 'anticipated' or being played in 20yrs time - but I doubt I'll be around to find out.

I doubt many Xbox owners will buy - not because its not in Game Pass, but because its been out a while and if they were that interested, would have bought on PC/Playstation. As a Live Service game too, many will be put off from jumping in this late.

I could be wrong of course but really this is a release for all those on Xbox ONLY that wouldn't or couldn't buy a Playstation and want to play a 'Live Service' game.

@James_42 There are advantages to having the Option to download from a Physical media instead of relying on the internet to ALWAYS be available in whatever situation you find yourself in and of course, if you have a metered internet connection and don't want to go over budget just installing a 100GB+ game.

There are advantages to Digital too in Preservation - all my Xbox 360 and Xbox One Digital games were all ready and waiting to be installed on my Series X - same with the Digital PS4 games on my PS5 and whilst I can play my Physical games because I bought the PS5 with a Physical media player because I had PS4 'discs' - otherwise I could have saved some money on Hardware!

With Digital, the game is registered to your account and the Licence to 'download' and 'play' is locked to your licence - that's why you can't 'sell' (until they find a way to monetise Licence transfers). With Physical, the licence is embedded in the Physical media and the ONLY reason the game code is on it, is to 'deliver' it to your SSD. To ensure you still own the licence to access the game you've installed on your system, you MUST put the disc in - like you must sign into your account to play your digital games.

That's how MS offer Play Anywhere or why you can play Steam on a Steamdeck and PC, because your games are Digital, the licence is on your account, so you sign in and can download your games anywhere. If Sony bring out a Handheld Playstation that's BC to PS4/PS5 Digital libraries (can't offer BC to your Physical games without a Bluray drive) or the PS6 is ALL Digital, then you'll be stuck playing your OLD games on OLD hardware that's no longer being manufactured, no longer able to buy with any real guarantee etc.

I never said that there weren't some advantages to Physical, but they don't 'preserve' your ability to play that game in the future any 'more' than it does for Digital and in some areas, its actually worse. These games aren't preserved so that if your disc breaks or gets corrupted/damaged, you can't download it again, if you don't look after it yourself and do your OWN preservation, like a Digital Purchaser ensuring ALL their games are Downloaded LONG before Internet Access is turned off, and your hardware still works and is compatible with modern displays.

@opo02 How - just explain HOW it is 'more' preserved? If you have it installed on your SSD, its exactly the same - you are ONLY keeping the Disc so that you can access the GAME installed on your internal storage. There is nothing stopping you downloading your games in the future - even IF they are delisted. If you CANNOT download the GAME, then you also CANNOT download the most complete, the most updated and most playable version, you cannot update and patch the game to newer versions. In some cases (Cyberpunk 2077 for example), there is a MASSIVE difference between the Day 1 'disc' version and the version you'd play if you install from Disc/internet today.

You choosing to keep your Disc and your Hardware to 'preserve' your Library, your access to the games you purchased doesn't mean that game is 'preserved' any better than me choosing to keep my Digital games installed and updated on my Console so that in the future, they are 'preserved'. In fact, if Consoles do go 'all-digital' as Discs are extremely limited on Capacity, on Bandwidth, on costs to manufacture/distribute and won't last forever, then my Digital Library is 'better' preserved for me to access on 'new' Hardware. You can't play your PS4 discs on a PS5 all-digital or PS5 Pro so they are 'locked' to old Hardware that you also must keep in working condition because these too won't last forever and certainly won't be able to pick up a 'new' replacement with Warranty.

There is a BIG difference between you actively looking after your OWN stuff to ensure it lasts your Lifetime and 'preserve' your access on the Hardware you bought those games for and something being 'preserved' so that future Gamers can still enjoy and you have Continued access on that 'Family' of Hardware. Digital for example can give you access to ALL your Playstation Digital games on ANY Playstation Hardware regardless of Physical media drives because the Game is tied to your Digital account - anywhere you sign in, there your Game Library is.

I can keep ALL my Digital games installed on my Hardware or External Storage solutions - even if it won't 'play' from a USB HDD drive, I can move it to the SSD to work. There are numerous options available to 'Digital' owners to preserve their Games. Even when games are NOT Sold anymore, no longer visible in the Online Store, that doesn't mean I cannot re-download the most up to date and best version to play and even if the PS6 doesn't have a Disc Drive, I still have ALL my Digital games available to download/install (if it offers BC). I can set up to install several games in a row overnight, you'd have to do each individually, replacing each disc and downloading all the patches/updates extra content etc from the internet too - so tell me HOW you owning a Disc makes it 'better' preserved than me choosing to buy Digitally? In both cases, we still have to download and install before playing, still have to look after our own Hardware and/or Media, have to hope that in the future, the Disc hasn't rotted/decayed, hope your Hardware still works after so many years because its NOT preserved - its no longer being made so no longer any new options to buy replacements...