BAMozzy

@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...

@MrRhysReviews Its still completely playable offline if you buy from the internet too - the game must be downloaded from Disc/Internet regardless and once 'installed', the ONLY reason you need to keep the disc is to verify you still own the licence embedded in it - Digital of course has your licence locked to your account.

In the future, there is NO guarantee your hardware will have a Disc Drive to be able to download from the disc. If you keep your Hardware, keep your games installed, then you don't need to reinstall in the future to play.

Yes there are some 'advantages' to buying Physical - such as it gives you the option to sell later if you want and/or not using up Internet if on a metered service plan. But if you can't get access to the internet, you can't download any of the Patches, any of the additional content or features they add post launch etc, you maybe able to play the 'beta' launch code but the vast majority are virtually unplayable.

In my opinion, the only way Physical can preserve games 'better' than Digital is if they release a 'Complete' and fully patched/fixed version at the end of its lifecycle. That's the 'version' preserved Digitally, the version you can download even if the game is delisted/no longer available to 'buy'.

Physical has limited copies made and are not manufactured indefinitely so are not 'preserved' for generations to come. The ONLY way to 'preserve' YOUR games is to look after them yourself. I can't replace my N64 or Goldeneye Cartridge today, that game is NOT preserved now so that anyone can still buy, still play and I can't play the ports to modern hardware just because I bought the Cartridge - I have to rebuy.

All my PS3 games are 'preserved' in a Box in storage - along with my PS3 hardware. I can't play those on my PS5 and the only way they are 'preserved' is because I took care of them. My 'digital' PS3 games are still playable on my PS3 and preserved by being installed on my HDD so even if they turn off the internet, I still have the game installed.

If you want 'preservation' you have to do it yourself. Delisted (digitally) doesn't mean its 'gone' forever, it just means that if you didn't buy it before, you now can't but if you did, well you can keep playing (unless it was Online based and the servers are gone). I have Killzone games on Disc, but half the content is unplayable, not 'preserved'.

Physical is nothing more than a Delivery method these days because the Game NEVER runs from a Disc, it must be Downloaded and installed onto the SSD (just like Digital) but doesn't 'preserve' games any better, arguably 'worse' in some areas...

Whilst the whole game maybe on Disc, its NOT playable from the Disc itself - it still needs to be downloaded and installed to the SSD. It's no more 'preserved' than downloading and installing from the internet - if you keep it on your SSD, you'll always have access....

Typical claims but I doubt they'll push the boundaries of Graphics beyond what an RTX5090 and won't have the equivalent ML/Tensor cores either but compared to what they've done before with the PS5/PS5 Pro, then this will push those boundaries that the previous Consoles weren't able to get near.

I think people care more about Value and the quality of the gaming story/experience/game-play loop - the Graphics is the finishing touch. People play Minecraft and its the biggest selling game ever.

I've owned every Playstation Gen so far, but I don't know that I'll get a PS6 with the rising Costs of Console Hardware, increasing cost of games and much longer development times too. We had 3 Uncharted and a Last of Us over the PS3 gen, one every 2yrs, but now games take over 5yrs between releases - even sequels like Horizon and God of War. Nearly 6yrs between Infamous and GoT, and its going to be 5-6yrs for a sequel.

Fewer first party releases every year, along with rising costs of Hardware, sub charges to play with your friends, to play content you've paid to play and rising costs of games that aren't 'better' from a story, from a 'game-play loop' perspective, from any meaningful game metric 'other' than Graphical presentation.

The most transformative aspect of the PS5 gen over the PS4 isn't the 'graphics', its the instant loading that moving from HDD to SSD enabled. The games themselves are often just 'prettier' versions of games you've played before - its not enabling some 'new' game experience the Previous gen couldn't do - albeit with caveats (lower quality settings, lower res, lower frame rates etc) - even Titanfall 2 showed you can flip between two 'states' of the same world instantly on PS4 although R&C its used far more frequently and integral to more of the Game than Titanfalls singular mission level.

Still, I have plenty of time before it releases to make a decision on purchasing, but I'm thinking I'll play the few Sony games I want to play when they release on PC, Xbox is already on PC Day/Date and so is virtually every other game I want to play. No charge to play Online with my friends, no content locked behind a Sub Paywall and the ability to play 98% of the games I enjoy Day 1 on one Platform, with the other 2% coming eventually... for Some that maybe a Playstation with the other 2% Xbox games but there are a LOT of great games on PC not on Console.

PC's aren't a 'single' platform, they are an OPEN platform allowing for Steam to exist as a 'Platform' on PC - You buy from Steam, you can ONLY play through Steam, Buy from Battlenet, then you play through Battlenet - you can't play CoD on Battlenet if you bought on Steam. Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Xbox and Microsoft Game Pass are all MS owned, all part of the SAME ecosystem.

Sony will NOT sell on Microsofts Store so won't be 'Play Anywhere', won't be making ANY money for MS as you play through steam and buy any DLC/MTX through Steam, not MS. You are still playing on Steam, not Xbox.

Xbox only exist because MS wanted to bring PC Gaming to the mainstream with an 'affordable' DirectX-Box. Now 25yrs later, you can get Gaming PC's for 'console' money, they can even be 'more' affordable than Consoles so for Microsoft, the Xbox 'console' is not really required unless it 'suits' the individuals preference (cost, ease of use etc) because you could play via cloud if your Hardware can't play the games natively or if you have a decent PC, you don't want a 'budget' console with its 'limited' frame rate and/or console tier presentation - you may buy a Console just because it has a few games you can't play where you really want to play - your PC.

Microsoft make Surface PC's and I can see them making a 'Surface Xbox' - either a Windows Handheld (like RoG Ally although why bother competing with your partners) or more Console formfactor (maybe even with a Disk Drive for BC) to offer a 'budget' Fixed Spec PC with limited/no upgrade potential that may help Devs have a 'minimum' spec target for developing games.

Anyway, point is this makes NO difference to Sony or their PC plans - they have NEVER sold their games on Microsoft stores so won't be in the 'Microsoft' Ecosystem on PC. They will remain on Steam and played through Steam, even if they show up on a 'Xbox' branded App that collects ALL your installed games into one convenient place for easy access. As soon as you click on the game to 'play' it, it launches in Steam, not Xbox!

Xbox will be getting these Enhancements too so I may well see if the 60fps 'Performance' mode sacrifices too much visual clarity for what may well be negligible benefits from the increased frame rate.

The game, well 'experience' as its not really much of 'Game', is a lot of wandering around at relatively 'slow' pace whilst 'listening' to the dialogue, whether from supporting characters or the voices in Senuas head. It's not a high paced action game that requires perfect timing etc, it would be more accurate to call this an interactive experience designed to convey what living with Psychosis, what living with voices (that dynamically change between Negativity and Positivity) is like as different challenges/obstacles (like Combat or Puzzles) get in the way. The focus is very much on the Audio with the Visual quality a close second to get that 'experience' across and why its recommended you play on a Headset. If you don't, then the major point of this is significantly reduced. Game-play has arguably been 'dumbed' down which I think is so that it doesn't get in the way or prevent gamers from the full 'experience' of living with Psychosis and its impact on Senua. If the puzzles or Combat are too hard/challenging, they prevent progress and frustrate and become the 'focus' to the player, not the voices which is the MAIN point.

If you go into this thinking that Game-play is the 'most' important part, then this will disappoint - the Game-play is 'functional' for interactivity purposes and gives the player some sense of being that 'character' more than just watching a movie would. But if you really enjoyed the Audio of the first and how those voices would 'change' depending on the situation Senua was in at that time, really began to understand how Psychosis impacts those living with it and want more, this is for you...

This isn't Microsoft dipping its toes into VR, trying to compete with Sony's PSVR, this is more like them making their Game Pass Cloud App available on another device - this time it just so happens to be a 'VR' Headset. Its no different really from Samsung/LG TV's or Amazon Firesticks - its just another device that Game Pass Subscribers can use to stream Game Pass games to, another device that maybe can sell Game Pass Subscriptions to owners of.

There will be people that get to the end faster than others so there will always be potential for spoilers unless you get it and play it through Day 1 and avoid anyone or online until you've finished it. How long should you wait after release before you talk about something, which could be a spolier to another?

Buying it a few days after release is little different in my opinion to getting it 'Day 1' whilst some got it a few days earlier as a 'bonus' for buying a Special Edition. If you don't expect spoilers because you can't buy/play until 2-4days after the game is out, then why would you expect spoilers with 2-4days earlier access?

Its quite easy to avoid spoilers if you really want to. I also don't have any issue with Publishers incentivising 'pre-orders' with Earlier Access - you have to 'pre-order' to get Early access as you can't buy it until the day of release. Its basically 'Free' for the Publishers to offer and ONLY has 'value' to the Gamer before the Game releases. Once the Day of release arrives, you can't go back and claim the 'bonus', and makes no difference to the Publisher whether you play a few days earlier or Day 1 'financially' (no extra costs like there is to make Cosmetics or offer Digital Soundtracks/Artbooks etc).

I won't buy a Special Edition just because it has a few days earlier access, I'll buy a Special Edition because it comes with ALL the additional Content they are planning to release, as well as maybe some extra Cosmetics or bonuses but don't 'pre-order' as I don't think ANY game is worth the launch day price when its often half that price or less within 6mnths.

Most expensive hardware with the most expensive price for games as well as enforced Subscription charges to play with friends and/or play all the content/games released - some games aren't playable at all without a Sub.

With more Expensive games, 30% of the price goes to the Platform holder so they get a higher amount 'per game' sold through their Digital store as well as sell hardware that locks people into buying from their store. Its not just games, but also ALL the digital content - DLC, Cosmetics, in-game currencies etc etc. Even Indies which would often be under £10 are now £25-30 minimum but often £40.

Its not just 'Sony' I know, but the industry as a whole - yet they also dispose of studios and people whilst their CEO's get pay rises and comment about rising costs leading to price increases so that next years profits are 'bigger'...

@Nakatomi_Uk I kept being invited into their playtesting too but its 'Skate' and not something I really care to play or test. I doubt I'll play it when its 'free' on EA Access LOL

Doom:TDA
Indiana (a close second)
Atomfall

My Games of the year so far

@Ilyn You still have Console tier Hardware with the likes of Nintendo's Switch or Sony's Playstation. Third Party Devs are building their games to run on Consoles too because Consoles traditionally are where the majority play because Consoles are more affordable.

If MS do make a Xbox PC - say around PS6 level hardware then you have a 'fixed' spec PC to target and know it should run well on PS6 too. It will scale 'up' for better hardware - able to offer higher native quality settings and/or achieve higher frame rates - rely less on upscaling (FSR, DLSS, TAA etc), whilst lower tier Hardware will have lower Res, lower target Frame Rates, lower visual settings etc. There is a massive difference in Hardware required to do 4k/60 over 1080/30 with exactly the same quality settings - its 8x 'larger' (4x the Pixel count and Double the amount of Frames) so that gives you a massive range of Hardware you can scale for.

Those 'PC' games tend to come to Console too. A Single Spec PC - like an Xbox PC would inevitably be - could actually help Devs provide their 'optimised' settings instead of expecting players to optimise their own settings to get the 'balance' of Graphical quality and Frame Rate.

PC's tend to provide a range of different settings you can tweak to r the game for the Specs of your Hardware - you may not be able to run EVERYTHING at 'Ultra' or even High Quality and still get the Resolution and Frame rate you want - but the console will have set these at 'low/medium (not that you can 'tweak) cause that was how they 'optimised' it to get the Frame Rate they wanted, implement DRS so it drops Res not frame rates etc.

You can't play Cyberpunk 2077 with all the bells and whistles, at the same visual quality or frame rates on a PS5, Series X or Switch 2hat game was clearly not built for XB1/PS4 hardware either yet 'released' for it. However, they can scale it up beyond what even a 5090 can deliver with DLSS and scale it all the way down to a handheld low powered Console device...

Unless you are building games for a 'single' platform that has a 'fixed' spec - such as Sony or Nintendo building 'Exclusives' for their own Consoles, then ALL games are built to scale across as many Platforms as possible, to scale up and look their best, even if they require DLSS to look that good on the HIGHEST tier, but also look 'ok' and at least be playable at 30fps on the weakest. No one thought that games like the Witcher 3 or Doom: Eternal would run on Switch, let alone as great as they do and look - but that's still a LONG way from what the highest tier Hardware can do.

A Fixed Spec PC - even the Handhelds can help the PC Game Developers - they can these as the 'minimum' Hardware spec the game has to run on at least at say 540/30 with 'Low' settings and FSR upscaling, maybe even use the Xbox PC as a 'Recommended' Spec to target at say 1440/60 as a Minimum and know it will run on PS6, maybe scale down for Handhelds inc Steamdeck and Switch 2...

It's had a 'good' run and I bet its not drawing in enough players that spend money to keep spending money on Servers and Support. You can still buy and Play at least.

It also seems that they are focusing on their next project, investing into that rather than keep spending money on their 'Old' game...

'm sure that Sony wouldn't be the ONLY Publisher interested in Purchasing WB and/or their Gaming Assets. They aren't the only ones of the years mentioned over the years.

Some of the issues though is that they don't 'own' their IP's, they may own a 'Licence' or Agreement to make games like Hogwarts, DC games etc. Mortal Kombat probably makes sense for Sony as they own (or did) EVO.

@Ilyn Whilst you do have High End PC systems that can offer fully Path Traced AAA games with DLSS required to make them playable and look higher res than they are, those games tend to also release and can be scaled down for SteamDeck, Handheld PC or even a Series S.

Handhelds aren't likely to deliver '4k' so that's a lot of 'processing power' not required and no doubt have access to FSR4.0 on AMD hardware. A game 'could' run at 540/30 but look like its running at 1080/60 and on a 'small' screen, any upscaling artefacts will be difficult to spot.

According to Steam, most don't have 'high' end PC's and don't 'need' to upgrade to play the latest games. Whilst they may have to choose 1080-1440p or settle for 60-120 fps, maybe only have RT GI or RT Shadows/reflections' like the PS5/XSX or even XSS hardware, I can only see them continuing to make Games for PC to scale across the 'widest' range of Specs possible - just like they do today. The Handheld PCs (not just Xbox branded), Steamdeck, Switch 2 etc will set the 'minimum' spec to reach the most people possible, not limit it to only those with High end PC's only. Yes if you want all the bells/whistles, the highest Res and/or Frame rate etc, then you'll need the Hardware to get that, but if you are happy with 'Console' tier Graphics/Resolutions etc, the game releases there too, and can be played on Handhelds at lower settings or even streamed nowadays. Streaming may not be the 'best' but it is better than nothing and can be better than playing it natively on very weak hardware.

If MS make a Xbox PC, I doubt it will be the 'lowest' spec PC that gamers are playing on - even today the RTX 20 series are still very popular so I expect it will be 'above' the minimum Spec requirements for Games, even if not by much. No doubt as it is a Fixed Spec Box, that could help Devs develop for PC's, keep that as their 'recommended' target tier Hardware even the Minimum spec their games need to be playable on.

Whilst obvious, this was also mentioned by Sarah Bond during the recent Show when she introduced the RoG Xbox - which is basically the template for the next Xbox. A Windows powered 'Console' like form factor device.

Sony doesn't releases day 1 on PC and likely won't sell through Microsoft stores so will be exclusive to Steam/Epic etc on PC.

PC has always been part of Microsoft and every PC owner is basically a Microsoft Customer - the all bought/own a Windows Licence. The MS/Xbox 'ecosystem' is the Microsoft Servers for streaming, Microsoft Consoles and Microsoft Windows devices - all Microsoft so it makes sense that Microsoft, who entered the Console business to bring PC and their games to mainstream markets with affordable consoles - hence it was the first Console with 'PC' like build and its Built in HDD.

Now 25 yrs later, you can buy a 'gaming PC' for Console money — the Handheld PC's for example are around PS5-PS5 Pro prices and won't hold content and playing with friends behind a Subscription pay wall which adds up over 'years'. I know that you'd need to spend 'more' to get the same sort of visual and performance quality from a PC as you get on a Console, but you also have a MUCH larger library.

Sony will still do what Sony does, still carry on with their 'traditional' style Consoles, still have their 'exclusives', still have their 3rd Party deals etc.

From a devs perspective, they also won't need to port a Xbox specific edition, they'll just have to make a PC game with at most curated/Optimised Settings for fixed spec as the 'Xbox PC' will be, but you can still tweak them yourself

It is weird considering but the Chainsaw kills are 'Brutal' and gruesome in depiction and not just lopping off body parts in some less realistic looking way - although its also not used against 'Human' enemies - its tearing these in half. I'm sure Lollipop Chainsaw (or whatever that game was called) got released in Japan.

@SeaDaVie It is mentioned in the article above and to Quote:

"After just over a year, hundreds of countries can now once again purchase Sony's catalogue of Steam games.

While some of Sony's PC games no longer require a PSN account link, there are a few that still do, such as Helldivers 2, Ghost of Tsushima, and Until Dawn.

Still, at least the purchasing restrictions are no longer in place."

This reads like ALL of Sony's games are NOW once again available to buy in those regions. It doesn't say that games like GoT or even 'Until Dawn' will remain unavailable as they 'require' PSN, but like Helldivers 2, TLoU2 and 'others' (as the title of this article states), they are now being Sold in those regions PSN is NOT available.

The way this article reads, it would indicate that ALL of Sony's games are now not region locked, available to buy everywhere Steam exists. Just because Wario's image doesn't mention GoT, the PushSquare article does and makes it seem that EVERY Sony game is now available whether PSN is required or NOT and some games do require it. I wouldn't have mentioned GoT (or Until Dawn) and would have assumed these were the 'others' along with Helldivers and LoU2 that were now no longer region locked.

@SeaDaVie again that is an 'issue' for those out of Region. If they buy GoT but it requires PSN for Online MP, then they cannot access Online MP. It still costs the same but some content would be 'inaccesible'.

It either should be Optional for ALL so EVERYONE can access ALL the content or NOT sold in those regions because they can't play all.

I'll wait for the inevitable sale and pick it up when its much, much cheaper. If I want to play a 'Borderlands' game, I have the older games I could play as a different Vault hunter, different build etc for a 'new' experience - otherwise I'm happy to wait for a decent sale price.

@SeaDaVie I don't know exactly what the state of PSN is - especially with Legacy titles like the ones mentioned that it was a 'requirement' for. If I were to now buy Helldivers, GoT or LoU2 on PC, would I need PSN? According to the article, these games still require PSN - at least in regions PSN is supported.

Unless PSN is 'optional', then those games shouldn't be 'sold' in regions PSN is NOT available and if its Optional in those regions, it should be optional in ALL regions too.

So are they bringing PSN to those regions too - especially if PSN is a requirement otherwise those regions can't play. If HD2, GoT and LoU2 require PSN to be playable, then unless PSN is available in those regions, the reason they weren't sold in those regions, is a big issue.

So either they are releasing PSN in those regions or PSN itself must be purely 'optional' at most.

@BusyOlf I'd say the first is pretty good - it was Game of the Year for some Awards and won numerous accolades like Best Action Game, best Console game etc but the 2nd and 3rd are superior - especially 2 - I think that has the best 'story'.

Its dark, gritty and 'brutal' and you do get the 'horror' of War too - at least the Epic Trilogy is - the Coalition made games aren't quite so gritty, brutal and they even dropped the 'of War' for Gears 5.

I still think its OK today as a compete game but its also nearly 20 years old. It was 'limited' by Hardware and modern games can do 'more' for the story, the game-play loop etc so it may not have the same impact it did when I first played it.

I'd recommend it - but I'd also say remember its nearly a 20yr old game. Its a bit like 'Uncharted', which was great at the time but after Uncharted 2 and 3 and now decades of time, its 'OK' but not the 'best' in the franchise.

@nomither6 I certainly don't mind it and much prefer a more realistic artstyle to the cartoony styles and/or stylised (like Marathon) so I'd take the look of Gears of War over games like Fortnite, Splitgate, Marathon etc.

I'm also being turned off by all those excessive neon bright particle effects and swoosh lines that are appearing far more frequently in a lot of games. I can understand why games looked a certain way in their day - often due to limitations in pixels, polygons and hardware - but in general, I'd rather see more realism as I think that has more Atmosphere. Bright colourful doesn't scream 'gritty' dark, moody, horror etc at all and this was a Gritty, Dark war story