BAMozzy

No Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 in the list? Whilst it probably isn't in my top 3 or 4, I am looking forward to it more than the majority of other games coming out. I know it won't be Game of the Year, probably won't be innovative or that different from previous games etc, but it will likely end up as one of my most played games in terms of hours spent and I really do like Zombies.

I don't know that I'll even play most of the games listed and some of the ones I voted for, I certainly won't be playing 'this' year as I refuse to pay more than £50 for ANY game just to play it within the first few months of release. I'd rather play my backlog until those games are on Sale. Arguably I'm not excited enough to drop £70+ just for the base version of games these days when I can buy 2 or 3 AAA games for that price - just 6mths+ old games that were £70+

It has the typical UE Artstyle and colour palette from that era. You can look at many games from that time period and see a similarly muted colour palette as games tried to move away from the Cartoony bright colours and tried to go for more gritty realism.

Say what you want about it, but Uncharted was influenced by this and numerous other 3rd Person Action games too.

I won't be buying this, I own the 360 OG version, the XB1 'Ultimate' edition Remaster and thanks to Xbox, I have been gifted the Reloaded edition too. I have beaten it multiple times over the years so I doubt I'd have re-bought it anyway.

I never got into the Multi-player but I really enjoyed Horde mode and Beast mode in later games. I much prefer to play Gears co-operatively than competitively...

Its not Game Pass - that game is NOT just on Game Pass, its available to 'BUY' too - but unless the game is 'worth' buying, is good enough to recommend to friends, then they aren't spending money. Game Pass would give them a decent lump sum to help cover some of the development costs - if people aren't buying it, recommending it etc, it just means your game isn't that good!

I bet 95% of the Game Pass players that played this, wouldn't have even bothered trying it without that service. They certainly wouldn't buy it with so many other Great games on the market.

They may not get as much 'per person' via Game Pass, but its likely more than they'd have 'sold'. If you read, they are 'upset' that all those extra people in playing via Game Pass didn't recommend it enough to their friends, didn't end up buying it or DLC - which tells me it wasn't 'good' enough to compete alongside all the other games in Game Pass - Clair Obscura did very well with their game that launched into Game Pass too...

Its funny that 'great' games do well and even some you'd think would struggle seem to find success, yet its always the 'mediocre' games that the dev 'blames' Game Pass - yet I bet they'd have less revenue if it was ALL sales as they'd have had far less people even willing to play it, let alone buy!

You can't stick 'mediocre' on Game Pass and expect it to be a success, drive revenue up etc - it has far more competition from Great Games - like Doom, Indiana, Clair Obscura etc etc. If it's not good enough, people will quickly move on to the next game and certainly not drop money on mediocrity!!

As it is a Handheld Windows PC - just like the RoG Ally, Lenovo Go, MSi Claw etc, it is able to play ALL PC games. It is NOT an Xbox Console playing Xbox Console games!

Xbox has 'Play Anywhere' so if you buy an Xbox Game digitally, you get the PC version too so if you have a RoG Ally - or the Xbox branded version - you don't need to double-dip as you already own the PC version and with Game Pass Ultimate, required on Xbox Consoles for 'Day 1' releases, you also get Game Pass PC and EA Access offering more games to download and play on PC's too.

As a PS5 owner, buying a Handheld PC (or gaming on ANY PC) won't offer any 'benefits' to me. If I want to play Spider-Man or God of War on the PC, I'd have to buy these again and shared saves are not the standard. I'd have no access to games I 'own' on Playstation,

Xbox and Windows are both 'Microsoft' so everyone that buys a PC or Xbox Console is a MS customer - they are both Microsoft OS and API's - the only difference is that the PC is an 'Open' Platform so allows others like Steam, Epic etc to compete.

We all know Windows is a not the 'best' OS for Gaming so MS has been working on reducing the 'Bloat' and making Windows more optimised for Gaming. Xbox and Windows development teams have worked together to create a 'Windows gaming' OS that boots straight to your Game Library and only loads what's necessary for gaming - but you could switch to Desktop mode and have the Full Windows PC experience - but most buying a Handheld Gaming PC aren't buying it to do spreadsheets or use MS Office. This is supposed to make it more 'Console' like, but still be a PC that plays EVERY game you'd be able to play on a Desktop PC.

To me, this looked like a Sea of Thieves wannabe. It also makes me wonder if they were hoping to release on Playstation to bring a similar game-play to Playstation customers, then were beaten to it by MS finally releasing SoT on PS.

Maybe it was the rumour of BO7 and the fact they were returning to the future, but the first clue I was watching a CoD game was when we were introduced to the female AI character that showed off some BO3 style robots. The big giveaway though was the Red TV screens which screamed 'The Numbers Mason'

I'm interested in it - can't say I'm expecting anything more than the usual Call of Duty that no doubt everyone will complain or whinge about but will be one of the best selling and most played game (in terms of hours per individual user) of the year.

For a game that everyone seems to criticise/hate, it usually ends up being their most played game of the year - spending 'hundreds' of hours every year in CoD, as well as being one of the most popular games annually too.

But to be Completely FAIR - it is $80 on Xbox too if you want to BUY it to OWN. Of course on Xbox you do have the option of Game Pass Ultimate, a $20 a month Sub Service to play that and/or other Game Pass games for 'Free' but never own it (unless you buy it later on in a sale).

The Only difference is that Xbox has Game Pass with Day 1 releases in their Ultimate tier which technically is allowing Subscribers to play for free. Otherwise, whether you play on Xbox or Playstation, this game costs $80. Its also on PC Game Pass - but you can buy from Steam or Windows.

The more publishers that are raising prices, the more 'value' in a Sub Service that delivers 'Day 1' releases - you can always buy the games you really want to 'keep', when they are on sale later on anyway and if not, haven't 'wasted' money on buying it

I stopped buying releases 'Day 1' when Sony raised the price and put a 'premium' $10 tax on PS5 upgrades/editions - EXACTLY the same content, same story, same voices and game-play systems, mechanics etc just a 'bit of a Graphical boost'. So I won't pay $80 for ANY game, but I can play on Game Pass.

It doesn't matter if Xbox releases 'EVERY' game on PS5 - especially with 'multiple' releases a year as Game Pass on Xbox or PC makes much more Sense for me to play on those platforms. The fact Playstation has them too doesn't mean I'm going to 'buy' on my PS5. For those who don't own a device they can access Game Pass in a way they'd find acceptable for the cost, then the more devices its also available to 'buy' and play is only better for the Gamer - they have the choice to play on 'hardware' they own/prefer to play on.

It's not just MS that announced they were raising prices... But the more that people buy 'day 1', get suckered in to 'pre-ordering' and paying the money - even with many having issues and/or missing content/features due post launch and some games being so 'short on content but expect the money for seasons of content that will build up into a 'full' game and more (BF2042) is it any wonder the prices jumped up - you somehow believe better looking graphics cost more than ALL the work writing, Storyboarding, voicing, concept art, high quality asset making for reference and/or CGI trailers or Cutscenes, all of which with then have be laboriously dumbed down and textures made from them at different LoD's depending on distance, render real Ray cast scenes so that you have reference for baked in lighting etc etc.

When that game is 'enhanced' they already have the 'high quality' assets and its just a different set of LoD's and settings optimisation. turn up the amount of random bushes and grass it can render - all of which was turned down 'lower' for the older Hardware - tweaked to ensure it had the right amount so it played as well as possible, but now PS5 can have higher settings, use higher LoD's so even the more distant objects have more detail so at a higher resolution, the higher settings have a more profound impact but it's not cost 'more'.

With engines now able to replace a lot of labour intensive work, have real time lighting/shadows so no need to bake, nothing is 'fake', no need to make shadow mods or various different LoDs, the engine scales them up down based on size and/or distance from you.

So I don't see why ANY game is worth more than £50 at most and maybe they'd have to sell 1.2m instead of 700k to be profitable...

The All-digital version so Sony hope/expect you buy more Digital content and MS too benefit from more players in their game, in their 'CoD' storefront and buying battle passes, bundles and/or CoD points. Sony benefit by ensuring you only buy through their Store as theb only Digital retailer on PS5 and MS benefit from extra players and extra income It's basically free on Game Pass on Xbox - so why not?

It's not as if PS5 gamers are getting something 'exclusive' and is relying on Microsoft owned IP's/Software to selltheir hardware. CoD is basically free on Xbox Game Pass and has been since launch and was marketed by MS too, now 6months later Sony can use it for their sales push which also benefits MS.

If I hadn't bought my PS5 Disc version at launch, I doubt I'd buy one today - not just the cost of the Hardware, but PS+ to play all the content in those games as well as buying Games and peripherals. At this 'late' stage in the Generation - its coming up for 5yrs old now, I doubt I'd pay £400 for something I think has a year or two before we see a next gen replacement. Back Compat has become 'expected' in a more digital era so I could wait and play whatever PS5 exclusives I missed.

Another option could be to invest in a PC seeing as Sony have released and appear to be continuing to release their games there. Therefore it could be the better 'longterm' investment at this point in time - not only will you get 'most' of Sony's Exclusives but you'll also get all the Xbox releases (Day 1) and can play them 'Free' with Game Pass (Games like CoD, Doom, Indiana, Outer Worlds, Avowed, Flight Sim, Forza), don't have to pay a monthly fee to play Online with friends, also has the biggest Library of games and games are generally cheaper too - more competition.

A console may cost £500, but if you play games online with friends, you'll need a Basic Subscription which can add another £400 over 5yrs to your costs before you even buy a Game. That's money you could put to buying or upgrading a PC that not only blows PS5 away, but also has a much larger game library with many Console games playable via emulation.

Each to their own, but I wouldn't buy a PS5 at this point. I paid £450 for the disc based version 5yrs ago and had that time to get my moneys worth from it.

The people that will renew will likely renew regardless so why 'lose' money on them? This is more to incentivise people either upgrading to higher tiers or to sign up for PS+ - not to 'reward' loyalty.

I won't be 'renewing' or upgrading to a higher tier myself though.

@Sergo That would come under 'preference' but if you had a PC/Series S, you would not have that choice so cannot buy Physical to play the game.

On Series X, the ONLY Xbox hardware that has a Physical Media drive, you have a choice to play it for 'FREE' on Game Pass - thus not needing to spend money, no risk to trying and therefore no need to 'sell' to fund your next game or recoup your losses. That in itself also reduces the number of people that will buy the game as most will play it via Game Pass. Series X too has a smaller number of users as the Series S sold more units and PC owners don't need to buy Xbox hardware at all.

So of the 'few' Series X owners that therefore will buy (both Digital & Physical), Physical accounts for a small percentage. Less than 20% of ALL sales are Physical. So if you only sell or expect to sell 200k, 20% is only about 40k Physical sales which cost money to make and distribute - especially in 'small' numbers.

On Playstation, not only do you have a LOT more Users due to more Playstation 5's sold, but the most populatr model is the Disc based version and their PS5 Pro can add a Physical Media player too. Also, Playstation gamers are a bit more likely to buy Physical and its not as if 80% of the Playstation users will play it day 1 on a Sub service. In terms of Digital - Physical split, its more like 70:30 than Xbox 80:20

Therefore because the ONLY option on Playstation is to 'buy' and no option to 'rent' via Sub service like Xbox/PC, as well as a 'higher' user base and 'higher' percentage of those able to use Physical, Games will sell a lot more copies. With double the player counts and over half having access to a physical media drive, as well as PS gamers more likely to buy Physical, they may expect to sell a LOT more Physical games to make it worthwhile.

I don't care why you choose the format you do - that's Preference - but on Xbox, it would seem that people prefer to play on Game Pass or buy Digitally and with Series X having the 'smallest' users, very few in the Xbox/PC ecosystem will actually buy Physical so its not 'worth' the additional Costs to produce Physical discs. If that puts the 'few' who ONLY buy Physical to sell on, to 'keep' a Physical disc or for whatever reason they have off from purchasing, it's such a small number that it won't have a big impact on the overall. I clearly state that those buying on disc are Series X owners that 'prefer' Physical and won't be playing it via Game Pass which is a tiny percentage of the Xbox/PC ecosystem!

If you didn't have to buy because it was offered as part of PS+ day 1, you wouldn't 'buy' it Physically or feel there is a 'risk' that you may need to sell if you don't like it. You can download, try and then decide whether or not you want/need to buy it at all. That's why this game wasn't released on Physical disc on Xbox/PC because the majority won't be 'buying'anyway and of the minority that do, only a 'few' can or would buy it Physically for their 'preference' anyway as most buy Digital these days.

It never received a Physical release at launch because it would be pointless. The only people buying 'Physical' would be the 'few' Series X console gamers (as PC and Series S are all digital), don't sub to Game Pass and prefer to buy Physical. With Series X also having the smallest user base and as Digital far exceeds Physical in terms of sale numbers, they'd not sell enough Physical copies to justify the costs of manufacturing and distributing that media.

As for the 'game' itself, its more of an experience - the experience of Psychosis and how the situation affects the voices. so Combat & puzzles are there to feed the voices, not the test the players gaming skills. As an Experience, I think its great, but as a Game, its lacking! There is a reason they recommend playing on Headphones because the 'main' focus is the Audio and experiencing Psychosis - not 'Game-play) which is more to service the Narrative and experience.

Therefore I doubt Hellblade 2 was a 'System seller' for Microsoft and probably didn't move the needle much for Game Pass Subscriptions either.

If you really enjoyed the Audio and 'experience' of the first but got frustrated by Puzzles and Combat, this is for you and I think its designed to be more accessible so more people get the full experience of Senuas Psychosis.

I have finished the game with 100% completion and EVERY upgrade and Weapon Mastery completed too - not one crash, bug or glitch.

Yes the Atlan Sections are the 'weakest' from a game-play perspective but they are 15-20mins at most and only appear a few times - the 'longest' is the first time which introduces the Atlan and its mechanics.

The Dragon too is used sparingly and the 'longest' again is the first time - the other 2 times are very brief and you do get off the Dragon to 'fight' on foot after clearing the 'air defences'.

Both tend to offer a slight respite from the 'on-foot' Combat - which if you aren't exploring and looking for every Secret/collectable maybe comes at the right time before the Combat ramps up with increasing numbers, variety of enemies and 'mini-bosses' too. I found them OK - nowhere near as bad/tedious as some make out, but are definitely not as strong as the main combat loop. They are almost refreshingly different - especially if playing on the higher difficulties.

Narratively, I also think its the strongest of the trilogy and the cut scenes are impressive. Graphically the game is very strong too and much more atmospheric with more realistic lighting and less cartoony looking presentation.

Each to their own, but its easily a 9/10 and my Game of the Year. I feel much more confident in assigning a score now I have finished the game with 100% completion rating.

@kyleforrester87 I can only echo what @carlos82 said - I too have beaten every Doom game (inc 3 and the BFG edition) except Eternal and will certainly complete the Dark Ages too - I only have two Chapters left - and the Atlan/Dragon Sections make 'brief' returns for story purposes but the vast majority is on foot.

It starts a bit sluggish but introduces new abilities and weapons quite regularly early on so the 2nd half you have 'every' tool at your disposal and its more about upgrading for extra damage abilities/drops and/or preference.

It's got more in common with Doom (2016) and Doom 1&2 so I think more traditionall yet new and refreshing too. Going toe to toe with giant demons and smashing them with a Flail then sheild bashing an enemy across the map before shotgun blasting another is just so much fun.

At the end of the day, I'd rate this very highly and its a Great Single Player Game that so far, not only looks Next Gen, it's running at 60fps and I have not encountered (or heard of people having) a single bug/glitch. Therefore it only comes down to how much do think that's 'worth' to you to play - Every game ends up on sale at some point, but all I can say is I'm enjoying it and think its easily the best of the recent Doom games and I will complete it.

Currently on Chapter 20 of 22 with 100% completion on every chapter so far. I'm loving this game and its Combat loop. The Combat is far more weighty, brutal and fun than Eternal - at least in my opinion and I feel much 'tougher', much more the Super Soldier than the 'fragile' and lightweight Eternal. Chaining together Shield, Melee and weaponry to dodge, parry and obliterate enemies is so much fun.

Visually its stunning, I've had no bugs, glitches or issues and it plays so well. The Atlan sections are 'brief' and certainly not the 'best' from a Game-Play perspective, but as a visual spectacle, they are impressive sequences. I enjoyed levelling all the buildings and wishing Blast Corps would return as its fun smashing all the buildings - but these are no more than 10-15mins sections in a Chapter.

For me, its the Best DOOM game and has more in common with DOOM 1&2 than Eternal so its a 'return' to what I expect and want from Doom. Its easily my Game of the Year so far.

@ChrisDeku OK if you want to go that route - a game may well cost $120m over 5 years (or $24m a year or $2m a month), but Game pass is bringing in over $300m a month. With that, you can keep 40 studios making games ($80m a month) as well as pay 3rd Party Publishers, Devs etc and all the 'running' costs. Therefore by the time that $120m game releases, its development costs have been 'paid' by Game Pass Subscribers so any sales are pure 'Profit'

Steam doesn't have 150m users - it may have 150m 'accounts' but its so easy to create more accounts and many have multiple accounts.

My point though is that very few games do sell 1m in the first week and Doom Eternal certainly didn't attract 3m people in its first week. If you don't have to buy, why would you? Of those that play via Game Pass, I wonder how many would have bought if that was their only choice? How many would wait until the price 'drops' or it gets offered on thev most basic Subscription that Console owners 'must' have to play every game and its related content. How many wouldn't have bothered even trying it because it has a barrier to try.

Sales don't tell you if Eternal had more 'engagement' or higher complletion rate - its on Game Pass too now as well so you can't tell me how many of those that bought actually finished the game - you'll just assume some figures...

@PuppetMaster being happy with a 'niche' product that they also knew wouldn't be a big seller and the Studio themselves had no ambition to make the type of Games that Tango had been known for, then you can understand why MS maybe closed them down. They didn't buy Tango 'specifically' it was 'bundled' in with the rest of the Zenimax group. When Tango was acquired to make Hifi Riush 2, the new owners already expect Hifi Rush 2 to be a Niche game that won't sell enough to be 'profitable' - but that is their choice.

When MS acquired Tango, they were known for their Horror Survival games and having the Resident Evil Creator as their Studio head and kept their 'Horror' IP's when sold.

It's not just about their 'last' release, its also about their future and the state of the Studio. If it requires a LOT of investment, don't have a 'project' you feel would be successful enough to back, incredibly difficult to support being the otherside of the world and ONLY studio in that region or any other reason, then it makes sense as to why a company may 'shut/sell' a Studio

@ChrisDeku That's not the point - its 'excuses' for not selling more or defensive arguing because one happens to be a Sony made game and the other Microsoft.

I picked Returnal just because I know that was Critically acclaimed and I knew that hadn't sold 1m after several months but I could mention numerous other 'big' releases in recent times Star Wars Outlaws - a massive IP - didn't sell 1m in a month. These games didn't get 1m 'engaged' in their game in a month yet people are trying to knock Doom for having over 3m in its first week!

Some games only pass 1m once the game has dropped significantly in price but the point is Sales figures are not 'important' to you or gamers in general. It makes no difference to you and it only matters to the Studio/Publisher. You can't tell me if 1m people that buy a game even installed it, played more than 15mins or completed it. So why does that matter with player numbers?

As long as the Publisher/Studio are happy with its performance, that's all that matters as its them that will know what 'costs' they need to recuperate, when it becomes profitable and/or how those people are 'engaging' with their game to determine what is 'successful'.

Again Steam is NOT the ONLY PC retailer selling the game - its numbers too won't count PC gamers using Game Pass or bought from Bethesda or Microsoft. It only counts those who bought and play on Steam.

2m+ could well have played on Game Pass - but that is split between Console, PC and even Cloud (although I doubt Cloud is that popular). The only people buying will be those on Playstation and those on PC/Xbox that don't subscribe to Game-pass.

Returnal didn't sell more than 600k in its first few MONTHS of release - not a 'criticism' but many games, even if critically acclaimed, don't necessarily sell 1m in the first week.

Maybe they also don't need to sell as many copies because funding from Game Pass has paid for the development costs so sales are just profit. Atomfall devs said they were immediately profitable despite launching on Game Pass too meaning they didn't have to sell a high number of Games to recuperate costs before making a profit.

Sales don't tell you anymore than player numbers do. You don't know whether they even installed the game or how much they engaged with it. As far as the Finances are concerned, why do you care? Its not as if you have to pay salaries and decide which projects to invest in, As long as the Publisher is happy, chances are the Dev team will be too.

Sales and player numbers are only indications of the number of people the game/marketing reached - it doesn't tell you if they tried it for 10mins or completed everything so its not an important metric either. The only thing that should matter is whether or not it is a good game and/or successful enough that the Studio will make more games. Anything else is not important to a Consumer.

They maybe 'old' games but its still the first time you can play on Playstation - hence the fact these probably weren't selling enough to make the top 30. Xbox and PC gamers would already have bought and/or played on Game Pass so its no surprise to see these jump up the charts now another 100m PS5 gamers can buy and play too...

Only surprised that its taken this long - I expected this to be next after the first 4 (sea of thieves, Grounded etc) as the first was on PS and this is quite a niche 'experience' (more than a Game) as it endeavours to give you the experience of living with Psychosis.

Its more about the voices and how they react to you and your 'in-game' situation. In combat, if you are doing well, the voices maybe confident but take more hits and they become more negative. Combat and Puzzles are 'challenging' situations to add contexxt to the state of Psychosis - not to 'challenge' you as a Gamer to overcome. As such, its more 'niche' and more an 'experience' than a game - which also means you don't limit it to a 'Platform' (its not going to sell Hardware) when you need it to reach as many people as possible who enjoy 'niche' experiences.

And you still have to Download and install to your Internal Storage so it doesn't matter if 100% is on disc or on a server, you still have to Download and install to play. The software on disc is then 'obsolete' as you are playing the software downloaded on your SSD, the only reason you need to keep the Physical media is to prove you still own a licence to access the software installed on your SSD.

The ONLY benefits of having the content delivered on Disc is that you can sell the disc on and/or if you have a metered or limited internet access, it maybe a better delivery method. It won't necessarilyy be 'preserved' any better than Digital

@Balaam_ And that is NOT important to ANYONE outside of those Companies - all they need to know is whether or not they are 'happy' post release - because that affects their opportunity to make another game for us to play.

Sales don't equate to whether or not those people played the game more than 10mins - and some games are 'sold' in bundles, not wanted or ever used yet count to sales figures. Sales don't tell you whether or not players engaged and for how long - most may have wasted $70 on something they played 30mins of before ditching it too because its broken or not what they expected.

Sales also don't give you any info on Price paid or Profit made either - a game may struggle to sell at full price, end up with a massive discount and go on to sell 4 or 5x as many copies, breaking through the 1m mark yet another may have 2m players in a week and yet you'll say that's not impressive because some maybe playing through a Sub service...

As long as MS is 'happy' then they'll keep id software and its staff team 'employed' to keep making more Games. Everyone on Steam & Playstation has to buy - although you can buy from others (MS, Bethesda, nVidia etc) so don't have to play through Steam and Game Pass for PC too won't count for Steam players so PC gamers have a LOT more choice where to Play and/or BUY from. It could still have sold over a 1m copies in a week across PC, Xbox and Playstation which isn't 'terrible' from a sales perspective either!! Returnal, a Critically acclaimed game, didn't sell 1m in its first few months on PC & PS5.

@HonestHick and don't have to keep moving and dodging, trying to avoid any enemy getting close to you as you attempt to also try and get Ammo or Health with a Glory or Chainsaw kill because Doom guy felt like he was 'weak' compared to the weighty and much more Solid feeling Doom guy in the Dark Ages,

And yes Ammo isn't as much of an issue and neither is going toe to toe with the biggest, baddest demons instead of running away and picking them off from distance until you can get the Glory kill. Eternal is the ONLY Doom game I've never finished or really want to. Most of that is down to the Platforming aspect of the game. Eternal is more of a Platformer with Combat and that's not what I want/expect from 'Doom'.

The Dark Ages is much more what I'd expect of Doom - if it was made today!

I'm loving the game so far - 14 Chapters in and every Chapter completed to 100%. It's easily my Game of the Year so far and 'yes' I am playing on Game Pass - although I did 'buy' the Premium Upgrade (basically the difference in price between the standard and Premium edition) as that comes with Future DLC, some cosmetics, Digital artbook & soundtrack as well as a few days 'earlier' access.

I think the Combat in this is far better than Eternal and much more meaty, brutal and visceral. All the weapons feel like they hit hard and only get better with upgrades. The Shield is so much fun - from the satisfying timing a perfect parry to being Capt America or using it to Shield Bash and Zoom into a bunch of enemies like a wrecking ball. It's such an 'aggresive' tool in the hands of Doom guy - its 'barely' defensive.

So its alright for a Human to imitate JEJ but not AI. The SAG-AFTRA is like a farm labourers union protecting their workers from Farmers wanting to use modern technology to increase productivity and reduce costs - inc to Consumers.

How is it different from Factories using Robots to manufacture products instead of 'Humans', Robots taking away 'work' from human people? Its not as if they are replacing a 'real' person as Darth Vader is Fictional - How many people have played James Bond over the years and if they 'voiced' a game with AI imitating Sean Connery's JB voice with 'permission', so what?

@ChrisDeku I don't know why you are being so defensive over this but its more than just a few textures/text they've used, but the Aesthetic and 'design' language of that artist. It would be like Scorn devs claiming their game's whole artistic design was created by themselves yet we all know its Aesthetic and design language is very much Giger.

When you directly use their Fonts, their colours, their 'design' aesthetic, their style and claim it as their own, not for the first time either, its not a minor issue to resolve. They could make a deal with the Artist to use their Design, give them credit and a share of the sales but if the artist refuses, its a major issue.

It's always an 'ex-developer' too - never anyone still at Bungie and according to other artists they've stolen from and 'promised' some reimbursement, haven't done so.

Assuming this even releasees at all now. It would seem the entire look of the game has to change and then you also have to add something to make the game 'interesting' and certainly from a game-play perspective because its is exceptionally generic and barebones. It's artstyle was 'unique' but that was plagiarised from another Artist.

And then you also need the gaming public to forgive Bungie yet again and buy into it, forget the trrack record of Destiny 1 and 2 and somehow turn what seemed like a 'generic' game with its 'unique' but stolen look into something they want to buy despite lacklustre first impressions.

Some were reminded of Concord before they knew of the plagiarism, that this was 'dead on arrival' and I myself struggle to see how they will turn this around when there are other Extraction shooters that have far more depth and much better game-play loop too,

Steam is only one PC option but not the ONLY one. PC gamers can buy from Microsoft or play on Game Pass for PC which is linked to Microsoft and Windows store, not Steam.

That's a bit like saying Xbox Sales and/or concurrent players are representative of the overall Console market when it has the smallest Sample size. Roughly 2/3rds of gamers play CoD on Console for example and Steam only accounts for about 6% so the 'majority' either use Game Pass/Windows or Battlenet. CoD has over 20m players monthly but if you only look at Steams data, it would indicate that barely anyone is playing.

Steam maybe on PC but that is NOT the only Option and with MS putting games on Game Pass for PC as well as selling it themselves so people don't necessarily need to buy and play on Steam. Therefore the numbers on Steam are not representative of the entire PC gaming community.

It can't be because of 'boycotting' over the Disc situation as PC is all-digital anyway so I doubt that affected their decision. I am willing to bet that Steam won't be the most popular option to play Doom on PC - Bethesda sell it on their site and are promoting Game Pass PC too and I'd expect both to be more Popular for Doom than Steam.

@NuclearProstate To be honest, I don't check the map that often and won't check it until I've 'explored' the area myself and cleared it anyway of enemies.

I am somewhat of a Completionist on my first Playthrough as I don't tend to want to 'replay' something that soon after playing it - especially not with a backlog to finish and new games I want to play releasing as well. I am enjoying the exploration and using the Map to see areas I've not explored and/or missed treasures as the Gold, Rubies etc are used for upgrading gear. The more I find, the more I can upgrade my gear and that benefits me as I play.

Loving Doom the Dark Ages and have completed the first 8 chapters to 100% so far...

@PegasusActual93 By weak, I didn't mean in terms of Fire-power or enemies slain, I meant weak in terms of damage taken and the fact that it forces you to keep 'zooming' and platforming to avoid enemies and their hits.

In my opinion, Platforming doesn't belong in Doom - it was never a platformer. Doom: The Dark Ages is much more like the OG Dooms in that regard. - although you are a lot more agile.

Each to their own of course but you won't change my opinion about Doom: Eternal and judging by the comments here, it seems others have a similar opinion too. I much prefer Doom: The Dark Ages to Eternal

I wasn't the biggest fan of Doom: Eternal - Doom guy felt 'weak' but also the game had a bigger emphasis on Platforming which I found annoying/frustrating and not what I want/expect from 'Doom' - No double jumping platforming in the OG Dooms!

I've only played the first 4 chapters of Doom: The Dark Ages and whilst the movement is much more grounded, Doom guy is much more a Tank - but still 'agile'. Combat too is a lot more fun and seems more the focus than having to do some crazy platforming to get to a switch to open the next door or get to the next Combat section all whilst having little ammo and lose chunks of health quickly/easily...

I have played every Doom but Eternal is the only one I didn't 'finish' and will likely remain that way for the near future too. I'm really enjoying Doom:DA so far - the Atlan section is very linear but destroying everything you can in one is quite fun but the Combat in general is Superb, solid, brutal and satisfying - what I want from Doom!!

@Ultimapunch 'EVERY' game requires Downloading to get the Software on to your Internal Storage so that it runs 'properly' - whether that means downloading 100% from Disc, from internet or a combination of BOTH.

You do NOT put the disc in and p-play from the disc - the disc is just an access key. Once the game is installed on your internal storage, the 'software' on disc is obsolete, not required etc - at least until you choose to delete the software from your internal storage, then it may have some utility in the future.

The game is over 100MB so it doesn't matter if they put 100MB on Disc or just 10MB, its still going to require the 'rest' to be downloaded and installed (again - that could be 'internet' or a 2nd Disc). Regardless of that though, Discs are JUST a delivery method and the GAME has to be 'downloaded' and installed onto your Internal Storage.

Physical Media has been just a delivery method since the PS4 era as EVERY game since has NOT run from Physical Media. The Disc Drive itself is 'Obsolete' in terms of actual Gaming (hence Consoles with NO disc Drive) - you need SSD's and SSD Data transfer bandwidth nowadays. Doom the Dark Ages won't run from 'disc' and won't even run from a USB connected HDD because it needs to be installed to your SSD.

All Physical media allows you to do is 'sell' the game if you choose to. Unless you keep your Disc and your Hardware in working order, its no more 'preserved' than Digital. Digital purchased may well be 'preserved' better as the next gen may not use disc drives and everyone who bought Digital have their game on their account to download.

I don't hold Physical media in contempt, but I don't put it on a Pedestal either or think it is 'superior' to digital. The ONLY way it is superior is if you want to sell/trade. Otherwise, its basically the same or worse in othjer areas.

I've played the first 3 chapters so far and 100% completed those without any Guides or external sources. Like Previous Doom games, if you look at the map, all the secrets/collectibles etc positions are shown - you just have to work out how to reach them.

@Ultimapunch Most games don't come entirely on disc and/or require you to download patches, updates, additional content/features etc. Once installed on your internal storage, as all games must be, the only reason you need the 'disc' is to prove you still own it to access the software now installed on your System. It doesn't run from or require the disc for 'game' data,

I can't tell you that you should or shouldn't buy just because the Disc isn't big enough to hold all the data and as its 'downloaded' from Disc to your Internal storage, just the same as downloading from the internet. That is something that is going to be an individuals decision to make, but you also have to consider are you concerned about Playing on 'future' Hardware (which may not even have Disc Drives) or likely to keep your PS5 to play these - even if the internet/servers are closed?

Personally I'd prefer a NEW Fallout main game rather than a remake/remaster. I prefer the Fallout series to Elder Scrolls, but I think that comes down more to the different settings - one is Fantasy based with Swords and Sorcery based combat, the other Post apocalypse earth with Guns, explosives etc.

The old games are good but I also think that some issues will still be present unless they are building from scratch and make alterations. Some are design choices, others are perhaps software/engine and/or the way they worked around those for weak hardware etc.

Therefore I'd rather they took what they've learned, what other Devs have achieved and make a 'new' Game that sets a 'new' benchmark for RPG's. Fallout 4 to me felt 'dated' as does Starfield and even Oblivion Remastered does - even if it doesn't look quite as dated as their other games. The graphics may be improved - but the underlying Structure, the design (especially interactions with NPC's etc), the missions/writing etc haven't really evolved.

Its like they take Morrowind or F3 as the Core template for EVERYThing and only change the setting and/or add 'something' like Clunky base building. I'd rather they looked at 'every aspect' from the interactions to the Combat and Innovate/modernise...

I don't own one and have no interest in owning one. For some context, I've owned every Playstation and 'multiple' each generation. Last gen I had a PS4 and then bought the PS4 Pro, the Gen before that I had a the OG PS3 60GB Phat until that got YLOD and so bought a PS4 Slim. I also had a 360, 360 Elite, XB1 VCR, XB1S, XB1X and now a Series X.

So why not a PS5 Pro - well to me, it just isn't worth the extremely 'minor' improvements for the Cost, the lack of a built in Disc Drive and doesn't offer anything that my PS5 doesn't - a slightly sharper, slightly higher visual quality and/or slightly better performance isn't going to make me spend more than £500 on a 'Console' that still requires a Subscription to play ALL my games and all the content I bought.

Id rather spend the money of a PS5 Pro and the next 3-4 yrs of PS+ on a PC or PC upgrade that would offer more tangible gaming benefits...

No game plays from the disc - whether it has 100% of the Code or not. It still has to be downloaded from the disc and installed onto the internal storage to actually 'run'. So does it really matter if you are downloading from Disc, from the internet or a combination of both to get the game 'installed' and therefore playable.

Its no different to downloading a Day 1 Patch to fix many of the issues they didn't fix before they sent the code to be printed on disc. Its still just a delivery system though as whatever 'code' is on the Disc is not used at all when you are playing and the ONLY reason you need to put the disc in is to verify you still own a 'valid' Licence to play. Without the Disc, the game which is now fully installed on your internal storage is 'locked' and cannot be accessed until you put the Disc in.

The only advantage a disc may have in reality is that if you have a metered Internet connection, then downloading from Disc may actually be cheaper or at least not use it your entire Month's quota on downloading from the internet.

The argument about 'offline' does seem somewhat overblown. In the past 20yrs, since Consoles have been connected, I can't think of any extended time when I've had to play 'offline'. The last time any extended issues occurred was probably the PS3 Hack that took PSN down for an extended time.

It really doesn't matter if you download game code from the disc, internet or both before you can play. Everyone these days is connected to the internet and ALL games benefit from being connected (Patches, updates, free content/features/modes etc) so even if the disc had the entire 'game', it often has performance issues, bugs/glitches, missing features etc that were all fixed by downloading from the internet.

@neoxmahi of course MS overpaid for Activision, they had to offer a lot more 'per share' than they were worth and bought ALL shares. Even when their shares went up and stabilised for a while, they still never reached the 'value' that MS paid so overpaid.

As for getting their money back, That doesn't have to happen 'overnight', but as they immediately owned EVERY Legacy ABK IP inc Candy Crush, WoW and sales of Call of Duty and its bundles ALL started earning money for MS. Every game - even games released 'before' MS acquired them, if people bought them after, that's MS money as they own ABK - inc older CoD games that were associated with Playstation.

The difference is that MS is also willing to offer their games Day 1 free via a Subscription Service and so the 'revenue' from those gamers is likely lower than 'selling' it for Full Price in their Store to the 'few' that buy games when 'new' (as in day 1 at their max price vs Sale when its exhausted its own market and trying to get as many 'sales' as possible). And with rising costs, the ONLY market MS can sell to that they currently do not get revenue from, is Playstation (Switch as well but its not quite a direct competitor spec wise)

Microsoft already 'sell' their games Day 1 on PC which is likely a big reason why their console sales are not that high compared to Sony/Nintendo hardware. Xbox hardware is optional in a 'tiered' gaming structure - Cheapest/Cloud, Cheapest Hardware/Series S, 4k Premium Console/Series X, High End/Windows based PC. Therefore the Only market their games are 'not' available in, so can extract money from is Playstation. With Sony, they choose just to release on PC but also have the 'small' Xbox console market to target - should they wish.

In the long term, they'll make that money back and then some - Call of Duty continues to sell well and no doubt make 'billions' on the sale of Cod Points needed to buy Cosmetics and premium rewards in events, sale of Gobblegums to the Zombie players and the Battle Pass buyers too every season. WoW no doubt is still making money and don't forget games like Overwatch 2, Diablo 4 and Tony Hawkes etc that are continuing to make money for MS.

@AgentGuapo the difference is that with 4k Chequerboard you get a full 4k image but its essentially being delivered over two frames so it can look like a 'perfect' 4k image but is more noticeable in motion and/or scene transitions.

1440p on the other hand is less than half the pixel count of 4k so really fine detail - maybe only a pixel or 2 wide at 4k are lost because it's pixels are too 'big' so when its 'upscaled' to fit into a 4k window, it doesn't matter if they use a basic upscaling algorithm or some more complex method, you can't put detail after its been lost. AI may have trained on seeing that screenshot at 4k so maybe able to Artificially Create something very similar looking, close enough to be imperceptible, but if you start with 'fewer' pixels for information, it has to fill in the 'gaps' when its expanded.

With CB rendering - you are getting a '4k' image that's basically a composite of the last and the new frame in an alternating CB pattern and thus you get all the data - its just that the data is delivered over two frames where as 1440p is delivered 'every' frame and then expanded to fit a 2160p window which will soften the finer details due to them being 'lost'.

And this is why MS is basically not releasing games 'physically' on Xbox because only those with a Series X can buy Physical which is the 'smallest' group in terms of players as the Series S outsells the Series X, and with most using Game Pass for 'digital' delivery, some games probably won't sell more than 10k copies in a Physical format.

Physical is just a delivery method as Games haven't actually ran from Physical media on Playstation/Xbox since the PS3/360 gen. For over a decade now, you have to install games to your internal storage before you can play - no different to downloading and installing to SSD from the internet.

Apart from Legacy games and Backwards Compatibility, I wouldn't be surprised if Disc Drives aren't included as standard (like the PS5 Pro) and an 'optional' peripheral for those that have a collection of discs.

A game has to sell a LOT more copies on Disc to cover all the 'extra' costs involved in their manufacture and distribution and with import and global trade in a 'difficult' situation, I can see more publishers dropping Physical sooner - especially on Xbox as Physical sales account for an even lower percentage of sales than Playstation.

Considering that ONLY those who own a Series X, the lowest selling Console to get Gears of War: Reloaded, is the ONLY Xbox console with a Physical media player and so the ONLY gamers that will buy Physical in the 'Xbox/PC' market.

PC and Series S are ALL-Digital Platforms so Gamers won't buy Physical discs they can't use. Also, many of the Series X owners are also Game Pass Subscribers so won't be buying this Physically. Therefore you only have a 'handful' of people on Xbox/PC that are actually interested in buying Physical copies. Its not worth the Costs of Printing, Distributing etc for a small handful of sales when the Majority will buy Digitally or Play via Game Pass.

With Sony, the most popular Console is the Disc Drive version and statistically, a higher percentage buy Physical. It's often ~80% digital sales on Xbox versus ~60% digital sales on Playstation.

Not saying one is better than another, but why spend money on making Physical media if that specific market is buying/playing mostly Digital - after all, its still just a delivery method as Games must be installed to and run from the SSD.

@__Seraph I don't know what you are disagreeing with...

All I said is that it makes sense for MS to release 'old' games on Playstation for the 'Money' from outside their own user base, from people that 'could' have played it on Xbox or PC if they were that inclined to play.

That is money from Playstation gamers that otherwise wouldn't have been coming to Microsoft. The people buying on Playstation are most likely those that wouldn't buy an Xbox (or PC), wouldn't Subscribe to Game Pass on 'any' suitable device, so wouldn't be getting ANY money unless they do release on Playstation.

Forza Motorsport was the MAIN Forza Title that rivalled Gran Turismo. Playground wanted to make an Arcade Racer and used the 'Forza' engine and Licence to give it a 'higher' profile but it was still a spin off from the 'main' event - like they Did with Halo & Halo Wars and Gears of War and Gears Tactics - its a great way to expand the genres of games as these 3 IP's span multiple different genres each - Forza Motorsport is a Sim style racer, Horizon is the Arcade 'spin-off', Halo is an FPS game, Halo Wars an RTS and Halo: Spartan Assault is a top down twin stick shooter - completely different genres.

If MS release Halo Spartan Assault on PS5, that's not the same as releasing Halo: CE for example as Halo: CE is part of the main line series.

I couldn't care less if everything eventually releases on PS too - even if they only have a 6month delay akin to Indiana Jones rather than the 'years' that games like Gears of War, FH5, Sea of Thieves etc. Its no different from Sony selling games like Spider-Man, R&C, Last of Us, God of War etc on PC to extract extra income from PC gamers that won't buy a Playstation just to play the 'few' exclusives they may have some interest in when EVERYTHING else is on their preferred Platform.

I do expect Hellblade 2, South of Midnight and Starfield to be ported 'eventually' - its the ONLY way to maximise profits on those 'IPs'. By the time they do release on Playstation, those games aren't selling Xbox hardware, Game Pass Subs or games anymore - they've been on sale multiple times and if people really wanted to play, they'd have bought years ago.

Therefore its getting money from Playstation users that otherwise would NOT be giving any money to Microsoft. MS themselves are using their own games - like Indiana Jones, South of Midnight, Avowed etc to sell Hardware, Subs etc. The OLD games aren't selling on PC/Xbox anymore so not generating revenue from their own users, so why not sell to those 'outside' to extract money from those they otherwise wouldn't have.

It makes sense to release OLD games on other platforms because they have 'exhausted' their own user base - everyone that has an Xbox/PC would have bought, played and moved on from these so no longer generating revenue. These 'assets' can either continue to make NO money for you or you can release outside your user base to extract as much revenue you can from your 'assets'.

Sony and Nintendo can both release games outside their Platform too if they really wanted but choose not to. They could release Spider-Man on Xbox to extract extra income from that user base - but would rather lose that 'sale' than let MS make a bit of money off their IP...

The Big 3 - Forza Motorsport, Halo: CE and Gears of War have ALL had 'spin-offs' - like Forza Horizon, Halo Wars, Gears Tactics etc and whilst they are bringing Gears of War to PS5 - it is a 20yr old game (nearly) and the first of any 'main' IP.

I can't see MS releasing Forza Motorsport on Playstation - it doesn't make sense to spend money porting to PS when it also has its own first party racer - Gran Turismo (a direct competitor). Let alone all the other 3rd Party offerings - like Project Cars, Grid etc. FH5 is the 'best' Arcade Open World Racer and has no direct Sony made Competitor and very few 3rd Party alternatives to compete with.

Gears of War too is 'unique' but its also a 20yr old game that has already had a 'remaster' a decade ago that has now being updated and ported to Every Platform they can. No one would buy an Xbox just to play this and most will either play the 10yr old 'Ultimate' via BC or if they already Sub to Game Pass, play there.

If you have an Xbox already, its not as if you can't play these games and a lot cheaper options available on Xbox too - even if you choose to buy rather than rent games via Game Pass, these are 'old' games and often on sale...

Since MS have 'expanded' their Portfolio of Studio's and of course IP's, the only 'day 1' releases have been basically 'legacy' IP's - Minecraft, Call of Duty, Doom and Outer Worlds 2. Everything else has been 'exclusive' on Xbox for a period of time, Gears of War will have been 'exclusive' for 19yrs whilst FH5 was 3yrs,.

Its not as if Xbox too hasn't got exclusives - games like South of Midnight, Avowed, Flight Sim 2024, Starfield, Hellblade 2, Forza Motorsport, Halo Infinite etc as well as upcoming releases like Fable, State of Decay 3, Clockwork Revolution, Perfect Dark etc

As someone with both Consoles and Gaming PC's too, I don't really see any issue with Publishers like MS, Sony or Nintendo perhaps reusing their 'Old' IP's to make money on other Platforms - Sony does it with PC by releasing games that are no longer selling Playstation Hardware and game sales have dried up to a trickle to make money from outside their user base.

In essence, its releasing 'older' games that anyone who really wanted to play would already have bought their hardware and the game - so its purely extra money from those people who would never have bought these games anyway. If Playstation gamers really wanted to play Gears, Forza, Halo, Fable etc, they'd have bought an Xbox or maybe Sub to Game Pass on whatever devices they have to play 'cheaply'...

Not to be negative, but 3m, considering the potential market of all those that could have bought, isn't that high after 3m. As a percentage of that potential, 3m would be very small.

No doubt though it sold enough to be profitable. Which to me tells me that games are generally over-priced to be profitable with 'relatively' Low sales. How many PS5 players 'could' buy (over 100m) but maybe only 1-2% bought it which to me isn't 'popular'. 3m may sound a lot, but 99% of PC & PS5/Xbox Console gamers haven't bought or engaged with this game in any capacity.

Congrats on the milestone though! It maybe selling better than they anticipated or expected and with cost of living increases and financial insecurity on a global scale, that is an achievement...

Have played and can still play anytime I want on 'other' platforms so have no interest in buying it just to play it from scratch again on PS5.

It doesn't seem weird to me that FH5 is now on Playstation - its not a 'new' game for a start and with games like Minecraft, Call of Duty, Sea of Thieves, Grounded and numerous others - inc Doom, Outer Worlds 2, ESO/F76 etc all on PS5 (or coming soon), It's no different to seeing games like God of War, Horizon, Spider-Man, Last of Us, R&C etc on Steam (Steamdeck is a Console too btw).

Sonic on a Nintendo was a big thing but the majority of games these days are released 'everywhere'. Its often just a 'few' games a year that are exclusives on Sony/MS so they've had the majority of the SAME games (eventually) on both.

I still don't think MS will port Forza Motorsport as I don't think they'll believe it would be worth it as Sony already has its own competitor (Gran Turismo) so won't sell enough to be worth it. It costs to do all the porting, optimising, licensing, manufacturing, distribution, advertising etc etc before its released. let alone post-release support/upkeep so I don't think 'everything' will be ported, and even if the majority do, I still think they'll be 'exclusive' for some time on Xbox before releasing - even if just a 6month short Delay (like Indy).

MS (I Believe) will end up releasing more games on Playstation this year than Sony will and may even end up with more Games released on PS5 (thanks to owning ABK/Bethesda) than Sony too. After Sonic went to Nintendo, nothing really 'surprises'. MLB has been on Xbox quite a few years now too - even released in Game Pass for the first 3yrs to help establish it....

I don't think so - It's very misleading more than anything.

Playstation gamers are more likely to buy their games in a Physical format compared to Xbox/PC - in fact the the Series X, the ONLY hardware with a Disc Drive, is also the lowest selling hardware meaning that the 'vast' majority on Xbox and ALL those on PC don't even have the option to buy a Physical copy.

Whilst I do appreciate that Sony has 'two' models now that are 'all-digital', both the PS5 Digital and PS5 Pro combined haven't sold more than the PS5 with a Disc drive and the PS5 Pro can add a disc drive so more than 50% can buy Physical whilst on Xbox, that percentage is much, much lower.

Xbox/PC too offer Game Pass. Say what you will about Game Pass, but that gives those Gamers another 'choice' - Pay £70+ for their Games or play them on Game Pass. So not only do they have the Choice to play without Buying, the majority who choose to buy rather than subscribe have 'no' choice but to buy their games Digitally - thus the 'balance' is skewed.

Couple that with the fact Xbox Consoles are 'optional' as ALL MS games are released on PC mening PC gamers don't 'need' to buy an Xbox or risk missing out on exclusives or forced to wait until they are finally released on PC. PC gamers will buy a PS5 - even if its just to play the 1-2 Exclusives a year they really enjoy and/or as a alternative to the 'PC/Xbox' ecosystem they already have access too.

Therefore the Xbox doesn't sell as many Units and as stated, the ONLY Xbox with a Physical Media Player has the lowest numbers of all so the ONLY people that will buy Physical copies of ANY game, will be the 'handful' of Xbox Series X owners that don't subscribe to Game Pass which is a 'very' small subset of the entire Xbox/PC market.

That's why it isn't crazy - but expected. If MS ditch Disc Drives entirely next gen and Sony doesn't, it will have 100% of the 'Physical' sales regardless.

If the majority of Playstation owners had the option to play via PS+ and couldn't buy it Physically if they wanted to play because they own a Digital only Playstation, then I'm sure the split would be more 65/35 (in Sony's favour as the bigger seller console).

@ChrisDeku £300m is different from $300m and actually £300m is what I consider a very conservative estimate based on 30m paying £10 a month - yet over 35m are subscribed with most paying more for 'Ultimate' - the most expensive option but the one that gets you 'Day 1' games on Console, its likely to be closer to £400m a month - that's £'s not $'s.

With £300m coming in every month, they can pay their Studios and all their development costs. Most games are built over years so the 'cost' to develop is spread out over that time. If a game costs £180m to make over 5 years, that's £36m a year or £3m a month - so £300m income a month can keep up to 100 studios making games for Game Pass - but that doesn't count for 3rd Party published games which they also need to 'pay' for.

So technically they don't 'need' to sell because Game Pass revenue can offset the 'cost' to make those games in the first place. Of course they do 'sell' to maximise their IP's profit margins and grow their business. Sales may be pure 'profit'.

Sony probably could have put Concord and Marathon on PS+ too - but Sony are very much a 'Sales' based company and have a different 'belief' over their own products. They believe their product, whether its Hardware (Consoles, TV's etc) or their Games, they consider them 'Premium' and 'better' than ANY other and as such, customers should expect a 'Premium' price tag - PS5 £10 tax because it 'looks' better than the PS4 version despite it being exactly the same Game, story etc. Tv's that cost more than Samsung/LG with 'worse' specs overall - Sony 'think' their Premium so will charge for their games even if they should be F2P - It goes against Sony's own Status and business model.

That's why they will charge a 'premium' for what should be F2P as they believe their games are 'premium' compared to all the F2P options. Sony have always been 'Sales' based - MS have been more Service based in general and that is perhaps the biggest difference in why MS will forego maximum Profit margins (Day 1 sales when the game is most expensive) in favour of Sub fees...

Of course its selling 'faster' on Playstation because on Playstation, Gamers have NO choice but to 'buy' it to play. However, on both Xbox and PC, Gamers also have the option of Game Pass which will affect 'Sales'. Those who Subscribe are less likely to buy - especially at/around launch when its at its most expensive.

They don't 'need' to sell when they have £300m+ coming in 'every' month from Subscribers but of course with 100m+ on Sony's platform, that's a sizeable market to try and get extra revenue from and maximise profits...

Forza Horizon quickly became my Favourite Car Racing game as it blended the Sim style 'Forza/GT' type cars, customisation etc and blended it with more Arcade and 'fun' activities. Since games like Burnout have disappeared, Forza Horizon games have been the only racing games I play nowadays.

FH5 is the latest in a great line of Forza Horizon games and I'm glad that others are now able to experience it. I don't think MS will bother with bringing Forza Motorsport to Playstation - I don't think it will sell well enough to justify the costs of porting and supporting the game as Gran Turismo is more direct Competition and established on Playstation.

Anyway, Great to see more people able to play what I consider to be the best Racing game of its type instead of settling for 3rd rate 'clones' trying to emulate this...

@Athrum You are still missing the point - regardless of whether or not the ALL the content is on the disc, you still have to 'download' it and install to your SSD before you can play - its still just a Delivery system.

You CANNOT play the game from the disc - it must be downloaded and installed to your SSD which makes the disc just a delivery system to get the 'software' on your SSD - the exact same purpose as the internet.

The only thing that 'differs' is the way the licence to access the software is handled - the actual thing you 'puchase'. You Purchase a License to play the software - not the software itself. That is why you need to keep your disc or sign into your account to play to 'verify' you still own a Valid License. The game is 'installed' on your SSD, its played from the SSD, and disc/internet is just a 'delivery' system to install the Software to your SSD!! It doesn't matter if all the game, some or none of the game is on disc, its purpose is to enable you to 'install' the game to your SDD!