The whole reason E-Day exists, and not Gears 6, @nomither6, is because they want to bring E-Day to the PlayStation. Making Gears 6 first (and thus finishing that particular trilogy for the loyal Gears of War fans on the Xbox) would have meant that much more work was required if they had wanted to bring it to the PlayStation, as they would have needed to port 4 and 5 first as just bringing over 6 would have made no sense to the PlayStation gamer.
Thus, starting with a game that is a prequel is the easiest thing for Microsoft to do. It matters not that they are shafting the Xbox gamer in the process because it is on the PlayStation where they will get the most sales...
You do an interview and you are asked is Starfield being released on the PlayStation. At that time, you know with certainty that there are no plans to release it because you are the boss at Xbox, so you say no, which is the truth.
A week later, your boss at Microsoft tells you to release Starfield on the PlayStation, and so you do as you have been instructed because that is how management works; form top down.
That does not mean that you lied, because you didn't, you told the truth. What it means is that circumstances beyond your control change. When someone like Spencer is asked a question where he is uncertain, or where he has a suspicion that something will happen but is as yet unsure, or, of course, he simply doesn't want to reveal the answer just yet, we get these non-answers that really don't answer the question. It's something we politicians do all the time. Thus, when Spencer says, no, when asked if Starfield is going to release on the PlayStation, it's because he knows that it isn't going to. If he knew it was, or suspected that it would, or did not want to tell us, he would have dodged the question.
If we all resigned the moment when our bosses told us to do something that we disagreed with, or which countermanded what we had told others, then no one would be in post for very long!
Am I the only one to find the way the writers use the word PS5 in the title of their articles in a way that makes it seem as if it is an exclusive? It's obvious that it's coming to the PS5 by virtue of there being an article at all, the inclusion of PS5 is completely unnecessary. To be fair, it's not just Push that does it, as Pure does it sometimes too. It just feels really unnecessary...
Quite right too. Of all the games to try and charge £80 for, this was not it, and I say that as someone that really enjoyed the first game and is really looking forward to its sequel.
I think that Microsoft attempted to hide behind 'Market Conditions', and all the tariff rises, but now the dust has settled on that a bit, and after what has probably been lacklustre pre-orders, they have seen that £80 won't fly (at least not for this particular title). And of course, another factor will have been that their main competitor (Sony) have not followed suit in pricing games at £80, meaning Microsoft look terrible in comparison.....
As for Game Pass, @EfYI, there is a service on the PlayStation too, you know! Yes, Game Pass is better value than the PlayStation version, but that is just a matter of opinion. Of course, Game Pass is not an exclusive club, and you are free to join it if you wish. The decision not too is yours and yours alone, just as it is mine to have Game Pass (albeit I don't ever use it, but that is another matter). Add to this that most of the third-party games on Game Pass are also on the Sony service, and the only difference between the two is the addition of Xbox first-party games.
What I will say though, and I have said this a number of times elsewhere, I do not believe that Game Pass will continue in its current guise beyond 2030. By then I think that Game Pass will become a first-party only service much like EA's or Ubisoft's. When it does that, you can expect it to be on the PlayStation too because it is only the addition of third-party games that Sony objects to.
It is my belief that Game Pass (and the ABK acquisition) has killed Xbox because Nadella is chasing the money and doing so by putting what should be exclusives on the PlayStation. This act of self-harm means that fewer and fewer people are buying an Xbox, and come the next generation that will become ever more stark, and I believe that Microsoft will withdraw from the console market at around 2030.
So, as much as you maybe envious of Game Pass, for some reason, it will almost certainly contribute to the death of Xbox as a competitor console, although I have no doubt that Microsoft will have a very successful future when they go the full publisher route...
I would put money on it that there will be plenty of games on the PlayStation Store that are 90% or more off, @EfYI. I just don't have the time or willingness to go through every single game that is currently on sale.
And just for the record, in that list you linked, there was only ONE game that was 95% off, and only ONE game that was 92% off. All the others were 90% off, so not the 50 that are 95% off as you claim.
What you are doing is just accepting that no games are more than 80% off on the PlayStation Store because Push Square hasn't told you there are, and that is despite the fact that I have already shown you that some games are 90% off on the PlayStation Store, and that the one game that is 92% off on the Xbox is exactly the same price on the PS Store.
Lastly, you do realise that we are talking pennies difference, for the most part, a couple of quid at the most where games have different prices. The one game that is 95% off on the Xbox is only £3 cheaper than on the PlayStation.
I will bet my mortgage that you will save more than £3 on a number of the additional 1000 games that are on sale on the PlayStation, but NOT on sale on the Xbox. For some reason, you seem to be ignoring that far more games are on sale on the PlayStation than on the Xbox. 1000+ more. You keep talking about evidence as if you have found something significant, yet are ignoring the evidence that does not suit your claim...
So, you're right, @EfYI, and I'm wrong. Is that it...? It doesn't matter that we can see games being 92% off, or that they cost exactly the same on both the Xbox or the PlayStation, somehow Xbox has it better? What about the 1000+ games that are being sold more cheaply on the PlayStation right now, than they can be found on the Xbox? Is it still the case that Xbox gets it better somehow? I don't understand what you are getting at...
95 per cent is much more than PS' maximum of 80 per cent.
That's simply incorrect, @EfYI. First off, not all the games are currently on sale on both platforms, meaning it is impossible to do direct comparisons for all titles. Secondly, whilst I haven't checked all the games on the list, of those I have, the pricing is the same on both the Xbox and the PlayStation. This Destiny Lightfall is 92% off on both platforms, and Back4 Blood: Ultimate Edition is 90% off on both platforms. So your premise of games not being reduced by more that 80% is completely untrue, it's more likely the case that they just point it out more effectively on Pure Xbox than they do on Push Square.
I will accept the Battlefield 2042 is currently cheaper on the Xbox than on the PlayStation in that it is £2.99 on the Xbox, and £5.99 on the PlayStation right now, but that is only right now. It may well be (or have been) cheaper on the PlayStation at some other point in time.
Indeed, there are a few games on the Xbox that are on sale right now, but that are not on sale right now on the PlayStation. However, that is not evidence of any Xbox bias. It is simply a case of a game being on sale on one platform, but not on the other. That could be reversed next week, for all we know.
Also, there are currently 1856 games on sale on the Xbox Store, and more that 2800 games on sale on the PlayStation RIGHT NOW!
Having finished off all the side quests, treasure hunts and Witcher contracts, I'll be finishing off the main quest in the second expansion of The Witcher 3 this weekend, and then I shall be re-starting Cyberpunk 2077 complete with its expansion, which should keep me busy for a couple of weeks...
If they went with 2 more seasons, the producers might hope that Bella Ramsey might look slightly older come the end!
I've said it a number of times, but Bella was miscast, and it should have been realised from the outset. Bella has one of those perpetually young faces. She'll look like she's in her 20s when she's in her 40s! I also don't think she has much range in her acting either, but that's another matter.
Also Kaitlyn Dever is wrong for Abby. Abby gains a whole lot of muscle come the time jump. In the series, there was no change, which for me changes how things play out. Now you're just going to see two petite, slightly built ladies knocking ten bells out of one another.
Ironically, I think Dever would have made a superb Ellie, but who they could have had for Abby post time jump, I don't know, because there are probably few actresses who would have wanted to put on a significant amount of muscle for the role...
Tis a shame that they are not doing a PS5 Pro version as I would be very tempted to get one. I do not like the design / shape of the PS5, but this does make it look a lot better...
I don't agree about Spencer, @Flaming_Kaiser. People keep saying he is lying because he says one thing and then does another, without taking into consideration that he may say what is initially the plan only for Nadella to change the plan and therefore Spencer has to do something other than he initially said.
I don't agree that Spencer should resign. Why should the messenger be the one that has to lose his job? I'm sure that Spencer is unhappy. He looks miserable. However, he may also feel that he is the best one to deliver this new directive. He may feel that it is better that he takes the heat rather than take the cowards way out and quit.
We don't know the truth of it, and maybe never will as I am sure that Spencer has had to sign a few NDA's in his time. However, just as we don't know the truth of it, we also do not know with any certainty that he is lying. He may well be doing so, but I suspect that Nadella keeps pulling the rug from beneath him, which is why we didn't see Spencer for months, and why we so rarely see him now...
I don't think it was a hostile statement, @Questionable_Duck. Just a statement of fact. If you do not buy games, and only play via Game Pass, then the developers are not getting a great deal of money out of you, and thus when their profits are down, studios suffer.
I even said that Game Pass is a great deal, right now. So I was not blaming anyone for only partaking in Game Pass, just saying that it does not help the industry.
As for Steam, I view Steam sales and sales on the PlayStation and Xbox is the same light; it is better that a game is sold cheaply, than not at all, though it is still better to pay full price in order that a studio can maximise their profits.
Do I say the same to Steam users? Not yet. However, once Microsoft make the foolhardy decision to include Steam on their console, then, if Pure Xbox becomes a Steam associate, then maybe I will have chance to speak with them, but right now I have no need.
Lastly, Dring didn't fully retract what he said, he said it was profitable once the sales of first-party games were included. The key part there is 'sales', as clearly that means people actually buying the games, which makes no sense whatsoever, because either the Service is profitable on it's own, or it is being propped up by sales outside the Service. What Dring has just said contradicts itself. He is basically saying without those outside sales, the Service would not be profitable. Go figure!
Regardless, profitability, and sustainability are two difference things. Just because the Service makes a profit one year, does not mean it is enough to keep going, and if the Service is shedding subscribers then it becomes increasingly difficult to sustain without either raising prices (which in turn leads to people quitting the Service) or changes, such as we saw last year with the creation of the top tier. Maybe the next thing we will see is 12 months before a first-party game enters the Service, who knows, but I cannot see it continuing as is.
Do I believe Dring? No idea. My opinions are my own derived from various sources, and indeed speculation. However, if I am wrong, then the Service will thrive, unchanged into the 2030's. If I am right, then Game Pass as is will be nowt but a memory by 2030...
Let me start off by saying that I do not think Game Pass is sustainable, @EfYI, and I think it is killing Xbox, which means, I think, that we essentially agree with one another on that.
However, where I do completely disagree with you, and indeed, I would suggest you are flat out incorrect, is that the deals are better on the Xbox Store than on the PlayStation Store, or that the deals offered on Pure Xbox are any better than those on Push Square. Show me the proof of that, please?
I'd also argue, regarding you 'babied' comment, that Xbox is not behaving particularly well towards those that game on an Xbox when you take into consideration that they have risen the prices of consoles, peripherals, and games (albeit the games have risen everywhere). That's hardly Xbox treating their consumers like babies, is it?
I'm sorry to tell you, but your comment smacks heavily of fanboyism...
That's how I think they will do it, @OldGamer999. Much like the Series consoles, which Microsoft no longer seem to be stocking in many parts of the world, I think that Microsoft will cease to sell Game Pass, and that they will allow each subscriber to see out their remaining subscription.
I do think they will keep putting their first-party games on the service because people signed up to Game Pass, partly to play those day one releases on the Service, and so to suddenly say they won't be doing that would open them up to a Class Action case, which they would likely lose, and would cost them billions.
If Microsoft are to end the service within the next 5 years, then I think the next one or two years will be the telling ones, because for Microsoft to go about ending Game Pass in this manner, and with people having stacked up to 3 years then they need to be ending it in the relatively near future.
The problem with this idea though, is that how are Microsoft going to attract third-party developers to the service over the last few years, if they have publicly said they are ending it? This is why I think it is such a conundrum from Microsoft. It is all well and good saying that they are going to selling Game Pass, and stop people from signing up, but once they do that, and the subscriber numbers start to dwindle, what developer is going to want to put their game on the service then?
It's a real problem, and truthfully, I'm not sure Microsoft know how to solve it...
I agree with you, @Ricky-Spanish, that if you are a heavy Game Pass consumer, then you are absolutely having a blast right now. However, if that is all you do, and you do not support the game industry in any other way, then you are part of the problem. Effectively, you are directly responsible for the studio closures and job losses.
Saying I don't care because I am having the time of my life on Game Pass is the equivalent of throwing as many plastic bottles into the sea as you possibly can whilst saying you don't care about the environment, and then standing back to watch the world around you burn! Ultimately, you will be affected by your actions at some point... 😉
I've been saying for years that I don't think that Game Pass is sustainable. The only reason that Microsoft are releasing their games on PlayStation is because they are not making enough money on their own platform (and PC, where of course Game Pass is available and growing). If Game Pass was not canalising sales, then Xbox would still have exclusive games.
I have said many times that within the next 5 years that Game Pass will be gone, or at the very least fundamentally changed to a first-party only service (which may then allow it to be made available on the PlayStation).
Personally, I think Microsoft want to stop the service now, but are uncertain how to navigate the issue of people having stacked years of the service. I mean, if Microsoft decide to stop the service, they would likely have to refund all those stacked months, which would probably cost them billions.
Ultimately, I think that Game Pass will cease within the next 5 years, and Microsoft will withdraw from the console market around the same time...
Ultimately, unless we honestly think that no third-party game sells on the Xbox, then Helldivers 2 should still sell pretty well. The vast, vast majority of third-party games do not go on to the Game Pass, and are instead purchased, so Helldivers 2 should be no different. Obviously, out of the three platforms that it will have released on (PC/PS5 and Xbox), Xbox will be a distant third partly due to Game Pass, but mainly because it has the smallest install-base, and there being many, many more people that game on PC (estimated to be around 1.86 billion) and the PS5 (around 60 million). The Xbox Series consoles only has around 27 million users, so if a similar percentage of gamers buy it on each of the three platforms, then Xbox is always going to come in third.
All that said, there will also be an element of 'that ship has sailed' coming into effect when it releases on the Xbox because the hype has died down for Helldivers 2. The truth is that for the game to have had the utmost chance, it should have released everywhere that it was ever going to release everywhere at the same time. Staggered releases never do as well, and so when everyone looks at how Helldivers 2 performs on the Xbox, this is something that should be taken into account...
It's been 10 years since I last completed The Witcher 3, and I am now close to finishing the main campaign and all the side content for the second time. After that, it will be on to the two expansions, which I have never played before...
I agree, @Medic_alert, I guess is the hope that history does not repeat itself, and that Nadella does not gut Xbox to the point that it needs to go on another buying spree...
I get what you are saying, @Medic_alert. I really do. And I agree! However, it isn't just Microsoft that are doing this. Remember that Sony are also cancelling games left and right. There have been many just this generation, including 10 different live-service games. It's a problem right across the industry, just look at Ubisoft, for example. It comes down to the lengthy development times we are seeing these days, and also the often unreasonable expectations of just how much profits a game should make...
The problem with each of the games that were cancelled is the time they have already had in development. So if a game has already had 7 years in the oven, and won't be out for another 3, we're talking 10 years in development. That's way, way too long. Remember, for each of those years, the staff are being paid, the energy bills are being paid, the office space is costing money.
It needs to be remembered that we used to get 2 or even 3 games from a developer in a single generation, we are sometimes not even getting one. In the case of this particular game, it started development during the Xbox One era, and was going to entirely skip the Series generation. It would have released on the next platform in 2028.
Ultimately what has happened here is that Microsoft Gaming have told Spencer that these, and other games also long in development such as State of Decay 3 and Fable, are taking much too long to develop, and costing way too much money. The bean-counters at Microsoft have, via Nadella, told Spencer that he needs to make cuts. He has to choose what goes, but games have to be cancelled. Thus likely as not, Spencer has cancelled those games deemed most risky, most unlikely to recoup the cost of development, and those that are the furthest from releasing. Some of the games cancelled may have fallen foul of each of those potential reasons. I think given the choice, Spencer would not have cancelled any of these projects because he has often spoken about given developers the time that they need. Unfortunately for him, the oversight from Nadella is such that that is not a luxury he can afford those that develop games at Xbox any longer...
We can only go by what the media and other sources are saying, @DonkeyFantasy, because like you, I am privy to the full details. However, the fact that Nadella has taken a keen interest in what is happening is well documented. And, of course, you only need to look at Nadella's previous history and the way he has behaved, to see that he has splashed his DNA all over this...
And what if he was totally blind-sided, @Titntin? And what if he truly believes that he is the only person capable of standing between Nadella and Xbox? How does him resigning help Xbox if that is the case?
I've had bosses make totally nonsensical decision in the past, and tell me to get on with it, even though I have known that they won't work, or won't work and will make things worse. Was I supposed to resign then, or just do my job, which meant doing as I was told regardless of how much worse the position was made?
I'd argue it takes more guts and integrity to remain in post and attempt to right the sinking ship than it would to take the easy option and resign. It takes a lot to remain in post where everyone is blaming you, even when it's not your fault, and attempt to set that ship afloat even as your boss is doing everything in his power to scuttle it...
I get where you are coming from, @Titntin, but if you say something (such as bringing stability) because that is your genuinely held belief, because that is what you expect when you see your vision through, and then your boss takes the biggest spanner going, and completely wrecks that vision, have you lied? I would argue not if when you said it you honestly believed it. If events, out of your hands, conspire against you (or in this case, Nadella conspires against you!) then it doesn't make what you say a lie. I highly doubt that Spencer foresaw what Nadella was going to do, which is why for months on end we didn't see Spencer at all. I think all these breakneck reversals in the way Xbox are doing things now have taken Spencer by as much surprise as the rest of us. I think no matter what Spencer said, people would accuse him of lying, but all he was doing was saying what he believed to be true at the time he said it. It is Nadella changing course so often that means that what Spencer has said has not aged well...
I have a PS5, and a very good gaming PC, oh, and an Xbox. Where would I be best to play this? Also, does it have any single-player component? Can it be played with just 2 people, or are there many more people required? I've had a passing interest in the game since it launched, but now it's been out for a while, and has has a lot of updates, is it a good time to play it...?
You can argue that, @AdamNovice, and you may well be right. There again, maybe Spencer (and his advisors) believes that he is the only one able to stand up to Nadella at all. Maybe Nadella wanted to cut 30% of the staff, and the only reason we are seeing 10% is because Spencer stood up to him. We simply do not know. Maybe Spencer believes he is the only one capable of turning the Xbox brand around. Or maybe Nadella has persuaded him to stay because he believes that Spencer is the only one capable of doing the job. Again, we just do not know.
I think the only certainty here is that no matter who stands as the boss of Xbox, they will have to to as they are instructed by Nadella because that is how management works. It matters not who that boss is, Nadella has determined (probably wrongly) that these cuts need to be made, and so even if it was Bond, Booty or some other industry yes man in the roll, these cuts would be being made...
Do your research, @Ta424. Activision approached Microsoft. Xbox did not have anywhere near the money to make the purchase.
As for understanding management, you have no idea who I am, what I do or did, nor what level of supervision I had or gave.
Ultimately, it was Nadella that decided on the cuts, but Spencer who had to implement them. Even if Spencer had walked, what do you think would have happened? No one would have been sacked? Seriously! All that would have happened if Spencer had walked would have been Bond or Booty, or another corporate yes man would have become boss of Xbox and the same level of cuts would have been made. Why? Because Nadella had said so.
Maybe it is not me who needs to understand how management works...
I disagree, @Flaming_Kaiser. Spencer had a vision for Xbox and turned the brand around after the disastrous Xbox One era. The problem is that Nadella has taken the reigns, and is dictating the new strategy. We won't know for certain whether Spencer's vision would have worked, but we certainly won't now after the really poor decisions that Nadella has made. Nadella has done this in every post he has ever had. He comes in, and maximises profits for the shareholders, no matter the damage it does to the brand or his subordinates...
He's not the guy in charge, @Ta424. He's simply the messenger. If Spencer resigned, or was fired, Nadella would simply employ someone else to pass on the bad news instead...
I have to say, @get2sammyb, I think that is a very underhanded, and spiteful, thing to say.
Let's put it this way, it is known by all that Phil Spencer is the head of Xbox. He is, however, not the head of Microsoft. It is also widely known, and has been reported on many times, that everything that Xbox is doing now is being driven by Nadella.
In other words, when Nadella tells Spencer to lay of 10% of his Xbox staff, Spencer has two choices; one, resign, though all that will achieve is him having lost his job, and someone else taking up the roll and then that person laying off the 10% of staff. In other words, Spencer resigning makes absolutely no difference. The second option, is for Spencer to remain in post and do as he has been told.
If whomever is in charge at Push Square, tells their subordinates to do something, they expect it to be done. No ifs, no buts. Why should that be any different for Spencer? If his boss tells him to do something, he is contractually obliged to do it. That is his job. If Spencer was in charge of Microsoft, then any criticism would be well justified, but we both know that isn't the case.
Your subheading just looks like you are playing to the crowd, and just comes off as mean...
Tis quite ridiculous, @Rob_230. I guess they expect people to display the case in some manner, but I personally, I would prefer it to be functional as well...
Although I pre-ordered the game, and I still have the disc, I never actually played it. I won't make that same mistake again, and will definitely find time for this one...
I really do not see how Microsoft expect to make any sales on their own storefront once they give access to places where games can be bought cheaper. It's not so bad for their first-party sales because on Steam or PS5, they still get 70% of the revenue for games that are sold on those storefronts. However, where currently Microsoft take 30% of the money from third-party games bought on the Xbox Store, when people buy a third-party game on Steam or the PS5, Microsoft get no money whatsoever. So if a game can be bought for £10 less upon release on Steam, as is often the case, who is going to buy it on the Xbox Store? And when it comes to the sales, Steam always has more on offer, and at better prices, so again, who is going to buy from the Xbox Store?
Honestly, I cannot see this ending well for Microsoft...
The issue is the dominant position, @Areus, and it would be difficult to argue that the Xbox is in a dominant position in any regard when compared to the PlayStation. Truthfully, this is just the start. The further Microsoft fall behind, the easier it is for Sony to do as they please...
Fantastic game. Loved the story. Was truly emotional, and the acting was second to none. I highly recommend it. I cannot wait to see what Sandfall do next...
Comments 1,437
Re: Xbox's Gears of War: E-Day Seemingly in Development for PS5
The whole reason E-Day exists, and not Gears 6, @nomither6, is because they want to bring E-Day to the PlayStation. Making Gears 6 first (and thus finishing that particular trilogy for the loyal Gears of War fans on the Xbox) would have meant that much more work was required if they had wanted to bring it to the PlayStation, as they would have needed to port 4 and 5 first as just bringing over 6 would have made no sense to the PlayStation gamer.
Thus, starting with a game that is a prequel is the easiest thing for Microsoft to do. It matters not that they are shafting the Xbox gamer in the process because it is on the PlayStation where they will get the most sales...
Re: Star Wars Outlaws Sequel Reportedly Cancelled, Will Stay in a Galaxy Far, Far Away
To be fair, @naruball, I instantly got what you were saying. A game that underperforms is not the same as a game that completely fails...
Re: Xbox's Phil Spencer 'Not Retiring' After Dark Day of Cancellations and Job Cuts
Absolutely wrong, @Flaming_Kaiser!
Here is the scenario for you:
You do an interview and you are asked is Starfield being released on the PlayStation. At that time, you know with certainty that there are no plans to release it because you are the boss at Xbox, so you say no, which is the truth.
A week later, your boss at Microsoft tells you to release Starfield on the PlayStation, and so you do as you have been instructed because that is how management works; form top down.
That does not mean that you lied, because you didn't, you told the truth. What it means is that circumstances beyond your control change. When someone like Spencer is asked a question where he is uncertain, or where he has a suspicion that something will happen but is as yet unsure, or, of course, he simply doesn't want to reveal the answer just yet, we get these non-answers that really don't answer the question. It's something we politicians do all the time. Thus, when Spencer says, no, when asked if Starfield is going to release on the PlayStation, it's because he knows that it isn't going to. If he knew it was, or suspected that it would, or did not want to tell us, he would have dodged the question.
If we all resigned the moment when our bosses told us to do something that we disagreed with, or which countermanded what we had told others, then no one would be in post for very long!
Re: PS5 Horror Cronos Could Be the Next Dead Space, New Footage Reveals
Am I the only one to find the way the writers use the word PS5 in the title of their articles in a way that makes it seem as if it is an exclusive? It's obvious that it's coming to the PS5 by virtue of there being an article at all, the inclusion of PS5 is completely unnecessary. To be fair, it's not just Push that does it, as Pure does it sometimes too. It just feels really unnecessary...
Re: Xbox Backtracks on $80 Price Tag for The Outer Worlds 2 Following Public Outcry
Quite right too. Of all the games to try and charge £80 for, this was not it, and I say that as someone that really enjoyed the first game and is really looking forward to its sequel.
I think that Microsoft attempted to hide behind 'Market Conditions', and all the tariff rises, but now the dust has settled on that a bit, and after what has probably been lacklustre pre-orders, they have seen that £80 won't fly (at least not for this particular title). And of course, another factor will have been that their main competitor (Sony) have not followed suit in pricing games at £80, meaning Microsoft look terrible in comparison.....
Re: 'I Much Prefer PS Plus' Lifecycle Management Strategy': Devs Chime in on Xbox Game Pass Impact
As for Game Pass, @EfYI, there is a service on the PlayStation too, you know! Yes, Game Pass is better value than the PlayStation version, but that is just a matter of opinion. Of course, Game Pass is not an exclusive club, and you are free to join it if you wish. The decision not too is yours and yours alone, just as it is mine to have Game Pass (albeit I don't ever use it, but that is another matter). Add to this that most of the third-party games on Game Pass are also on the Sony service, and the only difference between the two is the addition of Xbox first-party games.
What I will say though, and I have said this a number of times elsewhere, I do not believe that Game Pass will continue in its current guise beyond 2030. By then I think that Game Pass will become a first-party only service much like EA's or Ubisoft's. When it does that, you can expect it to be on the PlayStation too because it is only the addition of third-party games that Sony objects to.
It is my belief that Game Pass (and the ABK acquisition) has killed Xbox because Nadella is chasing the money and doing so by putting what should be exclusives on the PlayStation. This act of self-harm means that fewer and fewer people are buying an Xbox, and come the next generation that will become ever more stark, and I believe that Microsoft will withdraw from the console market at around 2030.
So, as much as you maybe envious of Game Pass, for some reason, it will almost certainly contribute to the death of Xbox as a competitor console, although I have no doubt that Microsoft will have a very successful future when they go the full publisher route...
Re: 'I Much Prefer PS Plus' Lifecycle Management Strategy': Devs Chime in on Xbox Game Pass Impact
I would put money on it that there will be plenty of games on the PlayStation Store that are 90% or more off, @EfYI. I just don't have the time or willingness to go through every single game that is currently on sale.
And just for the record, in that list you linked, there was only ONE game that was 95% off, and only ONE game that was 92% off. All the others were 90% off, so not the 50 that are 95% off as you claim.
What you are doing is just accepting that no games are more than 80% off on the PlayStation Store because Push Square hasn't told you there are, and that is despite the fact that I have already shown you that some games are 90% off on the PlayStation Store, and that the one game that is 92% off on the Xbox is exactly the same price on the PS Store.
Lastly, you do realise that we are talking pennies difference, for the most part, a couple of quid at the most where games have different prices. The one game that is 95% off on the Xbox is only £3 cheaper than on the PlayStation.
I will bet my mortgage that you will save more than £3 on a number of the additional 1000 games that are on sale on the PlayStation, but NOT on sale on the Xbox. For some reason, you seem to be ignoring that far more games are on sale on the PlayStation than on the Xbox. 1000+ more. You keep talking about evidence as if you have found something significant, yet are ignoring the evidence that does not suit your claim...
Re: 'I Much Prefer PS Plus' Lifecycle Management Strategy': Devs Chime in on Xbox Game Pass Impact
So, you're right, @EfYI, and I'm wrong. Is that it...? It doesn't matter that we can see games being 92% off, or that they cost exactly the same on both the Xbox or the PlayStation, somehow Xbox has it better? What about the 1000+ games that are being sold more cheaply on the PlayStation right now, than they can be found on the Xbox? Is it still the case that Xbox gets it better somehow? I don't understand what you are getting at...
Re: 'I Much Prefer PS Plus' Lifecycle Management Strategy': Devs Chime in on Xbox Game Pass Impact
95 per cent is much more than PS' maximum of 80 per cent.
That's simply incorrect, @EfYI. First off, not all the games are currently on sale on both platforms, meaning it is impossible to do direct comparisons for all titles. Secondly, whilst I haven't checked all the games on the list, of those I have, the pricing is the same on both the Xbox and the PlayStation. This Destiny Lightfall is 92% off on both platforms, and Back4 Blood: Ultimate Edition is 90% off on both platforms. So your premise of games not being reduced by more that 80% is completely untrue, it's more likely the case that they just point it out more effectively on Pure Xbox than they do on Push Square.
I will accept the Battlefield 2042 is currently cheaper on the Xbox than on the PlayStation in that it is £2.99 on the Xbox, and £5.99 on the PlayStation right now, but that is only right now. It may well be (or have been) cheaper on the PlayStation at some other point in time.
Indeed, there are a few games on the Xbox that are on sale right now, but that are not on sale right now on the PlayStation. However, that is not evidence of any Xbox bias. It is simply a case of a game being on sale on one platform, but not on the other. That could be reversed next week, for all we know.
Also, there are currently 1856 games on sale on the Xbox Store, and more that 2800 games on sale on the PlayStation RIGHT NOW!
So tell me again how Xbox has it better...
Re: Talking Point: What Are You Playing This Weekend? - Issue 590
Having finished off all the side quests, treasure hunts and Witcher contracts, I'll be finishing off the main quest in the second expansion of The Witcher 3 this weekend, and then I shall be re-starting Cyberpunk 2077 complete with its expansion, which should keep me busy for a couple of weeks...
Re: The Last of Us TV Show Team Split on One More Season or Two
If they went with 2 more seasons, the producers might hope that Bella Ramsey might look slightly older come the end!
I've said it a number of times, but Bella was miscast, and it should have been realised from the outset. Bella has one of those perpetually young faces. She'll look like she's in her 20s when she's in her 40s! I also don't think she has much range in her acting either, but that's another matter.
Also Kaitlyn Dever is wrong for Abby. Abby gains a whole lot of muscle come the time jump. In the series, there was no change, which for me changes how things play out. Now you're just going to see two petite, slightly built ladies knocking ten bells out of one another.
Ironically, I think Dever would have made a superb Ellie, but who they could have had for Abby post time jump, I don't know, because there are probably few actresses who would have wanted to put on a significant amount of muscle for the role...
Re: Two Jaw-Dropping Limited Edition Ghost of Yotei PS5 Consoles Announced
Tis a shame that they are not doing a PS5 Pro version as I would be very tempted to get one. I do not like the design / shape of the PS5, but this does make it look a lot better...
Re: Xbox's Phil Spencer 'Not Retiring' After Dark Day of Cancellations and Job Cuts
I don't agree about Spencer, @Flaming_Kaiser. People keep saying he is lying because he says one thing and then does another, without taking into consideration that he may say what is initially the plan only for Nadella to change the plan and therefore Spencer has to do something other than he initially said.
I don't agree that Spencer should resign. Why should the messenger be the one that has to lose his job? I'm sure that Spencer is unhappy. He looks miserable. However, he may also feel that he is the best one to deliver this new directive. He may feel that it is better that he takes the heat rather than take the cowards way out and quit.
We don't know the truth of it, and maybe never will as I am sure that Spencer has had to sign a few NDA's in his time. However, just as we don't know the truth of it, we also do not know with any certainty that he is lying. He may well be doing so, but I suspect that Nadella keeps pulling the rug from beneath him, which is why we didn't see Spencer for months, and why we so rarely see him now...
Re: 'I Much Prefer PS Plus' Lifecycle Management Strategy': Devs Chime in on Xbox Game Pass Impact
I don't think it was a hostile statement, @Questionable_Duck. Just a statement of fact. If you do not buy games, and only play via Game Pass, then the developers are not getting a great deal of money out of you, and thus when their profits are down, studios suffer.
I even said that Game Pass is a great deal, right now. So I was not blaming anyone for only partaking in Game Pass, just saying that it does not help the industry.
As for Steam, I view Steam sales and sales on the PlayStation and Xbox is the same light; it is better that a game is sold cheaply, than not at all, though it is still better to pay full price in order that a studio can maximise their profits.
Do I say the same to Steam users? Not yet. However, once Microsoft make the foolhardy decision to include Steam on their console, then, if Pure Xbox becomes a Steam associate, then maybe I will have chance to speak with them, but right now I have no need.
Lastly, Dring didn't fully retract what he said, he said it was profitable once the sales of first-party games were included. The key part there is 'sales', as clearly that means people actually buying the games, which makes no sense whatsoever, because either the Service is profitable on it's own, or it is being propped up by sales outside the Service. What Dring has just said contradicts itself. He is basically saying without those outside sales, the Service would not be profitable. Go figure!
Regardless, profitability, and sustainability are two difference things. Just because the Service makes a profit one year, does not mean it is enough to keep going, and if the Service is shedding subscribers then it becomes increasingly difficult to sustain without either raising prices (which in turn leads to people quitting the Service) or changes, such as we saw last year with the creation of the top tier. Maybe the next thing we will see is 12 months before a first-party game enters the Service, who knows, but I cannot see it continuing as is.
Do I believe Dring? No idea. My opinions are my own derived from various sources, and indeed speculation. However, if I am wrong, then the Service will thrive, unchanged into the 2030's. If I am right, then Game Pass as is will be nowt but a memory by 2030...
Re: 'I Much Prefer PS Plus' Lifecycle Management Strategy': Devs Chime in on Xbox Game Pass Impact
Let me start off by saying that I do not think Game Pass is sustainable, @EfYI, and I think it is killing Xbox, which means, I think, that we essentially agree with one another on that.
However, where I do completely disagree with you, and indeed, I would suggest you are flat out incorrect, is that the deals are better on the Xbox Store than on the PlayStation Store, or that the deals offered on Pure Xbox are any better than those on Push Square. Show me the proof of that, please?
I'd also argue, regarding you 'babied' comment, that Xbox is not behaving particularly well towards those that game on an Xbox when you take into consideration that they have risen the prices of consoles, peripherals, and games (albeit the games have risen everywhere). That's hardly Xbox treating their consumers like babies, is it?
I'm sorry to tell you, but your comment smacks heavily of fanboyism...
Re: 'I Much Prefer PS Plus' Lifecycle Management Strategy': Devs Weigh in on Crippling Xbox Game Pass Impact
That's how I think they will do it, @OldGamer999. Much like the Series consoles, which Microsoft no longer seem to be stocking in many parts of the world, I think that Microsoft will cease to sell Game Pass, and that they will allow each subscriber to see out their remaining subscription.
I do think they will keep putting their first-party games on the service because people signed up to Game Pass, partly to play those day one releases on the Service, and so to suddenly say they won't be doing that would open them up to a Class Action case, which they would likely lose, and would cost them billions.
If Microsoft are to end the service within the next 5 years, then I think the next one or two years will be the telling ones, because for Microsoft to go about ending Game Pass in this manner, and with people having stacked up to 3 years then they need to be ending it in the relatively near future.
The problem with this idea though, is that how are Microsoft going to attract third-party developers to the service over the last few years, if they have publicly said they are ending it? This is why I think it is such a conundrum from Microsoft. It is all well and good saying that they are going to selling Game Pass, and stop people from signing up, but once they do that, and the subscriber numbers start to dwindle, what developer is going to want to put their game on the service then?
It's a real problem, and truthfully, I'm not sure Microsoft know how to solve it...
Re: 'I Much Prefer PS Plus' Lifecycle Management Strategy': Devs Weigh in on Crippling Xbox Game Pass Impact
I agree with you, @Ricky-Spanish, that if you are a heavy Game Pass consumer, then you are absolutely having a blast right now. However, if that is all you do, and you do not support the game industry in any other way, then you are part of the problem. Effectively, you are directly responsible for the studio closures and job losses.
Saying I don't care because I am having the time of my life on Game Pass is the equivalent of throwing as many plastic bottles into the sea as you possibly can whilst saying you don't care about the environment, and then standing back to watch the world around you burn! Ultimately, you will be affected by your actions at some point... 😉
Re: 'I Much Prefer PS Plus' Lifecycle Management Strategy': Devs Weigh in on Crippling Xbox Game Pass Impact
I've been saying for years that I don't think that Game Pass is sustainable. The only reason that Microsoft are releasing their games on PlayStation is because they are not making enough money on their own platform (and PC, where of course Game Pass is available and growing). If Game Pass was not canalising sales, then Xbox would still have exclusive games.
I have said many times that within the next 5 years that Game Pass will be gone, or at the very least fundamentally changed to a first-party only service (which may then allow it to be made available on the PlayStation).
Personally, I think Microsoft want to stop the service now, but are uncertain how to navigate the issue of people having stacked years of the service. I mean, if Microsoft decide to stop the service, they would likely have to refund all those stacked months, which would probably cost them billions.
Ultimately, I think that Game Pass will cease within the next 5 years, and Microsoft will withdraw from the console market around the same time...
Re: PS5 Fans Divided Over Helldivers 2 on Xbox Pivot
Ultimately, unless we honestly think that no third-party game sells on the Xbox, then Helldivers 2 should still sell pretty well. The vast, vast majority of third-party games do not go on to the Game Pass, and are instead purchased, so Helldivers 2 should be no different. Obviously, out of the three platforms that it will have released on (PC/PS5 and Xbox), Xbox will be a distant third partly due to Game Pass, but mainly because it has the smallest install-base, and there being many, many more people that game on PC (estimated to be around 1.86 billion) and the PS5 (around 60 million). The Xbox Series consoles only has around 27 million users, so if a similar percentage of gamers buy it on each of the three platforms, then Xbox is always going to come in third.
All that said, there will also be an element of 'that ship has sailed' coming into effect when it releases on the Xbox because the hype has died down for Helldivers 2. The truth is that for the game to have had the utmost chance, it should have released everywhere that it was ever going to release everywhere at the same time. Staggered releases never do as well, and so when everyone looks at how Helldivers 2 performs on the Xbox, this is something that should be taken into account...
Re: Talking Point: What Are You Playing This Weekend? - Issue 588
Thank you, @RaZieLDaNtE. I am indeed very much looking forward to it.
Enjoy your gaming this weekend...
Re: Talking Point: What Are You Playing This Weekend? - Issue 588
It's been 10 years since I last completed The Witcher 3, and I am now close to finishing the main campaign and all the side content for the second time. After that, it will be on to the two expansions, which I have never played before...
Re: Xbox's Promising MMORPG Sounds Like the Most Baffling Cancellation
I agree, @Medic_alert, I guess is the hope that history does not repeat itself, and that Nadella does not gut Xbox to the point that it needs to go on another buying spree...
Re: Xbox's Promising MMORPG Sounds Like the Most Baffling Cancellation
I get what you are saying, @Medic_alert. I really do. And I agree! However, it isn't just Microsoft that are doing this. Remember that Sony are also cancelling games left and right. There have been many just this generation, including 10 different live-service games. It's a problem right across the industry, just look at Ubisoft, for example. It comes down to the lengthy development times we are seeing these days, and also the often unreasonable expectations of just how much profits a game should make...
Re: Xbox's Promising MMORPG Sounds Like the Most Baffling Cancellation
The problem with each of the games that were cancelled is the time they have already had in development. So if a game has already had 7 years in the oven, and won't be out for another 3, we're talking 10 years in development. That's way, way too long. Remember, for each of those years, the staff are being paid, the energy bills are being paid, the office space is costing money.
It needs to be remembered that we used to get 2 or even 3 games from a developer in a single generation, we are sometimes not even getting one. In the case of this particular game, it started development during the Xbox One era, and was going to entirely skip the Series generation. It would have released on the next platform in 2028.
Ultimately what has happened here is that Microsoft Gaming have told Spencer that these, and other games also long in development such as State of Decay 3 and Fable, are taking much too long to develop, and costing way too much money. The bean-counters at Microsoft have, via Nadella, told Spencer that he needs to make cuts. He has to choose what goes, but games have to be cancelled. Thus likely as not, Spencer has cancelled those games deemed most risky, most unlikely to recoup the cost of development, and those that are the furthest from releasing. Some of the games cancelled may have fallen foul of each of those potential reasons. I think given the choice, Spencer would not have cancelled any of these projects because he has often spoken about given developers the time that they need. Unfortunately for him, the oversight from Nadella is such that that is not a luxury he can afford those that develop games at Xbox any longer...
Re: Romero Games Appears to Have Closed as Xbox Layoffs Cast Dark Shadow Over Industry
We can only go by what the media and other sources are saying, @DonkeyFantasy, because like you, I am privy to the full details. However, the fact that Nadella has taken a keen interest in what is happening is well documented. And, of course, you only need to look at Nadella's previous history and the way he has behaved, to see that he has splashed his DNA all over this...
Re: Romero Games Appears to Have Closed as Xbox Layoffs Cast Dark Shadow Over Industry
And what if he was totally blind-sided, @Titntin? And what if he truly believes that he is the only person capable of standing between Nadella and Xbox? How does him resigning help Xbox if that is the case?
I've had bosses make totally nonsensical decision in the past, and tell me to get on with it, even though I have known that they won't work, or won't work and will make things worse. Was I supposed to resign then, or just do my job, which meant doing as I was told regardless of how much worse the position was made?
I'd argue it takes more guts and integrity to remain in post and attempt to right the sinking ship than it would to take the easy option and resign. It takes a lot to remain in post where everyone is blaming you, even when it's not your fault, and attempt to set that ship afloat even as your boss is doing everything in his power to scuttle it...
Re: Romero Games Appears to Have Closed as Xbox Layoffs Cast Dark Shadow Over Industry
I get where you are coming from, @Titntin, but if you say something (such as bringing stability) because that is your genuinely held belief, because that is what you expect when you see your vision through, and then your boss takes the biggest spanner going, and completely wrecks that vision, have you lied? I would argue not if when you said it you honestly believed it. If events, out of your hands, conspire against you (or in this case, Nadella conspires against you!) then it doesn't make what you say a lie. I highly doubt that Spencer foresaw what Nadella was going to do, which is why for months on end we didn't see Spencer at all. I think all these breakneck reversals in the way Xbox are doing things now have taken Spencer by as much surprise as the rest of us. I think no matter what Spencer said, people would accuse him of lying, but all he was doing was saying what he believed to be true at the time he said it. It is Nadella changing course so often that means that what Spencer has said has not aged well...
Re: PlayStation Is Bringing Helldivers 2 to Xbox, Out on 26th August
Thank you, @TheDudeElDuderino. I think you've persuaded me where to get it... 👍
Re: PlayStation Is Bringing Helldivers 2 to Xbox, Out on 26th August
Thank you, @TheDudeElDuderino. That's truly helpful, particularly as I do use an Elite 2 controller... 👍
Re: PlayStation Is Bringing Helldivers 2 to Xbox, Out on 26th August
That's very helpful. Thank you, @lacerz...
Re: PlayStation Is Bringing Helldivers 2 to Xbox, Out on 26th August
I have a PS5, and a very good gaming PC, oh, and an Xbox. Where would I be best to play this? Also, does it have any single-player component? Can it be played with just 2 people, or are there many more people required? I've had a passing interest in the game since it launched, but now it's been out for a while, and has has a lot of updates, is it a good time to play it...?
Re: Xbox's Phil Spencer 'Not Retiring' After Dark Day of Cancellations and Job Cuts
That I understand, @Chupa_loyzer. However, personal ethics would prevent me from being that type of individual...
Re: Romero Games Project Cancelled as Xbox Layoffs Continue to Cast Dark Shadow Over Industry
Removed
Re: Xbox's Phil Spencer 'Not Retiring' After Dark Day of Cancellations and Job Cuts
Sorry, @Kierant202, but I have to inform you that you are on the wrong forums if you want to try and behave sensibly... 😉
Oh, and I entirely agree with you...
Re: Xbox's Phil Spencer 'Not Retiring' After Dark Day of Cancellations and Job Cuts
You can argue that, @AdamNovice, and you may well be right. There again, maybe Spencer (and his advisors) believes that he is the only one able to stand up to Nadella at all. Maybe Nadella wanted to cut 30% of the staff, and the only reason we are seeing 10% is because Spencer stood up to him. We simply do not know. Maybe Spencer believes he is the only one capable of turning the Xbox brand around. Or maybe Nadella has persuaded him to stay because he believes that Spencer is the only one capable of doing the job. Again, we just do not know.
I think the only certainty here is that no matter who stands as the boss of Xbox, they will have to to as they are instructed by Nadella because that is how management works. It matters not who that boss is, Nadella has determined (probably wrongly) that these cuts need to be made, and so even if it was Bond, Booty or some other industry yes man in the roll, these cuts would be being made...
Re: Xbox's Phil Spencer 'Not Retiring' After Dark Day of Cancellations and Job Cuts
Do your research, @Ta424. Activision approached Microsoft. Xbox did not have anywhere near the money to make the purchase.
As for understanding management, you have no idea who I am, what I do or did, nor what level of supervision I had or gave.
Ultimately, it was Nadella that decided on the cuts, but Spencer who had to implement them. Even if Spencer had walked, what do you think would have happened? No one would have been sacked? Seriously! All that would have happened if Spencer had walked would have been Bond or Booty, or another corporate yes man would have become boss of Xbox and the same level of cuts would have been made. Why? Because Nadella had said so.
Maybe it is not me who needs to understand how management works...
Re: Xbox's Phil Spencer 'Not Retiring' After Dark Day of Cancellations and Job Cuts
I disagree, @Flaming_Kaiser. Spencer had a vision for Xbox and turned the brand around after the disastrous Xbox One era. The problem is that Nadella has taken the reigns, and is dictating the new strategy. We won't know for certain whether Spencer's vision would have worked, but we certainly won't now after the really poor decisions that Nadella has made. Nadella has done this in every post he has ever had. He comes in, and maximises profits for the shareholders, no matter the damage it does to the brand or his subordinates...
Re: Xbox's Phil Spencer 'Not Retiring' After Dark Day of Cancellations and Job Cuts
He's not the guy in charge, @Ta424. He's simply the messenger. If Spencer resigned, or was fired, Nadella would simply employ someone else to pass on the bad news instead...
Re: Xbox's Phil Spencer 'Not Retiring' After Dark Day of Cancellations and Job Cuts
At least someone's safe
I have to say, @get2sammyb, I think that is a very underhanded, and spiteful, thing to say.
Let's put it this way, it is known by all that Phil Spencer is the head of Xbox. He is, however, not the head of Microsoft. It is also widely known, and has been reported on many times, that everything that Xbox is doing now is being driven by Nadella.
In other words, when Nadella tells Spencer to lay of 10% of his Xbox staff, Spencer has two choices; one, resign, though all that will achieve is him having lost his job, and someone else taking up the roll and then that person laying off the 10% of staff. In other words, Spencer resigning makes absolutely no difference. The second option, is for Spencer to remain in post and do as he has been told.
If whomever is in charge at Push Square, tells their subordinates to do something, they expect it to be done. No ifs, no buts. Why should that be any different for Spencer? If his boss tells him to do something, he is contractually obliged to do it. That is his job. If Spencer was in charge of Microsoft, then any criticism would be well justified, but we both know that isn't the case.
Your subheading just looks like you are playing to the crowd, and just comes off as mean...
Re: Ghost of Yotei's Pricey $250 PS5 Collector's Edition Is for the Hardcore Fans Only
Well said, @Balaam_... 👍
Re: Ghost of Yotei's Pricey $250 PS5 Collector's Edition Is for the Hardcore Fans Only
Tis quite ridiculous, @Rob_230. I guess they expect people to display the case in some manner, but I personally, I would prefer it to be functional as well...
Re: Ghost of Yotei's Pricey $250 PS5 Collector's Edition Is for the Hardcore Fans Only
It could be worse, @LogicStrikesAgain, some Collector's Editions come with a Steel Case and a download code. I mean, what is the point in that...?
Re: Ghost of Yotei's Pricey $250 PS5 Collector's Edition Is for the Hardcore Fans Only
I have the Collector's Edition on order, and am very much looking forward to receiving it... 😊
Re: Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag Remake Rumours Return as Actor Drops Big Hint
Although I pre-ordered the game, and I still have the disc, I never actually played it. I won't make that same mistake again, and will definitely find time for this one...
Re: Random: Stellar Blade Dev Gives Insane Anatomically Accurate Explanation of Why Butts Are Beautiful
For me, Eve had a slightly big butt that looked even bigger when she was running. There again, beauty really is in the eyes of the beholder... 😉
Re: You Can Now Launch First-Party PlayStation Games Through the Xbox PC App
I really do not see how Microsoft expect to make any sales on their own storefront once they give access to places where games can be bought cheaper. It's not so bad for their first-party sales because on Steam or PS5, they still get 70% of the revenue for games that are sold on those storefronts. However, where currently Microsoft take 30% of the money from third-party games bought on the Xbox Store, when people buy a third-party game on Steam or the PS5, Microsoft get no money whatsoever. So if a game can be bought for £10 less upon release on Steam, as is often the case, who is going to buy it on the Xbox Store? And when it comes to the sales, Steam always has more on offer, and at better prices, so again, who is going to buy from the Xbox Store?
Honestly, I cannot see this ending well for Microsoft...
Re: Resident Evil Requiem PS5 Was Open World, Online in Early Tests
I've never seen 100% on a vote before. 73 votes cast at the time of writing this. My guess is this won't be close... 😂
Re: Sony Sued for 'Abusing Its Dominant Position in the Console Market'
The issue is the dominant position, @Areus, and it would be difficult to argue that the Xbox is in a dominant position in any regard when compared to the PlayStation. Truthfully, this is just the start. The further Microsoft fall behind, the easier it is for Sony to do as they please...
Re: 'We're Not Looking to Put First-Party Games in Day and Date': PS Plus Rejects Xbox Game Pass Model
But putting first-party games on Game Pass has been such a success for Microsoft. Oh, wait...
Re: The Expedition 33 Story Keeps on Getting Better with 'Unusual' Sales Increase
Fantastic game. Loved the story. Was truly emotional, and the acting was second to none. I highly recommend it. I cannot wait to see what Sandfall do next...