Microsoft says that the Xbox One is roughly eight times as powerful as the Xbox 360 at the end of the day. In addition, the ramifications of Microsoft's cloud computing initiative could be significant. The company has stated that consoles will be able to offload calculations to cloud processors, which could be significant if developers find it useful to take advantage of.
Dear team,
Xbox has always been different.
We started with a simple idea. Games should bring people together through shared experiences. That led to the first Xbox in 2001, Xbox Live in 2002, and new ways to connect, from friends lists and achievements to parties and play across devices. Today, Xbox reaches over 500 million players around the world, with some of the most important franchises in entertainment.
re-evaluating exclusivity 💀
PS players will need to go back to pretending to dislike Xbox games
Or meaning since it’s doing so good they might just do everything day 1.
They didnt say re-evaluating their multiplatform approach.
🤣🤣🤣 Xbox is so dead. I know you scared🤣🫵ӿ 97;
Aww you’re hurt that they’re going back to exclusives!
The mask has slipped… we know you PS gamers LOVE Xbox games
Hurt over video games 🤣🤣
Lmao we all grew and got jobs but apparently you stayed home broke 🤣🤣.
Man I love loyal dogs like you. MS kicked Spit and slapped you around but you still come back on all 4s.
Good little boy 🤣🤣
My only question is what games are PlayStation gamers gonna play now? They don’t really come out with new games anymore. I’m looking forward to wolverine, but after that then what?
Lmao
There’s no way after everything it’s going back, the damage is done
What you are seeing now is the new management telling what the core fanbase (aka…you) want to hear so they are pumped full of hope and are more likely to invest in the next Xbox console
When Phil took over after the awful Xbox One reveal he did the same thing, he told people what they wanted to hear for damage control.
It’s crazy people are getting suckered into this again.
And you'll now go back to again thinking exclusives suddenly matter, that multiplatform is no longer the future, or that revenue from multiplatforms doesn't matter, like all you flop flopping xbox grifters lol.
The whole post just sounds like the previous phil corpo slop talk to me, whole thing reads like a nothing burger lol.
“re-evaluating exclusivity”
She also said this.
“The model that got us here won’t be the one that takes us forward.”
If they go back to exclusive games it at least shows that they are finally getting it. They would be turning down immediate money for something that will potentially workout in the long term.
Only issue is they've already opened Pandora's box. A lot of their base has moved to PC or jumped to PS. So will be a long road to get back on track.
We have been saying this from day one exclusives are a must if you are going to be selling hardware look at Nintendo and Sony before Jim Ryan. That's the proven formula. You had some that were deluded and blinded by loyalty accepting that multiplat was the future and that MS was merely getting ahead of where the industry was headed, but at least they can finally see the light and agree with what everyone has been saying for a decade+
True, blame it on the rabid fanboys. MS can do no wrong and spinner this multiplatform move. While the actual fans moved on.
I feel like with the new Xbox coming they are hoping to bring back those old fans and then if it goes well. Bring back exclusives.
If the new console is performing like series x and one. Naw they staying multiplatform.
I think it's too late, xbox sales were diving even before ABK, they got even worse since then even long before the full multiplatform push. I'd be surprised if they even went back to timed exclusivity at this point, Helix is basically a PC and is going to be expensive, they already struggle to sell cheaper xbox consoles, it will be low volume and they'll have a very small 'console' base to sell to, which has already been conditioned to just play via gamepass anyway.
Despite all of that, it's clear that Microsoft's Xbox division is broken beyond repair.
It isnt. But I dont think they mean in 'games', rather, footprint.
They own the OS but as far as gaming is concerned, Steam dominate. I imagine the VAST majority of people who use the Xbox app/launcher are PC gamepass subs. No ones buying their 3rd party PC games through Xbox PC.
Starting today, Game Pass Ultimate drops from $29.99 to $22.99 a month. PC Game Pass will also drop from $16.49 to $13.99 a month. Prices may vary by region.
Beginning this year, future Call of Duty titles won’t join Game Pass Ultimate or PC Game Pass at launch. New Call of Duty games will be added to Game Pass Ultimate and PC Game Pass during the following holiday season (about a year later), while existing Call of Duty titles already in the library will continue to be available.
Its nice there is some kind of drop... but is that all they really value CoD to be, a lousy $7 a month?
I was hoping it would drop by $10.
That $7 equates to $84 per year - which is more than COD new ($69.99 + tax).
So - you can get the exact same thing - and save a few bucks - or you can skip COD and pocket the savings or use toward another game - or games if on sale.
That’s how I’m taking it - and is enough for me to sign back up after canceling the day it went to $29.99.
It's unlikely that COD is going to be the only title they stop offering day one, but we'll see how they play their hand.
Including Call of Duty in Game Pass is just leaving money on the table. When the Elder Scrolls VI releases hopefully Microsoft doesn’t launch it into Game Pass. Then it can make more profits and use it give more value to Xbox console owners!
Can’t wait to hear how this will be spun extremely positive. 🤣
I wonder why knowing Microsoft thick head something must has happened in the background in the levels of Xbox one and Kinect 🤷🏿
Any price cut is a good thing in this day and age, but it also reveals a flaw in GamePass' design that we've all been calling out for years... it's unsustainable, especially with day and date releases on new games. COD won't be the only game they exclude, they're setting a precedent with it that they'll likely expand upon in the future.
At least they're being realistic about it now. I bet in the future we're going to start seeing them try to subsidize the high price of new consoles by making you buy 2-3 years of gamepass with it to get the console cheaper. I'm still not sure that'll be enough to save either the hardware or gamepass, but we'll see.
price cuts are good, the removal of Call of Duty is clearly something they are planning to leverage. But considering everyone around N4G claims Call of Duty sucks, it's not a big loss now is it?
Well, they're removing their biggest game from being Day 1 on the service so GamePass users can buy it instead. That's the intention.
They increased the price to $30, then removed COD and dropped it to still be above the old price.
It's an understandable compromise but the consumer Ultimately is getting less.
Think the calculation is that *most* COD users don't play that many games and aren't interested in GamePass. The GamePass users who do like COD would just buy it anyway. MS reportedly lost out a lot of money last year putting COD on GamePass.
Well Call of duty could just be the beginning. What other games can they trim from the service to get the price down? How long before it's just the Xbox core first party studio games and not the one to everquired?
Create an interesting scenario with Call of duty as well. Will people wait a year to play it? Does that split the fan base? Will it hurt to Call of duty more than a benefits Game pass? These are all legitimate questions which we will find the answers to in the coming years
And I don't consider my post negative spin just realistic observation. At the very least this backtracking can be seen as an admittance that the previous strategy of gamepass was not sustainable as most of us said.
I'd get rid of the EA and Ubisoft+ too. That should bring the price down more. The only game from either of those parts of the service i played was jedi Fallen order / survivor. both of which i also bought on disc so it was more of a convenience i didnt have to put the disc in to play when i was playing them via remote play. And really that is why i still use GPU and PS+. its the convenience of having the games ready to play from a remote location. I havent picked up my consoles controllers in at least a few years. I guess that makes me a bad gamer, but so what. i'm still playing the games, just not physically on the machines themselves. GCloud and Portal are my go to now.
They’ll say no one is buying game pass so they had to drop the price , even though it’s been extremely profitable.
Why remove CoD if it's *extremely* profitable then? Why even increase it to begin with?
Always funny seeing those that defended the price hike go "how you gonna spin this now!" after the price drops.
You should be thanking those that called it out. Obviously this is a good thing especially with everything increasing nowadays.
Also, what happened to the reason why that the Activision acquisition was good for gaming was that CoD would be day one on GamePass? Another backtrack on that I guess...
What removing CoD on GamePass shows, is that it's not sustainable for for the more popular and/or bigger budget games because of the sales you lose out on like people have been saying since inception. It never made sense to put CoD on there unless you thought it's popularity would draw in a lot of subscribers which it obviously didn't. And if it was as sustainable as people claim they wouldn't have increased the price while putting it on there in the first place.
In my region, it’s still more expensive than it was before the last price hike, but it’s a far more viable price point.
Losing Call of Duty from the service, honestly, has zero effect on me, and given they chose to make it so, it’s probably not the big seller they originally thought. Overall, it’s really good news, but I still think they have work to do on the tier structure, having Premium and PC at the same price point with different features feels odd.
Yep take COD out. Them waiting a year is interesting but it make sense. They don't want certain ppl waiting 4 to 6 months they want fomo and maximum sales. Wait a year while the new one releases.
Ok so far so good.
Senior Director and Video Game Industry Advisor at Circana Mat Piscatella has revealed Starfield was the best-selling video in the US based on dollar sales for the week ending April 11th.
For the week that nothing else of note launched.. I’m sure it will sell some copies but look at what released that week
Replies(6)
It’s not a requirement to buy games every month or whenever one is released. I don’t think people are going to spend $70+ on something they don’t care about.
I have talked about not being able to get into this game at launch. I still haven't given it another go, even though I think it looks great and has come a very long way since launch. Some people just want it to fail, even if it is a great game. I know why, we all do.
Starfield didn't just have the best sales for a week, but it was pre-ordered on PS store, with very nice numbers. I really need to start it again, on my PS5 though. So I can see how it is now. It has had some major updates.
I am looking forward to it all over again now.
Its not that people want the game to fail. Its that Bethesda wont ever improve their games if you guys keep calling slop like starfield great games. Pure as that. Formulaic, chasing the trends, slop.
Like Bethesda has fallen off since FO4.
Ive a PC 4070, no interest in Starfield since the beginning since despite Bethesda owning some serious FPS legacy within their ranks...They just like seem to hate good shooting mechanics.
I dont see whats the appeal and thats ok. But how can you guys call it great? By what metric? The story? The Gameplay? The package all together? Hell I'm enjoying Crimson Desert, but I've got my issues with some design choices, but I do think the game is better as a whole than its individual parts. Is that the case for Starfield?
To be honest alot of you starfield stans dont make a great case for yourself, since I've never heard a starfield say what it is they enjoyed about it other just it being another Bethesda game that feels familiar yet new to them. Yall dont make the case on whats so great about starfield that keeps you coming back.
What does it do that makes it great that everyone like me is missing?
Like I wanted to like the Starfield, but after seeing its first trailer, it pretty much came out like I thought it was. Bethesda has been coasting off prestige for years now. and honestly starfield is proof of that.
I'm fine with the game being janky Bethesda-core etc. For what it's worth it's more polished than previous games have been and the shooting mechanics are fine, feels pretty good even.
What I'm not fine with is it just being completely dull in every way. Even if they managed to resolve the structure of the game constantly sending you back and forth through maps and loading screens it's still going to be dull. The original The Outer Worlds did Fallout in space better, and that was hardly perfect (I haven't played the second one so I can't comment on that). At least The Outer Worlds had some interesting characters, enemies and locations. Starfield has none of that. They can argue that it's more grounded/going for realism or some nonsense (yet it's still doing Star Wars/Firefly style space travel) but it's fundamentally dull.
I dropped loads of money on a copy of this game at launch and I've no desire to get my money's worth out of it, I pretty quickly cut my losses and moved on. I don't know what happened to the writers for Bethesda, I presume they all moved on and have since been replaced by Jenny from accounting.
I agree with @CrimsonIdol
I played the game to completed, but it's version of NG+ simply didn't appeal to me, so I never went back to it.
There's base-building, but it really serves no point, other than, there's base building. If you're into that, you have it, but I didn't touch it at all, as it wasn't part of the story ... At all.
The main character models are "ok", but the NPCs are just bad.
And IMO, people shouldn't be OK with a Bethesda game being janky. They're a big company, and should be jank-free by now!
I've given it another go and with the new more modular difficulty i managed to balance it a bit like Stalker 2 and it has been a lot more enjoyable this time around. The free roaming in space also helps a bit. Still prefer older Bethesda games, but it's growing on me
ever so slowly.
Digital Foundry showed how bad the game runs even on PS5 Pro and crashes. It can’t even hold 60fps and not a looker to begin with. 🤷♂️
I found out. I loved FO4 and wanted to judge Starfield for myself. I should have waited for a sale.
It's still as Bad as it was on Xbox. Of cause some playstation user's are curious and because there is a lot of them then the sales are gonna be somewhat okay for small time period. But still a very sad story what starfield turned out to be. Maybe the biggest disappointment in my gaming life.
"8GB DDR3 (5 GB available to games)"
Rumours are right again.
Say what you like, it is not 8 times more powerful, more like 3 to 4 times. PS4 claims 8 to 10 times, so that means pretty much equal?? far from that. Microsoft resorts to dirty lies again, 8 times,hahaha.
IM wondering why they dont say the speed of the CPU cores
The decision to stick with DDR3 is going to hold back XBO's games. Normally I would say that multiplatform titles will perform equally well, but PS4 is so easy to develop for that devs may ultimately make PS4 versions of their titles perform better.
xbox hardware evolves like pokemon every time it evolves it gets bigger and ulgier. the thing is bigger then both my ps3's put together lol and im not even including the kinect module. holy crap the thing is the size of all last gen consoles combined lol. not to mention all of those wide open vents. theres gonna be a ton of lent and dust getting in that thing. gonna need a hoover vaccumm combined with a hoveround to clean that thing.