BAMozzy

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!

@Athrum doesn't change the fact that the disc itself is nothing more than a delivery system as far as the 'software' is concerned. You still don't play the game from the disc and the ONLY reason you need the disc is because it contains the 'licence' to access the Software that has to be installed on your internal storage.

That's also a very small number of games and I bet the majority are not 'new' games at all. I bet most are ports or collections of 'old' games. Games that have already been patched, updated and/or received ALL the post release content/DLC that can all 'fit' on the Bluray disc.

However, the games still need to be 'installed' onto the internal storage, as they have done since the start of the PS4/XB1 era so therefore, the disc is nothing more than a 'delivery' system to 'deliver' the software to the customer's Console - exactly the same as the internet - both require you to download and install the Software to your Console.

The ONLY difference in reality between Physical & Digital is that if you prefer to 'buy' Physical, the licence you purchase is on the disc which you have to put in the disc drive to 'verify' you still own the Licence to play where as Digital, your licence is locked to your account.

Physical doesn't 'preserve' games any better than Digital. They go out of Print, stop being manufactured and the hardware they require does too. You can't go and buy Goldeneye Cartridge for N64 and an N64 to play it on so its NOT preserved and just because I bought Goldeneye on N64, that doesn't let me play it today on current hardware its been ported to. If the Hardware/Cartridge/Disc breaks, you cannot buy a replacement - its not 'preserved'.

I am not a 'Digital Only' defender but that MANY here don't seem to understand that the ONLY reason you have to put the Disc in your console is to 'verify' you still own a Licence to access the Game installed on your internal storage. Its just a 'delivery' system so whether it contains the complete game code or 'not' is 'irrelevant' as you don't play the game on the disc. - the only 'important' thing on the disc is the Licence to play - it could just have a launcher to 'install' from the internet and licence.

The games are installed to your SSD which require a Licence to access - that licence is either on a disc if you buy Physical or locked to your account. Disc Licences are 'general', where as Digital licences are locked to your account and your account only. You must install the software to your SSD so it then comes down to a choice of 'delivery' method - that maybe Disc, disc & internet or just internet but you NEVER play the software on the disc and haven't on PS4 or PS5.

Games don't run from the Disc and haven't since the PS3/360 era. Since the PS4/XB1 era, EVERY game has to be 'installed' to the Internal Storage to run - even more so with this Generation as the SSD has much faster data transfer speeds than a 'bluray' drive.

The disc is 'almost' useless - its just a 'delivery' method, like the internet, so you can 'install' the software (which ALWAYS requires at least an internet connection to update during 'installation' to the SSD) - You cannot 'buy' a Game on Disc these days, put the disc in and be playing within seconds. The ONLY reason you need the Disc post installation, the reason you need to put it in the Disc Drive is to verify you still own the 'licence'' to play the game. With Digital, that Licence is linked to your account.

Even with the entitre game installed on your SSD, you cannot 'play' that game without a valid Licence. The entire game, even if its the most up to date version, will not be playable unless you put the disc in (or sign into your account) - the disc is just a key to unlock 'access' post installation and prior to installation, is nothing more than a distribution method - whether it includes the whole game, part of the game or even just a launcher to install from the internet - you NEVER play the game on the disc anyway!!

Does it matter how much of the content is actually on the disc - the game NEVER runs from the disc anyway so you still have to 'download' and install from the disc regardless. To me, it doesn't make any real difference whether you are downloading from disc or the internet, you can't play until its installed on your SSD.

Games never release 'complete' and/or bug free so there is always a need to be connected.

Hard pass from me - even if free to play! Don't like the artstyle at all - its weird 'cartoony' style with generic hero/characters that no doubt will have seasonal content and season passes and cosmetics and new characters/heros/classes to expand the 'range' of cosmetics - if it survives long enough!

I'm sure the gunplay feels good - it's Bungie, but this isn't Marathon, not the 'Marathon' I want from Bungie, and certainly not the Artstyle I want either and wouldn't want to spend my time in that environment.

It sounds like MW2's 'DMZ' mode but with 'hero's' and a more generic, bland, sci-fi setting and child-friendly colour scheme/aesthetic to try and appeal to the young masses who have the time to invest and money to spend

@JonnyAces Regardless of the terminology that differentiates between Online Multiplayer modes and 'Live Service', Factions was cancelled.

Multiplayer modes these days are more 'live service' than an 'add-on' to a Single Player game too extend its playability/life cycle. They all offer DLC or Seasonal content with countless 'cosmetic' bundles they want to 'sell'. The only difference is that 'live service' tends to add more content 'free' and sell Seasonal Passes/Cosmetic bundles where as traditional MP modes tended to sell DLC Map/Weapon packs and Cosmetics/loot boxes etc but the traditional method split the community between those who bought DLC and those who didn't own the Maps/Weapons.

Therefore I meant that Factions - whether as a Live Service MP or more traditional - has been cancelled. Multi-player games these days are more 'live' service than the traditional MP modes as the whole community don't miss out on new Maps, modes, events, weapons etc and sell Customisation bundles to fund the new content instead of selling the Content and splitting the Community. Therefore any 'Multi-player' only game is likely to be 'live service' so when I say 'live service', I mean a Multi-player only release which Factions was (until it was cancelled).

Have to release it again now the PS5 Pro is out and then release it again once the PS6 releases so you have a version specific to that hardware...

@JonnyAces I doubt you'll get Factions as that was cancelled years ago and no longer planned for release. It, along with a few other Live Service games were cancelled.

You still have Fairgame$ and Marathon to look forward to if Live Services are what you want to play...

I do wonder how long Hardware can survive. I don't know how sustainable it is with all the plastics and other raw materials needed to manufacture and distribute Hardware Globally. Its not just the costs of manufacturing and the Raw materials, but distributing them globally - often with Fossil Fuels too. Not only that, you need 'millions' of each component - millions of Terabytes of SSD storage for example - more than enough to store EVERY game if built into a server instead...

With the infrastructure for streaming improving and the increasing cost of hardware/games, I do wonder whether the 'majority' of gamers will abandon hardware - much like few own VHS/DVD/Bluray Players/media or Record/CD players/media because Digital is far cheaper and/or more accessible (you can watch anywhere, not just the one Screen your Hardware is connected to or listen anywhere too).

Hardware will exist for gaming in the near future at least - but I can see it being very expensive (for those that want the 'best' experience and budget to achieve it - like Movie fanatics and Audiophiles have) and/or 'cheap' (more 'novelty', Retro or child friendly) but maybe won't get all the latest releases.

I can see more and more games relying on streaming - inc Single Player games - for Asset streaming, events, maybe even AI/Physics calculations or even to create more dynamic environments that change/evolve over time.

I can see MS quitting the 'Console' hardware space before Sony/Nintendo but only because Sony/Nintendo need their Hardware to sell their Games and get people into their 'ecosystem'. MS already have their own store and ecosystem on PC and Cloud - all running on their OS, their API etc...

I thought GTA started out being a 'bad guy' version of the Cop game APB so this seems to be more like a modern take of APB...

Sony will benefit from this and get 30% from sales in their Digital store - the only place to buy games Digitally on their platform. That's what they get as Platform holder, retailer etc.

All it means is that MS is no different to EA, Ubisoft or other 3rd Party Publishers on Sony's platform, just like Bethesda/ABK Published games were too before MS acquired them.

Sony 'could' release their games on Xbox and sell well too - but Microsoft would expect their '30%' too for games sold through their store etc too - which Sony 'refuse' to do - but will with Steam as they are a '3rd Party Publisher' on that platform - its not their's!

Where is the ONLY market that Microsoft Games (until recently) were not available on? That would be Sony/Nintendo Consoles - the ONLY place they can 'target' for revenue Growth, to get money from gamers they otherwise would not get money from - 70% is still better than nothing they were getting before. Console sales maybe down, but Game 'engagement and sales' are high because they are 'not' just limited to their 'small' (compared to Sony/Nintendo Console sales numbers) Console users to play - Steam sales numbers are Good and 'high' player numbers (yes most maybe because of Game Pass, not 'buying' the game) would indicate they are 'successful' and reviewed well too.

Therefore it makes sense to bring some of their Catalogue to Playstation as a 3rd Party Publisher - in the same way Sony does with Steam/PC. Its got comparable hardware to their Series X, already port and make games for Playstation (Minecraft, Call of Duty, Doom etc) and inherited/Acquired a LOT of Playstation titles - like Fallout 76, ESO, Overwatch, Deathloop etc) so opened the door. Its also the only platform 'currently' they can target for revenue growth as they already compete/offer something on EVERY other Gaming Platform currently.

Whilst the next few months may have quite a few Releases from Microsoft on Playstation, Microsoft are also releasing (or have released) a few 'big' games for their own platform too.

Doom of course is common to both Consoles in terms of release date, but whilst Sony maybe getting FH5, Indy, AoE2 etc, Xbox have Avowed, South of Midnight, Towerborne etc to play.

No doubt Indiana will sell well on PS. It has more than 2x the Console sales so 'should' sell at least twice as many copies, but whether it has the same 'reach', same player numbers as Xbox (and PC) gamers didn't need to buy to play. They may have paid for Game Pass (even just 1 month worth) but that is Consumer choice.

Sales 'revenue' is just one option - but Game Pass is another 'revenue' stream too - 30m paying at least £10 'every' month is £300m a month - before any 'sales' revenue starts coming back in. Theses games may sell 1-2m in the first few months - that's not even close to the revenue coming in from Game Pass. You could also argue, that '£300m+' per month is what paid for those games to be made in the first place - that revenue is paying Devs, paying studios etc to make the game so ANY sales on top is 'pure' profit. They haven't spent £100m developing a product that needs to sell to get that £100m investment back. Game Pass subs have paid that £100m it cost to develop and now get to play 'free' and ANY sale is pure profit.

It's just a different business model but because you have an alternative option on Xbox, Sales alone is meaningless. I'd expect Indiana Jones to sell a LOT more on Playstation, but I expect a higher percentage of Xbox gamers will have played at least the opening section. Would you rather have '2%' of gamers playing your game, but sell enough over time to be 'profitable' or Reach 50% of the gamers and maybe not get as 'much' per gamer for the 'initial' point of access, get more in revenue from DLC/MTX's and not worry about whether or not your game will eventually sell enough to cover the costs and bring in enough revenue to continue making games...

@BecauseBecause Not one game plays directly from the disc and hasn't done since the PS3/360 era. Since the PS4 Gen, ALL games have to be 'installed' to your Hard-drive.

The game code on disc is 'pre-release' game Code and whilst that may well include the entire game, the vast majority rely on Day 1 updates and/or patches. Often numerous features are added 'post' launch too - like Performance modes, additional content etc. Some games aren't 'complete' on the disc too with some requiring a download to install the rest.

So many games these days are quite different from the 'Day 1' version on Disc - inc older Games now playable via BC. Cyberpunk 2077 is a great example of a 'PS4' Single Player game that the disc code is completely obsolete. It needs your hardware to be 'online' to update the Software installed on your Hardware to play.

Once the game is 'installed' to your Hard-drive, the Discs sole purpose is to prove you still own the License Key to access the Game. Sell the disc, you can't access the game despite the Game being installed on your Harddrive. The Disc performs the same function as the internet - its just a 'delivery' system (either the 'early' full game, early partial game (with some download required for the rest) or just a 'launcher' to install the Software from the internet anyway. You are NOT playing the game from the Disc, but from your hard drive, its just a 'key' to unlock access to it.

It doesn't matter if the Disc has ALL the game and its 'perfect' at launch as you'll still have to install it from the Disc to your internal Storage to 'run' from there, not from the Disc itself. The disc may not 'work' on newer Hardware (especially with no disc drive) but you can download games 'delisted' if you had purchased them before they were delisted. Your 'licence' key is attached to your digital profile so don't need a Disc at all.

Discs don't 'preserve' games any better than digital - maybe even worse as discs are only manufactured for a limited time, require specific Hardware (you can't play SM64 Cartridge without a working N64 and Controller - and can't buy any of those 'new' if one breaks, if you can even find a working version now), and of course often only contain pre-release code at best - Virtually every game these days is updated with patches that not only 'fix' bugs, but add features and QoL improvements too.

Games don't PLAY from a Disc - the disc's SOLE purpose is to deliver the Code (or download launcher) and contain your License Key to access the software once installed on your Hard drive.

Until that software is 'installed' on the hardware locally, the game is NOT playable. So you either have to 'download' and install the software via the internet or disc. With Disc also requiring manufacturing, that also means that the code is the 'oldest' if not incomplete and most buggy/broken that requires online to install huge patches and/or additional content.

The Games, regardless of whether or not they are Single player, require 'Online' at the 'installation' stage and at least periodically throughout its life as new patches/fixes, additional content/features etc are provided online and the game may not actually run or be playable without online. Owning a disc is nothing more than a Physical Licence Key to access Software installed on your Consoles Hard drive and does NOT preserve the game as you can't 'play' from the disc and even if it did have the game on it, would not be the same game you played Day 1 with the Day 1 patch and bug fixes.

I can see them bringing Hellblade 2 over at some point - after all the first released on Playstation so there is 'history'.

I can't see them bringing Forza Motorsport despite them bringing Forza Horizon 5 - I think its too 'similar' to Gran Turismo and probably not worth the investment in porting to PS5 for the amount of sales it would likely get.

I'm sure they could release numerous 'old' games that are no longer selling on Xbox, no longer selling Hardware or Subscriptions either so not really making MS money anymore. Halo Master Chief released over a decade ago and as far as I recall, is no longer being 'actively' supported by the Devs. If they bring any 'Gears' game to PS5, maybe the first 'ultimate' edition that was also on PC - but I think a Gears Collection makes more sense as that would bring at least Gears 2 & 3 to PC as well.

Obviously with their Zenimax and ABK acquisition, they have numerous IP's that have been popular on Playstation. Whether they release Day 1 (like Doom) or will release after 'months' of (timed) exclusivity on Xbox (liker Indiana) time will tell.

I still think the majority will be 'older' games - and by older, I only mean that they have released elsewhere (Xbox/PC) and been out at least a week (so not up to 7 days Earlier Access) on that platform. With Game Pass on a 'monthly' plan and MS themselves wanting at least 1 big game a quarter, I can see them delaying releases for at least 3 months on PS so they can use them to sell their own Hardware/Subs.

Indiana Jones isn't selling Xbox Consoles or Game Pass Subscriptions by the time it releases on Playstation - MS are hoping that Avowed, South of Midnight and Doom will sell those and/or keep people subscribed too. Those that wanted to play Indy (or sub to Game Pass) would likely have done so and now its coming to Playstation to sell to those that wouldn't buy an Xbox or Sub to Game Pass anyway so wouldn't get any revenue from them.

I don't think it makes sense for MS to release everything Day 1 on PS but a few months of exclusivity (not a year or more like some Exclusives) makes the most sense. That way, the game is still relatively fresh, it still offers 'some' exclusivity as incentives for MS's ecosystem and can decide which games they think will find success and which maybe won't due to similarities to Sony's own Exclusives.

As we know, MS has quite a few releases coming to Playstation - but most are already playable on Xbox and Xbox has NEW games like Avowed and South of Midnight releasing Exclusively on Xbox as well as games like Fable, Perfect Dark, State of Decay 3, Clockwork Revolution, Gears: E-Day etc in the works too.

I'd like to see Sunset Overdrive on PS but I don't know that is a Microsoft decision. They may have owned the Publishing Rights at one time, but I believe they don't own the IP...

April 17th - not too much longer to wait...

I don't see why Voice Actors should be 'protected' from advancements in technology. I don't see why they can't use AI - especially if the Conversation capability of NPC's become more ad hoc, unscripted so a voice actor isn't reading from a script.

I'm not saying that AI should replace human voices in all situations, but I do believe that AI can and should be used if the Devs/Publisher choose to use it. I don''t see it as any different from other 'industries' from Agriculture and textiles during the industrial revolution to Computers, CNC, Robots etc involved in Manufacturing and/or distribution.

Paid Actors will increase the costs significantly - therefore either take budget away from other aspects or risk becoming 'unprofitable' or over-priced. Same as replacing hundreds of Farm Labourers instead of 'technology' - that led to cheaper Farm produce, same as cheaper clothing/fabrics from the Textile industry...

I doubt games will be 'cheaper' to the Consumer, but they maybe will take more risks, keep more 'jobs' (look at the last year or two) and/or sustain the industry better...

It's not just Ubisoft that are 'sniffing' around as EA and 'others' (maybe Embracer, Sony, TenCent etc) are also interested IF Ubisoft are considering selling some of their IP's - especially those that they don't feel can make and/or make profitably.

Assassin's Creed and probably Far Cry too are not on the table as these are likely two Ubisoft IP's that they can 'rely' on. Maybe Beyond: Good and Evil, Prince of Persia, Watchdogs and even Rayman though maybe Assets they no longer want/need and could sell to save them selling 'Ubisoft'

They've had some 'flops' like Xdefiant, Skull & Bones etc too so they may need to 'sell' some IP's to invest in their Stronger IP's.

Whilst it is 'manipulation', its still going to be in the records as releasing on the 'Official' date, not 2-5 days early.

It's a bit like shops getting their physical media in days before the official launch to ensure they have stock for 'Day 1' or mail order to dispatch in time to arrive on Day 1. If you were 'lucky', you may have got to buy or receive it early - now its just a 'free' bonus that Publishers can offer to encourage gamers to 'pre-order' as the 'bonus' is pointless on Release day. Its 'free' to giveaway - the Game code is often in the hands of Reviewers etc so nothing has had to be developed specifically for this.

If you don't want to play Day 1, let alone 'early', then don't spend money. I don't think it really matters if a 'few' decide to pay for 'Premium' Editions when the game is at its most expensive, often $/£100+, they get to play a few days 'early' like all those reviewers etc. For those that buy the regular 'Standard' $70 to play on Release day, they are still playing on 'Day 1' as that day is the OFFICIAL release day for EVERYONE on that platform!

As more and more games are 'online' - inc 'Single Player' these days as they have some 'online' aspect synced to it - whether it's streaming of some assets/content, Friends times/Drivatars, Shared Map or whatever reason it 'requires' online connection, then there is ALWAYS a risk of 'preserving' access.

Physical too doesn't guarantee its 'preserved' as the hardware its made for is no longer in production and what's left in the world won't last forever. You can't buy a 'new' replacement disc, cartridge as they're no longer made, can't buy a new official Controller or hardware - its up to you to 'keep' your hardware, Software, controllers etc and hope that they keep working when you want to play years or more from now....

I had boxes and boxes and boxes of physical games - mostly on Cassette and old Floppy discs that I had 'preserved' from my BBC/Vic 20 days, through the 64 and 128bit, then 512bit computers, to PC but ALL had to go to the Tip because none of the Hardware was working and couldn't guarantee the Games were still 'fine'. My Son had my N64 and Cartridges as well as my PS1/2 games, but I still have my PS3/PS4/PS5, OGXB/360/XB1/XSX games and Hardware - although I don't think any PS3 controller now holds a charge....

Maybe its because Sony make money from eslop sold in their store - maybe 'more' than the 30% standard charge for digital sales through Sony's storefront.

They can say that these are NOT their games, not harmful to their Hardware, OS or Ecosystem and its more 'choice' for consumers - and of course if people do buy, they'll make money too.

@Max_the_German Streaming is obviously not the 'best' way to play a Game - but it maybe the only option to play certain games in certain situations - like on the go in Public places. Mobiles are not really designed for gaming and their control schemes, but virtually everyone has one, its better than 'nothing' and is the most 'used' device for 'Gaming'

Without being 'snobby' about Games/Gaming, Mobile has the most Gamers - more than Playstation, Xbox and Switch combined. It maybe the 'weakest' in terms of Graphics/performance etc, but its also something virtually everyone has and the 'entry' point.

The entry point for Sony's gaming is the PS5 with the 'Pro' offering slightly better Graphics/Performance at a Cost. Portal too will cost money. MS's 'streaming' service has little/no Hardware cost (if you already have devices like a Mobile or PC/Laptop/tablet...). If you want better quality 'gaming', the more you spend on hardware etc, the better the experience can be.

Whilst it is 'streaming', its not like Microsofts more 'Netflix' style approach where streaming to ANY device from Servers (rather than your OWN console) is more Consumer friendly/accessible.

Sony's require you to buy Sony Hardware to stream from a Sony Platform to another Sony Platform. It maybe 'higher' quality, but maybe that is down to the fact its built solely for Sony Hardware - not suitable for ALL inc Mobile 4G/5G Networks.

Its a 'brand new' release on Playstation hardware - the alternative is to buy an Xbox Series X or PC to play this game at least at the same 'quality' settings which will cost you a lot more.

The fact it's a few years old is irrelevant! Games that are 'delayed' on ANY Platform through whatever marketing/exclusivity deals don't release 'cheaper' when they finally come out and if we look at numerous 'remasters' and ports of older generation games to 'current' hardware, these are often releasing at the same price as the new games. The Last of Us Pt 1 cost more for PS5 than it did when it released on PS3 a decade before...

I'd be more annoyed if the game was launching at a more 'expensive' price than it launched on Xbox but it is the SAME price - yes it may now be available on 'sale' - but its regular price not on sale is the SAME as the PS5 launch. Its still the cheapest way to play FH5 if you only have a Playstation.

@Decimateh-xblz And that is is the 'unique selling point' that Microsoft will have with their Consoles - rather than rely on keeping games away from others to force you to buy their hardware.

The game is still brand new and there has never been a 'Playstation' version that is optimised and working with the PS5 hardware and OS 'correctly'.

You'd expect Sony to charge the same as any other 'new' release when they bring their games to PC for the first time and IF they ever decide to release some games on Xbox to 'maximise' their reach and revenue for some games too, you'd expect them to charge the going rate for 'new' releases - not the price of a '2-5yr old game' on another platform. It's still a 'new' to PS platform - I have Game Pass and Xbox too so I know it's benefits to MS owned IP's/Games - but if I 'prefer' to play on a 'Playstation' because of Controller, hardware design, or whatever, that's the 'price' to play on that hardware and/or 'wait' until you can play it...

It's still the first time its released on Playstation hardware. It's no different from Deathloop or Ghostwire which released on Xbox at the RRP - nott a 'discounted' or lower price just because its an 'old' game. Its still a 'next' gen game that should still look and run well on PS5 and at least 60fps.

It's still a LOT cheaper than buying an Xbox or PC to 'buy' the game for less - yes it maybe available on Game Pass too, but unless you have a Series X or PC, you won't get the equivalent visual quality and performance.

It's a current gen AAA game and soon going to be available on PS5 for the first time. I think its actually priced at the 'same' launch price on Xbox - not the 'current' Price point that Sony and then others have now adopted - $70! No $10 'upgrade' charge for PS5+ versions!!

I won't be buying it - but I don't think it's 'unreasonable' or 'unfair' compared to all other NEW releases (even 'old' games remastered or 'upgraded' to current gen are more expensive than they were when they released). The current price for NEW games is above what Forza Horizon will cost and its still the ONLY way to Play Forza on your PS5. Unless you have other options, it's whether you want to play it 'enough' to pay the asking price - inc waiting for Sales to reach the price point at which you think its worth buying to you.

Go back to 2017 and the landscape was very different - MS only had about 5 Studio's and Sony had more than double. Sony too have added to their Studio's (as well as closed some) - inc Bungie which was a 'Publisher' too - hence cost much more, Insomniac, Housemarque etc. Whilst that may not be the same as 'buying' Zenimax and certainly not ABK, its not as if Sony has been 'idle'

The narrative has still been Xbox has 'NO' games and that was still being said a year or two ago. All that 'money' spent on Studio's, Publishers, IP's etc and NOTHING to show for it. Now it seems Xbox has so many games coming to Sony, let alone the 'exclusives' it has for Xbox (even if just timed) that they can release more games than Sony will for its own Platform.

Its not just the 'numbers' of Studios though, its more the situation we find ourselves in today. It 'seems' like Sony haven't really got a 'lot' coming in the next few years - with numerous projects being cancelled losing 'years' of work.

A decade ago, MS E3 shows would show off many more games than Sony - however, the majority would be 3rd Party or 'indies' so Xbox had 'no' games of their own - now it seems that Sony is in that position. Its not as if Sony themselves don't have 'older' games in their Catalogue they too could 'port' to Xbox as well as PC to make extra Revenue and get more Gamers into their IP's.

From my perspective though, it has never mattered to me that 'others' who prefer to play on a different manufacturers 'box' get to play some of the Games I enjoy on my prefered 'box'.

Again, does it matter?

I could say there is NO point buying a PS5 because EVERYTHING is released on PC - even if you have to wait months/years for Sony to decide its now worth selling to those who wouldn't/didn't buy a PS5 to play it so would get NO revenue at all.

If you really want to play Avowed, Forza Horizon 5, AoE2, Age of Mythology, Hifi Rush, Indiana Jones, Sea of Thieves etc, they have ALL been on Xbox and PC as well as Game Pass. Starfield, South of Midnight, Forza Motorsport, Halo, Gears, MSFS, Fable, Redfall (granted not the best game) etc are all 'Exclusive' on Xbox. Game Pass too isn't on Playstation - that could make Xbox the 'best' value option for Xbox games.

It doesn't bother me that 'other' gamers also get the option to play on their 'preferred' Platform choice rather than 'miss out' or feel forced to buy something they don't want/need (hardware) just to play a Game. I'd prefer a world where you pick Hardware based on your own 'preference', not based on the 'exclusive' content which also means you'll miss out on others 'exclusives'.

Just like Sony is 'boosting' their revenue by releasing games on another platform to get money coming in from 'outside' their Ecosystem, MS is doing the same - but MS own Windows and Windows PC owners are also MS 'customers' and have their own storefront, sell a service on PC and of course don't need to port/optimise etc for other 'PC' sellers like Steam. With PS5, they have to port and optimise for Sony's 'system' and OS/API.

Anyway, as a Playstation 5 owner too, I'm happy to see many Playstation gamers getting to play some of the Xbox games I also enjoy. As a Playstation gamer, I should be more annoyed at Sony for their 'lack' of new Games - MS is likely to be the biggest Publisher, release more games on Playstation than Sony will and have 'more' gamers spending time in 'their' games, the biggest 'player bases', leading to more revenue from DLC/MTX's etc

I guess the narrative about Xbox having 'no' games has now become 'no' exclusives but I'd rather have more games releasing every year than just 1 or 2 'exclusives' I may want to play...

Also might have something to do with the fact that Playstation gamers have no choice but to 'buy' but Xbox/PC gamers have a 'choice' - buy or play on Game Pass and so a high fraction of the players on these 2 platforms are not going to be adding to that 'Sales' data.

Playstation too has a larger player base and with '2:1' numbers of Consoles sold, you'd expect that PS would have 2/3rds vs 1/3rd of the total revenue - assuming that the game is equally as popular on both. If Sony has 100m Consoles and Xbox 50m, both sell to 50% of their Playerbase, Sony sell 50m to Xbox 25m and would be 2/3rds of the revenue generated.

Regardless, only a few games have or appear to release 'Day 1' on PS5 and I don't see it as being that different from Sony releasing their games on PC when they are not selling Hardware/Software anymore. When Indiana Jones comes to PS5, Avowed, South of Midnight or whatever other Xbox 'Exclusive' is selling Hardware/Subs/Software. By the time Spider-Man 2 released on PC, its not selling PS5 hardware or Software anymore so why not sell it to those who won't 'buy' a PS5 to play it??

I really don't care or see an issue with using AI or these 'disposable' pieces of 'art' not being created by Humans. Its not something that is being sold or generating income - its just some in-game art for a limited time event that will be 'gone' in a few weeks.

AI replacing 'artists', that includes Actors/voice work too, is no different from Computers and Robots replacing many labourers and 'skilled' workers. Its just the evolution of 'tools' made by Humans to be 'more' efficient, more productive and/or reduce their overall costs. AI can produce work in minutes, if not faster yet an Artist may take weeks or months to paint something similar. AI can do voicework without needing to hire a recording studio and hiring someone to read lines written for them into a Mic saving time and money - money better spent on Bug fixing, Server upgrades etc and STILL bringing MORE Events, Content etc to the people that consume that content rapidly.

Half the problem with Live Service is that it needs a consistent and high turnover of Content to keep those that are playing satiated. A lot of these are 'Free' Events every couple of weeks and each needs 'Artwork' - all giving away 'free' content to EVERYONE, not selling the Art or the Content so does it matter if AI created it?

People buy them and/or the Battle Pass - not just for MP but Zombies and Warzone too, but then EVERYONE benefits from 'Free' Content - like new Maps, weapons, perks etc that otherwise would likely have been behind a DLC paywall...

It's a different way of monetising that extra content - Multi-player has several new maps and weapons for everyone - whether they choose to buy Cosmetic Bundles or the Battle Pass every few months or so...

It's an arcade Shooter - it always has been, even if the campaign tells a gritty 'war' story - its always been Blockbuster movie style though LOL It's also what makes it 'fun' and why people love playing it.

For as long as I can remember, people have been running round with snipers quick/no scoping like its effortless, doing jump 360 no scopes across the map, They've also had some crazy cosmetics since Black Ops 2 (if not earlier) with different camo's, reticles etc that were not realistic at all...

It is what it is I guess - its always the 'optional' stuff and doesn't take anything away from the rest - if anything benefits them with free content, why not? Don't like/want, don't buy - it makes them easier to see though...

@Oram77 Well its a Win for MS as they get all that revenue off of anothers Platform and a Win for Sony as they don't 'lose' those CoD gamers to Xbox and get 30% of revenue for 'hosting' that game.

I'm sure its a 'win' if the game is Profitable for Microsoft and/or even 'grows' their Monthly Active Users (MAU's) across all Platforms. 75% sales on PS5 doesn't necessarily mean that Sony have 3/4's of ALL CoD gamers choosing to play on Playstation Hardware though as some Xbox and PC gamers will be playing via Game Pass.

The game could have sold 10m for example so 7.5m copies were sold on PS with Xbox only selling 1.1m - however there could be 15m players as 5m play via Game Pass.

MW3 had 70% sales on PS5 in its first week or two - that was also without Game Pass access and with Sony having the Marketing too. Sony PS5 gamers were never likely to trade in their PS5 just to get CoD on a $20 a month subscription on Xbox hardware. They also probably outnumber Xbox hardware by at least 2:1 at this point.

Its not so much about 'lost' sales either and with Season 1 about to kick off, its more about how many extra Battle Passes can they sell. With 10m players, they can only sell up to 10m Season Passes, but get 20m in, even if half didn't buy, that's double the Season Passes they could sell, double the Bundles and/or CoD points too. 6 Seasons a year at $25 - as well as a year of Game Pass Subscription fees is likely 'better' for MS than selling the game for $70 on PS5 and those BP's when they only get 70% of that revenue from Sony - but 70% is still better than nothing when it will likely sell 'millions' on PS5 and 'not' losing that revenue for 'exclusivity' to try and 'force' gamers to change platform

As for this - why buy something if you already have Free Access? Of course Xbox Sales were always going to be lower, but if they manage to get more people 'in', then that is potentially more Battle Passes sold, more Cosmetics and CoD points sold etc.

I have seen reports stating the top 2 biggest selling titles on Xbox Store being BO6 and the BO6 'Vault Edition' Upgrade for Game Pass BO6. That tells you the game is selling but also that the Game Pass edition is Popular - popular enough that people paid to upgrade it.

It was never going to sell more on Xbox - More PS5 users and its too 'expensive' to buy a Xbox just because MS has the marketing etc. If more PC/Xbox gamers sign up to Game Pass - its a win for MS - if they choose to 'buy' though, its still a win for MS. If they buy on PS5, its still a win for MS - its just not the disaster for Sony the deal 'could' have been.

@Weebleman Xbox is NOT just the Console these days and hasn't been for almost a decade now. After the disaster that was the XB1 launch, that almost killed Microsoft's 'gaming' division but they changed their business model.

Now they have multiple ways in to the Xbox 'ecosystem' and Game Pass. The Entry point is NOT the Series S, its the Cloud. Whilst it might not be 'good enough' for hardcore gamers, its 'good enough' for Casuals. But that means XB1S gamers don't 'need' to upgrade to Series S to play Starfield for example and Casuals can play games without a Console at all so why spend $300 on a Series S...

The Series S is the entry point for 'Hardware' and at $300, its the cheapest option. Series X is a premium option to compete with PS5 on Quality/Performance etc, but both are built for those that either don't have the budget or prefer the Simplicity of Consoles - that Plug and Play ease...

However, they also have the PC market - all their games release Day 1 on PC. That means that PC gamers have no reason to buy an Xbox at all and haven't really since the 360 days. Now a PC gamer is much more likely to buy a Playstation or Switch for 'exclusives' (Zelda or Spider-Man/Wolverine) they can't play on PC day 1. That also means Handheld Consoles like SteamDeck or RoG Ally PC Handheld are 'Xbox Console' alternatives too in a way. Spend $300+ on 'hardware' to play games - well maybe a Handheld suits them better. Don't need a $700+ 'Console' to try and compete with high end PC's when high end PC's are part of your ecosystem. Don't need a $700 Console to play CoD or Indiana Jones at higher settings when PC's already offer that.

Microsoft will likely continue to make Console whilst there is still demand for 'cheap' Hardware based Gaming. As I said, the cheapest 'Hardware' to play modern/new games is the Series S and the Series X is as cheap as a PS5 with Similar specs - they exist because PC's are more expensive and people want 'low' cost gaming hardware.

Game Pass though can be on EVERY Hardware option - from Mobile phones to High End Gaming PC's, in fact, the only Hardware its not on is Playstation/Switch so you don't 'need' a Series S/X to get into Xbox Game Pass. You buy a Series S/X because it offers the 'experience' at a price your willing to pay. Cloud - is the 'entry' or 'budget' tier with PC the High End tier with Consoles offering a Low Cost Hardware option which I expect will continue to be offered until the Market for low cost Hardware disappears. They don't 'need' to sell a Console to sell you Game Pass as PC and Cloud gamers may buy it too

Sony are in a different Position as their 'ecosystem' is their Console only. They don't have their 'own' store on PC so they 'sell' on Steam (not on Windows Store or on Xbox) only once that Game is NOT going to hurt their Console - to extract whatever extra money they can from those who would not buy a PS anyway. They also need you to buy a Playstation to sell you their Playstation Plus Subscription but Game Pass is available on more Hardware...

@Northern_munkey Well its not exactly easy to try out without spending money - maybe when Season 1 comes and they bring Omni-Movement to Warzone you can get to try it.

I'll look forward to Battlefield too - even if that means waiting another year or two - but in the meantime, I'm enjoying CoD - and that includes the Zombies and Campaign modes too - its the 'best' CoD i've played in years!! Not to say that it offers something that other FPS games may deliver - like slower paced more team/squad orientated gaming...

@Northern_munkey Well for me, I got burned out by WW2 and that was the game that 'broke' me after buying EVERY game and ALL the DLC, playing it 'competitively' with my clan etc.

That included the 3 'Advanced' movement games that everyone was saying the Game 'needed' to keep relevant and not feel dated, like they weren't innovating anymore. The Movement hadn't really changed.

Modern Warfare was the game that re-invigorated the Franchise as it stands now in the modern Era. That was a 'new' engine with a step up in Graphical presentation. However, the movement has arguably become stale again and without adding exosuits with gravity defying wall running and double jumping, Omni-movement is the 'Advanced movement' that the Boots on the Ground style game-play needed. Its just as much a work over as the change from Ghosts to Advanced Warfare.

I'd rather see 'innovation' in the movement rather than the Graphics - It's not the worst visually and arguably one of the best 'realistic' style games to run at 60fps (or more). BO6 is a long way from the PS3 or PS4 Black Ops games visually too but I'd rather take innovation in movement than a leap up in Graphics but still has the same 'old' Game-play feel myself.

Just shows you can't please everyone — and I wouldn't expect them to 'change' too much and alienate all those that became fans of their IP in the first place. In the end, Call of Duty reverted away from the 'advanced' movement and back to BotG because all those who demanded change also demanded they go back to 'traditional' Boots on the Ground CoD. I think BO6 makes last years CoD feel dated and clunky so I feel it has had the 'work over' it needed whilst still being a 'Call of Duty' game.

@Northern_munkey Yeah - Bad Company 2 was a great Battlefield game and its campaign set it above BF3/4 - although I loved 3/4's MP.

For me, CoD is the modern day Goldeneye or Halo - and CoD took over from Halo during the 360 era as the 'arcade' shooter that Goldeneye was for the N64 gen or Halo was for the OG Xbox.

Most tactical shooters these days seem to be more of the Mil Sim style - managing health with different gear, managing stamina and thirst, managing your inventory and ammo etc. Some of those old games were also Military recruitment tools - maybe more prolific on PC too with Keyboard & Mouse controls offering so much easier item/inventory management. Maybe also because Console players maybe more inclined to want to play more arcade style games too as they attract a more 'casual' gamer in general...

@Northern_munkey CoD is more an Arcade 'arena' shooter than a slow paced tactical shooter like Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six. It maybe has a realistic, grounded setting but that doesn't mean it should be more 'Sim' like. I don't think it takes 'more' skill, its just a different skill - maybe even less 'reliant' on Teammates and/or team composition than those games, but its also a lot faster and often has respawning so players are not as cautious or slow.

Call of Duty has Tactics too and a big skill gap. The difference is that if someone is playing 'slow/tactically', they must be camping or cheating to know you were running around like a headless chicken, making so much noise they could prepare for you before you can see them/react but map knowledge, movement and positioning, enemy awareness etc take skill and patience to master. However in a 'tactical' game, you expect to find a player around every corner, expect to find a player 'camping' somewhere so you play 'slower' and more cautiously - its called playing tactically in those or 'camping' in CoD - even if you are 'defending' your objective as per the Game mode.

As I said, Tactical shooters are often much more dependent on team-mates, tend to be a LOT slower and 'Camping' is an acceptable strategy but doesn't mean it requires 'more' skill. Its just a different style of game and often doesn't have 'respawning' so relies more on your team-mates and also makes players much more cautious and campy....

If its not your preferred style of FPS - fair enough, but its like expecting Mario Kart to be more GT7 sim style and 'frowning' on being aggressive, not offering enough depth on tactics (inc Car Set-up or pit-stop strategies) and the handling is too 'arcade' like for their preference or even games like Burnout which went for a more realistic look than a cartoony 'arcade' look (like Fortnite in the FPS genre). Game modes like Domination isn't about 'kills' - you can get the most kills yet still lose if you don't capture the zones (or at least the majority)....

CoD's pace may arguably mean you have to think and react faster, ensure your aim is good and on point with faster moving targets etc which makes it 'different' and I'd just say a different skillset to 'tactical' shooters which often rely more on team/team composition and has much slower game-play too...

@Northern_munkey As I said, I agree with you about mid-large maps - but the 'majority' of CoD gamers do - hence why those 'small map' moshpit modes as well as Nuketown/Shipment 24/7 modes are always in CoD.

I don't play them myself, but I don't mind the odd Small map in rotation. As for Spawn Campers, Recon Specialty can be a counter as it gives you a brief glimpse of exactly where they are as you respawn to either take avoiding action or deal with them.

None are as large as Derail for example, but Vault, Rewind, Red Card and Scud are not 'small' maps for 6v6 teams - certainly not compared to Nuketown or Shipment. Even Babylon is bigger than Shipment. There are some small maps - but they don't have Killstreaks, like Pit, Gala, Stakeout and Warhead.

@get2sammyb And miss out on 'Sales' revenue from all those who will buy - especially on Steam and/or Playstation hardware where Game Pass is NOT available - where they are NOT getting $20 a month from 'every' player who is accessing it 'free' on Game Pass on Console.

MW3 sold 70% in the first week on PS5 - or 7m out of 10m - 30% on PC/Xbox. That would be a massive loss of Revenue to throw away making it 'Free to Play' and by doing so, you also wouldn't need a 'Game Pass Subscription' on PC/Xbox either which brings in revenue every month. That's where Warzone comes in as the F2P option with each Annual release as the 'Premium' CoD - but both are linked to the Battle Pass which also get the same MTXs too anyway - they already have a F2P option to 'sell' Battle Passes, Cosmetic Bundles and CoD points without merging the Paid game - something that has been one of the best 'selling' games, and likely will sell on PC/Xbox despite it being in Game Pass

Point is, they have a F2P model already - Warzone - which is also selling the same MTX's. They won't make CoD F2P and throw away that ability to 'sell' to those on 'other' platforms - like Steam or Playstation, throw away the 'need' for a Game Pass Subscription on Xbox/PC which will bring in more over a year than selling the 'base' game would regardless.

As I pointed out - its $70 to buy ANYWHERE and play for the next 'year' or more but only available on GPU for Xbox at $20 a month or $10 a month on PC Game Pass. Sony PS5 customers aren't going to go out and spend $300-500 on an Xbox to save $70 on buying the game. CoD gamers on Xbox maybe won't suddenly subscribe to play CoD on Xbox/PC at more 'cost' so its still selling on that hardware too - revenue they'd lose if it went totally F2P and reliant purely on MTX sales. Game Pass is more for those that maybe are more casual or play a wide variety of games - not just CoD as playing 'just' CoD via GP is more expensive and they won't own the 'base' game all their MTX's were bought for...

I can understand why they'd want a 'Return to Office' in this type of industry with the potential for leaks etc. Just because the company allowed you to do something under certain circumstances, doesn't mean they can or should allow it ALL the time.

With the potential leaks and their code, assets etc, I can understand why they may want to minimise the risk and have them all come to the 'office'. They can ensure that only the 'testers' see and 'test' the game, have more 'control' over the test and potentially more efficiency and security over their pre-released content.

Not EVERY person can work from home - just because they had to 'make it work' during a Pandemic when the situation forced them to, doesn't mean that it 'worked' well, efficiently and/or as securely. In fact, I'd be willing to bet it was the cause of many delays, missed deadlines, leaks etc. How many games were 'delayed' due to working from home over that 'Covid' period that added on a LOT more cost to every Game being developed.

At the end of the day, the company can decide if they want people into the office to work or allow you to Work from Home. It is 'not a right' for everyone!!

@Northern_munkey I admit that those maps are not my Favourite, along with Rust too of course - but those maps are the 'most popular'. MW3 has a Shipment Mosh Pit mode which is popular.

If they are offered, the majority will vote for those maps and Small Map Moshpit mode is very popular too. I prefer medium to big maps myself and find those small maps - especially in my prefered Hardcore mode to be very chaotic and frustrating at times. I don't mind them cropping up every now and again - especially to rank up CQC weapons. At least you don't really get campers...

The reason they churn those out, keep bringing them back is because they know the 'majority' will be OK/Happy and they will be Popular maps. As I said, I'm not a fan of small maps although don't mind them cropping up in rotation occasionally so not in that majority either.

@get2sammyb Last year was 70% and this year Xbox customers have the option of Game Pass. I never expected Playstation users to buy an Xbox and/or Sub to Game Pass to 'save' them $70 on buying the Base Game.

I expected there to be a 'drop' on Xbox/PC game sales as some of those CoD gamers would also own Game Pass. It still works out cheaper to buy if you expect to play all year so I doubt many hardcore CoD fans would suddenly subscribe.

The more interesting fact for me will come with sales of Battle Passes, CoD Points and Cosmetic Bundles with Season 1 coming. If you have 10-15m more playing on Game Pass, losing 3-5m sales on Xbox/PC isn't reducing the potential sales of those - its actually increasing. If you want to sell more Battle Passes for example, the only way is to get more people in...

You also have 'declining' Physical Sales year on year as more and more switch to Digital. On Xbox for example, the top 2 in sales of 'paid' Games this week in their store are BO6 and the BO6 'Vault Edition' upgrade for Game Pass. Steam/Battlenet users also have to 'buy' on PC - with Steam having higher numbers for its first weekend.

Sony Playstation users have no choice but to Buy - the only 'choice' is Physical or Digital. Its still a LOT cheaper than buying an Xbox or PC to play on Game Pass so I expected it to 'sell' on PS. With PS Hardware outnumbering Xbox hardware, it should sell more. That percentage should be higher this year as not every CoD gamer has to 'buy' on Xbox/PC this year as Playstation is the only platform that doesn't offer an alternative way to play - other than buying it.

The aspect that seems to be overlooked is that the 'more' they can get in to Call of Duty, the more Battle Passes they sell with 6 seasons over a year, the more Cosmetic Bundles and CoD points sold too.

They may lose 5-6m sales of the 'base' game for example, but could sell 10m more Battle Passes every season making 'more' money than ever before...

Nuketown has been in EVERY treyarch game since they created that map. Its expected - like Shipment in Modern Warfare for example. Its not my favourite, but its iconic - so much so that its been created many times in other games with Map Editors.

I don't think the Maps are that small - but that the Omni-Movement makes them feel 'smaller' than they seem compared to previous games. They have some quite long sightlines for snipers which are far too long for Shotguns/SMG's to compete. In fact some Maps actually surprised me how 'big' they are - Red Card, Vault, Protocol and Vorkuta for example all were 'bigger' than I thought they'd feel/play.

I'm really enjoying this years CoD - its the Advanced Movement innovation that Call of Duty needed a decade ago to keep its 'boots on the ground' game-play without the gravity defying double-jump and wall running futuristic style.

Even if you aren't running around like an Action Movie Stuntman, diving and sliding to get the 'perfect' Action movie theatre mode clip, the Advanced or Omni-Movement, the way you run, mantle and even peak corners also feel more natural, smooth etc. It makes MW3 feel dated, clunky and that was an improvement over MW2's movement.

Funny but this sounds exactly like the 'Audio' that Playstation were offering with their Playstation Hardware. The same situation as Mark Cerny described for PS5's audio capabilities being tailored specifically to the shape of our ears to provide a more 'accurate' soundscape.

Just like that, you too can have your Ears and Face scanned for your own unique and bespoke profile tailored specifically for you instead of the more 'generic' profile designed to cater to the 'Average', the 'majority'.

That's all this is - something Mark Cerny said we could do with PS5 and its Audio, have our own Audio profile specific to the way we 'hear' based on our unique ear shape - its not a 'custom' soundscape that 'specifically' lets you hear Footsteps louder - its meant to 'help' make the soundscape more 'accurate' if the more generalised Profile isn't 'accurate' for you.

I don't believe this will be Pay to Win. For most people, the difference will be 'negligible' as they are within the 'average' range the general profile was designed for - where the majority would also be. However, for some it could be a 'Game Changer' but only because it now enables them to pinpoint where the sounds are coming from too, just like those who don't 'need' their own profile...

And lets not forget Destruction Allstars too - another Live service 'flop' this generation from Sony. As for the cancellation of Factions, I do wonder whether it would have succeeded without a strong 'Single Player' game - after all, both Uncharted and Last of Us MP's were originally sold with arguably the 'best' Single-player games.

Stripping out that Single Player mode (or selling the MP separately if you want to look at it that way) cuts out a LOT of the Fanbase that would buy the game just for the Single Player and I don't know that those 'MP' modes would sell well enough on their own.

I think it could work if they went back to delivering MP modes along with the campaign or maybe go the Free to Play route if MP/Live service only. Their 'successful' games also generally have a solid Single Player offering too

I expect it's because they all share the same Hub - was Called CoD HQ but I think its changing now and of course is linked to/with Warzone as well with Bundle/weapon carry overs as well.

This is the way 'Activision' has done it as this was all happening before MS took over a year ago and as such cannot be held responsible and also don't have to add a platinum either...

@carlos82 Those same games that are sold digitally through a Sale are likely to be on sale as physical media too and often have been on sale and/or at lower cost than Digital.

Used sales are not counted because used have already been 'sold' once and as they aren't contributing to numbers (including number of Gamers with access, sales figures etc) they are not considered. Someone bought originally (so that counted as a 'Physical' purchase) and so can't be counted again...

Of course there are games that are Digital Only too where as all the Physical games are also sold Digitally. Therefore sales of Digital only games/content can skew the results in favour of Digital. Gamers have no choice but to buy Digitally with those and BOTH Sony/MS have 'digital only' Hardware too. By taking away 'Physical' as an option - with many games not released on Physical formats and even certain Hardware missing Physical media players, then obviously Physical isn't going to be the most popular.

With 'millions' of games sold every week, inc 'old' games from last gen on sale on current gen hardware, Physical is still relatively big. 22% would be 1.1m copies sold physically every 5m total sales on average...

The whole point of my post was to say that things like Early Access and/or Digital Cosmetic bundles have replaced the Physical stuff you used to get for Pre-ordering - some Poster or Postcards, Actual Artbooks instead of digital ones, actual useful items like USB's and/or Keyrings etc Some of which I still own today.

With games increasingly sold Digitally, they use Early Access as well as Digital content, like Cosmetics, Soundtracks, artbooks (all digital versions - nothing 'Physical' they had to manufacture/produce). In fact it really costs them 'nothing' as the Game is released a few days later . Its not as if they had to create something 'specifically' and its already in the hands of all the media and content creators to write reviews and 'play it' on Streams to promote it.

What I object to is that the price has jumped up - As I said, $70 5yrs ago would have been more than enough to buy AC:Valhalla and get the season pass included as well as all the 'bonus' cosmetics that it offered in the 'Gold' (or Complete) edition - same with other Gold editions of FarCry 5 or AC: Origins. Now $70 is just the Base Game at launch. These 'base' games can be picked up for under £20 within a year or two - in fact sometimes its cheaper to buy the 'Gold' edition in a Sale than buy the Standard Edition which maybe £5 cheaper, because the Season Pass isn't on Sale and still £30+

As this is about 'pricing' and I won't pay $70 for ANY 'Base' game or 'more' even if it does offer Early Access. I'd rather spend $15 on a Sub service (meaning PS+ Extra on a Playstation site or Game Pass on an Xbox site - but either is applicable to demonstrate) with 500+ games to play and/or spend my money on multiple Games in the Sales. I can often buy 2 or 3 AAA games and pay my Sub fee for the 'same' cost as buying a Game Day 1 that is not 'better, bigger or offering some 'unique' game-play that justifies its 'cost'.

Each to their own, but Early access is nothing more than a marketing tool to try and get you to pre-order their game (along with whatever else they offer like Cosmetics, or the Season Pass/DLC content) because they want maximum profit margins and Gamers have so many 'cheaper' options that without some 'exclusive' Bonus that can ONLY be beneficial to 'Pre-orderers' (as once the game releases, you can't use or redeem 'early access' anyway) to get them to spend their money in Advance.

All those who aren't 'suckered' in to that marketing can still buy the games, still play the same content - just maybe pay less if they wait long enough and/or get a better experience as it ofte launches in a 'bad state' with the lowest amount of content as the rest comes post launch. Hence I'd rather wait until 'new' releases are on sale or in a Sub Service so I am NOT paying $70 (or more). I can't remember the last game I bought 'new' or even 'Pre-ordered' - it was before these new consoles arrived...

If you don't agree with these 'bonuses', or that these are even 'marketing' to try and get gamers to 'pre-order', pay in advance of release rather than 'wait' until 'release day when it 'officially is playable by 'Everyone' not just the handful of dedicated fans who pre-ordered. If you don't 'pre-order' to get Early Access - the price isn't different. If it cost $90 with Early Access (and other Digital content) prior to launch, its $90 at launch too - its a 'free perk/bonus' to encourage people to spend their money in advance.

@Titntin I am NOT part of the Problem as I refuse to pay Day 1 prices regardless of whether they come with a 'pre-order' bonus of Early Access. I don't see that as ANY different for 'pre-ordering' for some Cosmetic only bonuses or pre-ordering special editions with DLC content included with that too.

If I won't pay $70 for a game on release, then I am NOT paying $70 or more to play a few days early. Therefore I am NOT the problem or part of it. I don't see it as any different to offering some cosmetic digital content or even Physical content like Artbooks or Posters. They are all to entice you to spend the money in 'advance' for some 'extra' bonus that is 'obsolete' a few days later.

I'm not the one buying games at $70 or more - I see the 'bonus' for what it is - nothing more than a 'bonus', something to encourage people to 'pre-order' as it has NO value or utility to ANYONE who will buy at (or post) release. Unlike the Artbook or Soundtrack you can look at or listen to anytime.

As I tried to say, modern gamers have far morr choice and options for Games. They don't need to 'buy' Day 1, don't need to buy 'Special Editions' in advance when buying Digital as they are 'NOT' limited in quantity, etc, etc. You have BC and a hundreds of games offered on sale. You also have Sub services that offer a large Library of games to play so don't 'need' to spend $70 just to get the 'Base' game, let alone $90+ to get 'bonuses/extra' content.

If you, or anyone else are 'persuaded' to part with your money to get 'early access', encouraged to pre-order in advance for any edition (Standard, Special, Limited, Gold etc) because of 'bonuses' like Early Access, that is on you - you've obviously decided it was 'worth it' to you. I'd prefer to wait until that game is offered on sale because NO game (regardless of whether it offers early access or not) is worth paying $70 or more.

That doesn't affect my opinion or mean that I am a shill because my opinion 'differs' from yours. I am not being suckered in to pay for a 'Premium' edition BEFORE Launch because one of the bonuses is a few days early access. And as for the 'date' that EVERYONE can 'buy' and therefore play is the OFFICIAL date. Only those that 'pre-order' get early access...

I am ALSO NOT Defending the Practice, just equating it to the exact same 'Practice' that's been going on for years - offering some incentive/bonus to get people to 'Pre-order' in advance - not that you have to 'pre-order' as the game will be available a few days later.

Its a marketing ploy - just like all 'pre-order' bonuses. That is ALL I was implying - not defending (or criticising to be fair), and that if you (or anyone else) gets 'pulled' in because of that Marketing, its 'worked' and so others will use it. Its been going on for years - long before MS used it - even Sony use it too with pre-order bonuses to encourage gamers to 'pre-order/purchase before the game 'officially' releases to get money in 'earlier'. Again not defending it - but I also don't get 'fooled' by it....