BAMozzy

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....

@Titntin
And I never mentioned Game Pass at all - I said Subscription Services to include PS+ Extra/Premium tiers as well - PS+ Extra has 100's of games for $15 a month too - inc some of the best games from the past Decade - Spider-Man, God of War, R&C, Horizon etc - all of which can fill your 'game-time' whilst waiting for New releases to drop in price and/or be patched.

The game release date is just that. You are NOT paying more for Early Access, it may 'entice' you to buy a Special Edition with the DLC/Season Pass content 'included' in that price, may entice you to 'pre-order' in advance instead of waiting until the release day to buy etc but on the day of 'release', you have NOT paid more for your Game than those who bought the SAME version but missed out on Early Access.

Its you that brought Game Pass/MS into the conversation so lets talk about that. Game Pass ONLY gives gamers the Standard Edition - no Season Passes/DLC etc and also get 'no pre-orders', no money in advance. They also sell a 'deluxe' edition with DLC included for say $100 and an 'upgrade' in Game Pass to that edition for $30. That additional content will also be sold to Standard/base game players for $30+ post release too despite the fact that the Early Access 'bonus' is no longer available - you can't go back in time.

As I've stated, its just a Bonus to entice you to buy 'early', before release, to Pre-order in advance. That's ALL it is. Its not affecting the price at launch because at launch, the price is exactly the same. If it was $90 with 3-5days early access before launch, its $90 at launch. You still get the Digital Art Book, Cosmetics and whatever else was promised with that edition that isn't included with the $70 edition.

Regardless - I still won't pay $70 at launch regardless of whether it has Early Access or not. This is about game prices and less than 5yrs ago, you could buy the 'Gold' Edition including ALL the DLC content for less than $70. As Ubisoft has been mentioned, AC: Valhalla had a Gold Edition with all the DLC included for less than the cost of just the base game if it released today. The base game was ~£40-45, with the Gold edition about £65 - now its £70 & £100+.

That's the issue - the Early Access is nothing more than an additional 'bonus/perk' they are trying to use to get you to 'pre-order' when years ago, a poster or some other physical item would have been sufficient to entice 'pre-orders'. It isn't 'costing' more as the price doesn't change once the game officially releases - at least not in the first months of release. If you paid 'more' because only the special edition offered Early Access, then that is on you....

@Titntin I disagree and your opinion doesn't change mine.

Its still a 'Bonus' for Pre-ordering, something to encourage gamers to pre-order in advance of Release - often with some Cosmetics and/or Seasonal Pass content. That 'Special' Edition will cost the SAME whether you pre-order and get a few days 'early access' or buy the day it releases 'officially' when the 'bonus'' of Early access is lost...

There are many games in Early Access in Steam for example that anyone can 'play' but they aren't 'officially' released.

This isn't about MS and/or Game Pass - it's been used by many Games in the past - Activision, long before MS purchased them would offer 'Early Access' for Pre-ordering - whether it's 'Beta' access to their MP in advance or play the Campaign early. If you don't pre-order, then you don't get to participate in the Beta and/or can't earn some exclusive cosmetic reward.

As this article points out, its also games from other Publishers - all keen to try and get people to Pre-order. If you don't 'pre-order', the cost is exactly the Same so you are NOT paying more to play a few days early. Even if you look at Game Pass, you are only asked to pay for the upgrade to a 'Gold' edition that includes the Season Pass/DLC - which is the same cost (if not less) than someone purchasing the Standard edition would need to pay to get the DLC/Season Pass.

To keep this 'neutral' (so to speak), lets consider a Multi-platform release (not on a Sub Service). It will have a Standard $70 release with a 'Special Edition' inc a 'season pass' for the DLC and Cosmetics for $100, the Season Pass sold separately is often $35-40. On the 'official' day of release, that Special Edition is still $100 so the Early Access was ONLY a 'free bonus' to pre-orders. You aren't paying more to play the game a few days early.

If you paid $90, you paid $90 for the DLC and additional content that will come post launch. You could have paid $70 for the 'base' game or been expected to pay $90 on release day for that SAME version without early access. With Game Pass, you'd pay $20 for the 'upgrade' as the $70 'standard' edition is included.

@get2sammyb I disagrre about 'early access' - its a 'bonus' perk to tempt pre-ordering a game along with any 'cosmetic' bonuses often given too. The fact that it maybe 'bundled' in with a Season Pass (sold separately to those buying Standard versions) doesn't mean you are paying 'more' for Early Access either. In 5yrs time, the records will all state the game released on the date the game was 'officially' released. It's only a 'bonus' to entice 'pre-ordering' as it is pointless post-release - you can't go back in time!

That being said, I do agree with your sentiment about prices overall. I couldn't care less that cartridge based games cost 'more' - they had a LOT more manufacturing cost and far less 'money' per sale in profit. Not only did you have a Cartridge, that cartridge was 'hardware' too. It also came in a box, often with a booklet too - now the vast majority get 'nothing' Physical at all, nothing that had manufacturing and distribution costs of the 'Physical' media.

In other words, Publishers have massively reduced their costs on producing Physical media since the Cartridge days when the majority of that 'price' was covering their manufacturing and distribution costs.

Its not as if these games won't be less than £50 within a few months after release - especially if they don't sell well. There is no way I can 'Justify' paying £70 to play a game - just because its 'new' when there are AAA games for far less money I could buy.

With Backwards Compatibility, the 'need' to buy 'NEW' games is significantly reduced. That Backlog can tide you over until Games are on Sale and/or take advantage of the very cheap older games you missed until the prices drop. Play games like the Witcher 3 for example which is still one of the best games of the past decade...

Of course, Subscription Services too can offer a 'big' Library of Games to fill your gaming time until the prices drop and/or the games are actually patched to be worth playing. Even if they don't offer the newest release(s), they can offer a LOT of great games to play that makes '$70' for one game look incredibly bad value. Pay $70 for 1 game or $15 to play 500+ games inc some of the best games from the past 10yrs or so...

@Flaming_Kaiser Its the same as it's been for the last 5yrs or so - its not 'changed its 'delivery' method, it was the 'same' last year - although last year, pre-orderers could play the Campaign a week early - but this year EVERYONE gets to play EVERYTHING from the exact same 'time' (unless you buy from Steam/Battle.net).

Like EVERY Call of Duty, Suport 'stops' after a year s the 'new' game is the focus. Obviously you can still 'play' everything after a year, its just dwindling numbers to find players and there is no Season Pass tie-in with it.

You can still play MW2 or MW3 if you want, its just the 'online' PvP/PvE modes may 'struggle' to find games and the ping is not 'ideal' but still playable because the 'majority' playing will be playing the Latest.

I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone) to buy, I was merely commenting on the reason why Steam and Battle.net purchasers will have to 'wait' a bit to download/install the game whilst Console/Windows Store purchases will be able to play from the time it goes 'Live' (it is a Live Service Game too) in their region.

I couldn't care less who will play BO6 and who doesn't. It's up to them!

@Flaming_Kaiser The Single Player has Online streaming for assets so you cannot play it until it goes 'live' - same as Zombies/MP mode.

All my post was explaining, was the fact that pre-orders on Console and Windows Store can pre-load the game from the 21st and as its 'pre-loaded', they can play from 'midnight' on the 25th - the 'day' it releases. If you buy, you can only buy physically once it 'officially' releases on the 25th October so can only 'install' after its 'live'. Stores shouldn't sell it before...

The point I was trying to make is that the earliest anyone can play is with pre-ordering on Xbox, Playstation or Windows Store on PC so you can 'pre-load' and play 'when' the game is released in your region - also those with Game Pass can pre-load too.

At that 'time' it releases, you can also buy the game on ANY Platform, BUT you'll have to wait until its downloaded and installed before you play and that includes pre-orders through Steam or Battle.net - meaning that you'll have 'delayed' access compared to those pre-ordering on Console or Windows store as well as those with Game Pass.

I don't see the issue - its no different to many other games in reality as you can't play them before they launch - its just that 'some' games may be 'playable' before release if you are able to get hold of a copy 'before' the release date. This is confirming that even if you get your 'pre-order' early, you can't play it because its not 'Live'

The reason Console and Windows Store users can play at 'Midnight' where as for Steam and Battle.net users its later, is down to the ability to 'pre-install the game.

For Steam & Battle.net, they can't 'pre-install before the game is 'live' so they have to wait until 'midnight' to install before they can play.

Being online only, even if you get the disc before the 25th, you can't access the game until its 'live'. However if you pre-order digitally (or intend to play on Game Pass) on Console or through the Windows Store on PC (rather than through Steam or Battle.net), you can pre-load from 21st Oct ready to play as soon as it goes 'live' in your region...

Anything could sell out quickly if there is more demand than stock but as we have no idea how much 'stock' is allocated for each region, no-one knows whether its selling out (or not) because of stock or demand.

What I mean is that if Sony only makes 50 units for the UK market (before launch), and 100 people want to buy it, it will sell out but if they allocated 1000 units but only 500 'pre-order', it would look like its not that popular with multiple stores likely having stock and still taking pre-orders - but in reality, its actually more popular than the first scenario (50 units but 100 people trying to buy) as it has 5x the number of people trying to buy. This is only meant to illustrate the situation - more demand than stock vs more stock than demand.

We don't know whether Sony are drip feeding 'stock' so demand seems high (if pre-orders are selling out). If they don't have many in stock or won't have by release, then it doesn't take much 'demand' to sell out. Only 50 units mean that if 60+ want to buy, it will sell out but with 2000units, if only 1500 want to buy, they'll still have 500 in stock to accept more orders.

We really don't know whether selling out is down to low stock or very high demand - just like you can't say not selling out is a 'bad' sign - it maybe they were able to manufacture enough stock to meet the demand - expect to get 2m pre-orders but only sell 1.95m - it won't 'sell out'.

10/10 - not too shabby...

@Flaming_Kaiser Again - from MY perspective, NO game is worth more than £50 - whether that is Full price or sale price. Yes I may have paid £50+ on N64 but at the time Cartridges were costing £30-35 to manufacture and were built into 'hardware' so I won't accept that argument and now games a=have little/no distribution or manufacturing costs as the vast majority buy Digitally.

When I can buy games like the Witcher 3 - Complete Edition for under £20 for example, arguably one of the best games released or pick up many other AAA games for under £30 - less than half the price they launched at often within a year of release, no game is worth paying 'more' just because its a 'new' release....

Unless its a Sony Exclusive, most games are cheaper on PC for a 'better' game as you can play at higher Frame Rates and higher graphical settings. Games haven't got 'better' to play in general -the same game-play loops we had a decade or more ago, now just look more impressive. The stories, the game-play etc haven't improved. So many remasters too hold up today because the game-play and story are still great.

As I said, each to their own but I don't think any game is worth more than £50 at most and I'd pay that much for a Complete edition, polished and complete at launch...

In my opinion, Games are not worth the asking price at launch - even if they were 'finished, complete and polished', I wouldn't pay more more than £50 for a game - it will be on sale (especially on Disc in some cases) and/or much more likely to be 'finished, complete and as 'polished' as its likely to get on the Hardware.

Ubisoft games in particular feel so generic and whilst they may look great, they also seem somewhat repetitive to play too. It feels copy, pasted and reskinned for new game content. They also have big sales expectations, then when they don't sell 'big' numbers, they drop quickly in price to 'sell' and of course they have their own Sub Service too which will affect sales as well.

With a massive Backlog of games - not actually helped by Backwards Compatibility as that adds all those Last gen Games I have to finish as well. Not only that, Last gen games are still 'great' and also 'cheap' now in sales. Not only that, with Sub Services offering games to play, even if not adding something 'new' that week/month you really want to play, they have 100's of games to try instead of paying £70 to be disappointed at launch...

Now I have 100's of games I can fill my limited Gaming time with right now without having to spend anything. If I never bought a game again, I still have more hours of gaming in my backlog that I wouldn't need to replay any game and still wouldn't run out of games. Therefore, I don't 'need' to add to my backlog, I can also wait until it becomes cheap enough that I want to jump in - I still haven't bought Avatar or Hogwarts Legacy - but both are on my watch list to buy for the right price.

Each to their own of course but nowadays, I prefer to wait and try to keep up to date on patches, updates, content drops etc and prices so I can decide if I think its at the right time and at the right price to jump in - and unless its a 'complete' (inc DLC - like a Special/Gold/Premium edition), I won't pay £50, let alone more, for any game.

You may OWN a disc and its case - physical objects you can hold but you don't own the Software that's on it and its just a 'licence' that's on the disc that you do own which, like a digital game/licence, can be revoked at any time.

Its no different in essence - you don't own the game whether you buy Physical or Digital. The disc is just a 'delivery' system to get the Software to the Customer, just like Downloading, so that the Software is installed and accessible on the Customers hardware.

However, the 'key' to access is the Licence. With Digital, that is stored and locked to your 'digital' Profile but with Physical, that is stored on Disc requiring you to put the disc in to open the door to the software to play. Without the disc, the software installed on your Hardware is unplayable because you don't own the Software, don't have the 'license' to play.

Its the same with PS+ games - you have the License as long as you remain Subscribed but as soon as you let PS+ lapse, all those games they gave you 'free' become unplayable, not yours to play anymore - your conditional license, the condition being you have to have at least PS+ Essential subscription to play the Software and without that license, access is revoked

Access is 'revoked' if you damage, lose or sell your Game Disc - it is required as it has the License Key on it. Lose access to your digital account, you can't play ANY of 'your' games and whilst you may be able to access the games on disc as they have the license on disc, they don't save your progress etc - they don't have your 'game', your character you created etc.

Physical doesn't preserve games - if you want to play in the future, chances are it will be 'locked' to a generation (like PS4 games) and if your hardware doesn't have a Disc Drive, you lose access unless you 'keep' your PS4 or buy a compatible Disc Drive.

from my perspective, there are 'similarities' - but the game isn't the same as Pokemon - its as different as Doom and Call of Duty. Both Doom and CoD are First Person Shooter, both have very similar shooting mechanics, both have similarities and they all copy the hands/gun at the bottom centre style, often with Map top Left and Ammo bottom right. These have more in common than Palworld, which also borrows from minecraft with Resource gathering/building and 'Pals' are often not used to 'battle' like Pokemon, but to do some of the chores etc at your 'base' leading to a very different Game-play loop...

Bought both Bungie and this Studio - so far it seems they really have 'improved' Sony and their reputation.

Obviously there are a LOT of costs involved - not just the staff wages for the time they worked on this, but ll the voice work, studio costs (electricity, water, rates etc) marketing - and merch (Maybe a cancelled toy line now or even cartoon series LOL). The PS5 Pro Concord Special Edition and/or Controllers etc etc...

Who knows whatever they spent, inc marketing that they likely pulled at great cost, the TV adverts you'll not see but cost a lot to make. If they thought this was the Future for Playstation, you never know how 'big' they may of gone on Marketing and TV costs across the world on top of the 'cost' of developers time - their Wages for the years. Often the Actual devs that make the game are the lowest paid in the chain - unless you count the cleaners of the studio that add to the Studio costs to keep it open and running every week...

Didn't they join the Sony Family of Studios only last year?

It makes sense - certain aspects really don't scale with 'graphics'. Turning down the resolution has no impact on the amount of AI on screen for example so it still has the same cost to process the AI.

Often we saw 'Performance' modes on the PS4 Pro that were 'unlocked' from 30fps and may hit '60' in certain situations, but more often than not, would often drop below 50, even below 40 in most intense moments when you need high frame rates the most.

With a 10% boost to CPU, if a game is CPU limited to 55fps at worst, it could be enough to get a Consistent' 60fps (or around 27.5 fps for a locked 30fps). Anything below and you'll likely get some dropped frames - but also, if they keep their VRR range to 48fps+, some games (those that drop to 44fps for example) would likely sit in that VRR window better too...

Consoles have always been 30fps if the game is 'pushing' gaming technology forward. Yes you could have 60fps games that 'look' like last gen games with the same 'visual' detail, style and methods but that's why we've had 60fps games this gen.

Its the 'next' gen games that are 30fps on release and, if they can reduce the Visual Quality (often 1080p or lower with reduced quality Shadows etc) enough, then you may get an 'unlocked' 60fps mode that will often drop below the 60fps target. Most of the reason these games don't hit 60fps, its the CPU that's bottlenecking. Reducing the res to 540p or even 480p wouldn't see any frame rate gains because its a CPU limitation...

It makes sense in the fact the PS5 is around the $500 and hasn't dropped in price, in fact actually gone up in some regions since launch, that the PS5 Pro is that expensive.

If they had built it to target $100 more than a PS5, it wouldn't have the 'specs' to make enough of a difference. Therefore they opted to keep it under $700 by removing the disc drive as well. However, the fact that they decided to build to a $700 price point is more the issue when Consoles are traditionally the $300 low cost mass market entry point for gamers and $700 is close to PC pricing. An nvidia RTX4070ti is around that price with DLSS 3.0.

When consoles cost $300, paying $500 just for a PC GPU made consoles seem like the best bang for buck - but now it seems Consoles are becoming more expensive - after all, you are 'expected' to Subscribe on a Console (a minimum of $80 a year) to play online, access all content in games you've paid to play. If you intend to keep playing for 5yrs, that's an additional $400 required too.

I dislike the PS5 and its design - that includes the 'original' as well as its redesign. I knew that this console would not be $600 or less - with a Disc Drive as they can't reduce the PS5 to $300 - the price point of Consoles before the advent of 'Pro' Premium consoles around $500

There is no way I'd pay more than $500 for a Console that doesn't exactly have any games I can't play on my PS5 and it seems that I could play at 60fps if I choose with some graphical cutbacks. Although, if it ends up in the bedroom, it will be on a 1080p TV anyway.

The point of a console wasn't to compete with the high-end PC's on graphics and performance - they were meant to be affordable products for mass market access to gaming. This gen, they jumped straight to 'premium' pricing and this is 'PC' pricing to me - and these games will likely release and/or run better on some PC's, especially those with DLSS to rival PSSR.

Each to their own of course, but for me, I can't justify that price, and its not helped by its form factor or lack of Disc Drive to play the PS5 games I have bought for my PS5 just to take the choice between Performance and Quality mode away essentially on games that don't look 'terrible' from normal TV viewing distances and I've never played a '30fps' game from Sony - whether it was Spider-man or Horizon: Zero Dawn on PS4 - or other PS4 era games.

I can wait for the PS6 when it has BC for all the PS4 and PS5 games, many of which will have been 'updated' for first PS5 and now for 'Pro' to - maybe then some of those will be able to run at 'native' 4k and 60fps or even 4k/120fps with AI upscaling....

Well I think of the games they no longer make as their 'style' of games became more similar. Take their First Person Shooters - games like Killzone and Resistance that are no longer around. Instead, everything is 3rd Person in that very ''Naughty Dog' style.

Its also not helped that studios are taking so much longer to make games. Naughty Dog had 3 Uncharted and the Last of Us games released during the PS3 era but only 2 since - U4 and LoU2. SuckerPunch too only released 2 games during the PS4 era - Infamous and Ghost of Tsushima. Since releasing Killzone as a launch title over a decade ago, we've had two Horizon games roughly 5yrs apart.

If you were to ask me what I would have thought Sony's policy had been, it was to focus on those 3rd Person Action Adventure cinematic style games they found success with and make deals with 3rd Party Publishers to make the games they had 'less' success with - hence making deals with Activision for CoD whilst ditching Killzone/Resistance, making deals with SE for Japanese favourites so they don't need to make their own etc...

A few years ago $70 would be the Maximum any game would 'cost' by the time you've bought the game and whatever Season Pass for all the DLC - now the 'base' game with Copy/paste mechanics is $70 with more stripped out content that is in the special edition or will be added in season 3 content coming a few months after launch.

Point is that Games haven't just got more expensive, but they've also found numerous other ways of monetising. A game back on the PS3 would feel much more 'complete' with any thought of DLC coming post launch if demand warranted. It would come with ALL the Characters, Camos, Cosmetics etc and DLC was optional, a Map pack expanding the number of Maps in a MP mode that was secondary to a decent Single Player mode...

Now it feels like you get a very 'bare bones' experience unless you spend well over the entry fee. Games have multiple 'seasons' now a year - look at CoD, a Season Pass would be for ALL DLC, now its for a few months with 'less' content bumped out by more cosmetics...

With Sales inc Games from Last Gen thanks to Backwards Compatibility, as well as 'compulsory' Sub services with 'free' games (both PS+ essential and Game Pass Core offer access to free games), there are thousands of playable games on Consoles. You can buy older PS4 AAA games for a LOT less and even some PS5 games are now cheap.

Point is, with thousands of 'playable' games already on PS5, thanks to BC, you don't need to buy the latest releases. For £70, you could buy 3 or more AAA games in a sale instead of the latest 'bare-bones' release....

And people still think a PS5 Pro will still come in for around $500 mark when y can't even reduce the price of the PS5. That after this generation launched with $500 console instead of targeting the $300 'console' price point we have come to expect...

This is more an indication of rising costs and exchange rates that mean they can't sell it for 'less'. With increased costs of Shipping the consoles globally for example, that cost is passed onto the customer and all the raw materials aren't getting cheaper either.

This is the first Console generation I can recall though that has had price increases. Its not just Sony - but also Microsoft recently raised prices in Japan because of these factors.

Where is the option for 'No, I'm a Fan of the games but still not interested in the movie'?

I own all the Borderlands main games (not tales from) and Tiny Tina's Wonderlands - spent hundreds of hours playing them but no interest in the movie!

MS would have sold off the Studio and Hi-fi Rush IP - which I guess was too much trouble to keep open and supported in 'Japan' when all their other studios are based in the US/EU.

Hi-Fi Rush may have been a critical success, but it wasn't that 'popular' on Xbox or Game Pass ad even when sold on Playstation, couldn't outsell Grounded, Sea of Thieves or even old Fallout games. It was 'nowhere' in the Charts - both of which may well of contributed to Tango's closure.

Another aspect is the fact Mikami left. It maybe like buying Kojima Productions because of 'Kojima' more so than 'Death Stranding', but then he leaves and your left with a 'different' studio with different ideas that maybe aren't what you wanted. They may still own the Evil Within for example, but don't have the creator of it anymore to make those type of games.

MS, or more ABK group have opened 2 new Studios (Infinity Ward Austin and Elsewhere Entertainment in Poland) as well as formed a team in Blizzard to work on 'smaller' games too. Logistically easier than having 1 studio the other side of the world.

Point is, there could be numerous factors in why they chose to close and then found a buyer for Tango and the 'Hi-fi Rush' IP which obviously works for Krafton. MS may have bought Zenimax for id Software, Bethesda, Machine Games, Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, Fallout, Elder Scrolls and all the Publishing rights but also had to take Tango, Hifi Rush and Redfall - Hifi Rush launched with no marketing and was just dropped into Game Pass so maybe didn't expect it to be a critical success...

@Leechmonger_DeS Well they now own Doom - one of the biggest names in video gaming history - as well as Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Dishonoured etc as well as all the Publishing rights for those games.

They may have bought Zenimax as a 'job lot' - a bundle and wanted all the above, but the rest were not 'important' to them - even less so when they added ABK group of Studios. With Mikami gone from Tango, that maybe like acquiring Kojima Productions to have 'Kojima', only for Kojima to leave soon after.

1 studio was a support studio to Zenimax Online so got merged, MS has numerous Austin based studios to so maybe decided to close one to ensure they are well staffed. 1 was set up to make 'mobile' only games - now they have King for that and Tango was logistically difficult as their only Japanese Studio.

However, since acquiring ABK, they have opened 2 'new' Studio's - 1 in Austin (Infinity Ward Austin - so maybe some of Arkane staff were moved) and another in Poland (Elsewhere Studios). Not only that, they have also created a new team at Blizzard to make games as well...

The fact is that if you buy Fallout 3 for example, because MS own the Publishing rights, the IP etc, they'll get money from that same as if you buy Doom or Wolfenstein, Quake or Dishonored, Prey or Skyrim. Those are MS owned IP's. Halo is an MS owned IP too despite Bungie, its creators, now at Sony. IP's and Publishing is where the 'money' is - not Studios. 3rd Party Studios can also be 'hired' to work on IP's...

Of course it doesn't make sense that a Publisher like Take Two who rely on 'Sales' for their Revenue to put their game into another Publishers Sub Service.

Its not just Game Pass that offers Day 1 games - it maybe the only one right now that also offers 3rd Party developed and/or published games, but EA Play (PC) offers Day 1 games and Ubisoft+ too offers Day 1 games. If Take Two had their own Sub service, maybe they'll offer Day 1.

Those 3rd Party Publishers are already 'helping' the console Platform holders by releasing on their Platform. Sony/MS will make money from every game sold - especially through their store as the only digital 'retailer'. They have to pay to release on another 'owned/locked' platform with '30%' of their sales revenue going to the Platform holder. A $200m+ 3rd Party game would need to sell more to break even than a first party release - hence Sony making so much money from Call of Duty for example.

I wouldn't expect it to be 'right' for Take Two to put their Games 'Day 1' into EA Play or Ubisoft+, but maybe one day will have their own Sub Service to generate their own subscription based revenue stream, not rely purely on Sales...

As they bought the Studio that was also a Publisher with their own Publishing Rights and of course own their Destiny IP, that purchase can instantly start making money for Soney.

Every sale of Game, of Cosmetics etc all went to the 'Publisher' which is Bungie, now owned by Sony so instantly started making money back. It's possible its made that money back over the years now they've owned Bungie.

When they bought Insomniac for example for a LOT less, they didn't get many IP's and certainly no Publishing rights they can make money from. They did at least have publishing rights and games to sell to recuperate virtually immediately with Spider-Man and R&C - but just buying a 'Studio' is a LOT cheaper because they don't own Publishing rights and/or may need to invest 'more' time/money into that Studio until they have product to sell...

That's the big difference between buying a 'Publisher' versus just buying a Studio - and Bungie after leaving Activision were not only a 'Studio' but also Publisher with the Publishing Rights to Destiny. So every game and every MTX sale from Day 1 started making money for Sony. It's the same with Zenimax/ABK for MS, as soon as those deals went through, they started making money. Doesn't matter that Fallout 4 was released before the deal, you buy that today, that's money for MS and despite Square Enix selling Crystal Dynamics and Tomb Raider IP, they still have Publishing rights on the 'old' games. The new owners of CD/TR won't make money on them until they have new products out to sell...

As such, it's a very difficult question to answer. On the one hand, it looks like a mistake, but on the other, it could also have made money and Sony do 'own' the Destiny IP which makes money on 'Xbox' too...

The biggest Problems are that it so 'generic' and the game-play, whether 'Good' or not, is not different enough from all the FREE to Play games on the market that people have Invested time and money on 'Cosmetics' etc that it needed to be something 'special' and 'different' enough to warrant the barrier to entry...

The thing about Resistance and Killzone is that they were 'different' from CoD and Halo yet still had some commonality. At the time, these games too weren't monetised for 'Cosmetics' or XP boosts, weren't monetised with season passes and drip fed 'new' weapons to add to a 'sparse' starting collection and Cosmetics were earned by playing the game, doing the challenges etc.

Point is, these types of games should be Free to Play - unless they are 'Special', Unique and come with some Single Player content too. If its going to be 'monetised' with Seasonal content, then it has to be F2P to compete with F2P games that have been doing that for years.

Overwatch 2 has 'lost' much of its crowd and I can't see people wanting to play an alternative... Its about 8yrs too late...

Not everyone is created 'equally' and what maybe 'easy' mode for 1 person could be extremely difficult for another so I have no issues with games looking to be 'accessible' to as many people as possible and enable the player to decide how much of a 'Challenge' the game poses.

Whilst I do 'respect' the decision of FromSoftware for example to make the game they want at the 'difficulty' level they have, I do think that it also affects its accessibility. I wonder how many have bought their Games as they 'looked' interesting, a world they wanted to explore, but were put off and felt like they wasted their time/money? I personally don't think it would 'hurt' their games to have Difficulty sliders as those who want the Challenge won't be affected, maybe earn Trophies to 'brag' about beating it at its most challenging.

Someone with years of Experience in playing Souls-Like games will probably think these games are not that difficult compared to someone playing for the first time. It's often the Hardcore, most able gamers that 'complain' about accessibility and difficulty settings, even though it doesn't really affect their ability to play on the hardest, most challenging modes.

@PuppetMaster I made figures up for pure illustration purposes. The fact it made money in month 1-4 is not going to factor in for future months. Its 'profit' for month 1, 2, 3 and 4 but if month 5 doesn't make profit because its lost the playerbase, they aren't going to keep making content for another 2 yrs unless they can get players back or get the numbers up to be 'profitable' every month.

With AA, they could go as low as 500 players a month and this game may not drop that low in 2yrs. But if they require 30k, but only get 28k, next month, it may cost 35k and only get 15k as numbers drop, next month another 35k but only get 12k. They'll likely 'stop' rather than keep losing money. It doesn't matter that month 1 or 2 was 'ultra' profitable - its more money to invest in products/service to 'make' more money.

Its what the game status is like today, not at launch or the first few months. They aren't going to spend money on making 'new' content if that doesn't bring 'more' money back, its better to stop making content, stop losing money on supporting something that 'not enough players' will buy/play when they can spend that time money on something else that is making money.

As soon as you start having to spend more money than you have coming back, that's the time these 'Live Service' games tend to stop being 'supported' as Live Service - doesn't mean the Servers get turned off and the game is unplayable, it just means that its no longer 'profitable' to keep making 'new' content.

What I meant is the success or Profit they made in month 1, 2, 3 and 4 is 'irrelevant' to the decision to keep producing 'content' or whatever 'internal' Roadmap. If the Gamers aren't there to buy that content, that it starts 'losing' money per month instead of being Profitable as it was in months 1-8 for example, if month 9 loses money because gamers have 'left', even after trying to inject 'new' players by putting it on PS+, then they'll not make Content for another 14months because they 'planned' 24 months of Content. As soon as it stops being Profitable on a 'monthly basis', then it ends because they'd rather have the Profit money than 'lose' some it making content few will buy/play.

@PuppetMaster The point still stands though regardless of its status. Its 'success' in sales and initial popularity may help the devs go on to make a third for Sony, but its likely considered as 'Profit' and higher than they expected. Doesn't mean they'll 'throw' that profit away into making content when it loses money (again not saying its losing money either).

Being a AA game may just mean the Threshold for monthly revenue coming in is a lot lower. Maybe they only need say 30k a month instead of 150k a month to keep producing content but if that revenue 'drops' below 30k, they aren't going to keep spending 30k on new content until that 'profit' they made is used up.

Maybe they'll do a Month or two more if it starts losing money (say 30k in costs, but only getting 15k in revenue) but unless they see growth and/or profitability month after month, the fact it sold more than expected, made 'more' profit than expected, won't mean they'll keep making content indefinitely until that 'profit' is gone. It will still be judged on its monthly income vs out goings and if its costing 'more' to make content than is coming in from 'dwindling' playerbase, then they'll stop supporting this and use that 'Profit' to develop their next game.

If it can survive with just 500 monthly paying players as that is all they 'need' to cover the Cost of the monthly content, having 45k is not 'panic stations' even if that is a 'big drop' in users. Doesn't mean the game is going to end in the next month or two - not that I ever said it does mean the end.

Al I said is there is a threshold for Live Service games and that is usually the point at which the game stops being Profitable at all and starts 'losing money'. It maybe that it costs 30k a month to keep bringing new content and now its only generating 28k a month from its remaining players. The fact it made 500m in profit one month is irrelevant to keeping the game supported - that's probably been reinvested elsewhere, maybe even reserved to pay the studio to develop their next game for the next 4-5 yrs. Unless they bring 'new' players in and see that revenue jump above 30k for example into 'profit', then they'll 'end' monthly new content as its 'losing' money and eating into that 'profit'.

Its basic Live Service Business Model. Doesn't matter if it made 500m, then maybe 300m, then maybe 100m, if it starts to 'lose' money, they'll stop bringing 'new' content. It will cease to be a Live Service and just become an 'online' game that people can buy/play as the Devs move on to their next game - which could be 'larger' in scope because of the success and profit of HD2

HD2 will have its threshold where the 'new' content cannot be 'sustained' by the amount of Gamers spending money in that game. If its costing more to provide 'new' content than they get in, they won't eat away their 'profits', its a sign to move on. Again not saying HD2 is at that threshold YET and could well be quite a way from that point yet despite losing 90% (could lose another 90% and still be Profitable as a AA) but there is a threshold

@PuppetMaster I used this - whether accurate or not https://ps-timetracker.com/statistic/last-30-days

You are missing the point about 'Live' service and continuing to bring 'new' content to that game. It needs a certain amount of revenue coming in every month to keep the Developers making new content for it every month.

Games like Helldivers may remain 'playable', but the Devs moved on from that years ago. Games like BF1 or Modern Warfare 2 are NO longer Active Live Service Games as the devs moved on from those to 'new' games, the 'live support' of new content has stopped and are just 'online' games - not Live Service if the 'service' of bringing new content has ceased.

'Live service' and 'online' game is not the same thing. Live Service promises to bring new content on a regular basis, requiring ongoing development of that content bringing something 'new'. MW2 is no longer getting 'new' content, no new Cosmetics, no Season Passes, no 'new' maps/modes etc because its no longer the 'live' service CoD game - its been 'replaced' by MW3. MW2 remains playable and 'online', but its no longer a 'Live Service', its now just an 'online' game that remains playable.

Not every Live Service also has to turn its servers off the instance it stops being supported as a 'Live' service. They can decide the game is 'finished' and no longer going to spend time and money on creating new content. So players can keep playing, but won't get new maps, modes etc.

Those 12m sales won't necessarily mean they'll keep making content indefinitely until the money runs out. That will be 'Profit', Money they used to invest in 'new' games etc. It will most likely come down to how much they are spending 'each' month on new Content and how much revenue they bring in. If they spend 100k a month, but only bring in 50k a month, they won't keep doing that month after month until all the 'money' they earned in the release months has all gone. They'll likely decide that its time to move on to their 'next' game and cease bringing 'new' content to HD2 - but won't necessarily mean the servers will be 'turned' off. It stops being a 'Live Service' and just becomes an 'online' game with NO new content etc coming.

As a business, you look forward. Is it bringing in enough monthly revenue to keep making content? if yes, no problem, if 'No', then you either look at increasing 'revenue' (inject more players or more revenue options) or end 'ongoing Live Service support' and move on to your 'next' project. Again doesn't mean ending the online servers, just ending the supply of 'new' content.

CoD gets round that by having Annual releases. MW3 is the 'Live Service' game, the ONLY game that will get 'new' content (maps, Season Passes, Cosmetic bundles etc). MW2 is 'still' playable, but you can't complete the Season Pass playing MW2 content, won't get new maps/modes etc, and buying new Cosmetic Bundles won't let you use them in MW2. MW2 'stopped' being a Live Service and is now just an 'online' game...