Since the release of Xbox Game Pass for PC in June of 2019, I’ve spent maybe $20 in total for the service. Between the numerous promotions and some simple tasks, it has been relatively easy to keep the service going without having it be a monthly drain on my wallet. With the price of gaming steadily increasing, services like Game Pass have become more appealing. However, it’s not free, and the $10-$15 monthly fee can add up. Here’s how I’ve avoided shelling out cash for access to these dozens of games.

Get Started Cheap

Like any salesperson or drug pusher, Microsoft wants to get you started cheap. There are always promotional deals to get your first month free or for $1. Previously, there was an option to get three months for $1, though the time for that may have passed. I’ve even seen promotions on Cheez-It crackers for a free month. Most of these are for new customers, so they may not help you much if you’ve already started, but there’s always the option of making new accounts. I’m sure that’s against their terms of service, but considering how long they’ve left open a huge loophole in their process, I doubt they’re policing it too vigorously.

Microsoft Rewards

Microsoft Rewards is a program that has been around for quite some time now. It’s a free service that allows you to earn points by doing basic tasks in your browser like simple trivia and searching with Bing. You can redeem these points for various gift cards and sweepstakes, but also Xbox Live Memberships, Xbox gift cards, and in my case, months of Game Pass. I usually pop over to the site each morning for a few minutes to complete these tasks while checking my e-mail and stockpile a few hundred points a day. I’m not quite diligent enough to fully fund my Game Pass in this way, but it’s the most significant contributor with the least effort.

Alienware Arena

The Alienware Arena has also been around for several years, but I only recently discovered how it can contribute. They have always had giveaways for games and that has been reason enough to have an account.

However, I also found that within their ranking system, you can get Dell Rewards money. If you rank up through 25 by doing more simple daily tasks or participating in the forums, you can get a total of $150 in Rewards this way. You can toss those rewards at some overpriced Dell hardware, or in my case, buy digital Xbox gift cards you can use for games or Game Pass. This process is a bit slower than Microsoft Rewards, but it does have the added benefit of ranking up for Alienware game giveaways. Recently they gave away System Shock Enhanced Edition, Street Fighter V, and various other games and in-game items.

Any way you can get Xbox gift cards is a way to get more Game Pass. Retail outlets of all sorts will sell gift cards at a discount from time to time. Notably places like Newegg and sometimes Best Buy will offer modest discounts. That may seem obvious, but the thing to look for is Microsoft’s desire to get people on their platform and using their store.

They’ve been very liberal with ways to get money on their storefront. The value proposition of the service is already high and has paid for itself with day one releases of several games, and that’s before the Bethesda acquisition launched 20 more on the service. With the potential for so many additional expensive games going forward, I’ll definitely be keeping this going and saving money at both ends of the process.

Despite all of the hardships it presented, 2020 ended up being a pretty special year for gamers. Against all odds, developers everywhere turned in an incredible lineup of titles that will surely make this year’s game of the year awards a challenge to figure out.

Yet, there are a few titles I see that keep popping up as candidates for those awards that just make me wince. They’re not necessarily bad games but they are, for one reason or another, games that are just getting a little too much love.

These are the most overrated games of 2020.

Assassin’s Creed Valhalla

Assassin’s Creed Origins was a fascinating, but flawed, attempt to softly reboot the complacent Assassin’s Creed franchise. Assassin’s Creed Odyssey did a brilliant job of fixing many of those flaws, solidifying the franchise’s new direction, and setting us up for something potentially special.

Valhalla is occasionally that something special, but it’s mostly another incremental improvement that received a little too much praise for being another largely familiar entry in an increasingly familiar franchise. Not every AC game needs to reinvent the wheel, but we should also temper our praise for amounts to a better version of an already good game.

Call of Duty: Warzone

It didn’t take long for Call of Duty: Warzone to become the darling of the battle royale scene. The popularity of the Call of Duty franchise made Warzone immediately notable while the title’s free-to-play status got it into the hands of more people than may have otherwise given it a chance. On top of that, it’s a fun game in its own right.

Yet, at a time of constant updates, Warzone‘s general complacency has been frustrating to watch. The one advantage of live service games is that they typically stay fresh enough to become the only game you need for months at a time. Aside from a couple of fun events, Warzone‘s updates have largely focused on balancing the existing game.

Ghost of Tsushima

This one is tough. I actually think Ghost of Tsushima is a really good game. It’s got a great open-world, fun combat, a ton of style, and a fairly good story. There’s not a lot wrong with it from a purely critical standpoint.

Yet, at a time when Ghost of Tsushima is clearly becoming an award season darling, I feel that it’s necessary to be realistic about this game’s accomplishments. It’s a very well done version of a kind of game that we’ve seen before. Much like Valhalla, Ghost of Tsushima executes a formula to near perfection, but it perhaps plays it a bit too safe to be considered truly great.

Marvel’s Avengers

Granted, there aren’t a lot of people hyping up Marvel’s Avengers these days, but this feels like a fairly well-deserved case of “We told you so.”

After listening to everyone who wanted to defend this game for months despite an ever-growing pile of red flags surrounding it there’s an admittedly dark pleasure that comes from seeing this title turn out to be exactly what many others suspected it would be. Aside from its fairly good campaign, this is a soulless cash grab that tries and fails to cash in on a license with an unlimited amount of potential.

Star Wars: Squadrons

Squadrons is another game I actually like quite a bit. At a time of increasingly lowered expectations for Star Wars games, Squadrons offers a fun take on this universe that is often fairly clever.

However, Squadrons was hyped as a return to the glory days of Star Wars spaceship games, which it simply isn’t. It lacks the pure arcade action of the Rogue series, and it fails to replicate the simulator brilliance of the PC Star Wars space fighter titles of the ’90s. It’s stuck reminding me of better games it simply is not.

Genshin Impact

Genshin Impact caused quite a stir earlier this year with some fans going so far as to call it an improved version of Breath of the Wild that you can even play on mobile devices.

However, a little more time with Genshin Impact reveals its gameplay reliance on a microtransaction system that is too aggressive to be condoned at a time when microtransaction ethics are such a big talking point. To be honest, Genshin Impact feels like the most successful and ambitious mobile knock-off ever.

Resident Evil 3

I loved the original Resident Evil 3 and often wondered what would happen if the game got a chance to shine outside of the shadow of Resident Evil 2. Unfortunately, Capcom decided to release Resident Evil 3‘s remake in the shadow of Resident Evil 2‘s remake.

Similarities to the previous Resident Evil remake aside, one of the most disappointing elements of 2020’s Resident Evil 3 is how little new content it adds to the original game. It tends to cut some of the original game’s more frustrating moments rather than rework them which seems unambitious for a big-budget remake.

Super Mario 3D All-Stars

At the end of the day, Super Mario 3D All-Stars features three classic Mario games. It’s hard to argue with the idea of getting all of these games in one package or the merits of the original games.

Yet, nearly everything else about this collection feels like a mistake. Its ports are little more than glorified emulations that fall short of paying these games the tribute they deserved. Even if you’re willing to overlook this game’s bizarre limited digital release schedule, you’re still left to wonder where Super Mario Galaxy 2 is or why these games aren’t just straight-up available to download on Nintendo Switch.

While it’s true that the Xbox One’s exclusives just weren’t on par with the PS4’s, you’d be wrong to think that Microsoft has always struggled with securing incredible exclusive titles. In fact, a look at the history of Xbox exclusives reveals some of the best games of the last 20 years.

So, ahead of the Xbox Series X’ release and incredible backward compatibility abilities, we thought we’d count down the 10 best Xbox exclusives ever.

Just know that for this list, we considered an Xbox exclusive to be any game that was never released on another console besides an Xbox. However, if that game was released on PCs or mobile devices, it was still considered to be eligible.

10. Lost Odyssey

During Microsoft’s brief infatuation with wooing the Japanese market with high-profile JRPGs (which also included the excellent Blue Dragon), they convinced Final Fantasy creator Hironobu Sakaguchi to make this often-overlooked Xbox 360 exclusive.

Lost Odyssey was initially criticized for its reliance on traditional genre elements, but years later, the title’s blend of classic concepts and new ideas feels more appealing than ever before. Besides, Lost Odyssey‘s story is arguably one of the best in JRPG history.

9. MechAssault 2: Lone Wolf

Blowing stuff up with a variety of giant mechs is fun. That may sound obvious, but given that the MechAssault franchise has largely been ignored over the last 15 years, it’s apparently not as obvious as we’d like to think.

MechAssault 2 is a pure action game that’s depth comes through its various unlockables and high replayability. Its multiplayer was also shockingly good, especially for an early Xbox Live game.

8. Alan Wake

Before Control, Max Payne developer Remedy Entertainment dipped their toes into the horror genre with the surprisingly scary Alan Wake.

Alan Wake’s simple gameplay and sometimes…off voice acting won’t win everyone over, but you just can’t beat the title’s moody small-town atmosphere, various world-building tricks, and genuinely engaging story. It’s a gem of the genre.

7. Rare Replay

This spot was reserved for Viva Pinata, but while we’re at it, why not just highlight the collection that includes that game and 29 other retro classics?

Granted, most of those games are available on some other console, but the ability to play some of Rare’s greatest games (including the aforementioned Viva Pinata) in one package makes this one of the Xbox One’s best exclusives.

6. Fable 2

Truth be told, there’s never been a Fable game that’s realized the ambitious intentions of the series’ creator. However, Fable 2 is the game that proved even a taste of that ambition could be addictive.

Fable 2‘s simple (but fun) gameplay, engaging story, and incredible character-building options help it stand tall above its largely underwhelming predecessor. Even Fable 3 couldn’t quite live up to Fable 2‘s tight take on this franchise’s best ideas.

5. Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge

Anytime you ever meet a Crimson Skies fan who is a little too enthusiastic about this game, try to forgive them. After all, there’s never really been a game quite like this 2003 Xbox exclusive.

Crimson Skies‘ airtight aerial gameplay is bested only by the game’s shockingly interesting story and fascinating alternate history worldbuilding in which America has rebuilt society around air travel. We’d give anything for a proper sequel to this truly underrated classic.

4. Forza Horizon 4

As the Forza series grew from its humble origins as a Dreamcast exclusive called Metropolis Street Racer, the one thing that remained constant was developer Bizarre Creations’ ability to inject more personality into their racing titles than any other developer.

Forza Horizon 4 is the culmination of their efforts. This massive racing game is nearly perfect from a visual and gameplay standpoint, but the true joy of the experience comes from finding a way to appreciate all the little touches while you blaze past them at high speeds.

3. The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind

You can’t really talk about Morrowind without acknowledging that the game was a technical nightmare, suffered from some historically slow pacing, and, in many ways, just wasn’t designed for consoles.

Yet, Morrowind‘s success on Xbox really did change the gaming industry for the better. It not only proved that games like it were viable (and desirable) on consoles, but it advanced the technological design of Western RPGs by years. Flaws aside, Morrowind remains one of the best Elder Scrolls games in terms of world-building and genuine role-playing.

2. Halo 3

We could just reserve this spot for the Halo series and call it a day, but just to make it interesting, we’ll go with the Xbox 360 exclusive, Halo 3.

We’ve praised Halo 3‘s multiplayer in the past, but in terms of the balance between multiplayer and campaign, you really could argue that this is the best overall Halo game. It represents everything that there is to love about this franchise.

1. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

Few Xbox exclusives, not even the mighty Halo, are held in as high regard as BioWare’s 2003 Xbox RPG, Knights of the Old Republic. Thankfully, this is one of those cases where the hype is about more than nostalgia.

In some ways, KOTOR‘s incredible gameplay, jaw-dropping story, and memorable missions are bittersweet. As BioWare has lost its way and Star Wars games struggle to relive the glory days, there just aren’t many RPGs on the modern market that come close to replicating the stunning creative brilliance of this true masterpiece.

The substantial growth of Netflix and other streaming services over the past decade was a surprise for many. Few could have foreseen the success they would have in such a short period. Now that these subscription services area mainstay in the public, it’s not surprising that game publishers want to get in on the action.

Google is using Stadia as the method for the process, attempting to use streaming to eliminate the need for hardware. Electronic Arts provided its catalog of games for a subscription, but it is mostly limited to that publisher. Microsoft, however, has been steadily improving Game Pass both on their console and on PC as its popularity has increased.

I’ve always seen this as a play to be able to have “Games as a Service” without the legal ramifications of “owning” a game. However, with the introduction of the Xbox Series S and its mobile phone-like monthly payment plan including Game Pass, it seems the goal is deeper. Microsoft seems to want to saturate the market with Game Pass-ready devices to build a subscription service for everyone.

Much like Netflix is easily accessible on numerous platforms, Game Pass is going to be available for every Windows PC and the increasingly affordable Series S. They even have cloud gaming on mobile as a possibility as well. Having these games available at every turn is a great way to get people to play a wider variety and to play them more often. The more developers and publishers that sign on, the higher chance they have of building an audience for their games.

The question remains, however, what does this do for Microsoft? Well, the obvious thing is the revenue from such a service. One of the best things in business is having a predictable income from a recurring service. It allows the company to align future endeavors based on the revenue that they know will be available without leveraging risk. It’s like having a loan without interest, assuming you can maintain the user base.

Today, Microsoft bought Zenimax, a company that owns the publisher and developer Bethesda as well as the rights to many game franchises like Doom. Acquisitions like this and that of Obsidian are notable, in part, because they will give value to Game Pass. With full games releasing on the service at launch, it’s easy to get people on board. Having an automatic backlog of every notable game under this ever-growing umbrella (including licensed games) is a shiny selling point for any of their consoles.

The biggest reason for this maneuver is one that Apple adopted years ago and prides itself on today. That is the creation of the “ecosystem.” By getting people sold on the functionality and features of Game Pass, it becomes a selling point. With this upcoming console generation, people may already be considering whether they still want to have Game Pass when deciding on a console. As physical copies of games fade away, future console generations will create the same debate.

This shift toward subscription-based gaming is one that will drive consumer adoption for the near future. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sony starts warping and twisting PlayStation Plus into a similar service structure. Just as people have been abandoning their movie collections in favor of affordable streaming subscriptions, the world of gaming will attract new patrons with this cheap alternative. For a growing number, being at the whim of your service providers seems to be an acceptable alternative to paying more and owning the content.

There’s not much to the Xbox Series S. It looks somewhat odd, it’s not a next-gen gaming powerhouse by any means, and one of the biggest selling points of the Xbox brand (nearly complete backward compatibility support) will be severely hindered by the console’s missing disc drive.

On the surface, the Xbox Series S is just a step above the infamous Xbox 360 Core system which lacked its premium counterpart’s HDMI port, detachable hard drive, and promises of a largely future-proofed gaming experience. We’re already seeing thousands of people warning gamers to stay away from this console and save up for an Xbox Series X if they’re committed to the Xbox brand in the next-generation.

Yet, that doesn’t feel like a fair assessment. Actually, we’d argue that the Xbox Series S is exactly the console we need in 2020.

As you might imagine, the core of that argument is the Xbox Series S’ price. At just $299, the Xbox Series S isn’t just destined to be the most affordable next-gen console; it’s a shot across the bow to an industry that has steadily been raising the launch price of new consoles in an attempt to answer the question “How much will you pay to be first?”

While that practice is annoying in the best of times, we’re not living in the best of times (in case you didn’t notice). As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage much of the world, millions of people are left unemployed and uncertain when they will work again. Even those who have held on to their jobs through this crisis are left to wonder whether this is the time to spend $400+ on a new gaming console.

For that matter, the entire gaming industry seems uncertain regarding whether or not the next generation really begins in 2020. With major titles such as Halo Infinite being delayed until 2021 (at the very least) and company’s starting previously unheard of initiatives that let you upgrade a variety of third-party titles to their next-gen counterparts at no extra cost, the entire industry has been sending this clear message for months now:

“The start of the next video game generation isn’t going to feel like previous generations.”

Into that situation comes the Xbox Series S. Yes, it is cheaper. $299 will still be a big ask for millions of people this year, but it’s about as reasonable of a price as you could realistically expect given its abilities and additional manufacturing complications presented by the current situation. It’s an affordable way to own a next-gen console in 2020.

Yet, the Xbox Series S isn’t just a console for this year or right now. It’s a surprisingly forward-thinking device that simply offers honest answers about what the future of gaming is probably going to look like.

After all, the Xbox team’s Smart Delivery program was essentially that team’s way of admitting that their first-party exclusive titles probably won’t take meaningful advantage of the Xbox Series X’ capabilities until at least late 2021 or 2022. Until then, you’re probably going to be able to enjoy upcoming Microsoft Studios games on Xbox Series S or Xbox One S without feeling like the Series X offers a fundamentally different experience that simply can’t be replicated on lesser hardware.

More importantly, the Xbox Series S still lets you take advantage of two of Microsoft’s most exciting features: Xbox Game Pass and Project xCloud. Game Pass is already the best subscription service in gaming, and xCloud is shaping up to be one of the best cloud services in the industry (as well as a way to potentially circumvent the pure power of your console). In two or three years, your $299 next-gen console won’t be able to take full advantage of high-end displays or play discs. Other than that, it will still be a next-gen console.

Even if you do decide that the Xbox Series S isn’t enough for you in two to three years, you’ll probably be able to either upgrade to whatever the new mid-generation hardware is or even just a cheaper Xbox Series X. Whereas the Xbox Core was fundamentally unprepared for the next generation of gaming, the Xbox Series S offers a way to reasonably test the waters and see what the next few years bring.

At a time when too many other aspects of the video game industry feel designed to convince you that the future is here and is going to be great, the Xbox Series S comes along to suggest that the future may be more uncertain than ever before, but that doesn’t mean you have to spend too much money or risk missing out on the simple pleasure of playing new games.

10. Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved (Xbox 360)

First off, Geometry Wars was, is, and forever will be a great game. We’re in full “come at us” territory if you disagree with that statement.

Yet, the game’s placement on this list has much to do with its historical significance. Not only was Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved a great game, but it was a great game available via a console’s online store at a time when console online stores were a relatively foreign concept.

Geometry Wars encouraged everyone to give Xbox Live Arcade a shot. That means it not only helped kick off the era of digital distribution and DLC but the indie game movement as well.

9. SSX (PlayStation 2)

The PlayStation 2’s best launch feature was its DVD player, but its best launch game will always be SSX.

At a time when Tony Hawk was still king of the world, SSX offered a different kind of extreme sports experience. It was fast, colorful, and unbelievably fun to play. We don’t know if it was better than Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2, but it’s in that conversation.

SSX was the only game every PlayStation 2 owner needed to buy when they went out to get their new console.

8. Soulcalibur (Sega Dreamcast)

We all know the sad story of the Sega Dreamcast. The little console that could ran into a series of problems which ultimately killed it, but the technical innovations of the console and its incredible library of games remain untarnished.

That incredible library kicked off with the launch of Soulcalibur. At a time when the phrase arcade-perfect was still the benchmark for video game technology, Soulcalibur offered an arcade-like experience at home as no other video game had before.

Soulcalibur forever changed the way we judged video game graphics and 3D fighting titles.

7. Super Mario World (Super Nintendo)

Spoilers: This isn’t the first Super Mario game you’ll see on this list. There are several good reasons Mario quickly became synonymous with the Nintendo brand.

Super Mario World may not have been as “revolutionary” as other Super Mario launch games, but it’s still arguably one of the best games ever made. Essentially an evolution of the brilliant Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World boasts some of the best level and overworld design in franchise history.

And to think that Super Mario World was included with every Super Nintendo. What a time.

6. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (Nintendo Switch)

This is a bit of a controversial pick considering that Breath of the Wild was also released as one of the Wii U’s last major games. Nevertheless, we think it counts.

Besides, most people think of Breath of the Wild as a Switch game. In fact, the beauty, scope, and brilliant open-world gameplay of Breath of the Wild is a big part of the reason why so many people own a Switch.

This could go down as the best Zelda game ever made, so you know it has to make this list.

5. Wii Sports (Nintendo Wii)

It’s impossible to imagine that the Nintendo Wii would have become one of the best-selling consoles of all-time if it wasn’t for the success of Wii Sports.

Wii Sports perfectly conveyed the purpose and potential of the Wii’s motion control system and proved to be one of the most enjoyable party games ever made. There’s a good chance people only associate the Wii with Wii Sports, and we honestly can’t blame them.

If this was a list of the most important launch games ever, you could expect Wii Sports to be even higher than it is.

4. Super Mario 64 (Nintendo 64)

Super Mario 64‘s status as one of the best Mario games of all-time and arguably one of the best games of all-time is certainly enough to enter it into this conversation.

Yet, the game’s most impressive legacy is arguably how it was designed to sell the Nintendo 64. Mario 64 not only took advantage of the N64’s technology like no other launch game, but it showcased how the console’s controller would make 3D navigation easier than ever.

Super Mario 64 is just a complete example of game design as art and technological evolution.

3. Tetris (Game Boy)

Do you know what the most impressive thing about Tetris is? It’s never really aged. You can still play the original version today and enjoy it as much as ever.

So imagine taking a chance on buying a Game Boy and losing hours of your life to this simple puzzle game. Tetris wasn’t necessarily a technological marvel in and of itself, but its addictive nature stands as one of the best justifications for buying an entirely new device just to play it.

Plus, just think of the value you’ve gotten from a copy of Tetris over the years.

2. Halo: Combat Evolved (Xbox)

Let’s just get this out of the way now: Halo: CE is a straight-up incredible piece of game design that rightfully blew the minds of console gamers everywhere in 2001.

What really elevates it for the purposes of this list, though, was its multiplayer. Not only was Halo multiplayer a generational experience, but if you wanted to experience it in its 16-player LAN glory, you needed four Xboxes and four copies of the game to do so.

What we’re saying is that the brilliance of Halo practically demanded you owned an Xbox or at least some Xbox controllers. Its popularity almost single-handedly established the entire Xbox brand.

1. Super Mario Brothers (NES)

At a time when Nintendo was a relative unknown and the very concept of owning a video game console had fallen out of style, Super Mario Brothers changed everything.

Super Mario Brothers alerted millions to the fact that gaming as they knew it had changed dramatically. Its wonderful music, artistic design, involved gameplay, and incredible visuals were leaps ahead of what most people at the time associated with video games.

It’s hard to imagine the world where any of the other games on this list exist without Super Mario Brothers.

This manifestation of a Honey I Shrunk the Kids universe come to life looks as interesting as such an idea could, but I can’t say I’m excited. Survival games are everywhere. They were most popular years ago when Early Access allowed some to thrive and others to wither away before even launching. The genre is expressed in large open worlds and a variety of crafting and building skills, but as a whole, it lacks diversity. From this gameplay video, Grounded seems to fall right into the same disappointing spectrum.

The video kicks off expressing the need to eat and drink to fill the requisite meters. Not long after, you’re introduced to the same boring resource collection with another patience-draining stamina bar for your actions. Once those resources are accumulated, a demonstration of building with a repetitive “Oh Yeah!” to emphasize every successful construction provides the next weird addition.

The rest of the video mostly goes on to show off a bit more crafting and plenty of stiff combat with various types of bugs. The visual design here looks solid and would probably work with many different types of gameplay, but as a survival game, it appears to offer very little. Of course, this isn’t the first game of this style to come along in the modern era. Microsoft seems to be very interested in these perpetual online survival games since they acquired Minecraft.

Sea of Thieves also had a great core premise and, while not exactly a survival game, it presented the players with a sandbox open world to explore in multiplayer. State of Decay 2 had a similar basic design of resource collecting and building out bases in a survival scenario as well. Neither of these games had a strong release, generally being mediocre to poor among critics. However, they’ve both been funded for years and grown substantially both in content and in the perspective of the gaming community.

Other recent games that have had similar “rise from the ashes” growth are No Man’s Sky and Fallout 76. While some may still balk at the mere mention of these games, many people still actively play both and praise them. At launch, you couldn’t have ever convinced me that would be the case. Yet, today both games continue being supported and grow in popularity with each update, no matter how mediocre they may still be to the rest of us.

My issue with Grounded isn’t so much the mediocrity of yet another survival game though. The problem I see is that this is a game coming from Obsidian. The same Obsidian that just last year released one of the most enjoyable RPGs since The Witcher 3 with The Outer Worlds. A company that has a notable 17-year history in making incredible RPGs is now about to be locked in an Early Access loop of survival game development.

I can’t claim to know what inspired this chain of events, but it’s hard not to look at Microsoft part of the problem. Last month, the very average Bleeding Edge was released by Ninja Theory, a company that previously released the groundbreaking and critically acclaimed Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice. They too were recently acquired by Microsoft. 

It might not be fair to lay the blame squarely on Microsoft as these games could very well have been in development well before Microsoft was even involved, but they do have a history of such things. Their acquisition of Rare in 2002 marked the end of the developer’s long run of major hits in the 90s. Aside from some ports of classic games, they had numerous critical misfires and sad Kinect exclusives. This continued until 2018 when they become the developers of Sea of Thieves.

The one advantage Microsoft does afford to Grounded is that it will be part of Game Pass. Game Pass is great for propping up games that would otherwise have a dwindling player base since it’s an affordable method for Xbox and PC players to have access to dozens of games – often right at launch. Though I may not be excited to jump into this overgrown backyard adventure, I’m sure tens or even hundreds of thousands of people will. I suppose we’ll find out what it’s all about in July.

GameStop has been making headlines recently due to their controversial coronavirus policies. Among other things, GameStops seem to be dangerously unprepared to meet basic safety precautions tied to the coronavirus outbreak. They’re also reportedly prepared to defy state closure orders as executives seem to be attempting to argue that GameStop offers essential services during these times.

Why is GameStop so desperate to stay open? Well, there are obviously no stores that are excited about having to close, but the situation for GameStop is reportedly especially dire. Analysts were already arguing that GameStop was fighting for its retail life even before the coronavirus spread. If GameStop is forced to close for a few months, there’s a good chance they may never re-open or never be able to fully recover.

To be honest, it’s hard to feel sorry for them even if we feel sorry for those who would lose their jobs as part of a closure, no matter how long it may be. Not only is GameStop ready to force its employees to work in dangerous situations without the promise of adequate compensation, but this is just the latest in a series of controversial GameStop corporate decisions that have been going on for years now. It’s probably time for GameStop to go.

There is one question that remains in such an event, though. If GameStop goes, what happens to the used games market?

Granted, GameStop’s used games policies aren’t always the best (the company infamously offers little money for trade-ins of even newer titles), but they’re still one of the more reliable ways to relatively easily trade in old games and buy used copies of games. These services not only cater to gamers on a budget, but it helps ensure that gamers are never stuck with titles that they really don’t intend to play again.

Used game options do exist outside of GameStop (you can obviously always sell them online) but despite all of our advancements, it’s still usually just easier to buy and sell used games via a store like GameStop. If they close, then the used game market suddenly looks a lot thinner.

The truth is that it’s not easy to imagine that digital stores will adopt straight-up used game policies. Considering that you don’t even own some fo the games that you digitally purchase (although that varies from site to site) it’s kind of tricky to sell them to someone else. Besides, a digital copy of a game is never really “used” in the sense of how we use that word to define the second-hand market.

Alternatives are possible, though. The most reasonable option would be some kind of user-to-user trade system which allows someone to essentially trade a digital key to another user for a digital key to another game. Rules would have to be set-up to regulate this, but it’s not outside of the realm of reason. There’s also a small possibility that services like GOG and Steam could allow someone to receive a small refund for a purchase after a period of time, but that feels like an unlikely policy that doesn’t really create more opportunities to buy titles on the used market.

Honestly, it sounds like one of the best “replacements” for GameStop’s used game system will be streaming services. While services like Game Pass limit you to a roster of available titles, they still let you access a greater variety of games for a reduced price. They’ll likely soon become the preferred way for people to save money and still be able to play various games.

Unless we see a new store (online or otherwise) emerge with the intentions of specifically catering to used games, the increasingly likely possibility is that the death of GameStop could mean the death of the used games market as we’ve known it. While that’s unfortunate, it doesn’t necessarily justify keeping GameStops around nor does it justify impeding the industry’s drive to find solutions to some of the problems that we’ve outlined.

I’ve always supported single-player games, but there was a point in my life when I would actively root against multiplayer titles. There was really no good reason why, but in my mind, at that time, I saw multiplayer games as inferior works that just tried to appeal to more “mainstream” gamers. Yeah, I was that kid.

Over time, though, I not only found myself appreciating multiplayer games more and more but playing them more and more. There were times when I would primarily play one multiplayer game for months (or longer) on end instead of bouncing between multiple single-player titles as I used to do. Truth be told, I still do that more often than not.  Actually, I get the feeling from personal experience and industry revenue reports that there are potentially millions of people who also do just that.

That’s why Sony and Microsoft will likely rely on single-player games more and more to sell the PS5 and Xbox Series X.

Let’s say you or someone you know primarily plays Fortnite or Apex Legends. They own a console, PC, or even a mobile device that is perfectly capable of playing their favorite game. They may even own several such devices that can achieve that feat.

For those gamers, you’ve got to wonder if there’s really any incentive to buy a new console. Titles like Fortnite aren’t exactly going to benefit from a large leap in technology. It’s still going to look like Fortnite on a PS5 or an Xbox Series X, and even more RAM or an SSD isn’t going to improve its performance all that much. There’s always the allure of the new, but for those who usually play one game and maybe dip into a couple of other titles throughout the year, you’ve really got to wonder whether they feel the urge to spend $400+ dollars for minor upgrades to their preferred experiences.

This is the strange position we find ourselves in during what seems to be the height of the games as a service era. It’s also probably part of the reason why you hear more console manufacturers speak of the death of gaming generations. If games are going to be a service meant to last for years (and those games typically don’t push technological boundaries) then what’s the point of pushing constant console upgrades?

That’s where single-player games come into play.

The basic idea is that Sony and Microsoft will have an easier time selling the PS5 and Xbox Series X if they can simply point to a game and say “You can only play this on our new console.” Microsoft is subverting that idea somewhat due to their position on not offering true Series X exclusives for the first year or so, but even that policy is partially based on their desire to sell Game Pass (and the many single-player titles it offers) regardless of which platform you subscribe to it on.

How is that approach different from what we’ve seen at the start of every other gaming generation? It’s not, but the industry is different. Previous console launch lineups were stealth boosted by the addition of the new Madden, the new Call of Duty, and other yearly installments. PS5 and Xbox Series X will almost certainly feature some of those titles, but yearly installments are starting to be slowly replaced by games as a service titles that launch free updates instead. Besides, as we’ve already noted, this upcoming generation may not feature nearly as notable as a technological leap.

With a single-player game, though, it’s all about the experience. They can certainly benefit from new technology, but it’s more about the idea that these titles offer something that you just can’t get anywhere else. Besides, the PS4 and its army of noteworthy exclusives seemingly helped showcase that even in this service era, the right single-player title can move more units than even optimistic analysts would have thought.

There will come a time when new popular multiplayer titles come out on new consoles and inspire that section of gamers to start making upgrades. Until then, though, you’ve got to think that single-player games may start getting time in the spotlight that they haven’t necessarily enjoyed on a large scale in recent years.

Head of Xbox Game Studios Matt Booty caused quite a stir recently when he revealed that the Xbox Series X will not feature any Microsoft exclusives for years to come.

What does that mean? Well, it means that for at least the first year or two of the Xbox Series’ X availability, games made by Xbox Game Studios (and, seemingly, its partners) will not be exclusive to Microsoft’s next-gen platform. Instead, they will be available for next-gen Xbox consoles, the various Xbox One incarnations, and, most likely, PC.

That’s a, largely, unheard-of move. What kind of a first-party studio doesn’t want to use exclusives to push the sales of its next console?

The answer is “The kind of studio that proves once again that it understands the present and future of console gaming better than its competition.”

We’ve spoken before about how you might want to lower your expectations for the next generation of gaming. To reiterate, though, gaming technology is in a strange place right now. While things like ray tracing and a push for 8K gaming remain generally agreed upon technological goals, the truth of the matter is that tangible improvements in gaming technology over the last several years have been marginal. Games look better, but there are few people out there that are pushing the technological envelope.

All of that is to say that there’s a very good chance that Xbox Series X launch games (and even games released within the console’s first year or so) are likely not going to look significantly better than the games we see running on the Xbox One S and (especially) the Xbox One X.

Microsoft seems to be acknowledging that via this decision. While we’ve seen games release on both next-gen and current-gen consoles simultaneously around the time of the former’s launch, most of those games have been third-party titles. Until fairly recently, many of those third-party games incentivized gamers to splurge on a next-gen console in order to experience them “at their best.”

Microsoft will almost certainly emphasize that their games will run best on the Series X, but they’re also acknowledging that there are many times when most gamers don’t need to purchase a new console at launch. Rather than “force” those gamers to purchase a new console by withholding certain experiences, they’re preserving the lifespan of existing platforms by acknowledging that hardware upgrades and software upgrades don’t always happen at the same time and in the same ways.

While this policy is really just an extension of some of the things that Microsoft has been doing with the Xbox brand in recent years (most notably their generous backward compatibility policies, Game Pass program, and PC gaming support), it’s also more than that. It’s an example of how Microsoft is trying to move gaming forward by shedding some of the burdens of the past.

Part of the reason why exclusives are sometimes looked down upon is due to the implication that they really only exist to get you to buy multiple video game consoles. This is especially true of next-gen launch exclusives which are typically released at a time when consoles are at their most expensive (and when they’ve yet to be refined through updates and iterations).

Perhaps Microsoft isn’t entirely killing the exclusive with this decision, they are wounding the idea that the exclusive simply needs to exist in order to sell a new console. Instead, they’re saying “Yes, we have exclusive games made by ourselves and our partner studios, but your obligation to purchase a console for them is going to be rooted in the belief that there is truly no other console that is capable of playing them.”

Is that an optimistic read of this situation? Perhaps, but again, Microsoft has proven in the very recent past that they’re willing and able to make decisions that not only help move gaming towards the future but decisions that are consumer-friendly. Even if you doubt the long-term implications of this decision, there is little about it that can’t be interpreted as a good thing for gamers.

Despite the assurances of fanboys everywhere, there is rarely a “winner” of the console wars. Usually, we determine the winner by overall sales (at least if you’re trying to use a somewhat neutral metric), but even that system has its flaws.

For instance, the PlayStation outsold the N64, but the N64 is the home of some of the greatest games ever made and some irreplaceable gaming experiences. The Wii outsold the PS3 and the Xbox 360 by quite a bit, but it didn’t even feature support some of the best third-party games of its generation and lacked the online innovations of the Xbox 360.

The point is that the winner of most console wars almost always ends up being subjective. However, in the case of the PS4, you could honestly argue it might be the first objective console war winner.

To be clear, we’re talking about the PS4’s “war” against the Microsoft Xbox One and Nintendo Wii U. There was some console overlap during that time, but those three systems kicked off a new generation of gaming.

It’s when you compare the PS4 to those platforms that you start to see the extent of its dominance. That’s especially true in the case of the Wii U.

The Wii U was, by almost every tangible estimation, a failure. Reports indicate that it only sold about 14 million units, which means it was only moderately more successful than consoles like the TurboGrafx-16. Sales aside, the Wii U’s central gimmick (a tablet-like controller) was either rarely used by most developers or used in ways that failed to excite users. Like the Nintendo Wii, it also suffered from a lack of notable third party titles that essentially limited its library to the occasional Nintendo release or surprise hit.

The Xbox One featured many of those great third-party games, but it suffered from a list of problems that is “highlighted” by a lack of notable exclusive titles. The Xbox One’s best exclusives include largely uninspiring titles like Gears 5, Sea of Thieves, Forza Motorsport 7, and Halo 5: Guardians. Many of those games aren’t even truly exclusive once you account for their PC ports.

Besides, the Xbox One was pronounced dead on arrival by some who blasted Microsoft for the console’s high price point, controversial initial features, and its early reliance on the now mostly dead Kinect peripheral. Subsequent Xbox One releases later addressed many of those issues, but it proved to be too little, too late in terms of overall console sales.

The PS4, meanwhile, succeeded in most of the ways that its console competition failed.

Unlike the Xbox One, the PS4 launched as a reliable system at a fair price that offered the average gamer pretty much exactly what they wanted. Unlike the Wii U, the PS4 benefited from not only the presence of most notable third-party titles but an array of exclusives not just made by first-party studios. It certainly also bested the Xbox One in terms of both quantity of exclusives (an almost objective argument) and quality (an only slightly more subjective one).

On top of it all, you’ve got the fact that the PS4 has outsold its next closest competitor by nearly 60 million units so far. Sales may not be the only indicator of a console’s success, but you also can’t ignore those numbers.

Appropriately enough, if you’re going to argue that the PS4 wasn’t the undisputed winner of its generation, you’re best off abandoning the traditional metrics used to determine console winners and are better off arguing that its biggest shortcomings have to do with how it failed to innovate as its competitors did.

The Wii U was a  failure in many respects, but all Nintendo had to do was tweak its best ideas in order to deliver the Nintendo Switch: one of the most innovative and exciting consoles ever made. The Switch also allowed us to see that the Wii U actually hosted some incredible games that were just begging to be rescued from the platform.

The Xbox One similarly suffered from an array of problems, but it also furthered the idea of console cross-play, introduced the incredible Xbox Game Pass service, preserved the idea of backward compatibility, and even inspired other companies to give away free games every month in exchange for online subscription fees. The Xbox One stumbled out of the gate but no other console this generation took such confident steps towards the future.

Put it all together, and you’re left with the conclusion that we began this article with: there rarely is a true undisputed winner of console wars. Still, no other console has come quite as close to claiming that title as the PS4.

We’ve said it before, but 2019 was not a great year for gaming.

We’d stop short of saying it was an awful year, but it was a weird one. Some of the biggest (or at least the best) games of the year were also some of the ones that not many people saw coming. Control, for instance, exceeded critical expectations (even as it apparently failed to meet sales expectations), Outer Wilds was a bold experiment in game design, and Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order managed to overcome everything that is EA in order to be a pretty darn good game.

The year was won by a stellar (if largely underrated) Nintendo Switch lineup, indie titles, solid franchise installments, and some surprise hits. That may sound good, but two players were largely missing from the gaming scene this year: Microsoft and Sony. In fact, we’d go so far as to say that this was the worst year for exclusive title on either console since the start of this gaming generation.

Why was that? Well, there is a variety of contributing factors, but you kind of have to blame the PlayStation 5 and Xbox’s Project Scarlett.

As you probably know, Microsoft and Sony are almost assuredly planning to release their respective next-gen consoles in 2020. Most likely, they’re going to release them fairly close to each other. That means that both companies are (understandably) focused on preparing for the next gaming generation and the pressures and logistics that come with that.

It also means a few other things that aren’t necessarily good for consumers. It means that both companies are less focused on consoles that are currently the gaming centerpieces of millions of homes. It means that what the few remaining big games that are set to appear on both consoles are pushed to 2020 in an effort to maximize “last-gen” sales in a next-gen year (a historically common practice).

Mostly, though, it means that developers everywhere (especially first-party developers) are now more focused on the next generation. That’s how we typically end up with years like 2019 that feature a lot of backwash and leftovers.

Just look at the Switch’s 2019. It wasn’t nearly as impactful as the console’s debut year, but it still offered Switch owners an array of worthwhile exclusives and notable ports. Nintendo and its partners aren’t worried about the next generation; they’re currently living in it.

This cycle of console replacement typically results in years such as 2019 (2012 was a great example of this effect), but that’s kind of the point here. Years like 2019 remind us that it’s time to start thinking beyond console generations.

With new technologies and concepts like subscription services and even cloud gaming on the rise, it’s becoming more and more apparent that the idea of releasing a superior piece of hardware every several years is just an archaic concept. Even phone manufacturers and television manufacturers are starting to suffer from this. Alternatives aren’t quite where they need to be, but they’re advancing towards a sustainable (and believable) future faster than traditional consoles are.

Truthfully, nobody can quite be sure what the future of gaming looks like, but 2019 makes it pretty clear that the future of gaming has no place for more years where major companies are spinning their wheels. It’s bad for gamers, and it’s bad for companies who have to sometimes eat a calendar year as they split their attention between two generations. At a time when Triple-A gaming is becoming more and more generic due to the increased risk of taking risks, it’s becoming more and more absurd to ask studios to have to split their attention to such insane degrees.

At the end of the day, 2019 will prove to be a largely forgettable year in gaming. However, nobody should forget why it was so forgettable.

Microsoft’s X019 conference was quite the show as they announced numerous new games and new additions to the Xbox and Game Pass. The massive announcement included games like Wasteland 3, Ori and the Will of the Wisp, Halo Reach, Witcher 3, Carrion, Rage 2, Flight Simulator, several Final Fantasy games, and even some of the recent Yakuza games. While there are some differences between the console version and the PC (Beta) version, both are set to provide access to many recent and future launch-day releases.

On top of that, they announced Black Friday discounts that include knocking $150 off the Xbox One X and $100 off the One S bundles. That brings the all-digital version of the console down to $150 – which is, of course, a prime candidate for this enticing Game Pass expansion. They’re even offering three months of the Ultimate service for $1. These deals are all on top of game discounts and other typical deals you’ll see for the ever-growing consumer holiday.

There isn’t much debating the value Microsoft is bringing to the table today. It’s undeniably a great way to expand your gaming catalog and try games that may have otherwise been out of your reach. The question people seem to be glossing over is, why is Microsoft working so hard to get you on this subscription service? The obvious answer for anyone aware of Sony’s success is that they want to pick up more of the market share that the PlayStation 4 has consumed selling more than 102 million units. However, there’s another longer-term goal being addressed with this move.

Console developers have been trying to get rid of physical media for a long time. The manufacturing and shipping cost savings alone would be notable, but a significant part has always been eliminating the reselling of media. Gamestop has thrived on this market for many years now and both console manufacturers and game publishers don’t see a penny of that trade-in cash. At one point, the idea of “online passes” was attempted with some major backlash, which ultimately ended the practice. These companies were not about to give up on the issue though.

With subscription services providing great value for access to new and old games, the digital media transition has finally started gaining ground. Consoles like the All-Digital Xbox One S are now not only viable but a solid choice given it’s $50 discount. The nature of subscriptions means that, even in countries where owning a game license is the equivalent of owning physical media, you won’t ever actually own these games. You will only have access via a subscription. Without ownership, you can’t trade-in or resell a game and people that want to own a copy will either have to buy one new or get their subscription.

Every new person that subscribes to Game Pass may cause Microsoft and game publishers to lose some revenue upfront, but they gain all of the potential customers that would buy used physical copies down the line. While this whole process may not sound horrible to you as a savvy consumer, it has other effects. For instance, GameStop, who is in an ongoing battle with a steady downfall in stock price since 2015, will take an even harder hit. Many may not miss GameStop much, but they do provide local jobs, which is something digital games can’t do. There’s also the potential for these services, once ubiquitous, to finally make the change to remove physical media without the protest that it once caused. The price is great right now (the cost of two AAA games a year), but without other options, price increases may be inevitable.

It’s hard to say, at this point, whether all of this may play out exactly as I’ve described here. It has been confirmed that Project Scarlett and the PlayStation 5 will have physical media, so that’s a good sign that at least the next generation will maintain the status quo. It just doesn’t seem remotely plausible to me that the motive for Microsoft and other companies pushing these services is just for the “good of consumers.” They exist as publicly traded companies to make money and will do what it takes to make that happen as effectively as possible. A future where they sell a piece of hardware and lease a subscription service is one where they control the entire financial stream.

Microsoft had a great E3 2019 showcase arguably highlighted by an extended look at Halo Infinite. During a year where “next-gen” was the elephant in the room that seemingly prevented more substantial reveals from taking place, Microsoft confirmed that Halo: Infinite is the next-gen Xbox Scarlett’s first launch game.

It was an incredible reveal and a shocking announcement. However, in the wake of the announcement, we can’t help but wonder if the Halo franchise is still the system seller that Microsoft is hoping it is.

It’s a question that demands you first look at the numbers. Halo: Combat Evolved is considered to be one of the best “system sellers” of all-time. At a time when nobody knew what the future of the Xbox was, Halo proved to such a can’t miss experience that it convinced many to buy an Xbox just to play it. It’s believed to have sold around 6 million copies.

From there, the series’ sales only increased. The much-hyped Halo 2 for Xbox is believed to have sold over 8 million copies, while Halo 3 for Xbox 360 sold somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 million copies. Subsequent Halo 3 spin-offs Halo: ODST and Halo: Reach performed similarly impressive by selling roughly 6.5 and almost 10 million units, respectively.

The only name that matters more in those figures than “Halo” is “Bungie.” Halo creator Bungie’s last Halo title was Halo: Reach. Subsequent games in the series were developed by 343 Industries. To be fair. the transition started off fairly well. The 343-developed Halo 4 almost broke the 10 million sales mark

From there, the first signs of trouble emerged. The Halo: Master Chief Collection (a collection of nearly all Halo titles released to that point) was poised to be one of the Xbox One’s most promising titles in 2014, but it’s believed to have sold less than 4 million units. Some of its comparatively poor sales are attributed to the many technical issues that hindered the game’s online mode.

343’s second standalone Halo title, Halo 5, also arguably underperformed as it sold somewhere over 5 million copies. While not a bad number by any means, it was a far cry from the success of Halo 3 and 4.

You can certainly blame some of the game’s sales shortcomings on the struggles of the Xbox One. After all, the Xbox One was originally going to support some controversial features that hurt the console’s reputation even after they were repealed.

That’s kind of the point we’re getting at, though. The original Halo was such a phenomenon that it helped put the Xbox on the map despite strong competition in the form of the Nintendo GameCube and PlayStation 2. Halo 3 showed the real power of the franchise when you combine Halo, developer Bungie, and a generally well-received console.

Halo 5 and the Master Chief Collection sold about as well as you’d expect relatively good games with a popular name on a relatively low-selling console to perform. They didn’t necessarily elevate the Xbox One beyond its general level of popularity, and Halo 5 was generally well-received but didn’t inspire the kind of enthusiasm associated with other games in the series.

The impression you start to get is that Halo, in and of itself, may be a few years removed from its system-seller status. What does that mean for Halo: Infinite and Xbox Scarlett? Well, it means that the success of either may be tied closer to the quality of both. Microsoft is going to need some kind of hook to attract potential Xbox fans who walked away from the Xbox One. That hook could, theoretically, come in the form of Halo: Infinite, but 343 is going to have to find a way to sell Infinite as perhaps not a return to Halo’s glory days, but a step forward for the franchise that reminds former Halo fans what excited them about the series in the first place.

It’s a daunting challenge that can’t be completed unless Microsoft and 343 recognize that Halo may not be a system seller at this moment but it could be once more.

Microsoft has officially entered the next-gen race with the reveal of Project Scarlett; the name being used to describe their next flagship Xbox.

A lot of people are talking about Xbox Scarlett after E3 2019, but there’s so much talk going around that some of the facts are getting mixed-up with the speculation. That being the case, here are 10 facts that you need to know about Xbox Scarlett as we head into the next generation.

It Will Feature an SSD For Faster Loading Times

Microsoft confirmed that the Xbox Scarlett will have an SSD during their E3 2019 presentation, but they basically confirmed it before that. The kind of quick load times that Sony and Microsoft are talking about isn’t possible without an SSD. Rumors suggest that Scarlett could feature up to a 1TB SSD, but we’re guessing a model with a smaller SSD will be made available.

Scarlett Will Boast a Powerful Modern Processor and GPU

Microsoft hasn’t named the processor and GPU that will be featured in Scarlett, but they did name drop the AMD Zen 2 and Navi. Those are the names of AMD’s most recent line of processors and GPUs. Inevitably, they’ll become outdated, but both are powerful enough to ensure that the Scarlett will pack a lot of power under the hood.

It’s Set To Release in Late 2020

Some thought that Microsoft might pull a Nintendo and release their next-gen console early in 2020. Those rumors were put to rest when Microsoft confirmed a winter 2020 release window for the Xbox Scarlett. Most likely, this will mean that they are going to go head-to-head with Sony and the PS5. That should be interesting.

Halo Infinite Will be a Launch Game

To the surprise of few, Microsoft has decided to launch the Xbox Scarlett with a Halo game. Halo Infinite is a God of War-like continuation/spiritual successor to previous Halo games. It seems that Microsoft hopes that will make it a great jumping off point for new and returning fans.

It Will Have a Disc Drive

Gaming will probably move beyond discs at some point in the near future, but the Xbox Scarlett won’t be part of that future. Microsoft has confirmed that Xbox Scarlett will have a disc drive. However, that may not be the full story on Microsoft and nex-gen discs…

It’s Only Part of Xbox’s Next-Gen Plans

Microsoft has commented that the Scarlett is only a part of their next-gen plans. While there’s some speculation as to what that means, some believe that Microsoft is preparing to release an alternative, budget-friendly next-gen device that will emphasize streaming and digital downloads. At the very least, it means Microsoft will push xCloud in the next-gen.

It Will be Backward Compatible With Every Xbox Console

We’re waiting on the full details, but Microsoft has confirmed that Scarlett will be backward compatible with previous Xbox consoles. It’s not clear if that means it will play classic discs or if that will be limited to Game Pass titles, but we suspect it’s a combination of both.

It Will Support Xbox One Accessories

In a piece of truly welcome news, Xbox Scarlett won’t require you to buy new accessories. Instead, it will support current Xbox One accessories, including controllers. However, we suspect that probably won’t include full Kinect support.

Game Pass and xCloud Will Be Supported

Microsoft is hinting that the future of the Xbox brand will likely be more about its digital services than any physical console. So far as that goes, expect Scarlett to push a Game Pass subscription as well as Microsoft’s upcoming xCloud streaming service. Microsoft has even hinted that the two could be bundled together.

It Won’t Be Called Xbox Scarlett

This is probably the only stretch on this list as Microsoft hasn’t confirmed it, but we’re 99% certain that the next Xbox won’t be called Scarlett. That’s the project name that the company is using, and it’s been floating around for a long time. Project names are almost never the names of the actual console.

The official pricing has been published on Microsoft’s website and is half the price of Game Pass for Xbox consoles ($9.99 per mo.). We expect the beta launch to happen later today.

Game Pass provides unlimited access to a library of games which during the beta period for PC will consist of titles like Forza Horizon 4, Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice, and Sea of Thieves (although, 100 titles have been promised).

Microsoft boasted at least 75 content partners including Bethesda, Deep Silver, Devolver, Paradox, Sega, and Xbox Game Studios would be providing titles for Xbox Game Pass PC.

E3 2019 officially starts on June 11, but press conferences begin today, June 9 at 4 p.m. Eastern (1 p.m. Pacific) from the Los Angeles Convention Center.

Game Pass PC Beta Titles

ARK: Survival Evolved
Forza Horizon 4
Gears 5 (Coming Soon)
Halo: The Master Chief Collection
Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice
Hello Neighbor
Ori and the Will of the Wisps
Sea of Thieves
State of Decay 2
We Happy Few

Following today’s presentation, we know much more about Google Stadia than we did before.

For instance, we know that the service will cost $9.99 a month, which grants you access to a free collection of games as well as the ability to buy standalone titles at a reduced rate. That effectively means that you’d have to be a Google Stadia subscriber for about three years before you pay as much as you will likely pay for a next-gen console. That’s a good thing.

We also learned that Google Stadia will at least be playable at internet speeds as low as 10 MBPS. There’s some debate concerning just how reliable the service will be at that speed, but that’s still a good thing.

However, Google Stadia can be a reliable, affordable, and relatively burden-free service, and it might not matter if Google isn’t able to secure the right exclusives.

Google revealed a lot about Stadia during their recent presentation, but the word “exclusives” was surprisingly absent from the conversation. That may not sound like too big of a deal, but it potentially is.

Let’s put it another way. Right now, it makes more financial sense for a person who mostly only plays third-party Triple-A games to go with Google Stadia. As long as their internet is fast enough, they’ll be able to arguably outperform next-gen consoles and not pay next-gen console prices for at least a few years. They even get a free library of games as a nice bonus.

You can certainly argue that the large number of gamers who only purchase games like Madden, FIFA, and Call of Duty each year would be better off with Stadia, but we’re not sure it’s that simple. For one thing, Google Stadia doesn’t currently support crossplay with PS4 (and likely PS5). If that feature doesn’t get worked out, then the gamers who support Sony consoles might stick with them to play games with PlayStation friends.

It goes beyond that, though. The Xbox One was a fantastic platform for third-party games (and the Xbox One enjoyed many price drops), but it failed largely due to its lack of exclusives. You can play FIFA and Call of Duty on just about any platform, but it turns out that quite a few gamers at least want the option to play God of War, Spider-Man, and Uncharted as well.

This puts Google and Stadia in a bit of an awkward position. Right now, Stadia’s best feature is its power and affordability. We’ve talked before about how power doesn’t really matter all that much, and affordability is only really important if you’re giving people a discount on what they perceive to be a premium product. Well, exclusive games tend to make any game platform a premium product.

We have no doubt that streaming services like Stadia are the future of gaming, but Stadia won’t let you play Halo Infinite, Gears of War, The Last of Us, and Death Stranding. That would be the Xbox and PlayStation. Without such notable exclusives, will Google be able to stay in the game long enough before Xbox and PlayStation introduce (and expand) their own streaming services?

The obvious reason, and the one the proprietors of these services will gladly divulge, is that they actually drive people to buy the games they try. Some players use it as a cheaper “test drive” option so they can see if a game is worth the full price. Spending $5 or $15 to try a few games and determine if they’re worth the standard $60 price tag is a respectable way to go about being a consumer. Another reason for their growing popularity is that they allow multiplayer games to build and maintain a higher population. If a game is added to the service or available from launch, many more people are going to check it out. This is one of the reasons Sea of Thieves was able to stay relevant as improvements were made to its limited gameplay. Both of these are valid and certainly justify the existence of the programs to a degree, but I think there’s another goal in mind – and one which will ensure this isn’t the last game subscription service we see.

Anthem is a game as a service. The Division 2 and Sea of Thieves are as well. This means, briefly, that they are games players usually purchase in whole, but are rendered as a service to them. You can’t play them without EA or Microsoft’s servers, and there’s no way to run the servers yourself. These games strongly lean toward the idea of playing with other people online, but all of them feature gameplay that should be (and is) accessible by the solo player. However, without an internet connection, you can’t play at all. While the legality of this has come into question in many countries around the world, these publishers have a stake in building more of games of this type.

Games as a service allow companies to create games that entice you to keep playing over time. They regularly try to get you interacting with other players and spending as much time as possible in the game working toward long-term goals. Games as a service want you to build a connection so that, as new content is released for the service, you’re going to be more willing to spend money to access it faster, play it the way you want, or just look better doing it. It allows publishers to continue monetizing content with much smaller development teams and thus make them more profit. When the profit margin is too slim, they can shut down the game, move the developers on, and find a more profitable game to render as a service.

That’s where subscription services come in. When a game as a service is available in a subscription model, people will be more likely to try it – bolstering its online presence and allowing players to make more of a connection with the game and other players. Subscribers are also more likely to come back in and try new content giving the game more opportunities for a resurgence. It’s also easier to justify spending money on microtransactions when your price of admission is much lower than outright purchasing the game. Then, if a game does not “meet expectations” and is shut down, never to be played again, fewer people will be upset as they never purchased the game outright, but still had access to all of the features.

Don’t be surprised if, in the coming years, Microsoft and EA are joined by other major publishers and companies in subscription services. Google is expected to have a subscription service that goes along with their Stadia launch. These are going to be the routes through which games as a service are delivered – and they will be delivered. All the while, the least popular of these titles will get flushed down the drain with minimal protest from the public, lost forever because they couldn’t meet profit demands.

Microsoft announced today the launch of XBox Game Pass for PC and from what we can tell will be very similar to the existing Xbox Game Pass but more geared more towards the Windows PC gaming community.

“We designed a service specifically for the needs of PC gamers and PC game developers,” said Head of Xbox Phil Spencer.

“We researched whether a similar opportunity exists for PC players and PC game developers, and we believe that it does. We also considered the importance of bringing something new and additive to the PC gaming ecosystem, and we believe that we can.”

The games will come from over 75 content partners including big names like Bethesda, Deep Silver, Devolver, Paradox, Sega, and of course Xbox Game Studios.

Just like the existing Xbox Game Pass, there will be over 100 titles to play for an unlimited amount of time. And as new Xbox games are released, Game Pass for PCs will provide access to them day-and-date with launching.

As of now, Xbox Game Pass subscribers can play games on Windows PCs if a version is available, but there are very few titles available compared to console titles.

“We look forward to sharing more at E3, including the great games coming to the library, as well as more details on when and how you’ll experience the new Xbox Game Pass service for PC gamers.”

Microsoft didn’t say how much the monthly service would cost for PC gamers and developers, or when it would launch, but we imagine it will be $9.99 per month just like the existing Game Pass subscription for Xbox consoles (although maybe another incentive will be thrown in). [Update: Game Pass PC will cost $4.99 per month.]

Included with Xbox Game Pass for PC is a 20% discount on games purchased from the Microsoft Store (as well as 10% off DLC).

Microsoft will reveal more about Xbox Game Pass for PC at their E3 briefing on June 9th, and we wouldn’t be surprised if the new service was launched later that day.

Source: Xbox.com

The gaming world was rocked recently by the news that developer Bungie is splitting from publisher Activision and taking the Destiny franchise with them.

This has led to many questions. What happens to Destiny now that Bungie has complete control over it? What does this mean for the future of Bungie? What does this say about Activision’s questionable business practices? What will happen to Destiny 2 on PC which relies on Activision’s Battle.net launcher?

We’d like to add another question to that pile:  Should Bungie go back to Microsoft?

As some of you may remember, Microsoft acquired Bungie in 2000 largely so that Halo could be an Xbox exclusive. As some of you may also remember, that plan worked out for Microsoft quite well. Halo was an Xbox exclusive and arguably one of the best system sellers ever.

After that, the Microsoft/Bungie relationship started to slowly sour. While Halo 2 and 3 (and spin-offs ODST and Reach) were huge hits for both parties, the problem was that Microsoft supposedly wanted Bungie to make Halo games until further notice. They also reportedly demanded quite a bit of control over how Bungie operated. These conditions eventually led to Bungie leaving for Activision and developing the Destiny franchise.

Now, we know what you’re thinking. Why would Bungie ever leave one demanding publisher for another? Well, the situation isn’t quite that simple.

Bungie and Microsoft are both at different points than they were when the initial split happened. At that time, Microsoft was flying high with the success of the Xbox 360 and saw Halo as an important piece of the Xbox name. We won’t justify how they treated Bungie, but they had their reasons.

Bungie, meanwhile, was a relatively young and proud studio who wanted to spread their wings and see what else was out there. While they got to make their next dream project (Destiny), they also found out that there’s a price that comes with partnering with a major publisher like Activision. Namely, you become part of a very elaborate money machine.

Now, Bungie may wish to stay independent, but can they really keep Destiny running on their own? Given that they’ve indicated they’d like to release less (but more elaborate) content for the game now that Activision doesn’t have them on a schedule, we tend to think they’re going to struggle to keep such a massive “service’ game going.

This is why Microsoft is such an interesting partner. Microsoft has indicated they’re more interested in getting everyone to play their games rather than getting everyone to buy an Xbox. They’re a major possible partner who would probably have no problem letting Destiny live on multiple platforms. They’re probably especially excited about adding the PC version of the game to the Microsoft store.

Outside of that, you have to believe that Microsoft is probably still so eager to add one more big name to their developer war chest that they’d be willing to let Bungie have the kind of freedom they might not have otherwise enjoyed. We don’t know if they’d pressure them to return to Halo, but even the possibility and association would generate quite a bit of buzz for Microsoft as they head into the next generation of console gaming.

It’s an exciting possibility, but we tend to think that the bad blood between the two parties will ultimately keep it from happening. Regardless, we don’t think it’s nearly as bad as a move as it might seem on paper.