It is time to call it a day on the Xbox Series X/S generation. What started off as a promising campaign backed by Microsoft’s (at the time) newly acquired studios has dwindled into a mess of studio closures, game cancellations and perhaps most depressingly, price hikes.

Microsoft has just raised the price of the Xbox Series X console five years after its debut and to top it off, they are now also charging 50% more per month for a Game Pass Ultimate subscription. The more I think about it, the less it appears that Microsoft had any concrete plans for its studios.

The Initiative was set up with world class talent, only for Microsoft to push them back out the door and hand the keys to Perfect Dark over to Crystal Dynamics. One year after properly revealing that game to the world, it was cancelled and The Initiative was shut down.

Turn 10 Studios, once hailed as a premier studio known for getting the absolute most out of Xbox hardware, has been gutted and relegated to support studio status. Zenimax Online Studios – also gutted, despite reports of a highly promising new MMO project. Tango Gameworks, Microsoft’s lone foothold in the Japanese game development market, was sold off after shipping one of the best surprise games of 2024 in Hi-FI Rush.

Arkane Austin, the studio best known for its work on immersive sims like Prey, was shut down after being saddled with Redfall, a game that nobody wanted to buy and more importantly, nobody at the studio wanted to make.

Rare Studios has undergone major cuts after failing to ship a game since Sea of Thieves. Creative Affinity’s Halo spin-off game was cancelled. Contraband, a game prominently announced in 2021, had its funding pulled this year, leaving the studio behind it to scramble for a new publisher.

At the rate things are going over at Xbox, I’ll consider it a miracle if the Fable reboot actually makes it out of the door.

On the back of all these cuts, cancellations and closures, Microsoft now wants to charge more money for Game Pass. They claim they’ve shipped more day-one games on the service than ever before, but how many of those games were actually impactful? If Call of Duty couldn’t make a meaningful dent, what makes them think that a dozen extra indie games and a few first-party AAA titles will?

Game Pass has secured some decent third-party deals in the past, but they are few and far between. The only ones I ended up booting up my Xbox app for in recent years were A Plague Tale: Requiem, Stalker 2, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, Atomic Hearts and Rematch. Out of that bunch, there are only two that I would actually buy. Outside of that, I primarily used my subscription to play a maximum of four day-one Xbox titles a year.

Microsoft justified the recent Xbox Game Pass Ultimate price increase with the promise of 75 day-one games next year. Fable will be one, Gears E-Day will be another, COD 2026 will also make it over. Who knows what the other 70+ titles will be, but history has so far conditioned me to expect maybe one or two standouts for the year, while the rest will be thoroughly uninteresting.

Additions like Ubisoft Classics and Fortnite Crew do absolutely nothing to move the needle. Most have already had their fill of Assassin’s Creed and if they haven’t, then the older games in the series can be purchased all together for around the same price as one month of Game Pass Ultimate. If you love Fortnite enough to subscribe to it, then chances are, you aren’t playing much on Game Pass anyway, so I ask – who are these additions for?

These additions to the package can’t be bringing much value to the average subscriber outside of fringe cases. Xbox could turn to its improved cloud gaming offering and call that value, but how big is the cloud gaming market really? In court as part of its argument for why the Activision Blizzard acquisition should be approved, Microsoft admitted that cloud gaming barely has a market right now. As a result, Activision games are available under a free license to all cloud gaming services.

With Game Pass Ultimate rising to around £240 per year, it is now more affordable for me to just buy the 3-4 Xbox games I want on Steam than to carry on with my subscription. Sure, the ‘value' has been ‘boosted' in other areas, but are they areas anyone really cares about? Is a Fortnite battle pass and expanded access to old Ubisoft titles something that meaningfully changes the value proposition of Game Pass Ultimate to the tune of 50% more money per month? To me, the answer is no.

It just really feels like they jumped the gun, expecting the illusion of good value to hold up, without doing enough to earn that reputation.

There is one lone subscription offering here that might still be worth it. PC Game Pass still exists and still includes all of the same benefits it had prior to the recent restructuring, at around £10 less per month than Game Pass Ultimate. But how long will it be before Microsoft decides to move the goalposts there too? My guess would be not too long.

Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.

KitGuru Says: Are you sticking with Game Pass after the recent price hike? 

The post KitGuru Games: After 7 years, I’m cancelling Xbox Game Pass first appeared on KitGuru.

Machine Games managed to make it through the recent cuts at Xbox unscathed. Now, the studio is teasing something new for the future, with a new mystery game now in development. 

Machine Games is traditionally known for its modern Wolfenstein titles, but last year, they added a new IP to their roster with the release of Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, an expertly made action-adventure game, telling a new, original story set between two of the early franchise films. Now, Machine Games has confirmed that its next game is underway:

The teaser image leaves a question mark behind Indiana Jones and the Great Circle. Considering the success of the first game, there is a good chance we get a sequel. However, many fans are clamouring for more Wolfenstein, as it has been eight years since the release of Wolfenstein 2: The New Colossus.

Recently in an officially sanctioned documentary, Machine Games did confirm that it had plans for a Wolfenstein 3, but the game has not yet been announced. Considering the timing of these two teasers, my bet would be that Wolfenstein is finally returning after a long break.

Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.

KitGuru Says: Would you like to see Wolfenstein 3 or a new Indiana Jones game as the next title from Machine Games? 

The post Machine Games confirms new game in development first appeared on KitGuru.

We saw the Steam player numbers skyrocketing in Battlefield 6 during the game's open beta. Now with the full release upon us, it appears to be the most successful Battlefield launch on PC to date, even beating out the lifetime peak player count for Call of Duty on the platform. 

Looking at SteamDB, over the launch weekend, Battlefield 6 peaked at over 700,000 concurrent players. This is significantly higher than Call of Duty on Steam, which currently has an all-time peak concurrent player count of almost 500,000 players.

This isn't a perfect comparison, as both Battlefield 6 and Call of Duty will have many more players on other platforms, including the likes of the EA App and Xbox Game Pass, neither of which have publicly-available player tracking data. Still, it is a good sign that EA has nailed the launch for this year's Battlefield, which I found to be a strong return to form compared to Battlefield 2042. It is also the most technically polished Battlefield game I've played at launch in more than a decade.

It will be interesting to revisit the Steam numbers when Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 drops in November.

Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.

KitGuru Says: Are you planning on sinking more time into Battlefield or Call of Duty over the next few months? 

The post Battlefield 6 garners 700,000 concurrent players on Steam alone first appeared on KitGuru.

The Battlefield 6 beta was met with a wave of optimism over the Summer, and now, launch day is finally upon us. I've been playing the game in early access over the past week, giving me ample opportunity to see the campaign and dive into multiplayer modes. I'm pleased to report that Battlefield 6 is a strong return to form, doing away with all the controversial changes found in Battlefield 2042 and delivering the quintessential Battlefield experience. On top of that, we have some PC benchmark numbers, so you can get an idea of how well the game runs with DLSS on/off and with Frame Generation enabled and disabled. 

Campaign:

The Battlefield 6 campaign is a grand return to form. Gone are the tacked-on ‘anthology' missions. Here we are presented with a full 9-mission long campaign, following a squad of marines as they attempt to precisely dismantle the Pax Armata private military force before the world crumbles into chaos. You aren't a super soldier either, a few bullets can knock you down, so you will have to use all of the tools at your disposal even in the single-player mode. Thankfully, as the leader of your squad, you can give out commands to your AI teammates to smoke or grenade targets, blow up tanks or helicopters and scout the area ahead for a quick reveal of enemy locations. If you ever get knocked down, your squadmate will pick you up but there are a limited number of defibrillator charges, so you'll need to use cover and think tactically – especially on higher difficulty levels.

The campaign takes place in settings all across the world. If I had to pick a favourite mission though, it would be No Sleep, set in the dense streets of Brooklyn and capping off with a high-speed chase with a train. The campaign slows down a tad in mission 7, Nile Guard, in which you spend around half of your time in a slow-moving tank shooting at other slow-moving tanks set against the backdrop of the Egyptian pyramids. It is not a bad mission, but it was easily my least favourite. Fortunately, the pace gets picked right back up for the final two missions, Operation Ember Strike and Always Forward, which combined, offer an excellent send-off to the campaign with a mix of wide-open spaces for sniper shootouts, tense close-quarter battles, vehicle combat and lots of explosions.

For me, the Battlefield 6 campaign ranks highly amongst some of my favourite ‘military shooter' campaigns. It is easily the best one I've played since Modern Warfare (2019). In terms of where it ranks amongst Battlefield campaigns, it is in my top 3, falling just short of Bad Company 1 & 2 but ranking above Battlefield 3 & 4. I would certainly like to see some of these characters again in a future Battlefield campaign.

The campaign is just one component of the overall Battlefield 6 package, however, so now, let's dive into what's going on with the multiplayer.

Multiplayer:

The Battlefield 6 campaign was a huge return to form, and I am pleased to report that the same can be said for multiplayer. The original class roles, Assault, Support, Engineer and Recon are all back in their rightful place, doing away with the controversial ‘specialist' classes found in Battlefield 2042. This simple change cannot be praised enough. It takes us away from the ‘codification' of shooters and puts us firmly back in Battlefield territory. The rest of the game's design also screams Battlefield and is a true celebration of the series' strengths.

Destructible environments have been dialled up to 11. While Battlefield 4 featured one massive destructible set piece in certain maps, in Battlefield 6, the majority of buildings and walls can be blown to pieces. Having trouble with a squad hunkered down in a house? Get a tank over there and blow it up. Need to force a sniper out of position? Shoot a rocket or two at the tower they are perched in, or the wall they are hiding behind. A lot of problems can be solved with enough firepower, which in turn encourages squads to move around in groups and to avoid going solo in large-scale modes.

The wide range of destructible buildings also means that the map can meaningfully change over the course of a large-scale game mode like Conquest. Positions that were once well fortified are now a pile of rubble, forcing the action to move elsewhere. If you get caught out in the open, movement tools like the combat roll can help you quickly escape from high points of the map and avoid some incoming fire. If that fails, you can always go prone and hide amongst the rubble. As the Time to Kill here is relatively short (but not COD levels of short), the game encourages players to really use cover and hold advantageous positions.

I think it goes without saying that my absolute favourite multiplayer modes in Battlefield are the large-scale ones. Conquest is an iconic game mode that gives players full access to vehicles, a large map and all of the chaos Battlefield is known for. I don't enjoy close-quarter combat modes quite as much, but they have their place, especially for those who would rather rack up killstreaks than play to the objective.

Breakthrough is another great mode, in which one team is attacking, and the other is defending a position. The goal is simple, defenders must hunker down and avoid giving up valuable map space, while the attackers are attempting to push the line back to obtain the objective. This creates a tense battleground from the moment the match starts, whereas Conquest takes a little while to get going, as each side captures points closer to their spawn before meeting.

Escalation is an all-new mode for Battlefield 6 and is sort of like playing Conquest with ‘Shuffle' activated. Players on each side must capture territory across the map and as the game progresses, fewer territory options become available, forcing the action to move unpredictably across the map as the game progresses. It is a fun mode, but not fun enough to take me away from the ‘legacy' modes like Conquest or Rush.

I enjoy all of these modes but my absolute favourite is Conquest. To me, Conquest captures everything great about Battlefield versus its competitors. Conquest is especially fun if you have a communicative squad who know how to play their roles effectively.

The objective-based gameplay of the large-scale modes are Battlefield's biggest strength, but they can also be an Achilles heel. If you end up in a game with a bunch of people refusing to play their roles, with medics not reviving, engineers not repairing tanks, or downed teammates opting to lose a life and respawn rather than wait for a revive etc, then it can quickly become a frustrating experience. Fortunately, in situations like that, the game is likely to be over pretty quickly and you'll be back in a fresh match before you know it. If you are one of those people who prefers to run and gun without any teammates weighing you down, then the close quarter combat modes should be your point of call.

The only mode I have yet to spend much time with is Portal. This is the home for custom game modes in Battlefield, giving players the tools to design their own modes and make changes to the maps. Think of it like the Battlefield equivalent of Halo Forge. Assuming the Portal gets enough community backing, it could be worth the price of admission alone, but we won't know how much value it really brings to the table until players have had some time with it.

As an added bonus, I can confirm that you earn EXP regardless of whether you are playing an official mode or a custom game. You won't be limited to official matchmaking playlists for progression.

PC Performance & Benchmarks:

Now let's get down to some nitty gritty technical details. Battlefield 6 is perhaps the most polished Battlefield game I've ever played at launch. While many of the past entries have had me crashing or encountering weird bugs, Battlefield 6 has been fully technically competent right out of the gate. Your mileage may vary as every PC is different but for me, the experience has been very solid all around during the pre-release period across both multiplayer and singleplayer.

Here are some screenshots comparing the DLSS Quality, Balanced, Performance, Ultra Performance and OFF modes, all using the Ultra preset:

And in this gallery, you can see comparisons between the Overkill, Ultra, High, Medium and Low graphics presets with DLSS OFF:

The key when looking at these screenshots is to look at details in the distance. The lower presets reduce details at a medium to long distance. At close range, all of the presets get pretty close to each other, with the exception of the low preset, where close-up details and shadows see a more significant reduction.

When it comes to the Overkill graphics preset, I would recommend ignoring it. On my system with a Ryzen 5900X, 32GB of RAM and an RTX 4080 graphics card, all it seemed to do was make 1% lows and latency worse, while keeping the average frame rate the same as Ultra, all with imperceivable visual gains. High appears to be the most optimised preset, offering the best balance between visual effects, performance and latency. It is a perceivable upgrade from medium, without the added performance penalties of the Ultra and Overkill presets.

For benchmarks, I have run a sequence on the Siege of Cairo conquest map across the Ultra, High, Medium and Low graphics presets, measuring with Nvidia FrameView. Latency numbers are also included but Nvidia Reflex is on in all cases. Conquest maps are the largest that Battlefield has to offer, with the highest player count and all in-game vehicles, making this an ideal use-case scenario. To make the sequence easily repeatable, I am running a self-hosted private game with a bot-populated server.

RTX 4080 (QHD, no DLSS):

Graphics Preset	Ultra	High	Medium	Low
Average FPS	99	107	113	120
1% Low	68	70	82	84
Average System Latency (ms)	33	32	30	26

RTX 4080 (QHD, DLSS Quality with Frame Generation 2x):

Graphics Preset	Ultra	High	Medium	Low
Average FPS	189	193	210	220
1% Low	104	109	114	119
Average System Latency (ms)	45	40	40	39

Frame Generation adds an amount of latency, there is no doubt. However, with Reflex on, the penalty is kept to a minimum, with just an 8ms penalty on the high preset. Considering the frame rate jumps from 107FPS to 193FPS, that trade-off seems alright to me. Interestingly, I found that the latency doesn't scale down as linearly between the graphics presets with Frame Generation on compared to off.

Some people have very strong opinions when it comes to AI-inserted frames but in my experience, Frame Generation at 2x adds all the extra fluidity I expect from a game running at higher frame rates, with minimal impact to the controls.

I don't necessarily care if some frames are ‘fake'. I do care about my game feeling smooth to play. For me, Frame Generation ticks that box. It feels like a game running at 200FPS versus 100FPS and when it comes to control latency, I don't notice the difference. Sure, a difference does exist, the latency numbers above prove that, but can I actually feel that difference in-game? Nope.

As for the visual impact, the AI-generated frames come and go so fast that it is impossible to notice. Even with the unpredictable nature of a multiplayer game, Frame Generation keeps up without presenting any visual hiccups.

If you are trying to climb leaderboards and give yourself the best possible advantage, then playing at low settings without Frame Generation would be the way to go, because at the highest level of competition, every millisecond will count. However, for the average player, there has been nothing in my experience to suggest that Frame Generation is a negative. I have not once run into a situation where I died or missed a shot and thought that Frame Generation or system latency was to blame. That's not just the case in Battlefield either, I could say the same for every Frame Gen-enabled game that I have tried, both single-player and multiplayer.

On an RTX 5080 with Multi Frame Generation 4x, the AI can send frame rates skyrocketing above 400FPS at points, although it mostly hovers around the 350FPS range. This is great for maximising my monitor's refresh rate and the MFG implementation does feel better here than it has in previous games like Indiana Jones and the Great Circle. However, there is something about the mouse movement that feels slightly off, which is a deal breaker for me in a multiplayer game. For me, 2x Frame Generation appears to be the sweet spot, providing a nice boost to performance without detracting from the overall feel of the game.

Conclusion:

Overall, Battlefield 6 offers a great all-around package. The single-player campaign is well worth playing. To me, each mission had something memorable about it. The first 5 missions and the final mission in particular are all missions I am looking forward to playing again in my hunt for achievements and collectables.

The multiplayer moves back towards Battlefield's strengths with the classic class system and focus on large-scale warfare modes like Conquest and Escalation, with added classic modes like Team Deathmatch and King of the Hill for those who prefer a faster-paced, small-scale game mode. Before the end of the month, Battlefield 6 will also debut its own Battle Royale mode, and Portal has a lot of potential to grow and keep the game alive well into the future.

If I only had £60 to spend on a shooter for this busy October-November period, my money would be going to Battlefield 6 over this year's Call of Duty.

Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.

KitGuru Says: Are you planning on picking up Battlefield 6 this weekend? 

The post KitGuru Games: Battlefield 6 is a strong return to form + PC benchmarks first appeared on KitGuru.

It is no secret that AMD works closely with both Sony and Microsoft on future technologies for consoles. AMD and Sony recently revealed some of the big next generation features they are working on, some of which may end up debuting in the PlayStation 6.

AMD and Sony shared a video offering an early look at new technologies in development to advance gaming performance, immersion, and efficiency:

It is a short eight-minute video, so we don't get a full technical deep dive. However, there are three key points to make note of:

• Neural Arrays: A collection of compute units configured to process data together like a single AI engine.
• Radiance Cores: New dedicated ray traversal hardware to deliver high performance real-time ray tracing and path tracing.
• Universal Compression: A new system that evaluates and compresses all available data within the GPU to dramatically reduce memory bandwidth usage.

This technical preview highlights AMD and Sony’s ongoing collaboration to enhance the next generation of gaming hardware and experiences. While these technologies currently only exist as simulations, they are expected to appear in future consoles. Currently, new consoles from both Sony and Microsoft are rumoured to be announced in 2027, and both companies have already confirmed that AMD chips will continue to be used.

Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.

KitGuru Says: It is still early days for next-generation console platforms, but work is well under way behind the scenes. Based on this video, it looks like Sony may be a bit further ahead than anticipated. 

The post AMD and Sony preview next-gen game console technologies first appeared on KitGuru.

Last year, Blizzard attempted to fix some lingering issues with Diablo 4 with the ‘loot reborn' season, adding in new crafting systems to aid players in min-maxing their builds. Now with the game's next expansion on the horizon, it looks like Diablo players are in for another loot overhaul. 

As reported by PCGamer, Blizzard is now addressing the ‘RNG' nature of tempering and masterworking. These systems are intended to allow players to customise the stats on their gear in order to craft a piece that takes full advantage of your build. However, in its current form, it is all based on luck, so you will ultimately end up bricking decent items in search of a god roll stat.

With the next overhaul to these systems, Blizzard will aim to reduce randomness and give players more agency over the affixes and upgrades applied to items, which should result in less frustrating instances of ‘bricking' an item.

More details on this will be shared in the coming weeks, as Blizzard prepares to introduce these changes to the Diablo 4 Public Test Realm server.

KitGuru Says: Are you still playing Diablo 4 in 2025? Or have you moved on to another ARPG? 

The post Blizzard to overhaul Diablo 4 loot and crafting systems again first appeared on KitGuru.

After multiple rounds of layoffs, Bungie had to make some major changes to how it handles expansion and seasonal content in Destiny 2. Moving forward, we get two ‘mid-size' expansions per year, with two ‘seasons' in-between. Looking at the game's Steam numbers, it is becoming increasingly clear that this new content roadmap is simply not working. 

This week, Destiny 2 hit its lowest daily concurrent player count since the game first released on Steam, with just over 16,000 players logging in worldwide. This is a rather large drop-off from the peak concurrent player count of over 108,000 players when the latest expansion, The Edge of Fate, launched in June.

Compared to the release of The Final Shape, the concurrent player count is down by over 60%. The Final Shape brought in over 300,000 concurrent players on Steam at launch. The Final Shape was the grand finale to Destiny's 10-year story arc, so a lot of players jumped back in to see it through to the end. A third of those players stuck around for The Edge of Fate, but now, they are quickly leaving in droves too.

Bungie is beginning to counter this player drop-off with the confirmation that there will no longer be a ‘power reset' when the Renegades expansion launches in December. However, more will need to be done and even if the issue of ‘grind' is resolved, Bungie will still be lacking seasonal story content, leaving the world of Destiny frozen in time between the expansions.

KitGuru Says: Destiny 2 has clearly hit a wall. New player onboarding is still atrocious, gearing up for and accessing high-level content like Raids is still a mess and even the game's most dedicated content creators are starting to quit. At this time, it seems like the wisest move would be to give Destiny a break, before returning with Destiny 3, a new game that cuts off all the tech debt from the previous entries and starts things fresh. 

The post Destiny hits lowest Steam player count since launch first appeared on KitGuru.

It has been months since Bungie last publicly addressed Marathon. The game had to be delayed and reworked due to stolen art found within a playtest version of the game earlier this year. Now, Bungie is finally ready to start talking about all of the changes made, and a new leak confirms a few key details, such as price point. 

Marathon will return later this month with another closed alpha playtest. This new playtest will include reworked art and assets, as well as a number of new features, including proximity chat, a highly requested feature amongst early players. The playtest will take place on October 22nd, lasting until October 28th, so if you want to take part, you'll need to sign up for an invite through bungie.net.

Aside from the new playtest, The Game Post has leaked a number of key details about Marathon. While we do not have a release date for the game yet, their sources confirm that it will release as a $40 title. This was the expected price point based on previous statements from Bungie, in which the company confirmed that Marathon would be a ‘premium' game, but not a full-priced one.

A $60 ‘deluxe' edition will also be available at launch, which will include some extra cosmetics, and tier skips for the battle pass. Sticking with the topic of battle passes, Marathon will have them, and they will cost $10 each.

Aside from all of that, there are 28 weapons planned for the game's launch, including several auto rifles, LMGs, precision rifles, pistols, shotguns, railguns, snipers and SMGs.

Initially planned to release in September, Marathon does not yet have a new release date. The game is expected to drop sometime in early 2026.

KitGuru Says: Are you planning on giving Marathon a chance when it drops, or will you be skipping this one? 

The post Marathon to launch with $40 price tag according to new leak first appeared on KitGuru.

Amazon Prime Day has arrived and MSI has dished out some big discounts on a range of laptops for the UK sale, cutting prices by up to £900.

Each discount is sold on a ‘while stocks last' basis, so certain deals may not be available for the entire duration of the Prime Day sale, which ends on October 8th.

The biggest discount of the event comes to the MSI Stealth A18 AI+, which normally goes for £2,899, but is currently down to £1,999. Another high-end laptop, the MSI Vector 16 HX AI has also been discounted from £2799 to £2399, a £400 saving.

There is a cheaper version of the MSI Vector 16 HX AI with an Intel Core Ultra 7 CPU rather than a Core Ultra 9, and an RTX 5070 Ti GPU for £1499. This should be up your alley if you are looking for the most balanced spec for the price tag.

There are two £999 laptops from MSI currently discounted. The first is the Cyborg 15 A13VF-802UK, which houses an Intel Core i7-13620H processor and an RTX 4060, which is down to £750. The second is an MSI Thin 15 gaming laptop with a 13th Gen Core i5 CPU and an RTX 4050 GPU for £650. 

These are just a few of the highlights, but you can find MSI's complete list of Amazon Prime Day deals, HERE.

Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.

KitGuru Says: Are you planning on picking up anything during the Prime Day sales? 

The post MSI cuts up to £900 off gaming laptops for Amazon Prime Day first appeared on KitGuru.