• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Xbox Studio Boss Matt Booty talks Halo, Starfield and Xbox in 2023 | Friends Per Second Podcast

feynoob

Banned
Motherfuckers?... at least be impartial when trying to make a point. Your Sony fanboyism is showing. * facepalm *

If Sony hadn't aquired all those 3rd party studios in their gaming division, what would they have?
What he said is knda true for 2022. The delays actually proved that MS didnt have any plan for 2022.

Just like Sony did with returnal, MS could have done that. They did it with flight Sim. Why cant they do it again?
 


Matt Booty interview on Friends Per Second (SkillUp's podcast).


  1. Coalitions helps Undead Lab with animation for State of Decay 3
  2. Obsidian's Pentiment has happen because Gamepass and it's entirely Josh Sawyer idea and the team chance to get more heavy projects in the future;
  3. Playground Games pitch Fable and they were given credit due to their technology base and high quality work till now.
  4. inExile new game impressed the other studio from MS when was showed a demo on their meetings.
  5. Starfield is more than Skyrim in space and he calls the art style "Nasapunk";

Most Interesting tidbits to me. If state of decay 3 can take what state of decay 2 did, but make it into a AAA quality game its going to be one of microsifts biggest hits. I assume with the advent of the survival genre well see base building, and even more indepth resource management. Game is going to be a massive hit.

Games like pentiment are what I hope to see more of because I love when developers have freedom to experiement. Gaming already has a AAA bias, but I don't want it to become as bad as film where anything that isnt hype marketable doesn't gain a budget.

I'm sure Inexile wont miss, I wonder if it'll be first person, third person, isometric.
 
Last edited:

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
"Negative sides of Gamepass in Matt Booty's opinion: game design is inherently tied to business model"

Child Smile GIF


"Bigger the team working on a game, harder to ship it."

come on, that just excuse now.
 
I'd like to know what he means on this one if anyone wants to elaborate.
If I had to wager an interpretation without listening to the interview, I would figure that smaller games like Pentiment are more likely to get greenlit from a big dev like Obsidian in an environment where hard sales numbers aren't the only measure of success. There is no way a passion project like this gets funded if you didn't have the Gamepass beast to feed, because if we're being honest a game like this is very niche.

It's like how Hollywood is utterly terrified of anything less than all the money in the world at the box office, hence you have nothing but sequels, reboots, cape-shit, and adaptations of more creative people than the ghouls that run movie studios.
 

MadPanda

Banned
Anyone with a brain should've been able to understand this was the case. Essentially every 1st party game will be built around the GaaS model and will suffer cause of it.

Developers won't be allowed to make a singular focused 20 hour experience cause they'll have to force some sorta weekly bs reason to jump back in or attach a season pass for absolutely no reason.
Been warning people about this from the start: You change the business model and you inevitably end up changing the product.
"Negative sides of Gamepass in Matt Booty's opinion: game design is inherently tied to business model"

Child Smile GIF


"Bigger the team working on a game, harder to ship it."

come on, that just excuse now.
Tell me you didn't watch the interview without telling me you didn't watch the interview.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
Been warning people about this from the start: You change the business model and you inevitably end up changing the product.

"Negative sides of Gamepass in Matt Booty's opinion: game design is inherently tied to business model"
.


It’s long since been confirmed that OP misheard that part and Booty never uttered that line. hard to believe you both missed that discussion.
 
Really? But we have plenty of experts here who saying that these things are not connected

Do we have significant evidence they are? Starfield is a game whose game design is specifically for game pass? The Outer Worlds 2, Avowed, Hellblade II, Fable, InXile's FPS RPG, Elder Scrolls 6, and plenty others. These are all games whose design don't appear driven by the existence of Game Pass, and seem to me like they would exist anyway. The fact is they're still building major singleplayer only experiences.

Just because in specific cases they may consider what might be ideal for game pass, it's no reason to believe that game pass has materially affected the kinds of games Xbox is getting. To me the most obvious sign of a game pass influence is Halo Infinite as a live service title. It's possible passion projects like Pentiment and Grounded might not exist, but then that would be our loss as those games are both likely to be great games. Already know Grounded is though I need to put a lot more time into it.
 

Chukhopops

Member
Did you mean to quote the OP instead of a reaction to the OP?

To your point, Matt Booty did not say: "Negative sides of Gamepass in Matt Booty's opinion: game design is inherently tied to business model" at al.

Here is what he said, timestamped:


Yeah after listening to the actual statement OP’s quote is a straight up fabrication.

And then everyone uses the power of their own bias as confirmation. Straight pathetic.
 

Handel

Member
  1. Negative sides of Gamepass in Matt Booty's opinion: game design is inherently tied to business model

Just listened to this part of the interview, and this is not what was said. The game design being tied to business model was in regards to F2P game design vs full priced games, and right before that he talked about how players have the option to buy games like normal if they want that full ownership which is great.

It's still concern trolling to act as if GamePass is bad for game design, because there is no actual proof of this on a tangible level. Rather it's the opposite, where we see that Microsoft is still making big AAA games that will be day one on the service, and then is also allowing games like Pentiment to be made because GamePass puts more eyeballs on such niche titles, and allows people to try out such games they normally wouldn't touch because they don't have to risk their money paying full price for something they may not enjoy.

There is value in allowing your devs to create arthouse projects that may not sell gangbusters but attract a certain audience that will then become more loyal to your brand because it's offering games that few others make that appeal to their tastes. Allowing such creative freedom also attracts devs to work for you. This was one of the best things about the Sony of old who recognized the importance of the Team Ico/Ueda games despite them not selling well, and those titles have helped shape the industry today.
 
Last edited:

samoilaaa

Member
Did you mean to quote the OP instead of a reaction to the OP?

To your point, Matt Booty did not say: "Negative sides of Gamepass in Matt Booty's opinion: game design is inherently tied to business model" at al.

Here is what he said, timestamped:


thank you , the amount of people with no brain that dont listen to the actual interview ( including OP since the only thing he included was that line ) just to shit on xbox is amazing , i get it you dont like this company but at least try to shit on it with facts not with your own interpretation of a sentence

the guy clearly said that players will always have a choice , you like to play on gamepass ? great , you like to play f2p games ? great we have that too , you like to play single player games ? great we have that too

its all about player choice
 

3liteDragon

Member
Regarding outsourcing, I don’t think people understand the difference between “co-developing” a game with another studio & outsourcing your game to a bunch of different studios who have to work on different aspects of the game based on the specifications you provided to them.
 
Last edited:

Azurro

Banned
"Mr and Mrs Booty, here's your table follow me."

"Mr Booty, you have an appointment at 8"

"Welcome to the Booty family reunion of 2022"

My god, what a last name. :D :D :D
 

ProtoByte

Member
Just listened to this part of the interview, and this is not what was said. The game design being tied to business model was in regards to F2P game design vs full priced games, and right before that he talked about how players have the option to buy games like normal if they want that full ownership which is great.
The bolded is a completely and conveniently flipped script in terms of the narrative that was coming out of Microsoft and out of the Xbox fandom though. From the former, Spencer and Nadella pegged Gamepass and streaming as ways to reach "billions of gamers". On the latter end, "the best deal in gaming" is often used the main reason a reason to buy an Xbox system; and the marketing validates that. Microsoft's NotE3 conference was more about the service than the games in and of themselves, and it's been like that for years.

The only reason they're saying this now is likely because of what Phil Spencer's realized years after people who warned of subscription services pointed it out: The math simply doesn't add up. There is an huge nominal and opportunity cost to going from selling games on a per-unit basis at 60-70+ USD on launch, to then slapping those games onto a subscription service that costs 10-15 dollars a month - that is, if you're paying the actual price and not taking advantage of the many, many promotions that Microsoft continues to run to this day.

It's still concern trolling to act as if GamePass is bad for game design, because there is no actual proof of this on a tangible level. Rather it's the opposite, where we see that Microsoft is still making big AAA games that will be day one on the service, and then is also allowing games like Pentiment to be made because GamePass puts more eyeballs on such niche titles, and allows people to try out such games they normally wouldn't touch because they don't have to risk their money paying full price for something they may not enjoy.
What big AAA games? Forza and Flight Sim? Come on now. You know that the scope and budget of those products aren't nearly on the same level as non-vehicular based titles. You also know that Halo Infiite, the latest of Microsoft's most prestigious franchise, wasn't even close to up to snuff. People wonder why the multiplayer is falling way behind on the content schedule, being barebones as fuck at launch just as the SP was? 2 reasons: 343i's incompetency (which used to be able to produce a lot more than this) and the financial reality of going onto Gamepass. No one is going to convince me otherwise.

There is value in allowing your devs to create arthouse projects that may not sell gangbusters but attract a certain audience that will then become more loyal to your brand because it's offering games that few others make that appeal to their tastes. Allowing such creative freedom also attracts devs to work for you. This was one of the best things about the Sony of old who recognized the importance of the Team Ico/Ueda games despite them not selling well, and those titles have helped shape the industry today.
I would hardly use Pentiment as a good example. It's doesn't even have voice acting, and almost no one is going to play it. Even the indie-loving types were disappointed with how it looks.
 

ProtoByte

Member
I would hardly use Pentiment as a good example. It's doesn't even have voice acting, and almost no one is going to play it. Even the indie-loving types were disappointed with how it looks.
To expand in this point; it doesn't really matter if the game is "arthousey". The whole case against gamepass is that it simply gives license and access to games that people wouldn't pay attention to, let alone pay money for if it wasn't on Gamepass.
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
To expand in this point; it doesn't really matter if the game is "arthousey". The whole case against gamepass is that it simply gives license and access to games that people wouldn't pay attention to, let alone pay money for if it wasn't on Gamepass.
This is what it mostly comes down to for me regarding subscription services of all types and forms.

I literally have hundreds of games I claimed through Epic and PS+, but (1) do I really want to play them, and (2) would I have purchased those games and play them if they weren't offered for "free"?

For more than 80% of the games, at least one of the answers is no.

For instance, I have 100+ games in my backlog right now, but all I can think of now is playing God of War Ragnarok, and you bet I'll drop everything as soon as that becomes available to play. And, yes, I happily paid $70 for it because I'm so excited.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
It’s long since been confirmed that OP misheard that part and Booty never uttered that line. hard to believe you both missed that discussion.

Kinda irrelevant to be honest. My statement stands. Its not readily apparent yet as the vast majority of Gamepass content is still being sourced from pre-existing channels, but give it time and you'll start to see adaptations being made to better fit that new commercial environment - especially for higher budgeted titles.
 
To expand in this point; it doesn't really matter if the game is "arthousey". The whole case against gamepass is that it simply gives license and access to games that people wouldn't pay attention to, let alone pay money for if it wasn't on Gamepass.
Is that a problem? What's wrong with giving different games an opportunity to shine outside of the multimillion dollar titles? People largely are against Game pass because of the company and brand supporting it. Gamers on a budget, people with kids, and fans of games in general don't have any issues with the service and certainly aren't wondering how much money MS is making off of it.

Kinda irrelevant to be honest. My statement stands. Its not readily apparent yet as the vast majority of Gamepass content is still being sourced from pre-existing channels, but give it time and you'll start to see adaptations being made to better fit that new commercial environment - especially for higher budgeted titles.
Yes, yes one day Game pass will be bad. Well if that day comes the service will die. Luckily for us MS is talking about putting titles like Starfield and CoD on it so fans of the service will enjoy it in the mean time. There is no evidence of the doomsday scenario just like when people were claiming it was bleeding MS dry.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
Yes, yes one day Game pass will be bad. Well if that day comes the service will die. Luckily for us MS is talking about putting titles like Starfield and CoD on it so fans of the service will enjoy it in the mean time. There is no evidence of the doomsday scenario just like when people were claiming it was bleeding MS dry.

Its not really Gamepass, its just a consequence of what's going to happen to any title when you no longer can get the substantial income from up-front sales.
Yes, the platform holder can mitigate this by offering a buy-in fee, but objectively its unlikely to be nearly as much money as they'd make if the title exceeded expectations at retail.

That scenario has to change your thinking commercially as a dev/pub. And that includes any studios within the service operator's ecosystem as ultimately business is business; overperforming units will outlast under-performing ones. There will always be an impetus for profit maximization, and from a creative standpoint noone wants to spend years on a product that will be just a blip on the radar.

Its like F2P, you want to try that format then you have to do things a certain way in order to cover costs.
 

CamHostage

Member
Last edited:

feynoob

Banned
its just a consequence of what's going to happen to any title when you no longer can get the substantial income from up-front sales.
Its the chase for MTX.
Halo by design has the tools for mtx contents, just like COD. The fact they made the MP f2p shows that.

They also repeatedly wanted to make the game a 10 year game.

https://sea.ign.com/news/162129/halo-infinite-2-wont-be-happening-says-343-industries

“Halo Infinite is the start of our platform for the future,” he said. “We want Infinite to grow over time, versus going to those numbered titles and having all that segmentation that we had before. It’s really about creating Halo Infinite as the start of the next ten years for Halo and then building that as we go with our fans and community.”
This does not mean that Halo Infinite is a live service game, a la Destiny. But it does mean that new story experiences will be told underneath Infinite’s umbrella, and it also means Infinite will be evolved technologically for quite a while. 343 confirmed that Infinite will get a free raytracing update sometime after launch. Gameplay-wise, hopefully the move to Infinite as a platform won’t mean that players are trapped on this Halo ring forever, but we’ll have to wait and see what 343 has in store for us in the Xbox Series X generation to find out.
 

feynoob

Banned
Oh, I am well aware...

BTW, 2022 was the 12th Annual Publisher of the Year ranking (not "award", BTW, "ranking".)
Can anybody name any previous Publisher of the Year winner ranker without looking it up?
After checking what is all about, The award itself is useless.

It calculates total games, and averages their total metacritic.

That means, if you have alot of games, but 2-3 games are at 70+ metacritic, your rank would tank. The lesser your games, the higher your rank.
 

ProtoByte

Member
Is that a problem? What's wrong with giving different games an opportunity to shine outside of the multimillion dollar titles?
If by "shine" you mean that no one buys it, no one finishes it, and Microsoft puts out a press release of the number of "players", which really amounts to people who launched the game for 2 minutes? Yeah, that's a problem.

Games shouldn't "shine" just by virtue of existing. The medium is past that by now.

Pentiment isn't some kind of new thing either. You might not like how they did it, but TellTale was doing combat-less narrative games over 10 years ago. Frankly, narrative adventure games existed in the 90s.

People largely are against Game pass because of the company and brand supporting it.
No. It's just that I have two eyes and am able to reference how subscription services have completely fucked the music industry, and how it's just been a long full circle for television.

Gamers on a budget, people with kids, and fans of games in general don't have any issues with the service and certainly aren't wondering how much money MS is making off of it.
You mean people who have little to no investment in gaming as a medium? You're on a niche enthusiast forum.

Yes, yes one day Game pass will be bad. Well if that day comes the service will die. Luckily for us MS is talking about putting titles like Starfield and CoD on it so fans of the service will enjoy it in the mean time. There is no evidence of the doomsday scenario just like when people were claiming it was bleeding MS dry.
The doomsday scenario is being downplayed by Microsoft, what with Phil Spencer suddenly suggesting that the subscriber base is saturated after hyping it up to investors for years (remember, his and Nadella's bonuses are tied to Gamepass subscription growth), but if you want to wait through the whole generation to watch it play out in slow motion, be my guest.
 
Last edited:

ProtoByte

Member
Crystal Dynamics was brought to co-develop as equal partner the Perfect Dark game because the creation of a new studio and developing a new AAA game at the same time was not as feasible as they thought.
Yeah, that's one way of putting it. Remember when they poached from top tier studios to create the "dream team", hyping that up? So much for that. Overpromising and underdelivering is an understatement.

By the way, Crystal Dynamics in 2022 is nothing to brag about. They're coming off that steaming pile of trash called Avengers. Hardly a confidence booster foe this project.
 

feynoob

Banned
No. It's just that I have two eyes and am able to reference how subscription services have completely fucked the music industry, and how it's just been a long full circle for television.
Why do people say subscription fucked up those industry?
It's complete opposite. Subscription led to these media be accessible to a larger crowd, which meant more fans and more reach.
Artists are now able to gain wider audience and fans, compared to before.

Same for television. Now you can watch any show, without having to decide which one would you spend your money.
It also allowed the industry to make more movies and TV shows.


The doomsday scenario is being downplayed by Microsoft, what with Phil Spencer suddenly suggesting that the subscriber base is saturated after hyping it up to investors for years (remember, his and Nadella's bonuses are tied to Gamepass subscription growth), but if you want to wait through the whole generation to watch it play out in slow motion, be my guest.
Go a head and ignore the real doomsday, while considering gamepass as a dark horse.

The real enemy is microtransactions. Not gamepass. Most games currently are being made around this monetization. Dlc, extra contents which were free, are now being charged for extra money. Same with extra characters, extra skins. Yet, gamepass is the one that would affect gaming?
Wait What Reaction GIF
 

Ozriel

M$FT
Yeah, that's one way of putting it. Remember when they poached from top tier studios to create the "dream team", hyping that up? So much for that. Overpromising and underdelivering is an understatement.

They always intended to outsource the bulk of development. Nobody creates a ‘dream team’ to make a big budget AAA game with only 50 people.
As for ‘under-delivering’, are you from a future where Perfect Dark is already released? words have meanings.

By the way, Crystal Dynamics in 2022 is nothing to brag about. They're coming off that steaming pile of trash called Avengers. Hardly a confidence booster foe this project.

That’s kinda irrelevant. Devs have gone from making Mediocre games to making great games and Vice versa. Imagine if we all wrote off Guerrilla Games after Killzone Shadowfall debuted to poor reviews?

The internal Initiative team was tasked with much of the pre-production stage, so it’s more of Crystal Dynamics executing their vision. We’ll see. At the very least, we know from RoTTR that they’re technically proficient.
 

Ozriel

M$FT
The bolded is a completely and conveniently flipped script in terms of the narrative that was coming out of Microsoft and out of the Xbox fandom though. From the former, Spencer and Nadella pegged Gamepass and streaming as ways to reach "billions of gamers". On the latter end, "the best deal in gaming" is often used the main reason a reason to buy an Xbox system; and the marketing validates that. Microsoft's NotE3 conference was more about the service than the games in and of themselves, and it's been like that for years.

This is really a fabrication from you, isn't it? Because Microsoft has never pushed the claim that streaming or Gamepass would eliminate retail sales
Microsoft's 'E3' conference was centered around the games coming to the service in the next 12 months. The games! You say this as if they spent the conference discussing price tiers of the service or comparing GP to other subscription services.


The only reason they're saying this now is likely because of what Phil Spencer's realized years after people who warned of subscription services pointed it out: The math simply doesn't add up. There is an huge nominal and opportunity cost to going from selling games on a per-unit basis at 60-70+ USD on launch, to then slapping those games onto a subscription service that costs 10-15 dollars a month - that is, if you're paying the actual price and not taking advantage of the many, many promotions that Microsoft continues to run to this day.

The sheer conceit to imagine Phil Spencer and the rest of Microsoft's board did no financial analysis of the impact of GP and have had to wait to be told by forum dwellers with no access to any financials.
I love how they've clarified that the service is sustainable and profitable and you're here arguing that the math doesn't add up.

GamePass is designed to be a sticky service, and nobody's releasing AAA games monthly. They've simply estimated that keeping people paying $15 a month for months at a stretch fetches them more money (or at least more steady, consistent revenue) than folks paying $60 infrequently.

Microsoft Office used to be sold for hundreds of dollars. Now they've tied it to a monthly or yearly subscription. And it's heralded as one of MS most savvy moves.

What big AAA games? Forza and Flight Sim? Come on now. You know that the scope and budget of those products aren't nearly on the same level as non-vehicular based titles.

You...actually think Flight Sim was made on an AA budget?
Digitizing multiple aircraft and airports, intensive machine learning usage with external specialists to generate a 3 petabyte model of the entire earth? The fees for pilot consulting, weather simulation et al? It's a really ambitious effort that most certainly cost more to make than stuff like Returnal and Rift Apart.
It's easy to scoff at Forza Horizon, but many here would still cite GT7 as an AAA blockbuster. So why would FH5 be any different?

You also know that Halo Infiite, the latest of Microsoft's most prestigious franchise, wasn't even close to up to snuff. People wonder why the multiplayer is falling way behind on the content schedule, being barebones as fuck at launch just as the SP was? 2 reasons: 343i's incompetency (which used to be able to produce a lot more than this) and the financial reality of going onto Gamepass. No one is going to convince me otherwise.

This is a conversation about budget and costs of projects being put into Gamepass. Nobody cares about your take concerning 343i's competence. The campaign was made with a significant number of employees, over 6 years. It's definitely one of the more expensive games released in recent times.
Comments about it being 'barebones' and the content schedule are pertaining to the MP, which was Free to Play. Given that the MP is F2P, it's quite illogical to insist that Gamepass had an impact on the way the game turned out.
 

feynoob

Banned
The sheer conceit to imagine Phil Spencer and the rest of Microsoft's board did no financial analysis of the impact of GP and have had to wait to be told by forum dwellers with no access to any financials.
Dont you know this forum has the best accountant in the world? and that they have knowledge about these financials?
You...actually think Flight Sim was made on an AA budget?
Digitizing multiple aircraft and airports, intensive machine learning usage with external specialists to generate a 3 petabyte model of the entire earth? The fees for pilot consulting, weather simulation et al? It's a really ambitious effort that most certainly cost more to make than stuff like Returnal and Rift Apart.
It's easy to scoff at Forza Horizon, but many here would still cite GT7 as an AAA blockbuster. So why would FH5 be any different?
He is financial guy. He knows the industry very well.
Super Freak Flirting GIF by Rick James
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
They should have bundled together. At least that way, they game would have less controversial.

The f2p MP overshadowed the SP campaign.

I saw why they wanted to have MP as free to play, but free to play needs a constant drip feed of content to stay relevant and profitable.

If they knew beforehand that they wouldn't have it ready, they should not have made the MP free to play. Someone in the decision chain kinda fucked up with communication from the content development department.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
I saw why they wanted to have MP as free to play, but free to play needs a constant drip feed of content to stay relevant and profitable.

If they knew beforehand that they wouldn't have it ready, they should not have made the MP free to play. Someone in the decision chain kinda fucked up with communication from the content development department.
That would have been even worst.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
That would have been even worst.

Having a traditional release with SP and MP bundled together wouldn't have done any worse. Probably wouldn't have let them have that "20 million + players" engagement on week 1~2 but content wouldn't have been as glaringly obvious if it was a single package with SP in it.
 
Last edited:

MidGenRefresh

*Refreshes biennially
I saw why they wanted to have MP as free to play, but free to play needs a constant drip feed of content to stay relevant and profitable.

If they knew beforehand that they wouldn't have it ready, they should not have made the MP free to play. Someone in the decision chain kinda fucked up with communication from the content development department.

They should just delay the game another year and release it now with more maps, more modes, more cosmetics, more content, forge, coop ray tracing and bug fixes.

At this rate it will take another year to make it a full Halo experience. I’m not sure how many people will care. 2023 is crazy packed with games.
 
Its not really Gamepass, its just a consequence of what's going to happen to any title when you no longer can get the substantial income from up-front sales.
Yes, the platform holder can mitigate this by offering a buy-in fee, but objectively its unlikely to be nearly as much money as they'd make if the title exceeded expectations at retail.

That scenario has to change your thinking commercially as a dev/pub. And that includes any studios within the service operator's ecosystem as ultimately business is business; overperforming units will outlast under-performing ones. There will always be an impetus for profit maximization, and from a creative standpoint noone wants to spend years on a product that will be just a blip on the radar.

Its like F2P, you want to try that format then you have to do things a certain way in order to cover costs.
The reality is Game pass is 10-15% of Xbox revenue. Why would you completely change how your games are designed for a small segment of your income? How would this complete redesign of games be supported by the traditional retail model that sits along Game pass? If there is a significant change in quality and design of Xbox games to support a small segment of the population it would jeopardize the entire operation.

It is for this reason none of speculation that detractors have stated have come to pass from Game pass failing completely to it being unsustainable. Game pass at this point is allowing developers to create games like Pentiment along side Avowed and Starfield. None of those titles foreshadow anything but continued game diversity the service has offered from the beginning.

They should just delay the game another year and release it now with more maps, more modes, more cosmetics, more content, forge, coop ray tracing and bug fixes.

At this rate it will take another year to make it a full Halo experience. I’m not sure how many people will care. 2023 is crazy packed with games.
Forge and online co-op is hitting Halo Infinite next week. Another update is hitting in March. Why put that off a year? If they miss these two updates we can talk about additional delays.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom