• 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 Everywhere: Phil Spencer wants an Xbox app on as many devices as possible (Switch/PlayStation excluded)

They are AAA games and they will be single player experience. That the type of game that you said they aren't going to be making.

Whether they are good or not is a different topic.
No, I specifically mentioned big AAA $150-$200 million single-player games. You just didn't include that in the partial quote you picked.

Anyway, as I said, I'm excited for these games (especially Hellblade 2 and Avowed) very much! Super hyped in fact. I'm just not sure if those games will have the big production values that I once thought XGS may offer us, which is a valid point imo because we haven't seen those games in action. I'm still confident that those will be good games.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
No, I specifically mentioned big AAA $150-$200 million single-player games. You just didn't include that in the partial quote you picked.

So you think Microsoft is going to be making AA single player experiences instead of AAA ones? Or is the argument that Microsoft is making 50-100 AAA single player experience?

And that's purely based on the budget which no one has a good clue about.

I personally don't think there is any good casual relationship between budget and quality so not massively concerned about the budget of my single player experience once it gets past a min amount.

This is just Phil Spencer trying to get people to stop comparing the two platforms library, cause the Playstation Studios one is much more critically successful. There is a weird disconnect between critical success and commercially success that needs to be factored.
 
Last edited:
They don't want to pay a tax to Nintendo or Sony for being on their platforms, that's why he specifically said no closed platforms.
Lol, No.
They have to pay a tax on open platforms, too.

They also don't have to pay a tax on Switch or Playstation, because people still buy Game Pass Codes on Amazon, or use the Microsoft Payment system.

How is that different than any other platform?
And he doesn't said the doesn't want to.
He said they don't want Xbox there
 
Last edited:

ZywyPL

Gold Member
Makes sense, mostly incorporating their services directly onto TVs without the need of buying a dedicated hardware to play games, but I don't think console games will work on mobile devices like smartphones and tablets, at least not most of them that are made with all the 14 buttons in mind. Some simple side-scrollers, puzzle games, or turn-based genres, sure, that will work well on the go, but not the more complex titles. They should IMO focus first and foremost on reaching everyone who has a TV first and foremost, either by dedicated app or that rumored streaming dongle.


Phil has been saying all of this for at least the last 2-3 years across various interviews/articles.

It does take much more time than that to make such a switch of an entire industry into totally different direction, a decade at very least.


2. Xbox Gamepass on Nintendo and PlayStation. That's not happening. Why would Nintendo or PlayStation give their competitor (Xbox) a marketplace of 200 million users on a plate? That's wishful thinking. Xbox/Phil wants that, but they aren't getting it.

For money - just imagine you could get GP on PS5, literally no one would bother with getting a XB console, so Sony would gain additional tens of millions of users, who would then spend money on games, DLC, MTX, PS+ and what's not. I think that might even be MS' long-term plan - offer just the service while others will deliver the hardware to reach the end users. Like I said recently in other thread, I won't be surprised if 15-20 years from now Xbox won't exist anymore and it'll be all about GP.
 

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
Good for those that want it, but I'll stick to my native boxes for now. If there is a way I can get it for my Daughters room though, it could be perfect!
 

reksveks

Member
Lol, No.
They have to pay a tax on open platforms, too.

Probably need to be careful with what we define as a 'open platform'

Web is an open platform (there would be no additional tax)
IOS isn't
Android phone isn't completely open.

I need to check back into the Samsung store but there was some difference between the xbox app between the play store and Samsung store.
 
For money - just imagine you could get GP on PS5, literally no one would bother with getting a XB console, so Sony would gain additional tens of millions of users, who would then spend money on games, DLC, MTX, PS+ and what's not. I think that might even be MS' long-term plan - offer just the service while others will deliver the hardware to reach the end users. Like I said recently in other thread, I won't be surprised if 15-20 years from now Xbox won't exist anymore and it'll be all about GP.
I believe that, too. Xbox doesn't want to be a hardware-based platform anymore. Their main focus is on GP.

From Sony's perspective, if there was a GP tier that only had XGS first-party games (like EA Play), Sony (and Nintendo) would welcome that with open arms. They'd have no problems with a subscription like that. The problem for them right now is that GP, in its current form, isn't like EA Play. It also hosts third-party games. In fact, more than 80% of the games are multiplatform third-party games.

Until that changes, I don't expect either Sony or Nintendo to gain much from hosting GP on their platforms. The cost would outweigh the benefits for them.
 

MonarchJT

Banned
People don't carry a controller around when they go out. When they are at home, if they are interested in gaming, they'll have a console or a PC. Like I said, the mythical userbase of people that want hardcore gaming but don't own any hardware is just that, a myth.
there are plenty games with on screen control on Xcloud ...your argument leaks everywhere
 
So you think Microsoft is going to be making AA single player experiences instead of AAA ones? Or is the argument that Microsoft is making 50-100 AAA single player experience?

And that's purely based on the budget which no one has a good clue about.

I personally don't think there is any good casual relationship between budget and quality so not massively concerned about the budget of my single player experience once it gets past a min amount.

This is just Phil Spencer trying to get people to stop comparing the two platforms library, cause the Playstation Studios one is much more critically successful. There is a weird disconnect between critical success and commercially success that needs to be factored.
I believe that XGS's bigger focus will be on multiplayer and GaaS-type games that can be monetized with in-app purchases and MTX. Purely single-player story-driven games (e.g., Spider-Man, TLOU, Star Wars Fallen Order, Plague Tale, etc.) do not offer a lot of opportunities for that, so we will see fewer games like that.

To keep things varied, XGS will also produce some purely single-player games, e.g., Hellblade 2, Perfect Dark, and Avowed. However, their budget and production values might not be as big as some of the games I mentioned earlier. I don't think Xbox will invest $200 million on a single-player story-driven game that has no multiplayer or MTX component.

I will be very happy if I'm proven wrong though because I love to play these types of high-production-value games. The more the merrier!
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
I believe that XGS's bigger focus will be on multiplayer and GaaS-type games that can be monetized with in-app purchases and MTX. Purely single-player story-driven games (e.g., Spider-Man, TLOU, Star Wars Fallen Order, Plague Tale, etc.) do not offer a lot of opportunities for that, so we will see fewer games like that.

To keep things varied, XGS will also produce some purely single-player games, e.g., Hellblade 2, Perfect Dark, and Avowed. However, their budget and production values might not be as big as some of the games I mentioned earlier. I don't think Xbox will invest $200 million on a single-player story-driven game that has no multiplayer or MTX component.

Their focus on the type of games is based off two keys factors:
- what drives new subscribers
- what drives increased engagement for existing users

If they see a single player game hit and becomes a driving force for subs, they will continue to invest on that type of game. It's nothing brand new imo.

I think you will see both companies end up more similar by the end of this gen. Sony are seemingly investing in more GaaS and multiplayer games at the start of this gen, both first party and with publishing deals.
 

Azurro

Gold Member
there are plenty games with on screen control on Xcloud ...your argument leaks everywhere

I'm sure that all of those console games that rely on quick reactions and precise movements play GREAT on touch screens. People have been talking for years how touch screens are SO amazing at replicating buttons when emulating console games.

.../s just in case it isn't clear.
 

Topher

Gold Member
How would you base that on Game pass when other subscriptions have even fewer customers? Unless you are basing that on all gamers on the earth vs just Xbox customers. Also is it rejection if the subscription number is going up?

Well, I shouldn't have said "rejected". That isn't the right word. But we can compare GP to other services or we can compare it against the number of gamers who have access to it and haven't subscribed. GP is certainly a much better offer, imo, than services like Ubisoft+ and EA Play, I'll give you that.
 

MonarchJT

Banned
I'm sure that all of those console games that rely on quick reactions and precise movements play GREAT on touch screens. People have been talking for years how touch screens are SO amazing at replicating buttons when emulating console games.

.../s just in case it isn't clear.
mobile gamers don't give a great fucks of the things you are worried about
 

skit_data

Member
I think its very much possible that we’ll see a PS5 and/or Switch app for XGS games before this gen is over.
It could be a win-win situation. I’d easily play the Forza games on it, and some of the other upcoming 1st party games from XGS.

But I understand the other console makers skepticism towards it.
 

Azurro

Gold Member
mobile gamers don't give a great fucks of the things you are worried about

Which brings me again to the point:

1. If the point of Gamepass is to bring console quality games to your screen, you need to lug a controller around.

2. If the point is to play simple mobile games while waiting for the tram, why would anyone pay 15 dollars/euro a month when there are TONS of free games already available?
 

Hezekiah

Member
"Converting non-gamers into gamers" - yeah good luck with that.

I'm not surprised he wants an end to the console war given how it's gone for him lately, and how much he's having to spend in an attempt to keep up.
 

Chukhopops

Member
Which brings me again to the point:

1. If the point of Gamepass is to bring console quality games to your screen, you need to lug a controller around.

2. If the point is to play simple mobile games while waiting for the tram, why would anyone pay 15 dollars/euro a month when there are TONS of free games already available?
1. People play Fortnite with touch controls just fine, they can play single player games. It’s not convenient simply because you didn’t grow up using them. Just look at any kid playing Roblox or Fortnite and you’ll see it works for them.

2. You can’t compare Skinner box F2P games (which are absolutely not free actually once you play them for a little bit) and actual games. That’s why stuff like Apple Arcade exists.

People keep thinking about either/or when the approach is based on a spectrum. The idea isn’t to push 50 year old women playing Candy Crush to try Dark Souls 3, but to ease the curve going from casual to more engaged.
 

Helghan

Member
To keep things varied, XGS will also produce some purely single-player games, e.g., Hellblade 2, Perfect Dark, and Avowed. However, their budget and production values might not be as big as some of the games I mentioned earlier. I don't think Xbox will invest $200 million on a single-player story-driven game that has no multiplayer or MTX component.
Aren't Perfect Dark and Avowed being built by big teams?
 

Kadve

Member
The future is a combination of streaming and subscription services.

Give it a few years and we'll be able to stream every game, including new releases, day one from our chosen subscription service. All without spending hundreds on dedicated hardware and games. All you'll need is a device with a screen and a internet connection.
Sure, whenever we get a stable, 50 mbit+ worldwide internet infrastructure in place.

 
Last edited:

Godot25

Member
Aren't Perfect Dark and Avowed being built by big teams?
Of course they are. It just won't fit their narrative.

Sony GAF force clearly believes that Microsoft bought Bethesda Game Studios to downsize them and force them to make smaller games instead of buying them because they are making big budget RPG games.

Nothing about their narratives is making sense.
Somehow budgets for games will be smaller because of Game Pass despite the fact, that all studios that Microsoft acquired since 2018 have undergone cosmetic or big expansion. inXile, Ninja Theory, Playground Games, Compulsion etc.
Somehow they will make low budget games despite fact that Microsoft currently have more first-party AAA games announced then Sony.
There are multiple hints and info that even when Brian Fargo went to Matt Booty with idea for new inXile games thinking "there is no way they will greenlit it because it will cost huge amount of money" and he got his project greenlit.
Somehow Microsoft have to cut budgets for their games but instead of keeping teams small they are actively shopping for more first-party studios and bought Bethesda for 7,5 billion.
Somehow Microsoft greenlit multiple big budget first-party games with Avalanche, IO Interactive and possibly Kojima

Yeah. It's just concern trolling at this point.
 
Aren't Perfect Dark and Avowed being built by big teams?
I don't think so. Perfect Dark is being developed by The Initiative, which has ~60-70 people in the team.

Avowed is being built by Obsidian, which is although a relatively big studio (~240 employees), they have been working on 4-5 projects simultaneously: Grounded, The Outer Worlds DLC, Sawyer's next game, The Outer Worlds 2, and Avowed. That would mean Avowed would be developed by 100-150 people at most, which is reasonable for a AAA game, but perhaps not the norm when you're producing a $150-$200 million game (which I don't think it is, and which is the point of discussion).
 
Last edited:

Hezekiah

Member
So PC/PS will continue to be the best combo going forward. Xbox exclusives on PC, PS exclusives on the Playstation.
Yep zero point having a PC and an Xbox, so get a PS5, and put a big chunk of your money toward to a mid to high-end GPU. You can then save on the Xbox online fees, have access to Steam, and not miss out on any exclusives - and you'll be gaming with better performance.
 
Somehow they will make low budget games despite fact that Microsoft currently have more first-party AAA games announced then Sony.
And Sony has already released 4 major titles since the PS5 launched (Demon's Souls, Spider-Man MM, Returnal, Ratchet & Clank) not to mention they released Ghost of Tsushima and Last of Us 2 within the same 12-month period. Are you suggesting ALL Xbox games announced are "Triple A" just because they are 1st party? because I don't see how you are counting the number of exclusives announced...anyway, it's not a matter of which company has more games announced, but which platform has the best games delivered. So far, Microsoft has delivered 1 game, Flight Simulator, the rest as they say, it's in the clouds...well I guess Flight Simulator is too.

Edit: make that 5 major games from PlayStation: MLB the Show 2021, selling the Lion's share on PlayStation and barely making 10th place on a sad Xbox chart.
 
Last edited:

MonarchJT

Banned
Which brings me again to the point:

1. If the point of Gamepass is to bring console quality games to your screen, you need to lug a controller around.

2. If the point is to play simple mobile games while waiting for the tram, why would anyone pay 15 dollars/euro a month when there are TONS of free games already available?
because you in a very naive (but is easy to just look at your post history to understand the reasons) way try to see everything in black or white ..... the reality of the facts is that there are millions of players who don't care if a game "lags a bit" or if the graphics are 'not the best in class' and who are willing to compromise without any problem . so I go back to saying all your worries fall into thin air
 
Last edited:

Hezekiah

Member
This.

This is what people fail to understand.

The future of gaming isn't to continue to purchase dedicated hardware, or even paying £70 for a single game. That's just outdated and should stay in the past.

The future is a combination of streaming and subscription services.

Give it a few years and we'll be able to stream every game, including new releases, day one from our chosen subscription service. All without spending hundreds on dedicated hardware and games. All you'll need is a device with a screen and a internet connection.
Firstly you will need to spend hundreds per year for the subscription.

Secondly, for good performance you will still need reasonably expensive hardware, even if you want to play on your phone or tablet. But most people won't want to spend a significant amount of time doing that, because who wants to play on a tiny ass screen if you don't have to. And look how pathetic battery life is for mobile devices and will continue to be - now add in streaming for a few hours at a time.
 

MonarchJT

Banned
Firstly you will need to spend hundreds per year for the subscription.

Secondly, for good performance you will still need reasonably expensive hardware, even if you want to play on your phone or tablet. But most people won't want to spend a significant amount of time doing that, because who wants to play on a tiny ass screen if you don't have to. And look how pathetic battery life is for mobile devices and will continue to be - now add in streaming for a few hours at a time.
he is not talking about mobile gaming ..but streaming over a 65" tv screen too
i don't get how much hard is for certain people to get where the future is going.
 
Last edited:

Hezekiah

Member
he is not talking about mobile gaming ..but streaming over a 65" tv screen too
i don't get how much hard is for certain people to get where the future is going.
Yes and the subscription will cost hundreds (the price of subscriptions services is only going to go up), a 65" smart TV is going to cost hundreds/thousands (and nowadays some people are happy to stream shows/films on smaller devices more than they would play a AAA game which would make it an additional cost), and controllers and headsets are still going to cost money.

"Dedicated hardware" is still going to be required, and still cost plenty.
 

MonarchJT

Banned
Yes and the subscription will cost hundreds (the price of subscriptions services is only going to go up), a 65" smart TV is going to cost hundreds/thousands (and nowadays some people are happy to stream shows/films on smaller devices more than they would play a AAA game which would make it an additional cost), and controllers and headsets are still going to cost money.

"Dedicated hardware" is still going to be required, and still cost plenty.
1) everyone got a tv in his home 42 55 65 or more in the next year's
2) a tv stick cost certainly less than a next gen console
3) games on playstation right now cost an embarrassing 82 euro each one here in my country ...there's no way that subscription cost more than a single game purchase ( obviously comparing the same number of games for the entire gen) unless you play old ass game bought second hand at the end of the generation.

the other things are stuff that you buy whatever ....streaming or not streaming
 
Last edited:

Hezekiah

Member
1) everyone got a tv in his home 42 55 65 or more in the next year's
2) a tv stick cost certainly less than a next gen console
3) games on playstation right now cost an embarrassing 82 euro each one here in my country ...there's no way that subscription cost more than a single game purchase ( obviously comparing the same number of games for the entire gen) unless you play old ass game bought second hand at the end of the generation.

the other things are stuff that you buy whatever ....streaming or not streaming
As I said, not everybody owns a TV nowadays. And 65 inch in the UK for example is actually quite rare by the way.
Nobody said a TV stick isn't cheaper than a console, however a subscription service might not be worth it to some gamers if they currently buy and play a relatively small number of games. Remember, games take far longer to play through, than TV shows and films take to watch for example.
Games on Playstation don't stay the same price forever. That's a myth some people seem to really struggle with. And games don't need to old or second-hand to be bought significantly cheaper. Returnal is £60 on Amazon, Ratchet £53, RE8 £45, FF7 Retrograde £42. And these costs of course include actual ownership of said items.

Your post is very subjective. What a lot of people seem to forget is that by offering subscription services, companies aren't trying to save gamers money . Long-term they think it's a way they can make more money off you by keeping you tied in, shelling out every month for a service. Because Microsoft are chucking around really cheap deals you seem to think they're the greatest thing ever. Enjoy those prices while they last is what I say.
 

Helghan

Member
I don't think so. Perfect Dark is being developed by The Initiative, which has ~60-70 people in the team.

Avowed is being built by Obsidian, which is although a relatively big studio (~240 employees), they have been working on 4-5 projects simultaneously: Grounded, The Outer Worlds DLC, Sawyer's next game, The Outer Worlds 2, and Avowed. That would mean Avowed would be developed by 100-150 people at most, which is reasonable for a AAA game, but perhaps not the norm when you're producing a $150-$200 million game (which I don't think it is, and which is the point of discussion).
But in case of The Initiative they said themselves that they would be working on a AAAA game. So budget-wise it's going to be pretty big. Obsidian has been on a crazy hiring spree, so also in this case Avowed will definitely be a AAA game. I know Sony thinks the economics don't work to have Game Pass support AAA development, but I think they are just plain wrong. Microsoft knows that AAA games will help sell Game Pass, and they need subscribers to make it economically viable.
 
Sure, whenever we get a stable, 50 mbit+ worldwide internet infrastructure in place.

a large part of the world population is in green tho and a lot of they countries in red won't matter much to sony/ms.

and you don't need 50Mbp/s + to stream games lol. shit, you don't even need that to stream 4K movies. any country with over 5-10 are good enough to stream. if you can stream youtube then you can stream games. what matters most is bitrate and latency. but i don't see that in your pretty little photo.
 
Last edited:

IDKFA

Member
Firstly you will need to spend hundreds per year for the subscription.

Secondly, for good performance you will still need reasonably expensive hardware, even if you want to play on your phone or tablet. But most people won't want to spend a significant amount of time doing that, because who wants to play on a tiny ass screen if you don't have to. And look how pathetic battery life is for mobile devices and will continue to be - now add in streaming for a few hours at a time.

Firstly, I know it might be expensive if Microsoft paid put billions to publishers so all AAA titles are on Gamepass from day one, plus with the added bonus of them never leaving the service. However, if they upped the price of Gamepass to say £70 per month then it would be well worth the cost.

Secondly, I was talking about dedicated hardware. I know you can't stream on a Casio calculator, but a vast majority of people will have a basic laptop, smart TV, smartphone etc. Also, streaming on your phone would be just one of the many options that would be available.

I know people really want to cling on to dedicated hardware, physical discs and even "ownership" of their games, but it's not 2001 anymore. Get with the times. A majority of us just want a sub+stream.
 

NeatoB1

Member
I have been pretty consistent with my take on this. I believe the only way Game Pass ends up on PlayStation is that Xbox stops making consoles. Once they do that and they are third-party software only it will be on PlayStation.
Not the full version of Game Pass just the first party stuff the Starfield and stuff like that.
 

azertydu91

Hard to Kill
For money - just imagine you could get GP on PS5, literally no one would bother with getting a XB console, so Sony would gain additional tens of millions of users, who would then spend money on games, DLC, MTX, PS+ and what's not. I think that might even be MS' long-term plan - offer just the service while others will deliver the hardware to reach the end users. Like I said recently in other thread, I won't be surprised if 15-20 years from now Xbox won't exist anymore and it'll be all about GP.
And I think it would be the smartest move for them, allowing it on ps and nintendo would help them get traction in countries they are not popular.
Maybe it can help sell more console because brand awareness and recogniition is very important, just like I think in the long term cloud gaming will be the dominant form of gaming just like digital games did it.And a decade ago nobody thought digital would overcome physical so quickly.
 

kingfey

Banned
To keep things varied, XGS will also produce some purely single-player games, e.g., Hellblade 2, Perfect Dark, and Avowed. However, their budget and production values might not be as big as some of the games I mentioned earlier. I don't think Xbox will invest $200 million on a single-player story-driven game that has no multiplayer or MTX component.
That is, if we ignore bethesda. Most bethesda games are SP games.

GAas games are cheap, compared to SP games.
 
Last edited:

Agent X

Member
Which brings me again to the point:

1. If the point of Gamepass is to bring console quality games to your screen, you need to lug a controller around.

2. If the point is to play simple mobile games while waiting for the tram, why would anyone pay 15 dollars/euro a month when there are TONS of free games already available?

Those are both good points. You can't just transplant console games on a mobile phone and expect instant success.

I know several people that enjoy playing a few games on their mobile phones, but have little to no interest in playing games on a console or PC. They're very much satisfied with games that are either free or very inexpensive ($1 to $2). These people won't pay $10 or even $5 for a really great console-style game. Why? Because they just want a simple diversion to whittle away a few minutes of spare time. They have no interest in getting "engaged" with a hundred-hour RPG featuring progressive skill trees and AI-infused NPCs with branching conversation paths. If they do happen to crave that style of game, then they can probably something satisfactory on the mobile game store anyway.
 

Hezekiah

Member
Firstly, I know it might be expensive if Microsoft paid put billions to publishers so all AAA titles are on Gamepass from day one, plus with the added bonus of them never leaving the service. However, if they upped the price of Gamepass to say £70 per month then it would be well worth the cost.

Secondly, I was talking about dedicated hardware. I know you can't stream on a Casio calculator, but a vast majority of people will have a basic laptop, smart TV, smartphone etc. Also, streaming on your phone would be just one of the many options that would be available.

I know people really want to cling on to dedicated hardware, physical discs and even "ownership" of their games, but it's not 2001 anymore. Get with the times. A majority of us just want a sub+stream.
I assume this is a joke. If you would pay £70 per month for GamePass you're crazy!

Remember after paying £840 a year you still wouldn't actually own anything, and you would almost certainly be buying gaming outside of the service too. It would cost a fortune and wouldn't be worth it even if you got through tons of games.
 

Azurro

Gold Member
because you in a very naive (but is easy to just look at your post history to understand the reasons) way try to see everything in black or white ..... the reality of the facts is that there are millions of players who don't care if a game "lags a bit" or if the graphics are 'not the best in class' and who are willing to compromise without any problem . so I go back to saying all your worries fall into thin air

You didn't read my post carefully, you are assuming it's just console wars because I'm a Sony fan. The issue here is that this is something that was assumed before, on how to transplant all of those cellphone gamers to hardcore gaming.

What I'm telling you is that it's extremely hard, it's not about visual quality, but about the actual nature of the cellphone gaming userbase. How would they ever get persuaded in spending 15 usd every month on games when the actual console is not even that expensive. Hell, a used PS4 or Xbox I bet you can get for a 150 or so, that's not a huge investment.

This userbase is content with free games, or at max, a couple of dollars for a game they'll play maybe an hour in total per week, if that. That's why the "cloud gaming" plan for MS is desperate, they have spent 15 years or more trying to increase their userbase, and they have put all of their IPs into a money hole with the hopes that hundreds of millions of people will subscribe when the people they are targeting won't even spend 10 dollars for a game.
 

HeisenbergFX4

Gold Member
Had it on pretty authority Xbox 100% approached Sony about Gamepass on Playstation and Sony said no for none of the reasons anyone has stated here and since I was told said reason off the record I wont be the one to bring it up

But of course MS wants it on every single platform possible and was rejected by Sony and Nintendo both
 

Warnen

Can he swing from a thread? Take a look overhead / Hey, there, there goes the Spider-Man
Right, I’m sure casual games are dying to buy more accessories to stream games onto their 5 inch phone.

sure a controller and a phone clip would be totally worth it over a $500 console for most people. Also what year is it that u have a 5 inch phone? Most phones have nicer screens then a switch lite and it’s fine for gaming.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom