Starfield was delayed partly because Xbox has "experienced shipping games too early"

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I don't remember right now. Do you have a link to the source quote to read the original and literal statement where they say this? Because there's no "postproduction" milestone name. If they plan to release on Q1 a few weeks earlier they should achieve the Gold milestone and a few months before, maybe around now, they should be around the Release Candidate milestone.

If they still didn't achieve Beta or are even in a previous stage (pre-Beta/Alpha/etc) I don't think they would release on Q1 and depending on the case not even Q2. Can't remember what they said.

Unfortunately I don't, I almost never bookmark thread topics TBH. It might just been a rumor though going off a Linkedin listing for all I remember.

I do remember it was a thread on GAF. Actually, I did a quick search and came across the article that brought it up:

https://wccftech.com/forza-motorspo...until-next-year-spring-2023-release-in-doubt/

That's the source of it. No telling their track record, but WCCF Tech are pretty MS-leaning, I'd imagine they may have a connection. Doesn't Jez Corden write articles for them?

 

[Yurinka]

Unfortunately I don't, I almost never bookmark thread topics TBH. It might just been a rumor though going off a Linkedin listing for all I remember.

I do remember it was a thread on GAF. Actually, I did a quick search and came across the article that brought it up:

https://wccftech.com/forza-motorspo...until-next-year-spring-2023-release-in-doubt/

That's the source of it. No telling their track record, but WCCF Tech are pretty MS-leaning, I'd imagine they may have a connection. Doesn't Jez Corden write articles for them?

Reading what he says, he mentions a production stage to build the game and after that a polishing stage once the game it's build and mentions that this stage wouldn't start until 2023.

To complete the Alpha milestone means that devs implemented basically all features and content, and the game becomes playable from start to finish with basically everything, even if unoptimized, unpolished, with a ton of bugs and many things may be on a placeholder/not final stage.

During Beta milestone basically it's where the game gets polished, optimized, bugfixed (not completely but almost) and basically completed. After it the Release Candidate it's where they further polish and bugfix it to the point that at the end of it they send the first build that it's send as the first candidate to be approved by the first party certification as the release version (without considering release day patch update, which often is developed later). This build may be approved, but often there are things that need to be fixed and the game needs to be submitted again until gets approved and once this happens they achieve the Gold milestone (this is the name that receives the game build approved).

If they are going to start the Beta milestone in 2023 I'd forget the idea of having a H1 2023 release. A Q4 2023 release sounds more realistic and maybe a 2024 release could be possible. As a reference, many years ago the Ubisoft testers complained about lack of time to test their (huge, with a shit ton of stuff to test) games because they were adding and changing stuff until the last minute. As a result for each game now they have a year of testing from once it gets full featured (so aprox. when completed the Alpha and start Beta) to its release. But the big ass Ubisoft games are way, way bigger and way, way more complex to test (and are published in more platforms) than a 'simple' console exclusive racing game.

So very likely for a FM8 game they'll need way less than a year from the start of the 'polishing' until release, but they'll need at least around half a year if nothing goes wrong, for sure. So yes, I'd bet a H2 2023 release. It also would make sense to release it in H2 because in H1 they are supposed to have Starfield.

 

[arvfab]

the game becomes playable from start to finish with basically everything, even if unoptimized, unpolished, with a ton of bugs

So the typical Bethesda game?

 

[Darth Vader]

So the typical Bethesda game?

What other developers call Alpha they call Gold.

 

[Sircaw]

What other developers call Alpha they call Gold.

Just think, Negan smashed that in more ways than one.

Kinda like how @TubzGaming rolls down at his local watering hole.

 

[TubzGaming]

Just think, Negan smashed that in more ways than one.

Kinda like how @TubzGaming rolls down at his local watering hole.

 

[Darth Vader]

Just think, Negan smashed that in more ways than one.

Kinda like how @TubzGaming rolls down at his local watering hole.

You'd smash it in a heart beat, fish.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Reading what he says, he mentions a production stage to build the game and after that a polishing stage once the game it's build and mentions that this stage wouldn't start until 2023.

To complete the Alpha milestone means that devs implemented basically all features and content, and the game becomes playable from start to finish with basically everything, even if unoptimized, unpolished, with a ton of bugs and many things may be on a placeholder/not final stage.

During Beta milestone basically it's where the game gets polished, optimized, bugfixed (not completely but almost) and basically completed. After it the Release Candidate it's where they further polish and bugfix it to the point that at the end of it they send the first build that it's send as the first candidate to be approved by the first party certification as the release version (without considering release day patch update, which often is developed later). This build may be approved, but often there are things that need to be fixed and the game needs to be submitted again until gets approved and once this happens they achieve the Gold milestone (this is the name that receives the game build approved).

If they are going to start the Beta milestone in 2023 I'd forget the idea of having a H1 2023 release. A Q4 2023 release sounds more realistic and maybe a 2024 release could be possible. As a reference, many years ago the Ubisoft testers complained about lack of time to test their (huge, with a shit ton of stuff to test) games because they were adding and changing stuff until the last minute. As a result for each game now they have a year of testing from once it gets full featured (so aprox. when completed the Alpha and start Beta) to its release. But the big ass Ubisoft games are way, way bigger and way, way more complex to test (and are published in more platforms) than a 'simple' console exclusive racing game.

So very likely for a FM8 game they'll need way less than a year from the start of the 'polishing' until release, but they'll need at least around half a year if nothing goes wrong, for sure. So yes, I'd bet a H2 2023 release. It also would make sense to release it in H2 because in H1 they are supposed to have Starfield.

Jeez, H2 2023 before it's ready to ship? This just highlights the huge problems with the XGS side of the development pipeline. It's amazing how they and Sony's teams were both hit by COVID lockdowns and yet the latter is still bringing out polished games in a timely fashion and the former is just, well, XDelay at this point.

I figured with Forza being a linear racing simulator, maybe the processes you're describing above would go by a bit more quickly? But I keep forgetting that they have built an entirely new engine (or a radical redesign of the original engine) for this game and that could slow down quite a few things, maybe it could be attributable to some of the bugs and such that would need to be ironed out.

IIRC Starfield is "said" for H1 2023 but does anyone really buy that? The game the gameplay ran in the June Showcase, the engine needs a lot more optimization, and there are smaller visual details that could use a lot of polish, animations could use some touching up, etc. I'm still thinking it gets delayed to at least H2 2023. So RedFall better be ready for H1 2023 because if that slips too, everyone's going to point back to that delay statement from May and call it out for being complete BS, it doesn't matter what the factors to further delays of those games are.

Microsoft really needs to stop speaking before they've got things locked down into a state where they know they can hit the dates they announce.

 

[peter42O]

Those dates all look pretty reasonable except for Contraband. It's not coming 2023 IMHO; we didn't see any gameplay for it (or any updates for it) whatsoever at the June Showcase, and the June Showcase was for games coming within the next 12 months.

We may get some gameplay for Contraband at the next June Showcase, but the game itself isn't coming until 2024 at the earliest honestly.

Probably but I couldn't think of anything else so I decided to just put Contraband. I guess Forza Motorsport could always be September but after Ghostwire Tokyo in April, I can't see Microsoft having a four month gap unless they fill it with Minecraft Legends and that Project Belfrey game which is said to be similar to Dragon's Crown.

As long as Redfall releases in early 2023, I'll be a happy camper until Starfield.

 

[Yurinka]

Jeez, H2 2023 before it's ready to ship? This just highlights the huge problems with the XGS side of the development pipeline. It's amazing how they and Sony's teams were both hit by COVID lockdowns and yet the latter is still bringing out polished games in a timely fashion and the former is just, well, XDelay at this point.

I figured with Forza being a linear racing simulator, maybe the processes you're describing above would go by a bit more quickly? But I keep forgetting that they have built an entirely new engine (or a radical redesign of the original engine) for this game and that could slow down quite a few things, maybe it could be attributable to some of the bugs and such that would need to be ironed out.

IIRC Starfield is "said" for H1 2023 but does anyone really buy that? The game the gameplay ran in the June Showcase, the engine needs a lot more optimization, and there are smaller visual details that could use a lot of polish, animations could use some touching up, etc. I'm still thinking it gets delayed to at least H2 2023. So RedFall better be ready for H1 2023 because if that slips too, everyone's going to point back to that delay statement from May and call it out for being complete BS, it doesn't matter what the factors to further delays of those games are.

Microsoft really needs to stop speaking before they've got things locked down into a state where they know they can hit the dates they announce.

I think that if we understand 'to start polishing stage' as entering the Beta milestone and they start Beta in 2023 (I assume in Q1 or early Q2) then I think the game should release in H2 2023 at the earliest and a 2024 release would be possible. Specially considering that MS in recent years has been patient giving their devs generous delays when needed.

Regarding Starfield I have no idea. I always saw it as a 2023 game, but considering covid, that these folks have a long story of released games on console not very polished in terms of performance and bugs, and that Starfield is going to be very important for MS I assume they'll want to release it as polished as possible. So I think they would like to release it in 2024. The thing is it was already delayed from 2022 to 2023 and that was a big issue for them, so I assume that they'll do whatever possible to release it in 2023. Maybe they'll cut a big chunk of the game -that is going to be huge- to include it later in some post launch season/dlc/etc and maybe release it with not so great performance on console and pretty buggy. They just saw Pokemon and before Cyberpunk releasing a mess and being super succesful in sales so maybe aren't that worried.

 

[Yurinka]

Microsoft really needs to stop speaking before they've got things locked down into a state where they know they can hit the dates they announce.

Yes. It's very difficult to make games, and specially huge ones. Specially it's very difficult to forecast the amount of time and resources that it will need. Most games get delayed, but internally when the players still don't know a release date. It's better to wait to announce a release date when the game is in Beta (which in most cases means less around a year or less to be released), so you have a better idea of when it's going to be released.

But often there's pressure from investors, higher ups in the corporation, players or press to announce stuff like new games or release dates. And investors or higher ups need a roadmap telling them that in certain FY or quarter will have big releases to generate X amount of revenue. So often they announce stuff even knowing that very likely they won't be able to deliver. And later they try to figure out how to solve it or compensate it (seems that a big strategy from MS has been to buy companies and sign 3rd party games for GP).

MS announced games too early so at a certain point they had to give new info, and at a certain point a release date. But was still too early. They are doing a good thing that is giving time to their devs, but did a bad thing that is to announce their games too early, in many cases when they weren't even in production. And also their exclusives roadmap has been a mess, with long periods without big exclusives. But they have been improving: by buying tons of studios sooner or later they'll have at least a handful of exclusives per half of the year, and having now GP they can focus their announcements on stuff coming to GP in the next year or so, mostly filled with 3rd party / indie stuff or from companies they recently bought.

 

[Kokoloko]

Bethesda's fan base first and foremost has always been on PC followed by Xbox and then PlayStation.

Skyrim and Fallout 4 sales say different. More PS sales than Xbox for and I don’t think the PC sold that much more than PS. First doesn’t mean biggest.

The real issue is that are these people Bethesda fans OR PlayStation fans? Because if you're a true Bethesda fan, you're going to do what you need to do in order to play their games. If it's a PlayStation fan who doesn't care about them anymore due to them not being on PlayStation then in all honesty, they were never a Bethesda fan to begin with.

I'm a Ubisoft fan and if Amazon for example acquired them and made their games exclusive (which they should by the way) then as a Ubisoft fan, guess what im doing? I'm signing up for Luna so I can still play their games. I'm not going to quit playing Ubisoft games just because they're no longer available on my preferred platform.

Funny thing is that im not an actual Bethesda Game Studios fan at all and only ever played a few hours of Fallout 4 before dropping it. I am however a fan of Arkane, Tango Gameworks and Machine Games. Id Software is good but their FPS are just way too fast for me. Would love a Rage 3 though. Anyway, point being that as a fan, im going to go where their games are made available.

For me personally, it's all about the games. If your brand/platform/eco-system has console exclusive games that I want to play, I will buy and own that console in order to play the games that I want to play. I would never let any acquisition by any company prevent me from playing the games that I want to play. Doing this would only hurt myself. lol

Again, Im not disagreeing Im just saying its Lame MS has to buy publishers to stay relevant. Bethesda was a 3rd party publisher with plenty of fans everywhere. All Xbox is doing is trying to buy success by taking fans of other publishers and sticking it on their machine because no1 cared about their own games anymore.

I doubt it will make much difference anyway at the end.

 

[Hezekiah]

Review scores better reflect it in whatever state it is in when released, and not for "the promise of what can come", or relying on PC modders (who are not Bethesda employees) to inflate the scores for what they could bring in the future.

Because by that logic, all games should probably get + 10 MC points automatically, especially if they're on PC or coming to PC. Modders always make games extra.

Agreed.

Some reviewers will suck up and give a good score regardless a la Cyberpunk, but I think we all know respectable reviewers who will call out a game for it is.

Certainly a platform-holder can't afford the negative backlash of a really buggy game, but I think MS will compromise if it means avoiding an embarrassing 15 - 18 month delay.

 

[ethomaz]

Bethesda's sales.

I will be very surprised if Skyrim didn't sold the best on PS4... if it didn't then it sales is very close to PC like PS4 39%, PC 40%.

 

[Darth Vader]

But I keep forgetting that they have built an entirely new engine (or a radical redesign of the original engine) for this game and that could slow down quite a few things, maybe it could be attributable to some of the bugs and such that would need to be ironed out.

I'd be very careful in taking these claims at face value. Bethesda has said multiple times that they had a "new engine" for their games and we all know it's just the same engine with tacked on shit on top. Gamebryo, Creation Engine and (I suspect) Creation Engine 2 are super similar, even some bugs in Creation Engine existed back with Gamebryo.

 

[peter42O]

Skyrim and Fallout 4 sales say different. More PS sales than Xbox for and I don’t think the PC sold that much more than PS. First doesn’t mean biggest.

True but the argument hasn't been about if they're bigger on PlayStation, it was always about being multi-platform and where they were first. So for example, while Sony hasn't owned the Crash or Spyro IP's, they were still associated with PlayStation similar to Resident Evil and Tomb Raider because they were there first. This applies to The Elder Scrolls which was on Xbox first so console wise, it will forever be seen as an Xbox game like those others are seen as PlayStation games.

Again, Im not disagreeing Im just saying its Lame MS has to buy publishers to stay relevant. Bethesda was a 3rd party publisher with plenty of fans everywhere. All Xbox is doing is trying to buy success by taking fans of other publishers and sticking it on their machine because no1 cared about their own games anymore.

I doubt it will make much difference anyway at the end.

Xbox will always be relevant as long as they have the full support of Microsoft backing them up where as pre-2018, they didn't. I don't see Microsoft acquiring publishers as lame at all. Google coming away with Bethesda or Facebook coming away with ABK in my opinion would be what's lame. And if not Microsoft, then who? Some company like Google or Facebook who didn't/doesn't give two shits about gaming? No thanks.

Bethesda WAS a third party publisher. Past tense. The Past. No longer relevant to reality. Buying success by taking fans of other publishers and bringing them to their platform is exactly what Sony has done for 27+ years and continue to do. The only difference is that Microsoft has fuck you money and Sony doesn't but make no mistake, regardless of how anyone wants to look at it, the end result and goal is exactly the same - doing what is necessary to bring as many consumers/gamers/fans into your platform and eco-system as possible. How it happens is irrelevant because if it was, then every gamer should hate Sony for what they've done for 27+ years and continue to do but very few people hate Sony so in my opinion, if what they've done is accepted and forgiven or whatever, then what Microsoft is doing is no different.

Not only that but unlike Sony, Microsoft isn't just looking at a plastic box. People here can believe whatever they want but the ABK deal is for King. It's not for Activision, Blizzard or COD. Those are just bonuses. Microsoft wants to make an impact in mobile gaming which is far more important and relevant than any console, any plastic box will ever be and King will give them that impact while growing their space in mobile and make them a shit ton of cash in the process.

I want to see Xbox/PlayStation be what it was during Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 where both are up each other's ass and it can go either way. Those who want to see a repeat of last generation are in my opinion not real and true gamers. These people are extremists and fanatics that aren't meant to be taken seriously. People cry because Microsoft after 19 years finally decided to go all in with Xbox. Sony had a 19 year head start, 26 years if you count PlayStation releasing in Japan in 1994. Did anyone really expect Microsoft to NEVER spend their money? I mean come on. Besides, last generation, so many PlayStation fans and Xbox fans said why isn't Microsoft investing in Xbox and spending money on the brand and platform? It was because the people above Spencer didn't give two shits about Xbox. Once those people were gone, boom, Nadella invests in Xbox because Spencer like Jaffe says is a visionary simply because he sees what vast majority here and in general don't see and that's what's beyond the plastic box/console.

I'm a console only gamer but yet, I love Microsoft's direction because they want to make Xbox as a brand bigger, worldwide, more relevant and the only way to do that is by going beyond the plastic box because consoles have a 150m install base limit and that's if you're lucky, but you start adding in other areas like PC, like mobile, like Cloud streaming, you can actually reach a billion users. These users are NOT buying an Xbox or a PlayStation. These users are NOT coming to you so you meaning Microsoft have to go to them and the best, easiest and fastest way to do so is yes, mobile gaming regardless of who likes it or not. This is where acquiring an ABK despite me preferring another a third party publisher instead is brilliant because King will help Microsoft accomplish this while also keeping the core studios away from mobile gaming while at the same time, making a shit ton of cash that will get reinvested into Xbox platform and eco-system.

As far as if it makes a difference, that's all a wait and see. Just as easily as Microsoft can become a massive player and be worldwide, they can just as easily fuck it all up but as an Xbox gamer, good or bad, im all in along for the ride.

 

[arvfab]

while Sony hasn't owned the Crash or Spyro IP's

But they did, they just sold them to Activision.

 

[Darth Vader]

Bethesda WAS a third party publisher. Past tense. The Past. No longer relevant to reality. Buying success by taking fans of other publishers and bringing them to their platform is exactly what Sony has done for 27+ years and continue to do. The only difference is that Microsoft has fuck you money and Sony doesn't but make no mistake, regardless of how anyone wants to look at it, the end result and goal is exactly the same - doing what is necessary to bring as many consumers/gamers/fans into your platform and eco-system as possible. How it happens is irrelevant because if it was, then every gamer should hate Sony for what they've done for 27+ years and continue to do but very few people hate Sony so in my opinion, if what they've done is accepted and forgiven or whatever, then what Microsoft is doing is no different.

Not even you believe that.

I want to see Xbox/PlayStation be what it was during Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 where both are up each other's ass and it can go either way. Those who want to see a repeat of last generation are in my opinion not real and true gamers.

Agreed. But this is not going to happen by fucking your own franchises and using your money to take away established IP from other platforms. They are not adding anything to the gaming landscape, only taking away from others. There's a fundamental difference between those two concepts.

People cry because Microsoft after 19 years finally decided to go all in with Xbox. Sony had a 19 year head start, 26 years if you count PlayStation releasing in Japan in 1994. Did anyone really expect Microsoft to NEVER spend their money? I mean come on. Besides, last generation, so many PlayStation fans and Xbox fans said why isn't Microsoft investing in Xbox and spending money on the brand and platform? It was because the people above Spencer didn't give two shits about Xbox. Once those people were gone, boom, Nadella invests in Xbox because Spencer like Jaffe says is a visionary simply because he sees what vast majority here and in general don't see and that's what's beyond the plastic box/console.

Spencer is a visionary? If I had 100B to spend in buying established IP that sells millions a year would you call me a visionary? If I was offering gamepass for 50 cents or with a pack of pringles, or selling every console at a loss 2 years into a gen, would you call me a visionary?

Spencer is a charlatan.

 

[peter42O]

Not even you believe that.

I believe that Sony has paid money for a lot of games to be exclusive (full or timed) in order for them to bring in consumers, gamers and fans into their eco-system. I personally have no issues with what they've done for 27+ years because I know that's how the industry works. Exclusivity brings you in and everything else makes you stay. I just don't cry about what Sony, Microsoft or any company does for that matter because at the end of the day, none of it will affect me in a negative way.

Agreed. But this is not going to happen by fucking your own franchises and using your money to take away established IP from other platforms. They are not adding anything to the gaming landscape, only taking away from others. There's a fundamental difference between those two concepts.

I don't see them as taking away anything just like I don't see Sony taking away Final Fantasy from Xbox fans. People will say Xbox fans don't buy Final Fantasy or other Square Enix games but why should they? Getting a second rate PSP remaster over FFXVI or FF7R isn't going to get anyone buying your games and if/when they get released years later for $70, nah, vast majority of consumers/gamers will simply say fuck that.

The second reason why I will never see it that way is for the simple fact that they were never Sony's or PlayStation's to begin with. They had/have no ownership of anything Bethesda related or ABK related so you can't take something away when it was never yours to begin with. Microsoft is acquiring studios/publishers because first, they're available for purchase so why wouldn't they and second, because why pay to license content for Game Pass when you can own it instead? Microsoft isn't doing anything that Sony wouldn't do if the roles were reversed.

Spencer is a visionary? If I had 100B to spend in buying established IP that sells millions a year would you call me a visionary? If I was offering gamepass for 50 cents or with a pack of pringles, or selling every console at a loss 2 years into a gen, would you call me a visionary?

Spencer is a charlatan.

The reason why I say Spencer is a visionary is because he's seeing years and decades beyond a box where as Sony for example just doesn't want to change and stay the same as if it was 1995. I also say it because he convinced Nadella and shareholders of his long term vision. If they didn't believe in his vision and more importantly, didn't believe that they could make a shit ton of money in the long term, then they simply would have denied his vision.

I know majority here don't like Spencer which is fine but I have no issues or problems with him. Is he perfect? Fuck no but he's doing what no one else including Peter Moore was never ever able to do and that's convince the CEO and the company itself to take Xbox seriously and to go all in. Knowing that Nadella is all in gives me more confidence in Xbox than anything anyone else could ever do because he's putting literally hundreds of billions of dollars into Xbox and as an Xbox gamer and fan, I love seeing it because I know im going to greatly benefit from it all in the end.

Back to Spencer for a minute, im giving him this entire generation to prove himself just like I gave Sony all of the PlayStation 4 generation to prove themselves to me because outside of old school God of War and Naughty Dog, Sony didn't give me anything great until 2016. For Microsoft, outside of Gears of War, same as Sony. Nothing really for me. Sony proved themselves to me last generation and I gave them the entire generation to win me over which they did game wise. Other aspects leave a lot to be desired but at the same time, they're secondary this generation for me for a reason. Microsoft has the rest of this generation and thus far, they already surpassed last generation for me because while I only gotten Halo Infinite, it was my 2021 game of the year and made me a fan of the series despite never playing a Halo game before Infinite.

You talk about selling the console at a loss or giving Game Pass for a package of Pringles but I don't see any of this as a negative. Sony has been established for 27 years. Microsoft with Xbox is coming off a horrible generation and decided to reset everything. They couldn't just stay the same of here's a $60 game, buy it and play it and succeed because that time for them was done. That wasn't going to work or do anything in regards to building their brand, platform and eco-system. They needed to change course and pivot which they did with Game Pass and going in a subscription based direction.

But to each their own bud.

But they did, they just sold them to Activision.

Looking it up, it seems like Sony had a publishing deal with Universal for Crash. They didn't renew the deal and eventually Universal merged with Vivendi Games who later merged with ABK.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Probably but I couldn't think of anything else so I decided to just put Contraband. I guess Forza Motorsport could always be September but after Ghostwire Tokyo in April, I can't see Microsoft having a four month gap unless they fill it with Minecraft Legends and that Project Belfrey game which is said to be similar to Dragon's Crown.

As long as Redfall releases in early 2023, I'll be a happy camper until Starfield.

Who knows, they might feel Ghostwire Tokyo is enough for that type of gap? Realistically I'd think they would feel it isn't, but you never know.

I dunno how well that Project Belfrey game is going to gain traction TBH. I've seen the team's other games and the visual style is...interesting, but it's not going to do much for an action-adventure beat 'em up. Not unless they go with a completely new art style. That studio's other stuff reminds me of Pentiment but with more animation and slightly more Ralph Bakshi LOTR-esque. It's somewhere in-between, their visual style, I'd say.

But I dunno how marketable that visual style is going to be (not necessarily just in terms of sales, but generating attention to the service) to the wider audience, or if it's going to fit a high-paced action-adventure RPG beat 'em up template. A big part of the appeal of games like Dragon's Crown are their art style, heavily anime/manga-influenced but distinctly Vanillaware in execution (plus, sexy ladies is always nice ).

I think that if we understand 'to start polishing stage' as entering the Beta milestone and they start Beta in 2023 (I assume in Q1 or early Q2) then I think the game should release in H2 2023 at the earliest and a 2024 release would be possible. Specially considering that MS in recent years has been patient giving their devs generous delays when needed.

Regarding Starfield I have no idea. I always saw it as a 2023 game, but considering covid, that these folks have a long story of released games on console not very polished in terms of performance and bugs, and that Starfield is going to be very important for MS I assume they'll want to release it as polished as possible. So I think they would like to release it in 2024. The thing is it was already delayed from 2022 to 2023 and that was a big issue for them, so I assume that they'll do whatever possible to release it in 2023. Maybe they'll cut a big chunk of the game -that is going to be huge- to include it later in some post launch season/dlc/etc and maybe release it with not so great performance on console and pretty buggy. They just saw Pokemon and before Cyberpunk releasing a mess and being super succesful in sales so maybe aren't that worried.

These are all good insights into the dev process, specifically to Microsoft's case, but delays for Forza and especially Starfield pushing into H2 2023 or even 2024 (especially 2024) is going to see some type of mutiny among the most hardcore Xbox fans towards the brand over yet more broken promises and lack of exclusive content.

It's also going to put a spotlight on the 2019/2020 1P reveals and more people just asking the obvious question: where are they? What's taking so long? And they're going to point to Sony, Nintendo and other companies and ask why Microsoft can't release big new games in a timely fashion like they can. But games journalists, of course they may try gaslighting those concerns ahead of time to get ahead of a perceived problem and set a narrative they can try controlling, like they usually do when it comes to these sort of things regarding Xbox.

The point about Cyberpunk & Pokemon you touch on, I don't think something like Starfield can have the same benefit. Cyberpunk was one of the most hyped games of the past few years (comparable to if not even ahead of Elden Ring in pre-release anticipation), across the board, and Pokemon is Pokemon. Hype for Starfield is nowhere near Cyberpunk and Bethesda may have a storied history, but they don't have the cultural cache of the Pokemon brand, so if Starfield releases in a trash state, critics can try downplaying the performance and bug issues but gamers are going to drown them out completely.

So if they instead do like you're suggesting and just cut out a huge chunk to help push the game along for a timely 2023 release, it's going to be disadvantageous if that impacts the game's scope and scale significantly, and hurts the presentation. If the visuals, visual fidelity and such aren't good enough to make up for the reduced size and scope, the game's gonna get murdered by gamers and potentially by critics.