Microsoft's long-rumored disc-to-digital program for Xbox went live in testing last week, and it has grown to supporting hundreds upon hundreds of games since.

So far, there are well over 1,000 games available as part of Xbox's disc-to-digital testing program, which gives you digital rights for disc-based games.

Simply inserting a compatible disc into an Xbox One or Xbox Series X console gives you the ability to attach it digitally to your account, giving you the ability to play, download, stream from the cloud, and access Xbox Play Anywhere support without the disc. You can also console share the license as well to another player.

The disc doesn't become inert after licensing the digital version either. If you sell the disc or give it away, the next user can grab the digital license from your account. You won't lose your cloud save either, so if you re-acquire the disc or buy it outright digitally later on, you'll be able to continue on as normal.

Some users have been disappointed with the initial roll out, however, as some major publishers have so far not opted in.

Some outlets went with headlines today decrying Ubisoft and others for their apparent decision to boycott the system. Ubisoft has long been the target of game preservationists, given that Ubisoft's shuttering of The Crew and other games led to stronger calls for digital rights. Ubisoft denying access to digital versions from disc-based games already sold would seem a bit like their M.O. in that universe. It seems the anger was premature, though.

Microsoft has always stated that this initial testing phase doesn't represent the full scope of content coming to the disc-to-digital program. Indeed, many publishers are still likely going over the contracts and ensuring that the legalese all matches up before going ahead with it. SEGA, Square Enix, Bandai Namco, and Ubisoft were among those apparently not honoring the program.

Today, it seemed that Ubisoft games have now gone live in the system for Xbox Insider testers in the Alpha and Alpha Skip-Ahead, however.

As you can see in the X (Twitter) thread above, Ubisoft games are now fully available on the disc-to-digital program, with titles like Far Cry Primal, Far Cry 4, Trials Fusion, Assassin's Creed titles, and many more going live.

I received a DM about an hour ago informing me of the change, and it seems other titles are now following suit.

It remains to be seen when (or if) other publishers come on board. Given how aggressively Square Enix has supported forward-facing Xbox initiatives like Xbox Play Anywhere and Xbox Cloud Gaming, it's fairly obvious to me that Square Enix will jump on board pretty soon. I'm told other publishers are just going over the detailing before committing, which is standard practice for any big corporation.

Xbox's disc-to-digital program is one of the most impressive innovations we've seen from Microsoft's gaming efforts in recent years, although it was originally pitched in 2013 as part of the Xbox One. It was pretty poorly presented back then, though, and users in 2026 are far more knowledgeable about the potential benefits of digital gaming. Still, there's more Xbox could potentially do here to sweeten the deal. With PlayStation committing to the phase out of discs entirely by 2028, many are wondering (and hoping) on whether Xbox will continue the disc-based torch with the next-gen Xbox Helix.

What publishers are you hoping to see jump on board? Hit the comments, let us know.

Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more.

BlizzCon 2026 kicks off in full next weekend, and for the Blizzard faithful, hype is reaching fever pitch already.

Last month, Blizzard President Johanna Faries declared internally that the Warcraft division is now the "top-performing" within Xbox, beating out Bethesda, Call of Duty, and other franchises. It follows a massive year for Blizzard, where Diablo IV's Lord of Hatred expansion landed incredibly well, and a resurgent Overwatch reconnected with its audience and found new players in the process.

DEAL: Get Surfshark VPN 86% OFF with Windows Central 🦈

There still exists enormous untapped potential within Blizzard franchises, in my view. World of Warcraft has yet to reclaim the heights of the Wrath of the Lich King days, although I would argue the potential still exists therein. Dormant franchises like StarCraft are waiting in the wings for a big-budget revival, and even classic games like Heroes of the Storm would likely have a new audience with the right business model and investment.

We haven't seen BlizzCon since 2023, as the firm now typically waits for a wider variety of announcements to coalesce before spinning up the event. As such, I'm expecting this year's BlizzCon to be perhaps its biggest and most important yet — in an age where competition for Blizzard's staples is also more aggressive than ever.

RELATED: How to watch BlizzCon 2026

Here are some spoiler-free hopes, dreams, speculations, and information about what to expect from Blizzard Entertainment's big show.

The big one: StarCraft at Blizzcon 2026

StarCraft is coming back this year, after a long period in cryostasis.

StarCraft is Blizzard's flagship sci-fi franchise, although it has been dormant since the conclusion of StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void back in 2015. If we're talking about major tentpole releases, the wait has been even longer.

StarCraft is set in a bleak future where humanity is besieged by futuristic Protoss and Alien-like infesting Zerg. StarCraft and Battle.net were both instrumental in legitimizing esports in general, particularly in Korea, where the game's demanding real-time strategic gameplay won over millions.

In the Activision era, former CEO Bobby Kotick preferred franchises that could reach mass mainstream audiences, and eschewed "niche" genres even if their fans were incredibly engaged. Now under Xbox, which arguably specializes in "niche," there's every chance we could see StarCraft see a bombastic revival.

The big reveal is most likely going to be the StarCraft shooter, first reported on by Bloomberg's Jason Schreier.

Blizzard has been hiring for an "open world shooter" for many years, seeking disciplinary expertise for vehicular gameplay and first- and third-person combat. I've personally seen some early test footage of the project Schreier first reported on, featuring playable Terran marines battling Zerg threats in what appears to be an open-world setting, complete with high-end visuals and cinematic campaign treatment.

It's unclear exactly what the finished product will be like, but I'm expecting and hoping for a full-blown co-op campaign with multiplayer PvE content, akin to Gears of War's new Siege mode, for example, or perhaps something broader like Helldivers 2. Schreier recently said on his podcast not to expect it to be an MMO-lite akin to Destiny, but StarCraft would surely be a ripe option for multiplayer PvE content on the side, or maybe even PvP content, pitting Protoss, human, and Zerg players against each other somehow.

Led by Far Cry alumni Dan Hay, I'm fully expecting StarCraft to lead the biggest announcements at the show, particularly since the StarCraft website mysteriously began "glitching out" recently.

I'm also curious if Blizzard plans to revive some of the StarCraft RTS games as well. Nexon has reportedly pitched to Blizzard to build a game within the StarCraft IP. I've heard rumors that Blackbird Interactive, which was a co-dev on Warcraft Remastered, might also be once again involved in Blizzard's classic RTS efforts — although perhaps that is for Warcraft itself again. Speaking of ...

Warcraft at BlizzCon 2026

Warcraft remains Blizzard's most visible franchise, more than likely, as the industry-leading subscription-based MMORPG enters its third decade.

I'm fully expecting that Blizzard will reveal not only the next major content patch for the current expansion, Midnight, but also give us the full rundown of The Last Titan.

World of Warcraft is in a bit of an odd place in my view, with something of an identity crisis. Warcraft's writing team seems intent on making it more "cozy" and appealing to broader audiences, at the cost of the franchise's historical bite and edge. Horde and Alliance faction war has been edited out of the story, and the game's writing in general has been a lot more "gentle" in recent times.

I've long thought World of Warcraft still has a ton of untapped potential to reach its old-school audience; whether that comes in the form of gameplay or story direction (or a combination of both) remains to be seen, but I'm expecting Blizzard to over-deliver for World of Warcraft in the near future. Why? Blizzard potentially has some serious competition looming on the horizon in the form of the League of Legends MMO, long in development at Riot Games. Final Fantasy 14 has also proven itself to be a viable alternative. Blizzard tends to do best when it has competitors biting at its heels.

Beyond World of Warcraft retail, there are strong rumors of a so-called "Classic+" reveal on the horizon.

Blizzard has been trying to deliver two separate experiences of WoW for some time, with the more RPG-leaning classic rendition of the game re-emerging as a separate experience. Fans of that gameplay style want something more, leading many to think that codename "Camelot" might represent a World of Warcraft Classic "prequel" of sorts, taking place in Azeroth's ancient history.

On top of that, there are also rumors that Blizzard might be exploring Warcraft's RTS roots again. A title, "Warcraft Chronicles," emerged alongside the Camelot codename, and given rumors I've heard about RTS aficionados Blackbird Interactive being on board with Blizzard again, perhaps we could see new expansions for Warcraft 3, or remakes of Warcraft 1 or 2 even.

It does seem like a general industry trend right now to bring new content to older games. Witcher 3 is getting a new expansion, for example, and Microsoft un-canceled expansions for Age of Empires II and III both, as the franchise finds a small but very passionate audience. I think new content for Blizzard's classic RTS games is something I personally highly expect, given what we've heard.

Overwatch, Diablo, and ... Heroes of the Storm?!

Finally, we have Overwatch and Diablo. Overwatch is arguably Blizzard's biggest franchise now, enjoyed by millions across the world. Blizzard's strategy of over-delivering a huge tranche of heroes all at once really helped Overwatch regain popularity, and remains one of the few big service games capable of tapping both Gen-Z and Millennial audiences in equal measure.

I'm expecting Overwatch to continue its upward trajectory with new hero announcements, and perhaps, finally, we'll see some form of transmedia announcement for the franchise. Overwatch's lore and characterization have received a ton of investment in recent months. What better way to top that off than a big-budget Netflix Anime or perhaps even an animated movie?

Speaking of, I'm also expecting Diablo to get the same transmedia treatment. I've been hearing for months that Diablo has a TV show in development. It's unclear whether it's at Netflix or Amazon or whoever else. Perhaps we'll see that revealed in full here at BlizzCon 2026, if it's indeed true.

I expect we'll also hear what's next for Diablo. One thing I've heard is that Blizzard wants the waiting time between tentpole Diablo launches to be shorter, although it's probably still too early for a reveal of Diablo 5 if I had to guess. It's more likely we'll see a big season reveal for Diablo 4, and if we're lucky, maybe more classic content for Diablo 2 like the recent Warlock DLC. This is one area where Blizzard could surprise me, though.

I'm not expecting a new Diablo 4 expansion right now, instead with resources flowing towards Diablo 5. But I could be wrong; I'm excited to find out what they're cooking here.

Beyond that, we'll likely get new content for Hearthstone (perhaps the long-awaited Monk class inclusion?), and I wouldn't be surprised if Blizzard also announces other new mobile game spin-offs from third parties, such as Overwatch Rush.

But what about ... Heroes of the Storm? Blizzard's long-dormant MOBA has been getting an uptick in love recently, with updates filtering through, and it even has some esports tournaments at BlizzCon this year as well. A little birdie has been teasing me that this upcoming weekend could be exciting for Heroes of the Storm fans ... what would it look like if Heroes of the Storm got a similar Overwatch-style multi-hero announcement?! Let me have my hopium ...

What do YOU want to see from BlizzCon 2026?

Blizzard is one of the game industry's most legendary outlets, on par with the likes of Nintendo. Few studios have managed to deliver so consistently for so long, creating so many millions of fans across such a wide variety of genres.

I have my issues with Blizzard's direction at times, particularly with World of Warcraft's writing, and the lack of love for games like StarCraft and Heroes of the Storm. BlizzCon is always an opportunity to see Blizzard addressing feedback, however. And we know that they can do it: Overwatch is proof that awesome games can be revived with the right amount of love and investment. Diablo 4 is proof that Blizzard can still deliver top-shelf story writing, too.

I'd love to see Heroes of the Storm get a console port to Xbox, PlayStation, and even Nintendo Switch. MOBAs absolutely can work on console, and with an eclectic cast of known characters, I think Heroes of the Storm could find a huge new audience, especially if they opened it up to third-party characters. Microsoft-owned characters like The Doom Slayer, Master Chief, and even weirder stuff like Banjo would be a perfect fit for the game in my view, even if some Heroes fans might consider it sacrilegious ... it hardly makes a ton of sense for Tracer to be fighting Deathwing in the first place, no?

Adding new content to Warcraft 3 or remaking classic RTS titles like StarCraft 1 or Warcraft 1 and 2 would also help the genre's resurgence. I'd love to see something surprising and new for Overwatch too, beyond new heroes, and I'm intrigued to see where Blizzard takes Diablo from here.

Either way, there's still so so much potential within Blizzard in my view, despite how big it already is. BlizzCon is becoming an industry event in its own right, now featuring content from third parties like CD Projekt RED for the first time. Could we eventually see it evolve to include even more games and franchises? It's exciting to think about.

Let me know what you want to see from BlizzCon 2026 in the comments. I'll be out there, so say hi if you see me!

Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more.

Xbox Cloud Gaming has essentially been put out to pasture, with Microsoft intent on including hourly limits on the service.

From November 2026, Microsoft will impose a 15-hour cap on Xbox Game Pass Ultimate users playing cloud games, as well as a 10-hour cap on Premium, and 5 hours on Essential. It's a huge climbdown from the previous "unlimited" access Xbox Cloud Gaming granted, and an indictment of the business model in general.

Microsoft says that the changes will impact "4%" of Xbox Game Pass subscribers, which in essence still amounts to well over a million players. Microsoft has rolled out Xbox Cloud Gaming to LG, Samsung, and now TCL TVs as of today, which makes for some awkward timing.

The limits have been met with derision both within and without the Xbox fanbase, and have shone a spotlight on where Xbox is falling short here.

NVIDIA GeForce Now will extend its value over Xbox Cloud Gaming

Already the market leader, NVIDIA GeForce Now introduced hourly limits a few months ago in response to some criticism, although the limits GFN offers are far more generous than what Microsoft has proposed here. On GFN's highest tiers, you get 100 hours, with some hours rolling over to the next month too.

Not only that, but NVIDIA GeForce Now also just offers a generally higher-quality experience, with better bitrates, latency, and stability. Xbox Game Pass had it beat before on usability, though, with a more console-like interface and more TV-friendly apps. Game Pass also comes with a larger upfront library of games, whereas NVIDIA GeForce Now, for the most part, is made up of games you've already purchased from Steam.

The issue for me is ... 15 hours just isn't enough to complete the vast majority of decent games these days. Fable is supposedly around 30 hours long for a completionist playthrough. Will Xbox Cloud Gaming users be expected to spread their session across two months to finish the game?

Microsoft is going to offer per-hour passes to boost how much access you have, but we've not really seen the pricing yet. I have a feeling they won't be cheap.

Xbox Remote Play could be a solution ... but it seems to be abandoned

We live in a weird dichotomy right now, driven by the AI component crisis. Microsoft is buying up all the memory for its AI push and leaving Xbox with scraps on the side. That extends to Xbox Cloud Gaming servers too, and while they can be used for AI workloads off-peak, I'm told, they're obviously not specialized for that type of work.

Either way, servers break down and wear out; they need to be replaced regularly. Running servers 24/7 is an expensive business on the component side, even before you start thinking about electricity and water for cooling.

A chap on X (Twitter) sent me a link to an Xbox Player Voice feedback item that laments the quality of Xbox Remote Play.

You can effectively turn a home Xbox Series X|S console into a "personal cloud server" and have it stream your games over a viable Wi-Fi network. The problem is, despite being similar hardware, Xbox Remote Play is inexplicably locked to 1080p. Xbox Cloud Gaming on Xbox Game Pass Ultimate offers 1440p with higher bitrates, too.

There's no real reason why, at least in the case of the Xbox Series X, we shouldn't be able to get a better Xbox Remote Play experience. But that doesn't exactly solve things for users who rely entirely on Xbox Cloud Gaming ...

Cloud-first gamers who bought an Xbox Ally base model or other cloud-first devices like the Logitech G Cloud are pretty much screwed by this change — unless Microsoft does something to improve Xbox Remote Play. That is, of course, presuming they even own an Xbox Series X|S, both of which are now insanely expensive. None of this really makes a lot of sense, does it?

Update: Since writing this piece, it seems Microsoft began testing 1440p on Xbox Remote Play too on the Xbox Insider program's Alpha Ring, which is a huge win. But there's still not a lot of information about whether they're going to respond to the backlash about cloud usage limits. I'll try and get more info later about exactly what we can expect from Xbox Remote Play.

Xbox Cloud Gaming is another victim of the RAMpocalypse

I was recently told by Microsoft figures that, given compute demands for AI, Xbox Cloud Gaming is effectively losing money when used beyond 15 hours per month. When you have Azure server rack space being used for anything other than AI, it seems Microsoft isn't particularly sentimental towards the idea anymore.

Microsoft has been on an economic grind for Xbox over the past few months, "restructuring" the org to ensure that it sends a bigger accountability margin back to the mothership. That's meant mass Xbox layoffs and cancellations of projects, and a more aggressive posture towards easy wins.

Xbox Cloud Gaming clearly isn't an easy win in this new reality. If 15 hours is the cap that prevents the service from being unprofitable ... perhaps the business model was never really viable in the first place.

Xbox Cloud Gaming isn't exactly struggling in a vacuum, though. Other companies that rely entirely on cloud inference seem to be struggling. Whether it's Roblox or Twitch, the era of "cheap cloud" seems to be over — alongside video game consoles themselves, and consumer hardware in general, seemingly.

Either way, I don't see how you can plausibly expect people to use cloud gaming as a primary vehicle with such a strict limit. Microsoft isn't able to get Xbox hardware stock to most of the world either.

Then ... you start wondering why Microsoft is so eager to let a literal billion Windows 11 users burn cash on a pyre for free access to Microsoft Copilot ... but wants to charge out the nose for Xbox Cloud Gaming? It's a pretty clear admission that they don't see much of a future for cloud gaming in general. Or perhaps it's just more AI psychosis.

Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more.

I've been following this story for a while, but it seems like Call of Duty fans of at least one of their PC versions have cause to celebrate this week.

Microsoft has been hard at work leveraging its Call of Duty acquisition to boost Xbox's fortunes in recent years, shipping Black Ops 1 and 2 "classic" versions exclusively onto PlayStation to huge fanfare.

Indeed, the "classic" Call of Duty versions have been in the spotlight somewhat lately, as fans clamor for an era of a more grounded, less microtransaction-laden Call of Duty. Modern versions are replete with pop culture bloat and mountains of "features" nobody really asked for, leaving nostalgic millennials and older gen-z players yearning for simpler times.

Of course, you can always play the classic Call of Duty games on PC via Steam or on Xbox Series X|S via backwards compatibility. The downside is that these classic Call of Duty versions are often infested with aimbot hackers at best, and RCE vulnerabilities at worst.

Remote Code Execution (RCE) exploits allow players in multiplayer titles to literally upload malware to your computer. The way some older games work with regard to peer-to-peer networking, if left unpatched, facilitate this malignant type of attack. Modern Warfare 2 on PC has been notorious for these types of vulnerabilities unfortunately, but there may be light at the end of the tunnel.

In a statement to Windows Central, Activision claimed the following: "An update released this week addressed all known vulnerabilities in Modern Warfare 2. The team continues to support our legacy titles, with additional updates coming soon. We encourage anyone aware of additional issues to report them through Activision's Bug Bounty Portal."

There are other reports of aimbots, wall hacks, and even RCE exploits in other classic Call of Duty PC games, but it sounds as though Activision is now actively working through these after realizing the potential goldmine it's sitting on. Indeed, Call of Duty: Black Ops 1 and 2 dominated the PlayStation store over the summer, potentially opening up new revenue streams for the legendary franchise.

What about Call of Duty on Xbox backwards compatibility?

I've also requested for Activision to comment on the Xbox backwards compatible versions of Call of Duty, which are similarly replete with hackers and aimbots and the like.

Xbox backwards compatibility is one of the best features Xbox Series X|S and Xbox One have in my view. It allows hundreds of classic Xbox and Xbox 360 games to carry forward, ensuring that your purchases travel with you.

In the early days, having all of the classic Call of Duty titles in one place is arguably a huge selling point for Xbox as a console ecosystem. However, Microsoft itself offered a huge flaw in the system this summer, when it ported the classic Black Ops 1 and 2 exclusively to PlayStation, complete with modernized security updates and server infrastructure.

Since the classic Call of Duty titles available on Xbox Series X|S today are effectively Xbox 360 versions, the source code of which is likely archived, it seems incredibly unlikely Microsoft and Activision will be willing to patch some of these. The Xbox 360 security layers are easily bypassed these days, with modded consoles opening up old school backwards compatible multiplayer titles to a variety of vulnerabilities.

It's a sad state of affairs for Xbox fans of classic Call of Duty games potentially. Despite Xbox literally owning Call of Duty, Xbox fans are left with the worst experience thanks to the unpatched security vulnerabilities.

I'll update this article if Activision responds to my queries on the topic, but at least for now, PC players of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 should feel a bit safer for the time being. I'll monitor the situation and let you know of any updates as soon as I'm able.

Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more.

It was probably inevitable eventually, but Xbox Cloud Gaming is joining NVIDIA and other platforms in putting hourly limits on its streaming service.

Xbox Cloud Gaming is a platform tied to Xbox Game Pass right now, giving you unlimited access to stream games from Game Pass as well as hundreds upon hundreds of digital games you own. In fact, thanks to Xbox's disc-to-digital program, you can now even play disc-based Xbox games you own if they're included in Xbox Cloud Gaming.

DEAL: Get Surfshark VPN 86% OFF with Windows Central 🦈

Many users use Xbox Cloud Gaming on Xbox One to play current-gen Xbox Series X|S games that aren't available natively on older systems. It's also great for running games on laptops, tablets, and other devices that aren't powerful enough to run said titles natively.

Up until now, Xbox Cloud Gaming was unlimited, but Microsoft just announced that it will begin introducing limits.

The new hourly cloud gaming limits via Xbox Game Pass

"We recognize that introducing limits is a meaningful change, particularly for players who regularly spend more time gaming through the cloud," Microsoft said on Xbox Wire. "We expect this upcoming change to impact 4% of Game Pass subscribers. Once subscribers use their included hours, they will be able to purchase additional cloud playtime through the XBOX Store."

I'm told that the "additional cloud playtime" bundles will not have a "use by" expiry window once purchased, although Microsoft hasn't listed exactly how much these passes will cost as of yet.

Indeed, you will not need an Xbox Game Pass subscription to use these cloud playtime hours, which will grant you access to your own library of compatible Xbox Play Anywhere cloud games even if you don't fancy owning the Game Pass subscription.

"We’re introducing this model because the cost of providing cloud gaming grows as more people use it and play for longer," Microsoft explained. "Moving to monthly limits allows us to keep offering the service while continuing to invest in its reliability and performance."

"We understand that for some players the practical result is a higher cost. In November, we’ll provide more information about pricing, purchasing additional hours, eligible games, market availability, and how players can check their remaining time. We’ll listen closely to player feedback before and after the change takes effect and share any adjustments we make."

The RAMpocalypse is coming for cloud gaming, too

Microsoft has been long-rumored to be exploring an ad-based tier for Xbox Cloud Gaming and Xbox Game Pass in general. It's also true that the video ads business is incredibly tough, making me wonder if Microsoft decided to opt for this approach instead of trying to compete with Google / YouTube for video ad slots.

Indeed, many recent reports suggest that Twitch, despite being absolutely rammed with ads, is nowhere near profitable. What prayer would an ad-based Xbox Cloud Gaming tier have, given the monstrous amount of bandwidth required for Xbox Cloud Gaming video encoding?

The RAMpocalypse is impacting consumer electronics prices, but also cloud server prices too. Microsoft has reportedly joined NVIDIA and Google in earmarking 70% of Samsung's total DRAM output through to 2031. Unfortunately, I don't think a significant chunk of that memory is going towards gaming.

One advantage Xbox Cloud Gaming probably does have (at least in terms of Microsoft corporate politics) is that it does help keep cloud inference up — which in turn helps Microsoft justify infrastructure capital expenditure to shareholders. Xbox Cloud Gaming servers, while idle (at night, for example), can be used for training AI models potentially, which helps anchor Xbox's future in a corporation dominated by AI hype.

I suspect that introducing these limits now revolves around a plan to begin marketing Xbox Cloud Gaming more aggressively. If Microsoft ever did manage to find some form of mainstream breakthrough with Xbox Cloud Gaming, creating huge server queues (which we've seen in the past) wouldn't exactly represent a positive first-time experience for new players.

If Microsoft's goal is to form habits around Xbox Cloud Gaming in regions where console availability and affordability are low, ensuring a stable experience is obviously within their interests.

It remains to be seen if Xbox Cloud Gaming will ever be anything more than a niche kind of thing. It's useful for testing out games without installing them, but in most scenarios where you might want to use it, i.e., on a plane, on hotel Wi-Fi, or on a long-distance commute ... you're probably not going to have good enough internet speeds.

The laws of physics and the speed of light preclude Xbox Cloud Gaming from seeing any significant improvements from here, probably, but the upcoming direct-to-Wi-Fi Xbox controllers should offer a meaningful latency boost — if they ever actually come out.

It's a hot topic right now. With Xbox Helix and the PS6 threatening to be the most expensive consoles ever, perhaps even cloud gaming will end up too expensive to be worth it.

I'm tired of this AI stuff, mannnnnnnn.

Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more.