Alongside the new, and honestly quite epic-looking, campaign trailer for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 that was released during the Xbox Tokyo Game Show presentation, we have some comments on the future of one of Microsoft's crown jewels.

Underneath the X post publishing the trailer on the official Call of Duty account, Modern Warfare 4 players are invited to "witness the epic conclusion".

The latest game does indeed follow Modern Warfare 3 and the storyline first introduced when the franchise was rebooted back in 2019, and all signs point to this being the final entry in a now quadrilogy.

You could read into this however you wish. It's obviously bringing the current series to a close, but does Modern Warfare still have a future as a franchise?

What we do at least know is that Call of Duty 2027 is being made by Sledgehammer Games, and we're anticipating a new sub-series, the first in six years by that point from Sledgehammer last introducing the newness that was Vanguard.

I think now is the time to draw the curtain on both Modern Warfare and Black Ops, in all honesty. Since 2019 we've had four Modern Warfare games, three Black Ops games, and Vanguard.

The complaints will never go away, though, whatever Call of Duty does. But I genuinely think that Modern Warfare and Black Ops fatigue, even if subconscious, is partly at fault. By October 23, these two series will have resulted in 14 of the 23 total Call of Duty games we've had.

Business-wise, it's easy to see why. The likes of Ghosts, Advanced Warfare, and Infinite Warfare weren't as well received, nor were WW2 or Vanguard. But I'm convinced now that we've played more than enough Modern Warfare and Black Ops for a while. Unless the original Black Ops games are to get remakes, I don't think we need to see it again for some time after back-to-back years.

And that's the other thing. The last five years have seen back-to-back Modern Warfare titles, then back-to-back Black Ops titles, before going back to Modern Warfare again. They're clearly the most successful by a number of metrics, but it isn't going to last forever.

I do think there's an element of rose-tinted glasses, too. Modern Warfare (2019) is looked upon very highly, but we also need to remember that it, and Warzone that came in the same year, was around at a time we were all locked indoors with nothing to do. Personally, I didn't take to the all-new Modern Warfare coming after Black Ops 4 and ended up having some time away from playing Call of Duty entirely.

Treyarch has already teased that the studio is ready to make "something new and something that nobody's ever experienced before" when it comes back around to its turn for Call of Duty in a couple of years.

I will close, though, by saying that I have (mostly) enjoyed Black Ops 6 and Black Ops 7, and the latter I don't think is deserving of a lot of the negativity thrown its way. But it is time for something new, something that isn't Black Ops or Modern Warfare, and frankly, something that doesn't feel like it's built entirely to provide a platform for Warzone.

What that looks like only time will tell, but if Microsoft wants to keep its golden goose going strong, it needs to take some risks. I'm already of the mind that not putting Modern Warfare 4 on Game Pass is going to affect its player count, especially given GTA 6 launches less than a month later. I guess we'll see what happens.

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

I am chuckling a little at this, because among all the discourse around physical media of late, I feel like Rockstar Games just threw out an almighty troll.

GTA 6 will, of course, only be available digitally. Even if you buy it from a third-party retailer, you're only getting a download code inside the case. You can put it in your collection with your other physical games, but there's nothing inside.

Today, though, Rockstar has announced there is some physical media coming for fans and collectors. Except, no, it hasn't done a massive U-turn. But you can buy a copy of the GTA 6 soundtrack to listen to and keep forever.

I'm not belittling the fact that the GTA 6 soundtrack is getting a physical release. I love that it is. GTA games usually have outstanding soundtracks thanks to the variety of radio stations you can listen to. And my love of physical media doesn't just cover games.

Better still, you'll be able to get it on both CD and vinyl, with two versions of the latter including a significantly more expensive limited edition release. This one seems to have some exclusive artwork, as well as "transparent magenta discs filled with blue liquid."

That should look pretty trippy as it goes around on your turntable.

It's hard not to see a troll in this, though, too. GTA 6 is going to be one of the biggest game launches in the history of game launches, and merchandise of all kinds will be part of that.

But given the stance regarding digital vs physical for the game, the irony isn't lost that the same doesn't apply to the soundtrack. Even if it existing is a good thing.

Some of the artists and tracks teased so far include:

• Yung Lean - That's It (feat. Future & Metro Boomin)
• Travis Scott - RHYNO (prod. by Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo)
• CA7RIEL & Paco Amoroso, PinkPantheress, Fred again.., & Etienne de Crécy - Sexy Magic
• Morgan Wallen - Last Thing You Need
• Rauw Alejandro - Macacoa 2000
• Keith Richards - Bright Lights, Big City

If you want a copy of your own, you can pre-order it now on Rockstar's new dedicated store, with shipping expected on November 20. Will you be picking one up?

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

It's that time of year again where a new Call of Duty is on the horizon and the existing game has been played so much that older titles in the franchise get wheeled out for a dose of nostalgia and a change of pace.

With an Xbox Game Pass subscription, that's even easier. In my case, I've been checking out a couple of previous Call of Duty games I originally skipped for various reasons. The first being Black Ops Cold War, the latest to join Game Pass, and now, Modern Warfare 3.

Except, in a change of pace, I haven't touched multiplayer, nor the campaign, not yet, anyway. My YouTube feed was filling up with folks playing Modern Warfare 3 Zombies (also referred to as MWZ), and it looked very much like my jam. So I installed it and jumped right in.

How have I not played this before? Zombies purists may look upon this take on the franchise very differently, but I'm the furthest thing from that. Traditionally I love open-world games, looter shooters, and experiences with a big sandbox to explore and find things to do with rewards to chase. It's why I love The Division 2 so much.

I'm hooked. Instantly hooked. A good chunk of my time in Black Ops 7 has been spent in the Endgame mode, with its lighter take on an extraction shooter proving to be a lot of fun. MWZ is also a PvE-exclusive extraction shooter; it came a couple of years before Black Ops 7, and I think it's actually better.

MWZ feels less daunting as a newcomer over more classic Call of Duty Zombies experiences

Don't get me wrong, I totally get why people love Zombies. All told, I should be one of them. PvE gameplay is always my preference, and the whole idea of the easter egg quests, the continued storyline that's crossed multiple games, and the replay value ticks the right kind of boxes.

But I've never really played the mode for whatever reason, and the round-based gameplay does feel a little daunting to me. The way the difficulty keeps ramping up is a good challenge to have, but I can also see how it could be off-putting to newcomers and more casual players.

Like Black Ops 7 Endgame, MWZ lets you play entirely at your own pace. Eventually you'll need to go into the higher-tier threat level zones, but you decide when. While you're getting to grips with the mode, as I have been doing, you can just run around in tier 1.

Getting used to the map, the gameplay, doing the Act 1 missions, and raising your Containment Level to make life simpler when you do decide to take on the more difficult parts.

What I also really like as a new player is that thanks to the scale of the Urzikstan map over a more traditional round-based Zombies map, it's easier to get out of trouble. The trap I always fall into any time I try Zombies is getting boxed in, and it's game over. MWZ has the added bonus that even without a Self Revive equipped, other players in your match can pick you back up, even if they're not in your squad.

It's not easy, but it does feel more approachable. And if you ever played Warzone on Urzikstan, you'll already feel at home on the map.

MWZ also has a series of story missions to progress through that you don't have to figure out for yourself like a traditional easter egg. There still are easter eggs to complete if you wish, but there's a more linear story you can also follow in the different Acts, with smaller side missions to progress through before hitting the final story mission.

I don't think it's "hand-holding," but I do appreciate being pointed in the right direction without needing to follow a YouTube video.

I love the loot system in Modern Warfare 3 Zombies

As a looter-shooter kind of guy at heart, I really like the way that your gear is handled in MWZ. In traditional round-based Zombies, you can build a loadout, but you're starting from scratch every game.

In MWZ, if you've managed to extract with the right gear, you can use it right away to juice yourself up for more difficult content right out of the chopper.

I've barely scratched the surface so far, but already I've built up a stash of Aetherium Crystals to avoid needing to use the Pack-a-Punch machine (and save my points for something else) as well as getting my hands on the schematics for some of the perks.

The cooldown on using the Schematics adds an element of planning to the equation, but already as a total noob I can drop in with a couple of useful perks, as well as any I managed to extract from a previous run.

As a not-very-good Zombies player, one of the things I always seem to struggle with the most is managing my points with how many different things you have to use them for. MWZ doesn't rely as heavily on them when you get rolling and build up a good stash.

But also as a looter-shooter fan, I love that in MWZ you actually have a loot chase. There's a ton of stuff to acquire, and thanks to RNG, plenty of reasons to keep replaying, chasing the items. It's a different experience from the traditional Call of Duty grind, where the focus is on Camos and Calling Card challenges.

It's also pretty fantastic that you can literally start at level 1 and get your hands on weapons that, in multiplayer, you wouldn't get access to until you unlock them at their relevant levels. I'm running around with a WSP Swarm right now (and have already done some of its Camo challenges) that I still haven't reached the right level for.

Living proof PvE content in Call of Duty is worth having

While I have enjoyed Black Ops 7 in Endgame, dipping into MWZ immediately made me think of the upcoming DMZ mode in Modern Warfare 4.

There is no Zombies this year, be it round-based or an MWZ-type experience. There's nothing. The continual focus of Call of Duty is on its bread and butter: multiplayer and Warzone.

Zombies has always proved that PvE has a place in Call of Duty, and Endgame was a decent experiment with Black Ops 7, too. But DMZ in Modern Warfare 4 is planned as a PvPvE experience, always throwing in the chance that other real-world players will spoil your fun.

And let's face it, this is Call of Duty; it will absolutely fill up with sweats that have no mission beyond wiping out as many players as possible.

We're seeing the thirst for purely PvE play elsewhere, too. Bungie is adding a PvE-only mode to its own extraction shooter, Marathon. There's plenty of us out there that want to enjoy these types of experiences without wanting to be on edge constantly waiting for a PvP demon who exists just to ruin your day.

It's why in my 1,000 or so hours in The Division 2, probably 6 of those have been spent in the Dark Zone. If I want PvP, I play multiplayer.

So I hope that it's at least a consideration down the line to add a PvE mode to DMZ in Modern Warfare 4. It's the mode I'm pinning most of my hopes on, but if it ends up turning into Warzone lite, it'll get dropped.

It's a typically 'me' thing to do discovering games years later that I actually really enjoy, and that's the same here. I haven't touched Modern Warfare 3's campaign or multiplayer modes at all. Only Zombies.

Being on Xbox Game Pass makes it easy enough to try. Even if you're not into Zombies, it's worth giving a go if you skipped it in the past and you like open-world looter-type games.

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

Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War recently joined Xbox Game Pass, and as such, there's an influx of folks who haven't played before. That goes for me, too, having played only a small amount back in 2020 on the PS4.

If you're on console, it's mostly OK. But on PC there are some issues, one of which is a problem with textures not rendering properly. Sometimes it'll look blocky, others the sky won't render in at all, and when it happens, it looks like you're playing a PS1 game. Horrible.

It turns out this has been an issue pretty much always on PC, and given it's a six-year-old game, it's unlikely to get a patch to fix it. General consensus is that it suffers from a memory leak, and while I would expect Microsoft to make sure new arrivals on Game Pass aren't broken, let's face it, it's not happening.

It affects all game modes, so even if you only jump into the Campaign and Zombies, you're going to see it eventually.

Many attribute the issue to AMD graphics, but I've seen it on NVIDIA, too, and no amount of trying different drivers makes a difference. There is no fix, but there are some workarounds you can employ that can help it happen less often. You may not need all of them, but some of these have worked for me.

1. Reduce your settings to medium and don't use the high resolution textures

It's an older game, and it doesn't look as crisp as Black Ops 7 or the upcoming Modern Warfare 4. It's best to just accept this, and even though you may well be able to run it maxed out (I certainly can on an RTX 5090), dropping the settings is one way to help reduce the texture issue. Create less strain on the system.

The other thing to do is to make sure you're not trying to use the HD texture pack. In my experience it doesn't make that much difference, anyway. But having this enabled prompted texture issues in every single game for me; turning it off and going down to medium, it rarely happens now.

The HD texture pack can't be removed if you're playing on Game Pass (and is part of the reason the game is so ridiculously large in size), so just make sure you're not using it.

2. Tweak your targeted VRAM usage

In the graphics settings you have an option to tell the game what target to aim for regarding VRAM usage.

One step you can take to try and help with texture issues is dropping this down, especially if you don't have mountains of it to spare. I appreciate that while I'm using 32GB VRAM, most aren't, and it's a more precious commodity.

For most, 80% should be good. It's not a magic fix, but it's worth trying anyway.

3. Turn off upscaling

For me, it was the combination of turning off DLSS along with dropping the settings to medium that had the most impact. I didn't realise DLSS was even enabled at first, but I've had the least texture issues since turning it off.

It also means you have to turn off any ray tracing effects, which is fine; you don't need that anyway.

Black Ops Cold War isn't the most demanding game out there; after all, it is from 2020. If you have a GPU from the last decade, you should be fine without relying on upscaling.

If it does start to chug a little, you can play with the render resolution to try and overcome it. But turning off the upscaler seems to have been an important step for me, at least on NVIDIA.

I spent a good amount of time trying to see if anyone had a fix for the texture issues in Black Ops Cold War, and there's also talk out there regarding page files and other configuration changes that I didn't feel comfortable messing with unless it was a last resort.

Fortunately, the combination of dropping the graphics settings and turning off the upscaling has mitigated it to the point that where it once happened multiple times an hour, I can now play for multiple hours at a time and not see it happen once.

It's also worth making sure you're not using your GPU for anything else while playing. If you're watching video content on the side, make sure you turn off hardware acceleration (in Chrome and Edge this can be done in the flags), or just don't have anything else open to be safe.

It'd be nice for Microsoft/Activision to get a patch out since the game just got added to Game Pass and a bunch of people are experiencing it for the first time. The ancient version of Modern Warfare 2 on PC just got patched to fix exploits, so you never know. I think they have a duty of care to make sure games being offered are in a good place.

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

Additionally, we know that Warzone will be shutting down on Xbox One and PS4 when the final Black Ops 7 season ends, as those platforms won't be getting Modern Warfare 4 or its Warzone integration.

So it stands to reason that the Warzone Modern Warfare 4 update will come as that season ends. Season 06 began on September 17, and based on the timer on the Battle Pass it looks to expire on November 4.

Note, this is all speculation right now. But we can see when the final Black Ops 7 season is going to end, but we won't know for sure until Activision confirms a date for the start of Season 1 in Modern Warfare 4.

We did get an early look at the Modern Warfare 4 update to Warzone in the recent open beta, which showcased the new Zodiac Resurgence map.

Beyond this we don't really know a whole lot about how Warzone will look in a Modern Warfare 4 world, but there's still some time left yet to fill in the blanks.

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

Given that everyone will be starting Modern Warfare 4 from zero, now is a good time to stop using up any 2XP tokens you currently have on your account. They'll be far more beneficial giving you a boost in the new game if you're going to play it.

We don't yet know exactly what the Prestige system looks like in Modern Warfare 4, but there's going to be plenty of leveling to do, and those 2XP tokens will make life a lot speedier in the new game.

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

Do I get to keep my old weapons, operators, and blueprints in Warzone when Modern Warfare 4 launches?

The exception to carry forward is Warzone, where traditionally older weapons, their attached blueprints, and unlocked camos are still usable in the battle royale modes. Likewise, previously unlocked operators and their skins can also be used.

It's highly unlikely that Black Ops 7 items would be removed given that it's the most current game at this point, so you can still go ahead and unlock battle pass rewards or spend COD Points and use those items in Warzone when it migrates to Modern Warfare 4.

There's no confirmed date for this yet, but the current best guess is mid-November, when we expect the final Black Ops 7 season to end.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 launches on all platforms on Friday, October 23, 2026. Players who pre-order the game digitally on any platform will have early access to play the campaign a week prior on Friday, October 16.

Modern Warfare 4 will not be on Xbox Game Pass at launch. Based on Microsoft's previous statements, it's not expected to join Game Pass until October 2027 at the earliest.

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

We've already had the Modern Warfare 4 beta weekends at the time of writing this post, so the next chance for anyone to play will be the early access period.

During this window, only the campaign will be playable. Anyone hoping to get a head start on the multiplayer camo grind will have to wait until the general release date.

The early access period does at least give players a chance to clear the campaign before full release. though, leaving the floor clear to jump right into multiplayer and DMZ.

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

• Xbox Series X|S / Xbox on PC (supports Xbox Play Anywhere)
• PS5
• Steam
• Battle.net
• Nintendo

It's also worth a reminder that unlike Black Ops 6 and Black Ops 7, Modern Warfare 4 will not be on Xbox Game Pass at launch. The only way to play early is to pre-order. Modern Warfare 4 isn't currently expected in Game Pass until October 2027 at the earliest.

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

Ah, social media, the place where misinformation can fly around at breakneck speed, all supported by "experts". The latest case? GameSir controllers.

This one has gathered so much steam that the company has chosen to respond or has used the opportunity to turn it into a brilliant marketing campaign. You be the judge.

Why all the hullabaloo? On a recent stream, Call of Duty pro players were heard discussing GameSir controllers and the idea of "GA-ing them" from the Modern Warfare 4 season of the Call of Duty League. Because of features that amount to "built-in cheats".

It seemed like a fairly obvious troll to me and to many others. These were guys on a stream just shooting the breeze, and it smells like a troll a mile off. Call of Duty pro-players are notorious for using a GA to avoid using most of the weapons in any Call of Duty during pro play in order to provide as level a playing field as possible.

But the idea of GA-ing a controller is ludicrous, but then the internet did its thing. You can see GameSir's statement posted to X below.

Anyone who has ever used a GameSir controller can tell you that it's farcical someone could suggest it comes with built-in cheats. There's no magic button that suddenly gives you no recoil in an FPS game. You still have to do that yourself. Believe me, I know. I'm still just as terrible.

That's not to say GameSir hasn't had some trouble in recent times. It removed a feature, the RC filter, because it was (unintentionally) always allowing rotational aim assist in Apex Legends and was banned from official competitions. But the company responded and took the feature away. It wasn't designed to 'cheat' but it was an unfortunate side effect.

GameSir has been responding on social media to some of these posts in a more casual manner, but it's the internet; people will keep talking. So there's an official response, and with it, I think, a genius marketing move.

I actually think that if some of the pro players put down their current controllers, in many cases a Scuf or a Razer — sometimes linked to sponsorship — and they tried a GameSir, they'd be surprised.

I'm currently trying out the Tarantula 8K, and I can confirm that it doesn't give you cheats. It gives you a lot of features to customize, but so do competing brands. The difference here is this controller is $80, and right now, I'm picking it up every time over my much more expensive Razer Wolverine V3 Pro 8K. A controller I reviewed and called an "unfair advantage".

A full review on that will be coming soon. But this is another example of not believing everything you see on the internet, especially if the source is "pRoGaMeR619" or "trust me bro." But if you get one of GameSir's latest controllers, you're getting an incredible package at the sort of price that should put the industry on notice.

Everyone's always looking for an edge. In gaming, you want the best hardware your budget allows for. Be it a higher frame rate, a fast mouse, keyboard, controller, the best display. It's not cheating. Is it cheating when a race car driver wants to be using the best equipment? Let's not be silly now.

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

I almost entirely skipped 2020's Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War. I'd pretty much done the same with 2019's Modern Warfare because at the time, I wasn't feeling the new look and feel after Black Ops 4.

I didn't actually get any kind of mojo back until the launch of Black Ops 6, helped in large part because of Microsoft's acquisition of Activision, and the arrival of Call of Duty into Xbox Game Pass.

The back catalog has gradually joined, too, and going forward, it'll only be a back catalog since the new games won't join for a year. While I do fear for how that decision (among other things) will affect Modern Warfare 4 and its player count, subscribers still have a smorgasboard of older games to enjoy.

Black Ops Cold War is the latest addition, having joined Xbox Game Pass this week as I write this. So I installed it, because I can, and I spent an evening playing it. What a breath of fresh air. Having just completed, finally, the gruelling Singularity Mastery Camo on Black Ops 7 in the sweatiest lobbies of all time, Black Ops Cold War feels so good.

Importantly, it feels fun. As much as I may have played the last two Call of Duty games, I can't always say it's been fun. Maybe it's the 'no pressure' environment of not actually trying to do anything. Not chasing unlocks, filling battle passes, or completing challenges to get the new items that I apparently need, but never use. It feels low commitment, and it feels absolutely fantastic.

The slower pace of Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War is perfect for more casual players

I'll admit, I don't hate the movement in Black Ops 6 or Black Ops 7, but it is pretty outrageous. The term "movement demon" is one us less sweaty players fear, and every lobby in the current game seems to have multiple.

While there's a satisfaction to flying, sliding, and wall bouncing around the map, it feels like hard work, and it's hard work to play against. Black Ops Cold War has a slower pace; there's no wall bouncing, no Omnimovement, just a run and fairly basic slide. Being an average player that can kinda sorta aim decently well, I feel like I can actually compete.

Positioning, map knowledge, and tactics feel like they have more of an impact in Black Ops Cold War compared to Black Ops 7. In the current game the movement and the pace make it so, if you're capable, you can just fly around and rely on this to get you out of trouble. Or to make trouble for the opponents.

I played a bunch of objective modes in Black Ops Cold War, and every match felt like where I positioned myself mattered. Breaking into hardpoints took a measured approach and actually aiming, rather than just bouncing around. Even Nuketown doesn't feel like a miserable experience, and that's saying a lot.

The weapons look and feel good, and the camo grind is a different type of challenge

The gunplay in Black Ops Cold War is obviously different from the two most recent Black Ops titles, and I think it's better. It's closer to how Modern Warfare feels, which, traditionally, I wasn't much of a fan of.

Maybe it's old age, but I like it better this way.

To say it's from 2020, the weapons look great and still hold up today. The sound also feels better, like you're firing an actual weapon. It's loud.

Going back to an older Call of Duty also highlights the difference in the camo grind to what we've had the last couple of years. I don't think I'm bothering, but compared to the all headshots, then specials, then multikill challenges we've had to do in order in Black Ops 6 and Black Ops 7, I think this is still a better way.

Once a weapon is leveled high enough, you can progress multiple categories at the same time. You can get those Bloodthirsty medals alongside the long shots, headshots, and general eliminations, for example. I just finished doing the three Bloodthirsty's per weapon 30 times in Black Ops 7, and it's exhausting. Working on it earlier seems like it'd be better.

The overall aesthetic is really nice, too. I love the 80's theme, and while graphically the textures on some maps do definitely look old, some others look really good.

The BIG problem: Black Ops Cold War will eat up your PC or Xbox storage

We're used to Call of Duty being a storage hog, but this is a game from 2020, detached from Warzone, and it's absolutely gigantic.

On Xbox you're looking at 158 GB (according to the store listing), and the "Windows Edition" on PC takes up a whopping 220 GB, including the high-res texture pack. A pack you seemingly on this version cannot play without.

That's more than the current Call of Duty launcher is taking up on my PC, and that at least also has Warzone installed. There's nothing we can do about it, and they're certainly not going to try and shrink down a six-year-old game, but you'll need a lot of space to be able to play it.

I'm at the point now where I think I'm mostly done with Black Ops 7. There's a couple of things I want to finish still, like the Endgame 100% since I've only got two challenges left, but a new game is coming soon.

While I'm feeling better about it after the beta than before, I'm still up in the air over whether it's going to be worth playing longer term.

But I haven't even touched the Campaign or Zombies in Black Ops Cold War yet, and I'm actively looking forward to playing the game again. Maybe this will be the Call of Duty to scratch the itch until Modern Warfare 4 comes out.

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

I've been once again building up my own Xbox 360 games collection of late, no longer limited to those supporting backwards compatibility. I've been introducing my son to the console through the summer break, and it's been a blast.

So I appreciate all the collectors out there. Including the more outrageous ones, like u/youngercolors over on Reddit, who has amassed a breathtaking collection of 400 games.

Only it's not 400 games. It's 400 copies of the same game. Kinect Adventures, to be precise.

There's game preservation, and then there's game preservation. Honestly, I love everything about this. It's not a particularly well-rated game; it's definitely not rare nor particularly valuable.

Yet one person has taken it upon themselves to amass and preserve what has to be the largest private collection of this single game anywhere on the planet. Just because they want to. I doff my cap.

I actually just picked up a copy of Kinect Adventures for my own kids to have a go on (and maybe myself, if I can get off the sofa long enough) for the princely sum of £2.50 from a local charity shop. We haven't played it yet, so I can't comment on it, but, well, I do like the purple cases the Kinect games came in.

Kinect is also something of a hit with the young ones in the house. My Xbox One Kinect has long since gone, mostly because there wasn't really anything to do with it. But the Xbox 360 has a healthy library of dedicated games, with Kinect Star Wars a particular hit in this household.

The Reddit post also highlights what building a game collection should be all about: fun. I've seen a lot of discourse here in the UK about PS3 game prices having gone up sharply on the used market recently, but the focus shouldn't be on what it costs or how rare it is. It should be about collecting kick-ass games and having fun doing it.

The Kinect library of games seems to be plentiful on the used market as well as affordably priced. Naturally, if u/youngercolors ends up acquiring the planet's supply, that could change!

Collecting Xbox is a blast, though, and I'm definitely looking to scoop up the Kinect library. Maybe not 400 copies deep, though.

If you've got any Kinect memories from the Xbox 360 era, I'd love to hear them in the comments below.

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

If you're not a keen follower of the AI space, then the name Hugging Face may not mean anything to you. But the company has just been acquired by NVIDIA, which continues to reinforce its new identity as an AI company.

Announced today by NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang, Hugging Face will be joining the company in an acquisition priced at just under $13 billion.

Hugging Face is an open platform that has been likened to GitHub, except for local, open AI models that anyone can use. NVIDIA's plans are to keep Hugging Face the same as it is today but to scale. Because if you're not scaling AI these days, what are you even doing?

"Hugging Face will remain an open platform for the entire AI ecosystem. Developers will choose the models they want, the frameworks they want, the clouds and inference service providers they want and the computing platforms they want. NVIDIA compute will not be required to build on or deploy through Hugging Face.

Hugging Face will continue to support open source and open weight models from across the ecosystem, from every model builder. It will continue to support multi-cloud and multi-accelerator development and deployment, so builders can use the hardware and infrastructure that best fit their work."

Keeping personal opinions about AI aside, I'm certainly more in favor of real people being able to use AI models without having to rely on massive, un-evironmentally friendly data centers from the likes of Microsoft and OpenAI.

AI is very much here to stay, whether we choose to embrace it or not. But I'm definitely on the side of being able to use it however you want to use it and without feeding all your data to companies that don't necessarily deserve it.

NVIDIA is very much AI-first these days, though. Gone are the days we'd all look at its shiny new GPUs, and our only thoughts would be about gaming. It does make you ponder what the future holds for gamers, though.

I've got an RTX 5090, for example, and it's still overkill for gaming. But with 32GB of VRAM and a ton of compute horsepower, it's pretty damn good for local AI use. But is this where future products will be aligned first? Everything's getting more expensive, and AI is definitely to blame for a good chunk of it.

Alas, here we are. If you use Hugging Face currently, it doesn't sound like anything's going to change. But if you're a gaming customer of the company, as I am, I am starting to wonder how important we're going to be in the future.

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

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 is fast approaching now that the traditional yearly beta test is out of the way. Included for the first time this year was a look at the next iteration of Call of Duty: Warzone, the free-to-play battle royale that ties in with a current year's game.

It's bittersweet for folks still on an Xbox One or a PS4, though, because they weren't able to try out the new Zodiac map, and they're never going to, either.

Modern Warfare 4 will be the first Call of Duty title to drop support for Xbox One and PS4, and along with it, Warzone. The announcement was made back in June, but for now, the game is still playable.

That's going to change fairly soon, though. Here's what's already happened, what's going to happen, and crucially, when we think the final shutdown will happen.

Why is Call of Duty: Warzone on Xbox One and PS4 being shut down?

The simple answer is that Warzone is shutting down on Xbox One and PS4 because Modern Warfare 4 will not be on those platforms.

Despite Warzone being free-to-play without any requirement to own the latest Call of Duty game, crucially, it integrates with each year's new game.

As Modern Warfare 4 will be taking over from Black Ops 7, and it won't be supported on the last-gen consoles, Warzone will no longer be playable.

When do we think Call of Duty: Warzone is shutting down on Xbox One and PS4?

The official documentation states:

"Call of Duty: Warzone on PlayStation 4 and XBOX One will be available to play through the end of Season 06 for Call of Duty: Black Ops 7."

Activision hasn't given an exact date yet, but we can make an educated guess based on how the new games have rolled out in previous years.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 will release on Friday, October 23, 2026. The assumption may be that this is when the Warzone shutdown will happen, but it's not that straightforward.

Traditionally, the Warzone integration doesn't go live when the new game launches. It follows on when Season 1 of said new game begins.

In the case of Black Ops 6 and Black Ops 7, Season 1 began 20 days post-launch of the game, and this is when Warzone was updated with the new game's integration. In the case of Modern Warfare III, it was actually almost a week longer.

We expect Season 06 to begin on September 17, given it's both a Thursday and the date the Season 05 battle pass expires. Unlike the jump from Black Ops 6 to Black Ops 7, where there was a month without a seasonal update, it looks like this year's transition will leave us with content right to the very end.

This year isn't an in-house transition like the past two Treyarch releases. Given how long the seasons in Black Ops 7 usually are, we could be looking at Season 06 ending after Modern Warfare 4 launches.

This means Xbox One and PS4 players could have until around November 12 to keep playing Warzone. But we'll know for sure once Season 06 begins when we can expect it to end.

But it wouldn't be crazy to assume that Black Ops 7, the Season 06 content, Battle Pass, and Warzone that is linked to it all could remain live this long. It would be about 20 days after the Modern Warfare 4 launch, too.

Can I still get Call of Duty: Warzone on Xbox One and PS4?

For now, you can only play Warzone on Xbox One or PS4 if you have previously added it to your library.

No new downloads are being offered on either console, but if you're a past player, you can still reinstall it and play until the shutdown date.

The store is also disabled now, despite showing up in the launcher. You're unable to spend anymore money or redeem COD Points.

What happens to all the stuff I've bought in Call of Duty: Warzone on Xbox One and PS4?

The in-game store has been closed for a while now, preventing players from spending real money via the Xbox One and PS4 versions.

But your purchases aren't disappearing. Because you have an Activision ID in order to play, all those purchases are tied to your account.

As such, if you log in on another platform at any time, you'll have everything there waiting for you.

I don't have an Xbox Series X|S, PS5, or gaming PC, so how can I keep playing Call of Duty: Warzone?

If you don't have more current hardware to move to or don't want to upgrade, you're all but out of options.

You do, however, have the ability to play Warzone via the cloud, either through Xbox Cloud Gaming or NVIDIA GeForce Now. The former, you can use on your Xbox One.

Is it the same experience? Not totally. The visuals and frame rate will certainly be an upgrade (especially on GeForce Now) but you do have to consider that you will have some additional latency concerns.

The game will be playing on a piece of hardware that's in someone else's building. While server latency in the game won't be too bad, you then have to stream the game to your own device. Cloud gaming has come a long way, though, and unless you're the absolute most competitive player, it might well be good enough.

The downside is that you're going to have to pay, even though NVIDIA does have a free tier. This one is limited to an hour's play, and you have no priority access, so if the servers are full, you'll be in a longer queue. And who wants to be chucked out in the final circle?

Likewise, you can't play Warzone via the cloud for free with Xbox Cloud Gaming, either. Ultimate gets you the best quality stream, but you can play via the cheaper Xbox Game Pass tiers, too.

So, that's where we're at. While Warzone has indeed been playable on Xbox One, it's hardly been the best experience. The Xbox One X still does OK, but being attached to the Xbox One generation it has to say goodbye, too.

But there's still probably a couple of months at least left to play from the time of writing this, so enjoy.

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

As PC prices continue to rise, seeing a new release at $799 is a welcome sight, and that's where we're at with the new Samsung Galaxy Book6.

It's a decidedly mid-range laptop, but at a mid-range price, and it's not like you're really losing out on much, either.

That is, as long as you're not (for some reason) looking to have Copilot+ since the NPU on the included Intel chips doesn't meet the standard. But it's 2026, so there's still plenty of AI focus on tap, with Samsung's own tools.

Despite the more affordable price, the 14-inch Samsung Galaxy Book6 doesn't skimp on one key spec: Battery life. Samsung claims up to 25 hours, backed by 45W charging that can add 33% charge in half an hour if you do need a top-up.

But in real-world use you're looking at a laptop that will easily get you through a full day off the charger, be that for work or for school. Here's what we're looking at spec-wise:

I like that there's anti-glare, and I like that there's a decent array of ports, including a full-sized HDMI output. While the cheapest version will be the Intel Core 3, with the lowest RAM and storage on offer, there is at least an option at an attractive price, and for many, it'll be plenty.

After all, it turns out having 8GB of RAM on a Windows 11 PC is just fine for a lot of users.

Being a Samsung laptop, if you also use a Galaxy smartphone or tablet, you'll unlock some additional integration, such as second screen support and the ability to use a single keyboard and mouse across multiple devices.

Galaxy AI has a few neat features, too, despite the low-powered NPU on the Galaxy Book6, with some useful tools for images and note summarization.

It's also available in two colors, a dark gray and a "Violet Silver." The Galaxy Book6 isn't going to set performance records, but that's not who it's for. It's for someone who wants a good-quality laptop to do everyday, normal things, and for that, it doesn't look bad at all.

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

Today was supposed to be an opportunity for "fans" to get a chance to pre-order the new, limited edition Xbox Series X25. Yet it's questionable as to how many genuine fans may have actually got their hands on one.

Reddit is filled with bad experiences, people talking about having a console in their cart and it was gone before they could check out. That stock evaporated in "milliseconds."

And yet almost instantly they were cropping up on eBay. The highest listing I saw was for a ridiculous THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS.

To its credit, eBay seems to be taking action and shutting these listings down, as three I've already seen have been ended due to the "item no longer being available", not "sold". It was never available in the first place, and frankly, handing over thousands on a promise of getting a thing in the future is the dumbest idea anyway.

Obviously this is a limited edition, with each console uniquely numbered, and was always going to be in hot demand. But while eBay might be taking listings down, more are popping up across the globe.

Scalpers are going to scalp. They're not going to cancel their order, and they're going to try somehow to move it on for a premium price. It's the Pokémon card fiasco all over again.

My advice is clear: Do not buy a console from a scalper. In fact, if you can't get one directly from a retailer, don't buy one unless you actually see it and can pick it up with your bare hands. These people have no morals; don't hand over your money and trust that you'll actually even get the thing.

I was never going to try and get one myself, as I don't have a spare $899 to throw at a console I already have in a different body. But scalpers really make me angry. It's a constant battle in trading card collecting, especially. There's reselling and then there's just existing to rip people off by using your bots to scoop up stock from legitimate buyers.

Anyway, rant over. If you did manage to secure an Xbox Series X25 let us know in the comments. Unless you're a scalper.

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

Physical media is present in the news cycle quite a bit of late, what with the latest news from Xbox about its disc-to-digital program. Then there's PlayStation's double whammy of removing digital content from libraries and then announcing it will be stopping new game discs from 2028.

The move to all-digital has been on the cards for some time, and PC gamers have already long embraced that future. But in a bizarre twist of fate, it seems some are reversing this process and actually starting to make their own physical copies of digital PC games.

I stumbled across a YouTube video by Archades Games (which is embedded below) that's been up for many months, but nevertheless, its subject matter made me click. On PC there's quite often a way where there's a will, and with GOG especially, it's actually pretty easy to create your own physical installer for your game library.

Of course, it requires having the necessary hardware to do it, and Blu-ray drives (like everything else) have been getting more expensive in recent years. But if you have a drive and some discs, there's little else to stop you.

There's a wider discussion that is ongoing regarding game preservation and generally good data backup habits. But in this specific instance, GOG will offer DRM-free offline installers, and the right Blu-ray discs can last at least your own lifetime, and potentially many more besides.

The process itself seems pretty straightforward, though the video and a follow-up, which goes into more depth, including multi-disc scenarios, walk you through every step. Multi-disc is certainly something you'd need for Cyberpunk 2077.

Essentially you need a Blu-ray or DVD drive capable of writing to discs, the right discs, a copy of MakeMKV (which, as the site is currently offline, you'll have to grab from an archived version of the page), and ImgBurn to both create an ISO file and burn it to the disc.

Archades Games goes one step further and even creates a nice-looking label for the discs, just to add a finishing touch. Though that's entirely optional.

You can also write your own autorun file to add to the disc so that when you insert it into a PC, it will immediately open up the installer. Just like in the old days when you'd buy a big box PC game.

I haven't tried this yet, and I'm not necessarily sure I will. But recent events have certainly made me start to think about "ownership." I don't own anything in my Steam library; I don't own any of the digital movies I've bought over the years from Apple, Google, and Amazon. Long-term rentals are only fine as long as the rights holders say so.

I've been buying up physical copies of movies I only have digitally on Blu-ray and creating a digital copy of those Blu-rays to store on my NAS. I'm not suggesting it's practical to create a full library of PC games on disc, and in many cases, you can't get new releases on GOG or anywhere else with an offline installer.

But preservation is something we should all care about. I've thought more and more about it as my children are growing up and I'm able to enjoy content with them. My son is absolutely loving being able to play games on Xbox from before he was born, and much of that is thanks to backwards compatibility.

But we also have an Xbox 360 running every day right now, with physical copies of games that we can use for as long as the disc lasts.

The idea of "cold storing" important data on Blu-ray discs is something I've been toying with, too. With the right discs, such as M-Discs designed for archiving, that data can be preserved for centuries. So long as you have a way in the future of actually reading them, of course.

It might be a fun project for game installers, but for treasured memories, photo libraries, and things that are irreplaceable, having a copy that could stand the test of time is looking more important. Good backup processes are something we should all be doing.

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

The Division 2 is one of my favorite games for a number of reasons. One of those is how it's been treated by Ubisoft, a company that faces its fair share of well-founded criticism.

The original plan would have seen new content end long ago, but it was so popular with such a dedicated community that it's still here today. There's an absurd amount of content in this game, and now we're getting another DLC expansion.

Following on from last year's Battle for Brooklyn, which took us literally back to where it all began in the first game, we're now going to a previously unseen part of New York City in "Echoes of Central Park."

One of the city's most iconic locations hasn't been part of The Division to this point, but it will be the central focus in the next expansion, announced for the first time as part of a Ubisoft The Division 2 panel at Gamescom in Cologne.

Naturally there will be an expanded story with new missions, but we're being promised something a little different this time around.

The summary that's been shared with me prior to the panel certainly gets my attention. With this new location we're promised that the Upper West Side is petrified with fear, and that fear is going to be an underlying element that our Agents will be dealing with in this expansion.

That's particularly interesting because all through The Division franchise, Agents have felt like superheroes. Equipped with wild tech and insane weapons to take down the worst that the post-Dollar Flu apocalyptic world has to offer.

That fear itself is going to be an enemy is a different approach. Echoes of Central Park, we're told, is going to follow a darker tone to previous content in the franchise, with horror themes taking us down a very different path.

It'll start in a familiar manner; Division Agents will receive a distress call from inside Central Park and will be dispatched to answer it with no idea what's there or what's been happening since the outbreak.

Other tidbits include a warning that we'll have to prepare and untangle the mysteries before finally finding out what lies within the park. Mysterious indeed.

Ubisoft also says that Echoes of Central Park isn't just another story expansion. They really wanted to focus on the gameplay, and it certainly sounds like it'll be something a little different to what we're used to.

A full reveal of Echoes of Central Park is slated for a special presentation on September 24, where we'll also get our first look at the new map and gameplay. Given what happened so far in New York City across the two games in the series, I always assumed Central Park would have been turned into some kind of mass grave, but I guess I'm wrong on that.

Bring on September 24.

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

Just before the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 beta early access weekend started, I wrote an article based on my brief initial play test prior to it going live. It was simply titled "I might have been wrong about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4."

I'm not going to go over too much old ground, but the tl;dr was that I expected not to enjoy this year's game at all based on past experience from the Modern Warfare reboot series.

But I am going to follow up after putting some hours in during said early access weekend on whether or not I was actually wrong. And yes, I was. Mostly. It's not perfect by any stretch, but from what I've seen so far, I am actually looking forward to playing this year's Call of Duty after all. But there's still some stuff I don't like.

The good about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4

Everything I said previously I liked about Modern Warfare 4 still stands. Possibly more so having shifted from playing on console initially over to PC.

It's easily the best-looking Call of Duty game in recent memory, for starters. The Silkworm map, especially, looks absolutely glorious if you turn up the graphics settings a bit.

But it's the campaign I think that'll really benefit here. We've only had a single mission, Entrenched, to play so far, but the visual appeal is clear, and it's absolutely filled with atmosphere.

The most competitive players will always turn the graphics right down, but for the rest of us, it's nice to be playing a Call of Duty that actually looks like a modern game.

The movement is also, I think, spot on. It doesn't feel as crazy fast as Black Ops 7; you can't jump up walls here, but it's fast enough. And it's only taken players a couple of days to figure out how to exploit it as best they can, be that positive or negative.

But combine the movement with the excellent gunplay, an aim assist that doesn't feel like it's doing all the work for you (at least in my opinion), and some solid weapons, and the core experience is very enjoyable.

I'm also a fan of the way Modern Warfare 4 handles its attachment unlocks. Once you get an attachment, it's automatically unlocked for all of the weapons you can use it on.

The Apex attachments you unlock when you reach max level are also an interesting addition. It's similar, I guess, to the prestige unlocks in Black Ops 7, except you don't lose an attachment slot to use them. They go on top of everything else.

The menu design is also excellent, and overall it's just a really solid player experience. Of particular note is more clarity on the server you're connected to, and I've been seeing low ping across the board.

The bad about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4

As good as the gameplay is, I'm not so much of a fan of the maps. There will be more at launch and in subsequent seasons, of course, but I don't think what they've given us in the first beta is the best way to show off this game.

If I have to play Transit 213 again, I'm going to lose my mind. It's another of those Call of Duty maps that are really small, where you're constantly on top of each other, and it falls into what I call the brainrot category.

Think Stakeout from Black Ops 6, Shipment from previous Modern Warfare games. It's not as bad as Shipment, but its only purpose in existing is for people to pad their stats and probably for camo unlocks. Otherwise it's horrible.

Silkworm, while looking amazing, isn't overly fun either. The middle lane is essentially a long open street, so you force yourself down the outer lanes, which both have lengthy open runs, too.

Rooftops feels like it should be a good map, with a mix of external and internal sections paired with elevation changes. But there's something about the way it plays right now that feels a little off.

Of the debuting maps, Cachette is a decent challenge, I feel, and I enjoyed Lotus the most by far. Both feel like they play more into a properly competitive, tactical way of playing rather than just running full speed at the opponents.

The meta also has not and will not change (outside of Ranked Play at least) from UAV spam. They're so easy to get; you'll be spammed constantly with multiple UAVs, and since they give away your positions, you become easy pickings. It also forces you to buy into that meta or be on the backfoot, and I'd rather use my streaks a different way.

I'd love to see Infinity Ward change the UAV so it's harder to get, but I don't see that happening. Add in the Personal Radar Field Upgrade and you may as well just walk around with a glowing beacon on your head inviting your opponents to take you down.

There's also a healthy round of weapon balancing that needs to happen, and I'm sure it will, as it always does. Snipers are obviously strong, but they're way too strong right now and too easy to use. Spawns are also pretty bad right now, but Infinity Ward is already working on that ahead of the second weekend of the beta.

Overall, though, I'm a lot happier with Modern Warfare 4 than I expected to be. Lots would say the last two Black Ops games were bad, and that's their opinion they're entitled to, but I've really enjoyed Black Ops 7 in particular. I usually do when it's a Black Ops game.

But I've gone from trepidation and expecting not to play this year's game (in part thanks to GTA 6 looming) to back on board the Call of Duty train. It's a shame we're not getting to see DMZ in the beta, as that's the mode I'm most excited for, but I am curious to see how Warzone will be. At least we can try that out in the open beta, which begins on Friday, August 28.

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

From the get go, as soon as I heard that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 would be this year's entry in Microsoft's biggest franchise, my head dropped.

Since Modern Warfare was rebooted, it's been my least favorite. Modern Warfare (2019) was OK, and I played it for a little while but lost interest quicker than in any previous Call of Duty. I barely touched the two that came after it.

I've always preferred Black Ops, and while the last two in that series haven't been perfect by any means, I've really enjoyed playing them. But I've now finally played Modern Warfare 4 for the first time as part of Call of Duty: NEXT, and I'm man enough to admit my initial trepidation may well have been way off base.

I'll preface this by saying I haven't seen much of the game so far. I'll be enjoying the full multiplayer experience, that campaign mission, and the new Warzone map for the first time during the beta like everyone else.

But what I have already experienced has given me hope, because two aspects in particular I was expecting not to enjoy have turned out to be far better than I anticipated: Movement and gunplay.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4's movement feels good

I'm no "movement demon" on Black Ops 7, but I do enjoy the fast fluidity to it. I enjoy the pace of Call of Duty when it's flying along, and I appreciate that not everyone does. I don't enjoy slower-paced, more tactical shooters nearly as much.

I just want to run, gun, and then run and gun again. Have some fun.

Modern Warfare 4 is more grounded in that there's no wall jumping, but it still feels fluid. The pace isn't quite at Black Ops 7 level, but it's not slow. Sliding is smooth but doesn't feel ridiculous, and I think the best way I can describe the movement overall is that everything feels deliberate.

You don't feel like a superhero. You feel like you have some weight behind you, like you can't just use movement to get you out of a hole. You actually need to know what you're doing.

I like Modern Warfare 4's gunplay

Again, this is based on only a very brief playtest before the beta opens, but so far I like the gunplay a lot. The way the weapons move as you're running, the way they move when you're firing, and even the way the whole experience looks.

It's pretty satisfying.

Of course, I haven't yet experienced levelling up weapons, strapping on attachments, and such, but I do hope that we don't end up in a position, as we do every year, where there's a single meta that makes every weapon shoot like a laser beam with no recoil.

As it stands out of the gate, I like the recoil, and I like that you actually need to be able to aim a little to hit your shots. I'm not very good, but I like it.

It feels good hitting your shots, especially with a pistol. Call of Duty isn't realistic by any stretch, but Modern Warfare 4 so far seems to be headed in a better direction in this aspect than the last two Black Ops games.

Visually Modern Warfare 4 is the best Call of Duty in a while

Nobody plays Call of Duty because it's a particularly good-looking game, and those who indulge primarily in PvP action on PC always turn the graphics down anyway to get the extra frames. Console players can't do that, so there needs to be a balance.

I've played so far on the Xbox Series X, and I think Modern Warfare 4 looks pretty good. Certainly more like you'd expect a modern shooter to look.

Part of this, I do wonder, is it down to the decision to ditch last-gen consoles? I played Black Ops 7's beta last year on an Xbox One X, and it wasn't great. Visually it looked fine, close enough to the Xbox Series X, but the frame rate was awful. But I also felt like the last-gen consoles were holding back the visuals on the more modern systems.

Everything about the visuals on Modern Warfare 4 so far feels like an upgrade over Black Ops 7. The lighting is nice, textures are decent, and I think the weapons look fantastic. It's just generally all-around nice to look at.

Black Ops 6 and Black Ops 7 were OK, and I get that Modern Warfare has a whole different aesthetic, but it feels less 'fake' and altogether a more pleasing environment.

That's not to say that there isn't plenty more that needs to be experienced to decide whether Modern Warfare 4 is a "good game" or not. There's still the matchmaking experience, for example, that could make or break things, and plenty of other decisions that could affect the player experience.

But on the face of it, I'm prepared to admit my preconceptions were wrong that I'd immediately dislike this game. The fundamentals of it are a lot better than I expected.

Like everyone else, I'll be really getting to grips with Modern Warfare 4 during this weekend's early access beta. Things kick off today, Friday, August 21, at 9am Pacific for Call of Duty: NEXT, with access for everyone else with a code beginning at 11am Pacific.

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

Back in August 2015, Microsoft was working to link console, PC, and mobile gaming into a single network. Coverage at the time framed this "games everywhere" approach as a major shift, with Windows, ironically, serving as the central hub to keep game libraries synced across devices. Phil Spencer was early in his tenure, working through the fallout of the Xbox One's rocky launch and its controversial DRM policies. Industry observers remained skeptical, and players questioned whether Microsoft could actually pull off cross-platform play and cloud integration.

Eleven years later, that initial push sits at the center of Xbox's modern business model. Under Asha Sharma, Microsoft Gaming has pulled back on its controversial "This is an Xbox campaign," trying to reprioritize the console, while deemphasizing Copilot AI. Indeed, there is a big list of things that need fixing. Oh, and apparently it's now XBOX.

The original questions around brand identity and hardware relevance haven't gone away, but their context has completely changed. Looking back at this 2015 report shows that the foundation for today's strategy was already being built, even if the execution took over a decade to solidify (if you can even call it that). — Daniel Rubino, Editor-in-Chief.

The original article below, "The future of Xbox is bright, and it's everywhere," was published on August 13th, 2015, by Richard Devine.

Gamescom 2015 was a blast for Xbox fans. Just as E3 was before it. Microsoft keeps floating the phrase, "the best games line up in Xbox history," and it's probably true. After a flaky launch for the Xbox One by anyone's standards, under Phil Spencer's stewardship things are going in the right direction.

And that direction is out. Xbox is finally becoming something bigger than the box that sits under your television. Gaming is important to Microsoft, and Xbox is its brand. Everywhere.

There have been smatterings of it outside the console for a while, like Xbox Live Achievement support for Windows 8 and Windows Phone games, and the now revoked Xbox branding for Microsoft's music and video services. With the removal of the latter, Xbox is now exactly what it should be for Microsoft. It's all about the games.

The big push really began in January when Spencer appeared at Microsoft's big Windows 10 event. It was the launch of Xbox on Windows 10 and while it all sounded grand, as the months have passed the vision has become so much clearer. Phones, tablets, PCs, consoles, HoloLens, Xbox is going to be everywhere. Cross-buy, cross-play and game streaming are but the beginning.

Take this quote from Spencer in a recent interview with Polygon as an example:

Our recent trip to Cologne for Gamescom helped further put this into perspective. The vast space that was the Xbox booth was lined with both consoles and Windows 10 side-by-side. Windows wasn't shoved away in a corner; it was right there alongside the biggest new titles Microsoft had to show. Games like Fable Legends and Gigantic played together on both platforms. The only difference, your preference for a controller or keyboard and mouse.

Windows 10 is a big step forward for Microsoft in so many spaces. It's allowing the company to do things that it, nor anyone else has done before. Sure, Sony has dabbled with game streaming, but unless you own a PlayStation and at least one other Sony product, it's useless. How many more people already have what they need to stream Xbox One games? A Windows PC. Sony can't boast what Microsoft is able to do with its games on Windows 10. No-one can.

It's also going to become, I believe, less important to focus on how many consoles Microsoft sells versus Sony. And that's because of the platform. In the same way that a smartphone is a way to deliver Microsoft services to your pocket, the Xbox One will be a way to deliver Xbox to your living room. With Xbox as the games platform available here and on hundreds of millions of Windows 10 PCs around the world, who really gets the bigger marketshare?

And let's not forget that as of Windows 10, official Xbox peripherals, including the forthcoming Elite Controller, are compatible out of the box. Just plug 'em in and away you go.

We're only at the beginning. There's so much to look forward to that we do and don't know about. The new Xbox One experience powered by Windows 10, cross-play games like Gigantic, Fable Legends and Killer Instinct, not to mention Halo Wars 2 in 2016. Engineers have told us that yes, they'd love to reverse the Xbox One game streaming feature, but whether it happens or not is still an open question. The Xbox app on Windows 10 will get better every month and we've got things like Crackdown 3, leveraging the power of the Microsoft cloud, to look forward to.

To sum up, I heard this phrase while at Gamescom that I think says everything. What if you could imagine a future where there weren't Xbox One games and Windows games, there were just Xbox games.

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