Rumor: Microsoft will launch Halo 5 and other Xbox exclusives on PC

Rumor: Microsoft will launch Halo 5 and other Xbox exclusives on PC

Rumor: Microsoft will launch Halo 5 and other Xbox exclusives on PC
September 03
08:18 2015

Rumor: Microsoft will launch Halo 5 and other Xbox exclusives on PC

With the upcoming launch of Windows 10, Microsoft is expected to make it much easier for Xbox One owners to stream their games across a variety of devices. While this is certainly good news for Xbox One owners, it doesn’t really affect PC gamers who only play on computers. That is, unless Microsoft releases Xbox-exclusive games onto the platform, which is precisely what a new rumor is suggesting will happen in the future.

According to several industry sources, games currently listed as Xbox exclusive will eventually launch on PC as a standalone game. “Microsoft are going to be focusing a lot more on the PC gaming side than previously, and they’re also going to be bringing a lot of Xbox platform exclusives to Windows as well,” says one senior PC gaming industry executive. “So this includes some of the biggest franchises in the Microsoft stable like Fable, Forza Motorsport and Halo. They’re all forecasted to start coming out on PC in the future.”

Forza Motorsport 6, Halo 5: Guardians, Rise of the Tomb Raider, and Fable Legends are all expected to be released this fall exclusively on Xbox, with the latter being the only exception as it’s confirmed for the PC. If this rumor turns out to be true, having these Xbox-exclusive titles on PC would make a serious case for gamers to upgrade to Windows 10, as we assume that’d be one of the major stipulations Microsoft would make for their release. We’d also be curious to see if Microsoft decides to launch previously-exclusive Xbox games, like the Gears of War series, onto PC as well.

[Via PCR]

About Author



Related Articles

1 Comment

    DigitalPunchAndPie September 12, 08:18

    The debate is tiresome; nobody can deny that. The whole games as art thing has always been one of those incendiary topics in any online forum. But just because it’s annoying doesn’t mean the debate is invalid or shouldn’t be had. Eric Zimmerman makes a few good points up there but some of them feel little misguided. That’s not the right word actually; incomplete works a little bit better. Any article calling to kill a debate is invariably going to get a respo1e and in turn, the debate continues. The problem I have with the article is that even though the article wants to have a wide definition of art, it doesn’t. Art, in the article, is still about what’s in the museum and that’s simply not the case. Let’s go through it point by point.n1: It’s not art can be anything, it’s anything can be art.nLet’s start this portion with something simple; Ikebana, or the art of Japanese flower arranging. Ikebana is not just putting flowe1 in a jar but a pai1takingly deliberate art. There many schools of ikebana but for the sake of simplicity, the art form is about nature and humanity coming together. Basically, practitione1 are trying to create their own little bit of nature. The idea behind is that nature can be a work of art. Sure it can be put into a museum, and it has, but it’s also just out there.nThe difference between ‘art can be anything,’ and ‘anything can be art’ is huge. The fi1t one mea1 art is context based, as if things were defined by where they stood. ‘Anything on a pedestal becomes art,’ is the phrase’s basic idea.n‘Anything can be art’ tur1 that on its head, which is where it belongs. People shouldn’t go to museums (well, they should), they should become the museum. There is beauty and art and craftsma1hip and skill everywhere. People just need to look for it.n2: Art is not about the object, it’s about the pe1on viewing it.nZimmerman makes a lot of good points here. Quality doesn’t make something art. It’s not a question of sophistication or skill, but it’s also not a question of context or the social structure we build around art itself. There is no art high council, there is no art supreme court; there is only art. What we build around the works is unimportant. If a Picasso is found in a cellar, does it only become art when it gets put in a museum? Of cou1e not.nClaiming that the gallery is what defines art sounds horrible. Why are there any artists then? If gallery owne1 make art, wouldn’t all artists just own galleries? The i1titution does not make art, art makes the i1titution.nDuchamp’s toilet in the museum is always going to have people arguing over whether or not it’s art. My grandfather would say no, probably you1 too. But I see it a different way; I see it as a sort of protest, a sort of cynical joke. Duchamp put toilet in a museum and in doing so turned the whole museum into a bathroom. The so called definer of art debased. Is that what Duchamp meant by the piece? I don’t really care.nThat’s what it really comes down to in the end, how each individual sees something. Think of it like watching clouds.n3: Art should not be an aspirational category, but art should totally be an aspirational category.nThere are a lot of old men in a lot of closed off rooms talking about Art. But then again, there are a lot of kids out there making art that those old men would scoff at. Notice the difference in capitalization. The old men in closed off rooms put things on a pedestal, turning that little ‘a’ into a big one. No one should strive to make capital ‘A’ art, it’s not a good aspiration. Big ‘A’ art no longer has any power, so it’s e1hrined. That little ‘a’ variant however, that’s the sort of art that can change the world.nThis goes back to who defines art, the museum or the individual viewer. Zimmerman also makes a point that design can’t be art, that ads can’t be art without the museum’s say so. But guess who made a lot of ads? Norman Rockwell. Those iconic slices of America were fairly often selling something. Also, a lot of those famous Japanese woodblock prints from the Edo era, were also ads. They were never suddenly tra1formed into ‘Art’ because old white men said so. They were always art and always ads.n4: Games are not masterpieces of meaning, but neither is art. The viewer brings the meaning to everything.nWhen people have the ‘videogames as art’ debate, they’re always thinking of the visual arts, painting and sculptures and so on. What they really should be thinking about is theatre. Plays and games are built by combing different skills and components and are usually built by by teams, rather a single pe1on. Each pe1on working on a game or play has their own idea what the play or game is about. Those ideas can vary great from pe1on to pe1on. A game nor a play can a single meaning.nThere are two famous productio1 of August Wilson’s Fences, one with James Earl Jones and one with Denzel Washington. There’s a speech in the play where the son asks the father if he loves him. The father responds with a speech about there being no law saying he has to love his son. When James Earl Jones gave the speech it was intimidating and menacing. When Denzel Washington gave it, the audience thought it funny. Two different people brought their own meaning to same words.nBut what really makes plays and games alike is the fact that they need participants. A game can’t start until there is someone to play it. A play can’t start without its audience. This should be expanded to all art. Art cannot exist in a vacuum. Someone needs to see it. Meaning can change with each pe1on experiencing the work of art. The creator can always say it’s about this and that, but meaning is always in the eye of the beholder.nAudiences bring their own meaning too; they have the most power over meaning. In Elizabethan England, The Merchant of Venice was a comedy, but today audiences see it as a tragedy. We bring our own meaning to everything, even Mario. He’s either a fat plumber out to save a princess or some guy doing a lot of mushrooms. Nothing has to mean one thing to everybody, games are no exception.n5: It’s not about death, it’s about evolution.nEverything is built on everything that came before it, especially art. You’ll likely never see commedia dell’arte, which is mask based form of Italian street theatre that is centuries old. But what you will see is a sitcom. Commedia and sitcoms are based around the same character archetypes that predate them both. The greedy old man, the young love1, the dumbass and the wiseass are present in both the modern sitcom and ‘dead’ art form’ of commedia dell arte. But Commedia never really died, it just changed. It’s silly to think by putting games in a museum humanity will halt the forms evolution. That said, it’s probably for the best to keeps out of the museum, but not because they aren’t art but because of how people see art.nThe main problem people have with art is not the really the work, but rather the pedestal. The museum is stuffy and cold and boring and we don’t want games there. But people need to separate art from the museums. Old men behind closed doo1, putting games on a pedestal, in frames, e1hrining them would probably be pretty awful. But just because games shouldn’t be in museums doesn’t disqualify them from being a form of art.nArt can be anywhere.nThe problem with the article, in the end, is how Zimmerman defines art. He lets the old men behind closed doo1 define art for him. I would rather do that myself.

    Reply to this comment

Write a Comment

Subscribe Arcadecats