Wright said:
Games for Gold has not. |
But Games with Gold is about giving free games to XBL subscribers. It's doesn't take time to decide "Maybe it's a good idea to give gamers games that are in recent memory instead of 5 or 6 years old games that aren't even on retail shelves anymore". How hard was it to choose Gears of War 1 over, say, Gears of War 3, for example. Now, what should be a no brainer is being used as an excuse "it takes time to get better". If you're building something, yes, it takes time to get better. But Games with Gold and a feature of PS+ is giving gamers free games that are already out. PS+ has done it in spades since its inception. GwG, on the other hand, could have offered a game like Forza 4 (a game that is 2 years old, so it's retail sales are all but finalized, but still recent enough that people would be interested in it) at the click of a button. There's no engineering, coding, programming, building, etc. that "takes time to get better" behind a decision like that. You just decide "should I give out F4 or something else?" and they chose something else....Crackdown. A game that's 6 years old and no one cares about anymore.
And if you want to argue that the first PS+ games were PSN games, or "lower" retail games, PS+ just started in 2010. As in 0 users. So it may not have been wise to release Uncharted 2, for example, in that time. Something like that takes time to get better because they really are building a base. But even still, with 0 users, they came out the gate offering free games. XBL has been out for years, and has over 46 million total subscribers. Surely with that many people (although not all of them are Gold members, the overwhelming majority are), they could easily give more recent games than Gears of War 1?
