By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - XB1 Games with Gold "might not look exactly the way things have looked in the past"

ganoncrotch said:
2008ProchargedGT said:

I wish XBL would adopt the same game policy as PSN. Every month its like a presant for my psvita ps3 and amazinglt my PS4. I just don't understand all this denial... I've had my PS4 since nov and I've gotten Resogun, Contrast, Don't Starve, Outlast, Flow, Dead Nation, and. That's not even Including f2p games like Black Light or Warframe. The value is insane!!! Only games I've bought are Killzone, Tomb Raider Knack and Infamous. The list of PS3 games is more crazy. Now that i have an Xbone and XBL i really wish it was similar. How sweet would it be if XBL offer this value and the games were diff than that of the PS4 ?!?!? I would have soooo many games i would not have to. Uy anythi g but a few AAA a year!!!!!! 


Well the 1 xbox live account works on both your Xbox360 and X1 so it would mean you'd be getting a game per console twice a month if they bought it in As-is right now on the X1... but I guess we'll just have to wait and see how they handle it. The thing with games with gold was it came to the 360 very late so there was already a great backcatalog of old games which were still amazing hits to be given away for free, stuff like Halo3, AC2 and Gears of War but obviously the X1 doesn't have a massive library of old games to pick from to give out for free to everyone, so it will have to be reworked a lot.


Why are you making excuses for them? That didn't stop Sony from giving out games



Around the Network
selnor1983 said:
No Id prefer to have the game. I dont want a rental service.


Until you get a "rental service" from games with gold and then you'll praise it to no end. Hand Down PSN+ > Games with gold. There's no question. Maybe you should try it before you knock it. Plus it's not like you'd ever stop  subscribing anyway. 



I think the whole reason why Sony invented this on consoles was because they had almost no subscribers. Microsoft had a huge amount on 360 so that they didn't have to offer something like Sony to increase the numbers. That's why you got only really old games on 360, Microsoft didn't have to offer newer games to give people a reason to pay for Gold but they still thought that they have to have at least something because of PS+. Sony had to go this way because asking to get money to play online wasn't really an option when many bought a PS3 because it was free there.

Now with PS4 and Xbox One it is different. Sony has to offer it because people are used to it on PLaystation and people don't really accept to get less on new systems. It has to be always more as before and Microsoft doesn't already have a huge amount of Gold users on Xbox One so that they have to offer something better as on 360 or some who don't know which console to buy could decide to buy a PS4 because of that.



Mmmfishtacos said:
selnor1983 said:
No Id prefer to have the game. I dont want a rental service.


Until you get a "rental service" from games with gold and then you'll praise it to no end. Hand Down PSN+ > Games with gold. There's no question. Maybe you should try it before you knock it. Plus it's not like you'd ever stop  subscribing anyway. 

Don't even bother replying to a troll comment like that lol.

I'd take a rental service that gives me games like Borderlands 2, Uncharted 3 Far Cry 3, Arkham City, Just Cause 2 etc Vs. one that lets me keep games like Defence Grid Awakening and Tomb Raider Guardian of the Light...

But hey, that's just my personal preference. 



crissindahouse said:

I think the whole reason why Sony invented this on consoles was because they had almost no subscribers. Microsoft had a huge amount on 360 so that they didn't have to offer something like Sony to increase the numbers. That's why you got only really old games on 360, Microsoft didn't have to offer newer games to give people a reason to pay for Gold but they still thought that they have to have at least something because of PS+. Sony had to go this way because asking to get money to play online wasn't really an option when many bought a PS3 because it was free there.

Now with PS4 and Xbox One it is different. Sony has to offer it because people are used to it on PLaystation and people don't really accept to get less on new systems. It has to be always more as before and Microsoft doesn't already have a huge amount of Gold users on Xbox One so that they have to offer something better as on 360 or some who don't know which console to buy could decide to buy a PS4 because of that.

While I agree % 100 with what you said, xbl still needs to have a comparable offerings to stay competitive especially at a 20% higher cost. When CokeaCola released vanilla coke what did Pepsi do ? You bet your ass they released a similar flavor. Sony unleased pandoras box with free games and now XBL needs to match it or they will lose even more consumer support



Around the Network
Mmmfishtacos said:
selnor1983 said:
No Id prefer to have the game. I dont want a rental service.


Until you get a "rental service" from games with gold and then you'll praise it to no end. Hand Down PSN+ > Games with gold. There's no question. Maybe you should try it before you knock it. Plus it's not like you'd ever stop  subscribing anyway. 

true.



I usually subscribe but here is my problem with that. I have 2 360's. If I purchase a game it gets registered to one or the other. So for the game that the purchase isn't licensed to I have to be online in my profile to open the game. Sometimes the internet is out, other times I might take my game over to a friend or a relative, those games are then unplayable.............it gets annoying.


there are pros to both services though.

ps+ more recent games, I wouldn't say better games but more recent.

gwg = games you keep, There have been some high quality games offered that survives the test of time. skyrim, fable etc.......

I wouldn't consider either a selling point though.....the game I really want to play I'd probably have to buy anyways.



http://imageshack.com/a/img801/6426/f7pc.gif

^Yes that's me ripping it up in the GIF. :)

Mmmfishtacos said:
selnor1983 said:
No Id prefer to have the game. I dont want a rental service.


Until you get a "rental service" from games with gold and then you'll praise it to no end. Hand Down PSN+ > Games with gold. There's no question. Maybe you should try it before you knock it. Plus it's not like you'd ever stop  subscribing anyway. 

That's exactly what i thought when i read his comment :p Considering the unlikeliness of him cancelling his Gold sub, you'd think he'd prefer to be given newer or more popular titles than stuff the competing service was giving out almost a year ago.

I'm sure GWG with improve over time, but currently it's barley even worth comparing to PS+. It doesn't supply even a fraction of the value. The US PS+ is currently providing Uncharted 3, Tomb Raider, Payday 2, Bioshock: Infinite, Remember Me, XCOM, LBP Karting, Borderlands 2 and a couple of other titles just for signing up :/ That's before you even considering the monthly games and deals you get. It's no wonder everyone loves PS+.



EB1994 said:
endimion said:
what flamingweazle is saying is exactly why I don't want GfG to become like PS+.... the very fact that PS+ gives away (rent who cares) more recent AAA games is a bad thing for me....

why??? you gonna ask!!! this is retarded!!!

well because when I look at both offering so far yeah I agree PS+ has better quality more recent games no question asked.... they also have way less games I don't already own compare to GfG.... so if it were to become like PS+ I would end up getting less game in the end since I already have them.... what I love with GfG is that I get games I would have never bought or sometime never really paid attention to and realize I missed out or I just get a good filler until the next day 1 AAA title I will buy

bottom line if GfG gives me halo 5 six month later or GOW 4 chances are it will be lost on me since those are day 1.... nos if in a year they give me zoo tycoon or lococyle those are 2 games I might not have yet even 2 years later....

so yeah PS+ is better (regardless of renting/owning debate) ... no it doesn't add more value to me since I would end up with less game to get since I more than likely own most of them already....

You do realize Ps Plus doesn't JUST offer triple AAA games right? There's always an indie title or two thrown in there. It's usually one big AAA game with a bunch of smaller/cheaper games. Like this month, Arkham City and Sly cooper Thieves in Time on PS3.

But alas, you haven't even experienced PS Plus before so how would you know?

I know you don't have only AAAA games but I did compare both offering and FACT is I would have DLed less games on PS+ than I did on GfG....and trueI won't ever know how PS+ is since I won't be getting a Playstation.... but what I'm saying is I don't want GfG to become more like PS+.... I'm not against amelioration but a compromise between the two might be a better solution.... at least for me....



Personally I think anyone with a PS+ or XBL Gold sub should be able to download any game in the PSN / XBL library that is more than 3 years old. If a game hasn't profited after 3 years then it isn't going to, and the few dollars each game earns from the PS+ / XBL subs that go with every download will add up.

Clearly the quality of games that you get to keep even when you end your subs will be lower than the quality of games that you can only play while your subs are active. I prefer the rental service, because I just got myself Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite for my instant game collection. 2 GOTY contenders for 2013! Oh, and Borderlands 2, LBP Karting and Brothers. That's such great quality, excpt maybe for LBP Karting.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix