Jump to content



Photo

July's Xbox Live Gold free blockbuster game

xbox live microsoft free

  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#46 trooper11

trooper11

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 21-November 12

Posted 02 July 2013 - 00:02

I think both sides of the console market are making good n bad changes, xbox 360 getting free games or decent deals, 8 years after launch, while Sony prepare to charge for online multiplayer access via it's Plus system on PS4.
 
I think the marketing team at Microsoft just don't know games or are not as passionate as they should be, I think there are that many chains of command in Microsoft that deals and offers like these just get pushed out without thought or substance.
 
We all know major nelson is a gamer and knows games but still has to take what he is bottle fed without the power to change it, as he states himself he just finds out titles then blasts them onto his blog (his job) and he gets the backlash from the users. There should be more people like him in the positions that make the decisions about games and offers.
 
Comments here keep talking about how the xbox games for gold let you keep the games not like PS+ that just lets you use them as you're a member of the PS+, Microsofts offer is games for gold which means you have to be a gold member to avail of them in the first place, meaning you also have to pay to get them, and most are pretty pointless without MP access unless you pay for gold again.
 
We can all say PS+ wasn't as good when it first started but it's pretty good now and Microsoft needs to challenge Sony now, not start off with crappy arcade games building up to a console release when people now are making up their minds whether to stay with Microsoft or whether they should ditch XB1 for PS4. Microsoft needs to be setting examples and pleasing their userbase to a certain level, not ignoring them and then embarrassing themselves with poor offering like this grid dribble. 
 
I have to admit i was a Xbox user up to about the unveil of the XB1, I was so underwhelmed by the presentation, the look of it, the features and the obvious American only features of the console. My Xbox gold account runs it's course in a few weeks and my 8 year stint with Microsoft comes to an end, and I've given my Xbox 360 to my 5yr old nephew who just plays Doritos crash course on it (he loves it).
 
I joined PS+ the month before last and paid for a years sub, and already I've had the following..
 

  • Lord of the rings: war in the north
  • The Cave
  • Little big Planet 2
  • Little big planet karting
  • ICO
  • Shadow of the colossus
  • Motorstorm
  • Infamous 2
  • Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning
  • Uncharted: Golden Abyss
  • Uncharted 3: Drakes deception
  • Demon's Souls
  • XCOM: Enemy Unknown

And tomorrow..

  • Battlefield 3
  • Payday: The Heist
  • Saints Row the Third

All this for €49.99 just this year alone.

I have been paying €49.99 every year since 2005 for the xbox 360.

I got..
 

  • Doritos Crash Course 1

 

yes..that's it.

 

Speaks for itself really.

 

 

 

I agree with most of your points about why ps+ is a good deal. Somehow this thread changed from discussing a free game being released to how great ps+ is. Again, who is arguing against their service that requires so much defense of it?

 

Great, you laid out why your done with MS and show off all the great games your playing. I'm not sure what features you think are 'US exclusives', but even the tv stuff is going to get European support. If you didn't like how it looked or the games lineup, then I get why you would pass.

 

PS+ works so well thanks to a strong lineup that rotates each month. MS needs to improve their lineup in order for this to be a competitive feature.  I'm not defending the reality now, I'm just looking at history and I see a pattern where a new service like this starts off small and then grows. Is that wrong? I doubt any company can start these things and suddenly dominate.

 

MS needs to start moving in a direction gamers want, this is a good first step. As long as we keep reminding them to improve, I expect them to improve.

 

As far as keeping the games vs 'renting' them, your right that any multiplayer game would still require Gold, but that's an unfair blanket statement. Look through that roster of ps+ titles. Many of those don't require multiplayer or are single/local co-op only. Same goes for the initial MS offerings. Fable, AC, heck even Halo 3 can be enjoyed without multiplayer.

 

I don't have any problem with the ps+ method, it seems like a good deal, but I also see MS' idea as a good one. As they improve the choices, it will be a bigger feature.


 

Also, PS4 requires a Plus subscription to use multiplayer, so like Microsoft gold accounts i will retain my membership for that very reason just i will have just a far superior bonus scheme going with it so games not working out of PS+ doesn't bother me one bit at this time, I paid €49.99 for 8 years and literally got nothing from microsoft and Sony offer far more for their users and their European audience which Microsoft ignore mostly.

 

:)

 

 

 

One question about ps+ that I wasn't sure about. When you sign up, do get access to all the games you listed, or just what is available for that month and what comes out while your subscribed?




#47 Stryker297

Stryker297

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 26-November 12
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Lumia 920

Posted 02 July 2013 - 00:09

One question about ps+ that I wasn't sure about. When you sign up, do get access to all the games you listed, or just what is available for that month and what comes out while your subscribed?

 

The games are available as long as you continue your PS+ subscription.  If you do let it lapse and pick it back up again at a later time, you get access to all the games you had again.  

 

Something I'd be interested in knowing is the business aspects of it.  PS+ is at least somewhat consistently giving access to third-party AAA titles from about 1-2 years ago.  Saints Row The Third, BF3, etc.  Obviously the first-party stuff they can just do whatever with, but does anyone have any insight on how the deals are done with third-party?  Since all the games are out of their fiscal years does Sony just give a lump sum to the publisher of a title, or do they pay X per download to the publisher.  



#48 (Spork)

(Spork)

    ANDROID-APPLE

  • Joined: 20-August 07

Posted 02 July 2013 - 01:03

so far not impressed  

 

 

wit my ps+ 

 

i just got 

 

Xcom

saints row the 3rd 

and single play uncharted 3 



#49 trooper11

trooper11

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 21-November 12

Posted 02 July 2013 - 01:39

The games are available as long as you continue your PS+ subscription.  If you do let it lapse and pick it back up again at a later time, you get access to all the games you had again.  

 

Something I'd be interested in knowing is the business aspects of it.  PS+ is at least somewhat consistently giving access to third-party AAA titles from about 1-2 years ago.  Saints Row The Third, BF3, etc.  Obviously the first-party stuff they can just do whatever with, but does anyone have any insight on how the deals are done with third-party?  Since all the games are out of their fiscal years does Sony just give a lump sum to the publisher of a title, or do they pay X per download to the publisher.  

 

 

I get that you can get the games as long as you stay subscribed, but do you get access to the entire catalog of games that came out in previous months? Say I signed up now, would I get access to all the games released for ps+ up to this point, or just the games released this month and games released in the future while I was a member?

 

I haven't signed up for ps+ yet, but I plan to soon. I haven't yet since most of the games I would want to play on their list, I already own. I decided to stop buying the ps3 games that were offered on ps+ so I could get more out of it.

 

Regarding the business side, I'd like to know this as well. MS may still be working on deals with publishers in order to offer more recent titles like Sony does. Since MS is offering them for you to keep, maybe it requires different red tape.



#50 soniqstylz

soniqstylz

    Neowin Trophy Slore

  • Joined: 30-September 06
  • Location: In your panty drawer

Posted 02 July 2013 - 01:49

Something I'd be interested in knowing is the business aspects of it.  PS+ is at least somewhat consistently giving access to third-party AAA titles from about 1-2 years ago.  Saints Row The Third, BF3, etc.  Obviously the first-party stuff they can just do whatever with, but does anyone have any insight on how the deals are done with third-party?  Since all the games are out of their fiscal years does Sony just give a lump sum to the publisher of a title, or do they pay X per download to the publisher.  

 

I've noticed that a lot of the 3rd party games that come out contain a lot of DLC.  I'm betting that they expect to get something on the back end for a game that's already made its money back in initial sales.  And a lot of them are Squeenix games (Sleeping Dogs, Just Cause 2, Hitman: Absolution [which was a PAL PS+ game], Deus Ex), for some reason.


I get that you can get the games as long as you stay subscribed, but do you get access to the entire catalog of games that came out in previous months? Say I signed up now, would I get access to all the games released for ps+ up to this point, or just the games released this month and games released in the future while I was a member?

 

 

There are games that are only available for that month, and then they are replaced with new games.

 

But there also is a core "Instant Game Collection".  For the first year it was Just Cause 2, inFamous 2, Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One, and a few others.  Starting in June, that was replaced by Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Uncharted 3, XCOM, and some others.  I think it's always six games, with 3 - 4 other games rotating each month, for total access to about 10 - 12 games your first month.

 

That said, once you've "purchased" the game, it's always available as long as you're subscribed, even if it leaves the rotation.

 

I subcribed about a year ago when they first did the Instant Game Collection.  Since then I've gotten Saints Row the Third, Sleeping Dogs, Vanquish, Spec Ops: The Line, Just Cause 2, The Walking Dead, Starhawk, Little Big Planet 2, Trine 2, Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One, Outland, along with deals on Ratchet & Clank HD, Laura Croft: Guardian of Light, Journey, Unfinished Swan, and Hitman: Blood Money HD, for $50.  And I just renewed for $40 thanks to Best Buy.



#51 trooper11

trooper11

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 21-November 12

Posted 02 July 2013 - 01:59

 

There are games that are only available for that month, and then they are replaced with new games.

 

But there also is a core "Instant Game Collection".  For the first year it was Just Cause 2, inFamous 2, Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One, and a few others.  Starting in June, that was replaced by Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Uncharted 3, XCOM, and some others.  I think it's always six games, with 3 - 4 games rotating each month.

 

That said, once you've "purchased" the game, it's always available as long as you're subscribed, even if it leaves the rotation.

 

Ah ok, thanks for clearing that up. So six titles change yearly, and then an additional 3-4 titles that change monthly.

 

So in affect, when someone signs up, they immediately get access to 9-10 titles, but then every month after they will be able to get 3-4 new titles.

 

That's easily worth the ps+ cost if you don't already own the games.

 

I wonder how Sony will handle the ps4 launch. Anyone that gets ps+ on the ps4 won't be getting full titles for at least a year or two if they treat it like the ps3.



#52 compl3x

compl3x

    Space coyote

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 02 July 2013 - 06:37

Yeah, bad MS for releasing a game that's more popular than all of those put together ;)

 

face it though. both XBL free games and PSN+ is giving away games that have sold past the "curve". i.e. games that have already sold a lot and the vast majority of those interested in the game have bought it so very few are actually buying them anymore, hence they're "safe" to give away. 


 

 

Difference is that MS is actually giving away full games for use forever. This is a lot more expensive and not all developers are willing to allow this either. so for the start we'll have to expect mostly MS developed/published titles. 

 

 

There is certainly more variety from Sony than Microsoft. Plus, I don't think the difference between owning forever and renting for a year isn't really a valid point because in a year period the games would likely be played and finished. Keeping the game forever is nice, but PS+ sells itself well and people are inclined to renew or stack their subscriptions so you end up owning your games for a long time anyway.

 

I'd be happy to see Microsoft just copy Sony. They'd cop flak for it, but they've have a comparable service.


I wonder how Sony will handle the ps4 launch. Anyone that gets ps+ on the ps4 won't be getting full titles for at least a year or two if they treat it like the ps3.

 

 

I think Drive Club is a PS+ title for PS4. Not as many cars or tracks, but still, not bad right off the mark.



#53 illage3

illage3

    Apprentice Game Designer

  • Joined: 07-June 13
  • Location: Manchester, UK
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy Note 2

Posted 02 July 2013 - 07:31

You completely skipped over my question though, Are you saying that EVERY month PSN+ gives you AAA titles over the year or so it has started doing this?

All I am saying is you can't slate a company for the one month they started doing something and it hasn't given in your opinion the games PSN+ has or is. If they don't start giving out games that a majority want then fine, but for all we know next month they may release some newer, better games!

I think its a little too early to be getting the daggers in without this just coming across as another Sony Vs Microsoft fanboy thread.

I wouldn't say they were all AAA titles but most of them are games that people actually want to play.  We;ve had the likes of Hitman, Sleeping Dogs, Infamous 1 & 2, Saints Row 3, Deus EX, Mortal Kombat 9 and more.

 

Compare that to the games that MS were offering:

 

Fable 3 - Flopped Big time

Defense Grid - Not a big enough fanbase

Halo 3 - five year old game that most people already own

Assasins Creed 2 - See above

 

MS are only doing this until the Xbox One launches.



#54 trooper11

trooper11

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 21-November 12

Posted 02 July 2013 - 07:50

 

But that is just a glorified demo, something akin to GT Prologue

 

 

Compared with getting say 10 games when you first sign up and 3-4 after that each month, that's quite a drop off.

 

I'll definitely be considering letting my ps+ lapse for a while on the ps4 if it turns out they just can't offer the same deal for a while.

 

Although I assume Sony realized that and it could be one reason they moved multiplayer gaming behind a pay wall like MS. MS proved that is a big draw for adoption.



#55 trooper11

trooper11

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 21-November 12

Posted 02 July 2013 - 08:02

I wouldn't say they were all AAA titles but most of them are games that people actually want to play.  We;ve had the likes of Hitman, Sleeping Dogs, Infamous 1 & 2, Saints Row 3, Deus EX, Mortal Kombat 9 and more.

 

Compare that to the games that MS were offering:

 

Fable 3 - Flopped Big time

Defense Grid - Not a big enough fanbase

Halo 3 - five year old game that most people already own

Assasins Creed 2 - See above

 

MS are only doing this until the Xbox One launches.

 

 

But aren't those just your opinions of the games?

 

I mean I agree MS will need to grow the variety as they go, but to dismiss all of these games based on your feelings about the games doesn't seem right. Remember, there are several people that weren't fans of some of those ps+ games you mentioned or already owned them.

 

This is two conversations:

 

1. How do you personally feel about the selection

 

2. How does the general market 'feel' about it

 

 

I just don't get why it has to be all or nothing in these things. MS is offering some free games. Good for those that don't own those games yet. Hope they grow the selection and hit games I don't own yet.

 

Regarding the program time frame (which is listed as ending 12/31/13, after the X1 is out), it makes perfect sense why it wouldn't be offered on the X1 at launch. There would be no games to offer. Its the same problem Sony will have. They will both have to wait a year or two if they wanted to offer a decent selection. Sony showed with the exclusive DriveClub demo that they may try to get user by with those options. MS has yet to show what it will offer, so we will see.



#56 Doli

Doli

    Goo ball

  • Joined: 28-October 04
  • Location: Tower of Goo Memorial Park and Recreation Center

Posted 02 July 2013 - 08:16

But that is just a glorified demo, something akin to GT Prologue

 

 

Compared with getting say 10 games when you first sign up and 3-4 after that each month, that's quite a drop off.

 

I'll definitely be considering letting my ps+ lapse for a while on the ps4 if it turns out they just can't offer the same deal for a while.

 

Although I assume Sony realized that and it could be one reason they moved multiplayer gaming behind a pay wall like MS. MS proved that is a big draw for adoption.

 

PS+ is more than just free games. You also get discounts on digital download games and other items on PS3 and it should be the same for PS4



#57 trooper11

trooper11

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 21-November 12

Posted 02 July 2013 - 15:36

PS+ is more than just free games. You also get discounts on digital download games and other items on PS3 and it should be the same for PS4

 

 

That is true. I was focusing on the game access since its really the difference between Plus and Gold. Both offer discounts, beta access, early demo access, etc. PS+ stood out for the game access privilege. Of course now that ps+ is required for multiplayer, things are a bit different. 



#58 ahhell

ahhell

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 30-June 03
  • Location: Winnipeg - coldest place on Earth - yeah

Posted 02 July 2013 - 15:45

I really don't get this whole "competition" thing that people have come up with regarding Live/PSN.

 

Both are the sole proprietary service for its respective console.  They aren't really in direct competition.



#59 BajiRav

BajiRav

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Location: Xbox, where am I?
  • OS: Windows 8.1, Windows 8
  • Phone: Lumia 920

Posted 02 July 2013 - 15:58

I really don't get this whole "competition" thing that people have come up with regarding Live/PSN.

 

Both are the sole proprietary service for its respective console.  They aren't really in direct competition.

but..but...PS+ has free games!



#60 compl3x

compl3x

    Space coyote

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 02 July 2013 - 23:43

I really don't get this whole "competition" thing that people have come up with regarding Live/PSN.

 

Both are the sole proprietary service for its respective console.  They aren't really in direct competition.

 

 

Maybe the services themselves aren't similar so therefore they aren't directly competing, but it would be naive to think that the services both companies offer don't compete when trying to sell systems.

 

If I was Sony trying to sell consoles, PS+ is something I would promote as much as possible. I think they have even started bundling 3 month subs with new PS3s to show people what the service offers.