Jump to content



Photo
gwg games with gold gears of war gow shoot many robots free december xbox live gold xbox live

  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#16 vetRadishTM

RadishTM

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 28-November 01
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 02 December 2013 - 21:37

Better quality? Games which aren't 5+ years old?

Indeed.




#17 Andrew

Andrew

    Guardian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 9
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 02 December 2013 - 21:38

Agreed, there isn't a problem with the quality of the games Microsoft are choosing (at least for most of them). The problem is how old the games are that it doesn't reward veteran owners. The only advantage for us is some of our favourite games get a 2nd shot of the limelight and MP becomes active (i.e Halo 3 had more players than Halo 4 in the month it was given).

 

Besides that, they need to offer more. 2 games a month (especially the months with double XBLA picks) is really weak up against PS+ which has 5 (2 PS3, 2 PSN/Vita and 1 PS4 typically).



#18 RatherLargeBear

RatherLargeBear

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 22-October 04
  • Location: Bristol, UK
  • OS: Windows 8.1 x64
  • Phone: Galaxy Note II

Posted 02 December 2013 - 21:50

Microsoft really doesn't do this whole 'free game' thing very well, do they?

 

 

No. But at least it actually is free. Unlike PS+, you keep the games even after your subscription expires.



#19 trooper11

trooper11

    Neowinian Senior

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

Posted 02 December 2013 - 22:02

Besides that, they need to offer more. 2 games a month (especially the months with double XBLA picks) is really weak up against PS+ which has 5 (2 PS3, 2 PSN/Vita and 1 PS4 typically).


I'm not sure its fair to count games that are only available on one platform as part of an overall total. If its 2 ps3 titles vs 2 360 titles, its more reasonable. If the psn games are ps3 titles, then you can throw them in as well. There is no doubt Sony is offering more recent games though.

I wonder if MS would be forced to switch to Sony's system that only lets you rent the games basically in order to offer more games that are of a more recent age.

I kind of doubt MS could afford to give you say 5 more recent games every month that you can keep outright.

#20 Andrew

Andrew

    Guardian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 9
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 02 December 2013 - 22:15

I'm not sure its fair to count games that are only available on one platform as part of an overall total. If its 2 ps3 titles vs 2 360 titles, its more reasonable. If the psn games are ps3 titles, then you can throw them in as well. There is no doubt Sony is offering more recent games though.

I wonder if MS would be forced to switch to Sony's system that only lets you rent the games basically in order to offer more games that are of a more recent age.

I kind of doubt MS could afford to give you say 5 more recent games every month that you can keep outright.

 

Well, I'm speaking in general terms here; that split isn't the same every month. Sometimes it's 3 PS3 games sometimes only 2. PS Vita games are usually the same as the PSN picks, offered via the cross-buy system. 1 PS4 game to start with but I'm sure once we're into the 2nd year of the console it'll step up to 2 games etc.

 

You can't hold it against Sony for building a nice ecosystem between their devices and "devaluing" PS+ just because MS don't have a portable. I mean, going forward they could always include WinMo games and Win8.1 store games if they wanted to even it out.

 

I think you're right though about the indefinite ownership being the cause why only older games are offered. I'd certainly give that up if it meant it matched PS+. I can see why people think it's a negative because in their mind it's only "renting", but really you still have them tied to your account even if you let the subscription lapse. Expecting something to be free all the time on the other hand strikes me as another example of entitlement in gaming today.



#21 trooper11

trooper11

    Neowinian Senior

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

Posted 02 December 2013 - 22:25

Well, I'm speaking in general terms here; that split isn't the same every month. Sometimes it's 3 PS3 games sometimes only 2. PS Vita games are usually the same as the PSN picks, offered via the cross-buy system. 1 PS4 game to start with but I'm sure once we're into the 2nd year of the console it'll step up to 2 games etc.
 
You can't hold it against Sony for building a nice ecosystem between their devices and "devaluing" PS+ just because MS don't have a portable. I mean, going forward they could always include WinMo games and Win8.1 store games if they wanted to even it out.
 
I think you're right though about the indefinite ownership being the cause why only older games are offered. I'd certainly give that up if it meant it matched PS+. I can see why people think it's a negative because in their mind it's only "renting", but really you still have them tied to your account even if you let the subscription lapse. Expecting something to be free all the time on the other hand strikes me as another example of entitlement in gaming today.



I agree, I certainly don't hold it against Sony for including Vita in all of this, its a great way to push the console, no doubt. MS doesn't have a handheld to push, but maybe crossbuy across phones or the PC could be worthwhile.

I think one thing is clear though. MS has said Games For Gold is coming to the X1 sometime over the next year. If that turns out to be true, that means we will see more recent games. No more 5 year old titles :laugh:

#22 +Audioboxer

Audioboxer

    Hermit Arcana

  • Joined: 01-December 03
  • Location: UK, Scotland

Posted 02 December 2013 - 22:39

No. But at least it actually is free. Unlike PS+, you keep the games even after your subscription expires.

 

Minimum PS sub is one month? Well a trial is that, 30 days to play and complete a 'modern' game vs something 7 years old? I'd wage most would prefer Sony's method vs MS' even if you are only renting. Unless MS can improve the quality/relevancy of their output, they might as well just 1:1 copy Sony. You need Live for everything else on the One just about, so it wouldn't really make a difference 'renting' lol.



#23 trooper11

trooper11

    Neowinian Senior

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

Posted 02 December 2013 - 22:55

Minimum PS sub is one month? Well a trial is that, 30 days to play and complete a 'modern' game vs something 7 years old? I'd wage most would prefer Sony's method vs MS' even if you are only renting. Unless MS can improve the quality/relevancy of their output, they might as well just 1:1 copy Sony. You need Live for everything else on the One just about, so it wouldn't really make a difference 'renting' lol.



Some people still prefer the old style of owning their games, so you would get people that prefer MS' method.

However, if copying Sony means more recent games, then I think most would be ok with it.

#24 +Audioboxer

Audioboxer

    Hermit Arcana

  • Joined: 01-December 03
  • Location: UK, Scotland

Posted 02 December 2013 - 23:01

Some people still prefer the old style of owning their games, so you would get people that prefer MS' method.

However, if copying Sony means more recent games, then I think most would be ok with it.

 

What's the point in owning crap/stuff your 99% sure to already own?



#25 spenser.d

spenser.d

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 19-December 03

Posted 02 December 2013 - 23:11

Agreed, there isn't a problem with the quality of the games Microsoft are choosing (at least for most of them). The problem is how old the games are that it doesn't reward veteran owners. The only advantage for us is some of our favourite games get a 2nd shot of the limelight and MP becomes active (i.e Halo 3 had more players than Halo 4 in the month it was given).

 

Besides that, they need to offer more. 2 games a month (especially the months with double XBLA picks) is really weak up against PS+ which has 5 (2 PS3, 2 PSN/Vita and 1 PS4 typically).

 

It can still reward veteran owners.  I picked up Crackdown, DR2, and AC2 so far, games that I never owned even though I've owned my 360 since 01/2006 and have a collection of over 40+ disc games and probably 20+ XBLA games.  Just depends on the person.  They can't please everyone with each option.  More would be nice, but they don't really need to offer anything.  I'm happy they finally started to though :yes:



#26 Andrew

Andrew

    Guardian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 9
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 02 December 2013 - 23:16

It can still reward veteran owners.  I picked up Crackdown, DR2, and AC2 so far, games that I never owned even though I've owned my 360 since 01/2006 and have a collection of over 40+ disc games and probably 20+ XBLA games.  Just depends on the person.  They can't please everyone with each option.  More would be nice, but they don't really need to offer anything.  I'm happy they finally started to though :yes:

 

Yup it's definitely subjective. Like I say, it gives people the chance to replay some favourites online if the servers are repopulated or even for those who traded in games a long time ago. For me personally, I have a huge library of 360 games and I think I've only benefited from 3 games so far.



#27 trooper11

trooper11

    Neowinian Senior

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

Posted 02 December 2013 - 23:19

What's the point in owning crap/stuff your 99% sure to already own?


I'm not sure what the point is if you already own it, then again that would apply to both services. But if you don't, there is a point.

If they can get more recent titles under the same system, then suddenly more people won't already own the games they offer.

Fundamentally, most would prefer a system where they are owning the content, but most are willing to give that up if something is given in return. So Sony got beyond it by offering enough titles that a lot of people don't own yet. So you can't keep them, but the selection is great. In effect, you can get away with not buying a single ps3 game thanks to ps+ if your patient, saving you a lot of money.

MS decided to try it differently. We will see how it works for the X1 considering they will have no choice but to offer more recent titles.

#28 George P

George P

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 04-February 07
  • Location: Greece
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit
  • Phone: HTC Windows Phone 8X

Posted 02 December 2013 - 23:28

Everyone wants newer games but what's old for me isn't old for someone else.  People are still buying the 360, new 360 gamers coming to it, for them these are new games.   When the program is extended to the XB1 then they can offer games for both, for those who own both.    Till then what's crap or not and what's old or not depends on the individual. 



#29 LaP

LaP

    Forget about it

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 10-July 06
  • Location: Quebec City, Canada
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro Update 1

Posted 03 December 2013 - 02:24

I'm not sure what the point is if you already own it, then again that would apply to both services. But if you don't, there is a point.

If they can get more recent titles under the same system, then suddenly more people won't already own the games they offer.


The problem is not really that the games are old. It's that they are best sellers like Halo 3 and GOW and Vegas. It's cool for someone who just bought his 360 but for someone who has it since launch like me those are games i owned and played to death.

I would prefer to see more games like Crackdown. Good games but not that much people played them.

Most of the XBLA games they are giving are laughable at best. You get a better value with Humble Bundles even if you have to pay. Some of them would be okay tablet games on the bus but certainly not great XBLA i want to play when i'm sitting in front of my TV. I watched a video of Kill a truck load of robots and decided to not waste any bandwidth on it. It looks ok like Rocketbirds: Hardboiled Chicken on steam but with all my backlog on steam i don't have time to lose with average titles like those even when free (i gave Rocketbirds when i bought Humble Bundle 9).

Overall it's better than nothing and i wont complain but i would prefer a system requiring me to have an XBox Live Gold sub to play the games and having a little bit better offering. It's 2 months in a row now i don't download any of the games offered for free ... either because i already own them or i don't care. The last one i downloaded was Clash of Hereos.

#30 trooper11

trooper11

    Neowinian Senior

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

Posted 03 December 2013 - 02:38

Overall it's better than nothing and i wont complain but i would prefer a system requiring me to have an XBox Live Gold sub to play the games and having a little bit better offering. It's 2 months in a row now i don't download any of the games offered for free ... either because i already own them or i don't care. The last one i downloaded was Clash of Hereos.


I agree, but I think this thread also shows that its tough to make everyone happy.

Heck, even with ps+ sometimes there is nothing worth downloading or its all things many people own.


The best thing MS can do to improve it is to increase the quantity a little and make sure they try to stick to above average or higher quality/variety in the game choices.