Game Pass Core (Games With Gold - 2013-2023)
- Thread starter The Wolf King
- Start date
-
- Tags
- games with gold gwg xbox
Would be surprised by Terraria since it sells well and they recently released a retail version. Would be kind of impressed by that though even though I already have it. Saints row 2 wouldn't be very impressive.
Love to see them give Alan Wake just to try and build momentum for a sequel.
Love to see them give Alan Wake just to try and build momentum for a sequel.
Games with Gold is a massive disappointment. No. Scratch that - Games with Gold is a massive bitch slap to all the customer who helped make Live what it is today.
Sure, you 'own' the games for ever and ever ... or until your Xbox 360 is no longer relevant. Hardly a value when you consider most of the games MS is giving away are worthless antiquities. And 'giving away' is a nice term as they are not giving anything away - they are a perk on top of a subscription you pay for.
In in itself it is nice to have value added to something we are purchasing. That isn't a bad thing. However, when the hotel you are staying at is only offering a cup of coffee and donut while the one across the street is offering a 5 star meal for the same night rate...well, yeah, that changes the perspective.
And that is what this is all about - perspective. Games with Gold is a weak response to Sony's subscription model. Gold existed in a vacuum for a long time during which MS ran rickshaw over customers. Using the same premise that Verizon does to run rickshaw over its customers - "we have the better network". Now the competitions is catching up and adding a lot more value to that subscription model. MS has been slow to respond and it is loosing them fans and customers. The lock MS once had has evaporated everywhere except in Microsoft's mind. It was the same problem for Sony last gen and one you would think would be all to obvious.
Sure, you 'own' the games for ever and ever ... or until your Xbox 360 is no longer relevant. Hardly a value when you consider most of the games MS is giving away are worthless antiquities. And 'giving away' is a nice term as they are not giving anything away - they are a perk on top of a subscription you pay for.
In in itself it is nice to have value added to something we are purchasing. That isn't a bad thing. However, when the hotel you are staying at is only offering a cup of coffee and donut while the one across the street is offering a 5 star meal for the same night rate...well, yeah, that changes the perspective.
And that is what this is all about - perspective. Games with Gold is a weak response to Sony's subscription model. Gold existed in a vacuum for a long time during which MS ran rickshaw over customers. Using the same premise that Verizon does to run rickshaw over its customers - "we have the better network". Now the competitions is catching up and adding a lot more value to that subscription model. MS has been slow to respond and it is loosing them fans and customers. The lock MS once had has evaporated everywhere except in Microsoft's mind. It was the same problem for Sony last gen and one you would think would be all to obvious.
Last edited:
Keep in mind that PS+ don't really keep their games. You have to be connected online so its pretty much a rental at best. MS truly gives you the game to keep and online don't have to be required.
I've had 8 games I hadn't played before and 6 I've owned in the past but don't have anymore and quite like owning again.
So it's a success in my eyes.
Is able to own a game, better than able to play a game until you cancel subscription better, Yes, but its is better in the grand scale of things over better & later games offering? No, in my opinion.
To be honest, Id do not think the rental vs Owned is less significant than people made it out to be. heres why.
If you are going to cancel XBOX live, you essentially keeping the game in your harddisk. Unless you have multiple harddisks (Which I bet few do), you will lose most of your games anyway.
Very few people actually play a game (Unless it has MP) more than a few times (& usually in a stretch also), so its not a big deal for most people I reckon, 5 years later that you can on longer play a game, you have no intention to.
Also, its applicable if you intended to end the subscription. If you intend to keep your subscription, there is little difference.
Not saying that there ain't people who do not keep their games in multiple hard disk, or replay their games over & over (over the years), or intend to cancel subscriptions every now & then, but its not commonI suppose.
I think PSN+ model of newer & more popular games, is overall just better.
There is not 2 ways about it, MS need to match PSN+ offering, else more & more people will switch over to Sony & PSN+.
Is it a criticism on XBOX live vs the offering of its competition. In a way it it.
But as fan, its not just about us accepting what is being offered. if the competitor have better offer/package/services, its up to us to questions them , seeking improvements, provided these requests are reasonable of course.
Its up to the console makers (or any product maker for that matter) to convince us why we should keep supporting them, & our support is justified.
I think alot of people have voiced out MS offering & MS knows this, hopefully, they have better offering for Live subscribers.
To be honest, Id do not think the rental vs Owned is less significant than people made it out to be. heres why.
If you are going to cancel XBOX live, you essentially keeping the game in your harddisk. Unless you have multiple harddisks (Which I bet few do), you will lose most of your games anyway.
Very few people actually play a game (Unless it has MP) more than a few times (& usually in a stretch also), so its not a big deal for most people I reckon, 5 years later that you can on longer play a game, you have no intention to.
Also, its applicable if you intended to end the subscription. If you intend to keep your subscription, there is little difference.
Not saying that there ain't people who do not keep their games in multiple hard disk, or replay their games over & over (over the years), or intend to cancel subscriptions every now & then, but its not commonI suppose.
I think PSN+ model of newer & more popular games, is overall just better.
There is not 2 ways about it, MS need to match PSN+ offering, else more & more people will switch over to Sony & PSN+.
Is it a criticism on XBOX live vs the offering of its competition. In a way it it.
But as fan, its not just about us accepting what is being offered. if the competitor have better offer/package/services, its up to us to questions them , seeking improvements, provided these requests are reasonable of course.
Its up to the console makers (or any product maker for that matter) to convince us why we should keep supporting them, & our support is justified.
I think alot of people have voiced out MS offering & MS knows this, hopefully, they have better offering for Live subscribers.
Saying you own the games is nice but unless you only subsribe a month or two out of the year it would be hard for me to believe anyone could prefer GWG. Microsoft could create lots of valuable goodwill but instead they just give out whatever table scraps they can think of.
They couldn't match PSN because the Xbox 360 doesn't support time based DRM. If they give you a game, you own it forever.
It was not possible for them to offer rentals like PSN, so this is what we got. Compared to the alternative of nothing at all, Games with Gold is a pretty good deal to me.
You are probably correct that the DRM built into the Xbox is a big culprit for the differences. That said - compared to the alternative, which in this case is the competition, Games with Gold is NOT better. Gold does not exist in a vacuum of nothing.
They could offer better/newer games. Just because they can't offer rentals doesn't mean every game has to be from 2007.
Called me skeptical, unless there is evidence on the net, I do not believe that publisher charge MS a lot more (if at all) than Sony due to games being 'sold' rather than 'rent', for the simple reason that once the game is given for free, the chance of a gamer going out to buy the game that was once in their collection, after they cancel their subscription is very very slim.
If the gamer liked the game, he would have played it. If he had played it, very unlikely he wanted to buy it again when it was free before.
If the gamer haven't played it. Chances are, the game isn't that interesting to him, so the chance of him buying is slim.
If a gamer canceled his subscription, chances are he no longer wanted to play games on the console, if so, they are unlikely to buy again the game.
No matter how you spin it, there really isn't much difference in the PSN+ & GwG terms & condition for free games from publisher perspective.
The way I see it from publisher, is, the free games given away are a chance to earn the last major bucks, & promote its sequels, hopefully, gamers will pay them at full retail price.
If there is a differences in how much publisher charge due to 'rent' vs 'sold', the difference is unlikely to be significant, in my opinion.
The bottom line is MS need to up their offering. Its this simple, & start offering games on XBOX one already.
If the gamer liked the game, he would have played it. If he had played it, very unlikely he wanted to buy it again when it was free before.
If the gamer haven't played it. Chances are, the game isn't that interesting to him, so the chance of him buying is slim.
If a gamer canceled his subscription, chances are he no longer wanted to play games on the console, if so, they are unlikely to buy again the game.
No matter how you spin it, there really isn't much difference in the PSN+ & GwG terms & condition for free games from publisher perspective.
The way I see it from publisher, is, the free games given away are a chance to earn the last major bucks, & promote its sequels, hopefully, gamers will pay them at full retail price.
If there is a differences in how much publisher charge due to 'rent' vs 'sold', the difference is unlikely to be significant, in my opinion.
The bottom line is MS need to up their offering. Its this simple, & start offering games on XBOX one already.
Rumours are this months game will be Hitman Absolution, I'd rather have old assed Condemned 2 or old assed Chronicles Of Riddick than Hitman 
With a rental, you have to pay additional money to rent something, you also don't get to play or download it whenever you want for an extended period. PS+ is way more than a 'rental at best'. If your PS+ subscription lapses, the games will be right there when you renew, even if it's only for a month. You also have a much wider time to freely download the PS+ games as opposed to GwG.
Your comments about online being required for the PS+ as being a disadvantage are kind of ridiculous. You need Xbox Live and online to be able to download the GWG games in the first place. You are also most likely going to play these GwG games within a couple of months of downloading them, when you are still a subscriber.
Live and being online is pretty much a requirement these days for experiencing the Xbox. You need it to play DLC, to download patches, to play multiplayer, or use most apps (Redbox, HBO Go, etc). Let's face it, the type of people that are going to even know what the heck Games with Gold is in the first place, are the same types of people that are going to be Live subscribers.
This whole argument about PS+ being inferior because it requires you to be a subscriber would hold more weight if the games were closer in quality. Instead though, it seems like more of an advantage, because it allows Sony to provide more games, newer games, and higher quality games. And to a growing number of people like myself, who view an online subscription as a necessity to owning either console, this whole subscriber/online requirement is a nonfactor.
Last edited:
Ive had no problems with GWG so far. Sure there are games like Fable 3, Crackdown, AC2, and Halo 3, that I played ages ago, but then there have been games like R6 Vegas, Sleeping Dogs, Toy Soldiers, and Dead Rising 2 that I never played until GWG, and ive enjoyed all of those thoroughly. Leave it to whiny, jaded gamers to complain about nothing.
Exactly. If it's good, who cares if it's older. There are a ton of good games out there that are getting a look because of GWG. Why is it's newness a factor? That's just a perception issue. So if they drop heavenly sword on PSN, people will complain?
I makes more sense to release older games anyway. I am all about supporting devs, so I'm good paying full price for good games when they are new.
I wonder if Sony is shelling out big money to have that newer game "edge". If they are, and they overtake XBL, It won't continue as is. Still that's a future discussion if it happens.
Well people complain when the Plus selection is bad so I would guess they probably would complain about that and yes newness should matter. Ideally you probably want it to be balanced so if was game is old another is a little newer. Releasing a couple of games from 2007 that can be bought for $3 isn't really anything I will get too excited about. Unless they want to release Shadowrun which I am totally ok with since that will mean more people will be playing.
The rumor is the first game will be Hitman Absolution and I think that is a very good choice.
If they overtake XBL guess what will happen? Microsoft will push harder to compete and add new features something they haven't done too much of in the past few years. So either way we all win.
Last edited:
If GWG was all there was, I don't think there would be much complaining or disappointment. After all, it's better than nothing. However, GWG was created as a response to PS+, yet the PS+ free games continues to dominate in terms of quantity, quality, newness, and value.
I understand there are growing pains, and Microsoft is definitely starting to learn and release newer, more relevant games like Sleeping Dogs and Dead Island. But it doesn't change the fact that while many of the PS+ releases from the past 12 months are comprised of the top games of 2012 and 2013 worth $25+, most of Microsoft's games are old and forgotten and worth only $3-$5 on places like eBay or half.
so now quality is determined by the age and or resale dollar amount at GS or Ebay ? I understand now lmao
No, but value is. Did you even read my post? Nowhere did I say quality is determined by age or resale value.
PS+ and GWG should be judged by a mixture of value, quality, quantity, and relevance of the games provided. And right now, taking all things into account, the winner right now is a no brainier to all but the most ardent of fanboys.
PS+ started off very rough as well, but Microsoft doesn't have the advantage of a head start. They are slowly getting better with games like Sleeping Dogs and Dead Island, but with Arkham City coming out this month for PS+, it would be really nice for all gamers if Microsoft keeps their foot on the pedal.
Last edited:
GWG vs PS+ can be compared two way: at the same time span they launched and right now.
At the same time spans, GWG easily beats PS+. GWG has been out for less than a year and the games given away are solid. PS+'s first year or so of games were trash. Check Wikipedia and you'll see they are mostly low tier XBLA/PSN style games.
But comparing them at the same current time, PS+ is better. Better games and if you include Vita (if a gamer cares about it), there's more given away for free per month.
GWG is catching up. But if they stick to their 2 game limit, they'll never catch up to PS+ quantity of games which is more like 3-5 per month with Vita games.
At the same time spans, GWG easily beats PS+. GWG has been out for less than a year and the games given away are solid. PS+'s first year or so of games were trash. Check Wikipedia and you'll see they are mostly low tier XBLA/PSN style games.
But comparing them at the same current time, PS+ is better. Better games and if you include Vita (if a gamer cares about it), there's more given away for free per month.
GWG is catching up. But if they stick to their 2 game limit, they'll never catch up to PS+ quantity of games which is more like 3-5 per month with Vita games.
That's a fair assessment. they need to also start releasing GWG games on xbox one.
I think that's fair. I feel that quantity is the least important aspect though. I hope Microsoft focuses on bringing 1 or 2 newer, more relevant, and higher quality games per month rather than trying to catch up with Sony in quantity.
I;m sure they will. I expect in the summer we'll get some. But probably things like Powerstar Golf, Crimson Dragon and such. For bigger budget games, I see KI $20 version and Ryse being the top candidates.
By that logic PS+ was fine when they were just giving out games like Sonic and Streets of Rage 2. Those games are great afterall.
Hitman Absolution is the first. We don't know the second.
I could see Ryse or Forza 5. I think they announce it at E3 and they come out swinging with something major.