GamerFitnation compares the games offered by PlayStation Plus and Xbox's Games with Gold. The winner is clear.
Surprised the Xbone isn't on the gold program yet. PS4 had PS Plus support since day 1.
You'd think that they could at least have already gone with something like LocoCycle, Crimson Dragon or Max: The Curse of Brotherhood. Those would've been a good option for launch, even. --- "It’s not fair to count the PlayStation Vita games against Microsoft because Microsoft doesn’t have a handheld system, but the Xbox One is still not part of the Games with Gold program five months after the console’s release." So Sony is able to offer a better lineup for 3 platforms than Microsoft is for one, and somehow this is "not fair" on MS?
"So Sony is able to offer a better lineup for 3 platforms than Microsoft is for one, and somehow this is "not fair" on MS?" So which imaginary Microsoft handheld should the VITA titles be compared against?
@Septic You missed his point. Even without counting Vita's PS Plus games, It still gives more value than Games with Gold. Think about it for a second. If Microsoft has no handheld system to give a game to & they haven't applied GwG to Xbox One yet, why is it still not doing better against the PS3 with the 360? For owners of all 3 PS systems, PS Plus is an amazing value. I decided to buy a Vita soon due to PS Plus's offerings. Have a very long list of Vita games waiting to be played.
You're reading way too much into it. The article is basically saying, well let's not bother comparing VITA titles to the X box because there's nothing to compare it to that's all.
Taking the comments left by fanboys against the PS Vita such as "the vita is dead." Or "the vita has no games." I don't see how you should have a problem with ps vita games being included. All I see in a comment trying to cut out the ps vita is nothing more than pure weakness. A platform that fanboys constantly put down gets free games with ps+. Because of this it somehow becomes a double negative towards another brand. I guess it wasn't just the drm policy that burned down the xbox brand. Looks like Microsoft has finally lost it all. (And it was so obvious. I guess the adjusters still haven't learned a single thing. SPIN SPIN SUGAR!)
I guess you can say Plus is better.
That's not even an opinion. It's a fact.
How is it better I know you get better game on ps plus but on Xbox live u do own the game forever ps plus it's like renting a game if u cancel it u don't own the games anymore but Xbox live you do even if u do go to silver
It is like renting, you are right. But if you have to buy year subs for you to play consoles that are now mainly made for online you might as well say its keep since youll most likely have a yearly sub every year
@Thunderhawkxbox, what game rental service allows you instant access to hundreds of games (assuming you have been a member for some time). I have only been a member for a year and 5 months almost and have around 100 games from plus not counting all the discounts and other bonuses I have taken advantage of. As you said it's generally agreed upon that PS+ gets better games but let's also not forget the rest. More games Newer games Better and more frequent sales/discounts Cheaper MSRP Doesn't lock up other free and paid services By your logic you are "renting" the ability to play Free 2 Play games and use otherwise free apps or already paid for subscription services.
@Thunderhawkxbox " how it better" well PS+ is better than games with OLD because: 1 you get game across 3 platforms 2 you get much more recent games eg FARCRY 3 , BIOSHOCK INFINATE etc which were 1 years old at release vs HALO 3 RAINBOWSIX LOSVEGAS which were 7 years old at release 3 You get more games 6 per month every month 4 You get discounts on game from store Hope this clears it up for you.
When you can play them offline then I would agree but until then you can shove PS+ where the sun don't shine
Microsoft is willing to do that though, at least not right now. Games with Gold only throws you the scraps that don't really matter anymore. Games that you could find pretty easily for less than $5 most of the time on Amazon. PS+ actually offers new content all the time, and that's a big deal even if the games aren't AAA. But on top of that, they give us AAA games less than a year after their release, often times. Both are great ways to play big games that you may missed out on, but playstation plus is clearly far more valuable. Especially if you own every platform that it's on. And that's just right now. MS easily could, and probably will, at some point, make games with gold a service that's more than just an attempt to combat a Sony service. Which let's be honest, that's all it the for. So they can say "Well look! we have this too!"
Surprised PS+ does not let you keep them at all so enjoy it till they stop supporting ps3
Until ms steps it up there's only 1 winner here i don't even see it as being an argument.
Yup. Halo 3............. pffff....... Assassin's Creed 2......... pffffff
Compared to what plus offer...pretty much, yup.
How old are those games again? How much would they cost in store, dollars?
@ all I think there's a misconception of what you think what I wanted to say. The Ps+ offerings are way superior to MS's. While PS+ gives you Bioshock Infinite, Metro LL, Borderlands 2, and what not. All MS has for their customers are yesteryears games no one cares anymore.
Plus gives this quality every month. Not like LIVE that offers 4 year old games once in blue moon just to appease XBONE owners or to gain momentum at E3. Your comment did come off as supporting MS's offering. Their games are worth like 8 cents.
Halo 3 - $8.70 - 7 years old Assassin's Creed 2 - $8.49 - 5 years old Wow what a bargain. Outlast was a top selling PC game and less than a year old when it came to playstation plus for FREE.
Assasins creed 2 lol. Who hasnt played that old trash that already wanted to? We got the new tomb raider awhile ago. Thats called a new game, something your obviously not familiar with.
"Microsoft gives the impression that Games with Gold is an obligation that they need to meet in order to compete with Sony." If Sony didn't do Instant Game Collection first and get success with it, I honestly don't think Microsoft would have even considered Games With Gold. This is a completely reactionary program.
Of course it's reactionary. They're holding off providing it for the Xbone as long as they possibly can. If they had any willingness to provide this much value to their consumers, they not only would've done it first, but they would've at least been offering a much better lineup than they are doing. They're currently dragging their heels towards providing value.
the bad thing is that unless Microsoft steps up Sony would have no reason to try anymore with PS+ on PS4 given that is ten dollar cheaper than gold and offer an indy title a month..... what reason would Sony have to bring retail titles to PS4 IGC unless Microsoft steps up and start offering Xbone games on Gold...... competition is good for everyone and its troubling that Microsoft is not really competing in this area.......
Ferthepoet, I don't think you understand business. And for your information, Sony already said the bigger games are coming to plus later this year. Which I speculate as true.
I wish MS would get the hint. Games with Gold just isn't cutting it.
Games with Gold is a joke compared to PS+. I know that they like to keep the games forever, but there's no point on owning old-ass games not worth keeping after beating them. I prefer to play recent games that i didn't have the chance to play, or games I would like to replay for free. Moreover, i've played a lot of games, and I keep downloading more games and deleting the games i've platinumed already I love PS+. Microsoft better make GwG more competitive and bring it to Xbone. Start with Ryse!
People fail to remember the origins behind ps+
whats to remember? sony screwed up over and over but they eventually earned back trust in the consumers with exclusives and ps plus a few apologies here and there.
Oh no. I remember i downladed uncharted 3 and Infamous 2 in the first year ;)
PS+ was still good value when it came out. Lots of games back then too. Somehow though they have managed to raise the bar to give people AAA games every month for really cheap. Just because PS+ wasn't as good back then doesn't mean it was horrible
There's no point doing these articles anymore. PS Plus far outclasses Games with Gold and that's an indisputable fact.
There really isn't a reason to compare at this time. Maybe give Games For Gold some time and then compare.
The one thing that Games with Gold and PS+ both have in common, is that you have to pay for them.
I really dislike both services to be honest..its just another reason for ppl to bicker and complain...I think the idea is good but I think ppl will never be satisfied
It's idiotic to have it go to the x-1 at this time when it only has 2-3 games worth playing in terms of their launch lineup... What happens if they gave away those games in the 1st 3 months (or the next)? People will end up complaining that they don't have good games to give away...basically, your damned if you do, and your damned if you don't.
Indie games on GwG is an idea. But Microsoft isn't the sort that'll give you much. If they can find a way to make you pay for something that's supposed to be included with your Live membership, they will.
i think both services offer crap games lol
Bioshock infinite metro last light tomb raider mass effect 3 Demon souls xcom dmc farcry 3 Battlefield 3 Grid 2 Metal gear rising You must have a bad taste in games.... thats not even 1/4 of the list either!
Batman A.C Batman A.A Outlast Remember Me Just to add a few more
And it gets even better when you also have a vita Uncharted Golden Abyss Modnation (ps3 and vita actually!) Lara Croft and the guardian of light Soul Sacrifice Jak And Daxter Collection (both PS3 and vita) Kingdoms of Amalur Spec Ops Mafia 2 Need For Speed Most Wanted Motorstorm Dead Space 2 Rayman Origins Urban Trial Freestyle Gravity Rush New Little Kings Story Sonic and Sega racing transformed Dead Nation Ico and Shadow of the colossus Uncharted 3 Infamous 2 Littlebigplanet 2 Seriously, I have saved so much money already And then you have the sales like with eastern sales now and PS plus discounts on top of that!
And it gets better still when you get a PS4! -Resogun -Mercenary Kings -Flower -Flow -Dead Nation : Apocalypse Edition (hint, if you haven't bought your PS4 yet, but have PS+, log into the PSN from a computer and flag the titles for the PS4 on offer to download...they will be there for you when you get your PS4, even if those games aren't on offer for free at that time! This hint came directly from the Playstation Blog, and it works!)
I would expect an update to the program to be announced/go live at this year's E3. Microsoft has gotten the hint...Gold isn't perceived as a value compared to PS+. I'll give props to Sony. Each month they seem to offer a free selection of quality games. Hoping Microsoft responds. :)
Games with gold covers just the Xbox360, ps+ covers psv,ps3,and ps4. And gives you free games form each every month.
How come every1 leaves out the fact that games for gold you actully get keepthe games,even if ur sub run out. Ps lets u borrow their games.
I would rather have acess to my 50+ AAA games then a crappy old game that is 6 years old its not borrowing its a subscription service like netflix except you have to build your own library! the fact I get ps3 and vita games aswell for the same price makes what xboxs offers a complete joke even if you do keep it without xbl...
I concur. Getting a digital version of a recent AAA title that street price is between 30-60$ OR Get a game that I can keep forever that I can buy used for 5$ since that game is over 4 years old? I'll forget the fact that IF I have PS+ and a Vita, and a PS3 that I get even more selection for one price. Wow what a hard decision (sarcasm)
between get new game worth to play and get old A game which i can keep forever but i can pick up that game physic copy everywhere for a penny? then i prefer the first one
@shinrock yeah, keep using that argument dude. maybe if you keep using it enough, those games you got from GWG could magically become newer games, like Halo 3 suddenly become Halo 4, AC2 suddenly become AC4 etc. no? come back and argue about value against PS+ when GWG truly become "gold" not rusted old games costing like $5 each!
For a year... I would rather borrow good, high value games for a year then old games i would never play forever, although that's just me.
My opinion is that since both services require gold or plus to have access to online multiplayer there's a big chance that people subscribed to those services will never cancel their subscription. So there's really no point to your argument. In conclusion what matters the most is playing the game and enjoying. Being able to "keep it forever" has no influence on that. PlayStation plus is much better because the games that they let you play are simply better which equals a higher level of enjoyment across 3 platforms.
Well, that WAS true for me, but I had enough of Microsoft's crap and cancelled my XBL subscription, put all of my games in a box, and left the console out just in case someone else in the house wanted to use it...I'm out. I took the money I "saved" and subscribed to PS+...and haven't regretted it. Not only do I now get multiplayer on my PS4, but I have gotten several "AAA" titles to enjoy on my PS3...and when I get my Vita, I will get free games for that as well.
@Shinrock. By the same logic you only RENT the multi-player portion of every game you BUY! Without Gold you own a single-player brick. But if you have Gold then you're fine, just like if you have PS+.
No contest here, PS+ is the absolute winner.
Guessing these vs articles will happen every month. Reminds of the comparison screenshots of 3rd party games on 360 and ps3. Haven't seen them in a while hope these goes away soon.
in this new generation? comparing what? 1080p vs 720p? LOL no one would be interested in a one sided comparison like that!
I see what OP did here.
I love the ides of PS+ but at some point i know they will have to repeat the games for the new PS users and then it won't seem so attractive. Eventually PS+ will turn into PS NOW and the user will hopefully just get to choose 3 games from a catalog rather than the Sony chosen games per month. GWG is not even in the same business model. They give away for free a game in the hope that it will trigger a purchase of the sequels and DLC. One business model is rental subscription the other is loss lead sale approach. The subscription model is the one under the most pressure to perform and is the one that could have the consumer turn on it if it starts to under perform.
They haven't repeated any games so far. And PS+ is the exact business model as GWG. I would've never bought Dark Souls or Dark Souls 2 if I hadn't had Demons Souls from PS+. I would've never bought borderlands 2 but when I got it, I bought a DLC pack. Sure, that's just my experience but I'm sure that I'm not the only one. Also the indies get great advertisement when putting their games there for free. I would've never bought any housemarque game if it was not for the PSN hack (granted, it was not PS+ but the same kind of pattern is there) Also: GWG is underperforming. Old games for 360 and it's not even on the X1. Do you know what that results in? X1 is losing by quite a lot. Granted it's not only because of the GWG lacking but it has an impact. It shows how MS is having a hard time to give customers their money's worth and make money at the same time Edit: screw it, I don't even know why I replied to such an obvious troll.
Why am i a troll? My comments are not in anyway trying to say one is better than the other. GWG are given to you , to keep. PS+ stops access when you stop paying. that is the difference in models. The results of add-on purchases will happen with both in differing degrees. Just because they have not repeated any games yet , doesn't mean they will not in the future. Not everyone has had a PS+ account since it was started. So by that logic not everyone user has had access to certain games. Why wouldn't Sony reissue Borderlands 2 or Battlefield 3 for the guy that got a PS3 last christmas ??? At some point Sony will run out of AAA Games and have to re issue. Not that it bad but they could face a backlash from the PS3 users who have already bought the games or played them.
You're a troll judging by your anti-sony comment history. Also there's a set of 'rules' that the games they put in PS+ have to follow. For example: games they put in there must have over 70 score in metacritic. Also they can't have been in PS+ earlier.
Anti-Sony?? I own a PS4 , PS3 , XB1 and a 360. Just because i own a console doesn't mean i have to agree with everything some giant Japanese company does. Thats just the most ridiculous idea. I have my own opinions based on what i see and read . Thats not being a troll .
So, once again, PS+ >>>>>>> Gwg. Nothing new then and i agree: it seems M$ feels forced to give something to "shut up" their users and to compete with Sony, while Sony gives games to make the players happy (more recent, more variety, more games and as usual more quality). I guess even a hardcore M$ fanboys can't deny that.
At the end of the day both are charging to play online. What they give me back is a bonus but I'd rather the PS+ was optional like last gen. Let me explain. For me personally if a new game comes out, like infamous or Titanfall, I'm not gonna wait months to hope it eventually comes free, I'm buying it, it's my hobby. So every game they give me six months down the line I've either A..finished because I bought it because I was waiting for it or B.. didn't buy because I wasn't interested so I won't want it even for free. I haven't got a PS3/360 anymore so for me on PS4 I get a couple of indie games for my subscription at the moment. Everyone's different I know, if your a student & can't afford day one games & can wait then fine. But for me I'd rather not pay to play online & spend the £39-99 on a game.
It's hilarious how xbox owners say atleast I get to keep my games. They buy titanfall for 60 dollars then pay 60 dollars for live so they can play it and if their subscription expires there goes their ability to play it. At least the "rented" games ps+ gets are free.
what you say is true! The xbox ones titan fall cost 60 dollars and you cannot play it unless you have an online connection. the ps plus does not require a constant online connection just a subscription to play its games and some games it offers for free are games you can keep even after the subscription like uncharted 3. PS+ is a much better deal and Sony at least right now is doing everything right. I personally wont touch an Xbone until Microsoft steps up its game.