GamerFitnation compares the free Xbox games from Games with Gold and the free PlayStation games from PlayStation Plus. It's barely even a competition.
Too bad I never use my 360 or PS3 anymore
Then why comment? On topic though: PS+ wins...why is this even a topic? Saint 3 was released on the + last year. Smh, next question.
The only real benefit that Xbox Gmes With Gold has over PS+ is that the games are permanantly playable after you download them, which is neat. But unfortunately they are old as hell though :/
I would think owning vs. Renting makes it up for debate
@n4rc Nope. I prefer the PS+ games even if I "rent them" as you say. Games with gold are already almost free as you can find most of them for no more than 5$.
Rent vs own? That's irrelevant. I have the game for an entire year and we have no reason to stop the subscription in the first place.
@n4rc: Aren't you part of the group of people that justify Live putting Netflix behind a paywall (thus renting Netflix twice via Live's sub fee and Netflix's sub fee) by saying "you'd have Live anyway, Netflix is just a bonus"? And yet here you are being a hypocrite trying to call out PS+ for "renting" free games. So which is it n4rc? Is a paywall justified or isn't it?
@n4rc I think i'd prefer PS Plus either way, I'd rather rent a game i'd probably only play once anyway than own something i'd never give the time of day. Why covet materialistic things; leave collecting to collectors.
the 'renting' is indefinite though. u can keep gold games forever but u can also keep plus games forever as well.
I wasn't saying its better or worse... But its a pretty big difference and why it can be debated As for odd definitions of renting.. Yeah you can keep PS+ games forever, as long as you keep paying... Thats what renting is As for the decent replies.. I hear you, I'd prefer it too for the same reason.. I have no issue keeping my gold active so I'd like newer games that require it ala PS+..
Owning/renting only goes so far though, as both consoles require a membership to play any of those games online, which most of us do. So, for the majority of gamers who play multiplayer games, that is a moot point.
it is kinda funny when people bring up MS's paywall when PS+ is in essence itself a paywall service. I have PS+ for my PS4 and Vita, and it has been pretty good, not as nice as the PS3 unfortunately, but I have good hopes that the PS4 service will get a lot better.
I wouldn't leave ps+ so in a way, I'm permanently renting the game;-) I have no problem with this because after finishing a game its unlikely I'll play it again anyways, but if I do then I'll just re-download it:-)
Steam sales is next month, so excited. already saved $50 and wont spent a dime till it starts.
why the downvotes? I thought we where talking about savings here.
No, we were talking about gold vs plus.
No, we're talking about free games.
no steam sales is in July, do your homework
Can you get Red Dead Redemption for $5 on Steam? I did with PSN last week :)
@shinmaster At one point you were able to get it that cheap on steam sales. Or was it 10 dollars? It was going for very cheap last year I remember.
@shinmaster hope you enjoy UT4 you peasant :)
Doesn't exactly answer my question. Hope you enjoyed GTAV like everyone else did last year, you ass :)
@Shin funny of you to think that I dont own another console, what kinda stupid assumption is that? and I did played GTAV. It was fun the first few hours but the low FPS, the shitty online and the long as loading times was my last straw with it really not sure why you would use that game as a way to justify buying a console but w.e.
right in front of our eyes sony pushing MS to be better with xbox live gold game This is what i mean when sony and ms competes we as gamers win. if only we can stick together more often
Too right. We all paid for Gold long before Games For Gold. So why should we moam about them not being as good as PS Plus? If they never gave us anything for free chances are we would still be paying for Gold just like before. As you said this is a prime example of the two companies influencing each other. Just like Xbox influenced PS into the trophy and party system. Imagine a world with no competition?
What witthe disagrees and all? Is solidarity so wrong? We've put so much animosity into the gamer community's ether that our gaming news outlets act like 24hr news Channels feeding us conflict for the sake of selling advertising space
elninels no doubt man, its pathetic
As if you own a ps3 or ps4 what's your PSN?
Then in your case PS4 wins because there are no games with gold for Xbox One. I'm pretty sure that Microsoft will announce something at E3 though.
To bad there is a lot of great PS+ games on the PS3
Too bad on who? YOU!!!
I know you're getting killed, but I only have an Xbox One and PS4 now, so I'm in the same boat as you. Started "Stick it to the Man" and it's pretty good. Love of the humor of the game. Hopefully MS starts games for gold on Xbox One soon.
are all you xbot peeps stupid or something you are having to pay all the time for all your games so effectively you are renting all your games even if you pay for them so long as they are multiplayer so there is little difference between ps+ or gold except the games on ps+ that are given away are of much higher quality overal ps can anybody tell me what games have been given away for 360 or xbox1 that are still any good to play ? genuine ?
I'm not saying which is bad or good, but if you all care to let me make a couple of points. "If"you believe that PSN+ is better than you are in full support of subscription services for online playing. Which for many people who are Playstation gamers or owned a Playstation 3 last generation that is a total departure if not a glaringly obscene contradiction to their arguments. Xbox Live was beat up whenever possible because you had to "pay to play". If we are to recall many media outlets, and journalists along with gamers argued that gaming online free was/is better than paying to play online. Xbox Live has been a steadfast subscription platform from it's inception more than ten years running. "You get what you pay for" was the mantra for many people playing on Xbox Live. Which had it's merits because in all honesty it was the most stable online console experience. There was no apologizing from many gamers paying for a quality experience. Now...If you want to experience "free" "rental" titles on PSN+ you have no choice but to support a subscription/price model, or lose out on playing those games. As many comments have stated. They don't mind paying for PSN+ as long as they can. Which makes many people who complained about Xbox Live subscription in any form look silly, and confused. The irony is, and I'm not bashing anyone for whichever side you choose to be on. I'm just looking at the indictment of critizing Xbox Live then and now. It's a service that offers you games for free every month within a subscription. If the bias is that the games are old, then the problem is believing that everyone who owns an Xbox 360 bought every single game that came out for it. As the old NBC television commercial used to say; "It may be old to you, but it's new to me". With that being the case it's a bad assumption to make that old games can't be new to people who never got a chance to play the game. Another point that gets missed is that "owning" the games on Xbox Live allows you to build a digital library of free games you can play if you care not to pay for the service ever again. Like many gamers I personally have a huge backlog of games I've yet to play. It's a great problem to have, because I can go into my library anytime I want, and play whatever I want that is there. There's comfort in that as a gamer. A perfect example on a personal note. I never got around to playing "Dust". I only played the demo. I remember at the time saying I'll get to it. Never did up until this past week. You know what? I played the game five days straight and beat it. Although old, it was a new experience for me. As a gamer it hit a spot that made it "new". For some people that is an outright advantage to paying to play in the first place. Which ever side you coming on. It's hard to make a case for PSN+ without making the case that you are in support of paying to play online, and Microsoft was right all along with Xbox Live.
i have never ever had any problems with psn as far as playing online it has always been 100% stable so i dont see where xbox live service is any better than psn but if you are happy paying to play online then thats ok for you but i dont see why i should pay to pay online pc gamers dont pay to play online so why should console owners and yes i know there are some games on pc that you have to pay to play online such as rpg's but there are few worth the money.
That's better from ms though Saints Row 3 was a great game be a definite download if i hadn't already destroyed it,think i'll wait for Wolfenstein and Watch Dogs this month.
ps plus already had saints row 3 like a while back. lol
It was last summer, Here in EU it was the same month as Battlefield 3 and Payday: The Heist.
I thought it was Saints Row 2 not 3. P.S I live in Europe.
@MasterCornholio ps+ had both. Saints Row 2 http://blog.us.playstation.... Saints Row 3 http://blog.us.playstation....
No sh*t Sherlock Holmes what i was saying was saints row 3 was better than the usual crap microsoft offer,good job we have your extensive knowledge isn't it. @Elvis-20
MS will never be able to compete with Sony on this. Sure the MS players get to keep their games even when their membership has runs out, but these are games that most people already own. It's a waste of time making these comparisons when the winner is always going to be Sony.
The difference is Microsoft is giving you the license for the game thats why they typically give older games. Sony is not giving you the license for you to be able to keep the game so they can give newer games because they are just rentals. Its funny how i get disagrees for stating facts.
They aren't rentals though. That's one thing Xbots don't get. You can keep the game for the next million years. Just as long as you have PS+. And even if your + runs out you can renew any time and regain access to every game you've downloaded
@ 64commando So as long as you keep paying you can play the games. Sounds like rentals to me.
Did you read my comment? Reply if you must, but repeating what I just said is almost like a double post. I said those very same things in my comment. I could debate you all day about how the Sony system is more bang for your buck than the MS one is, but you're obviously in support of MS. My eyes are open and I see the facts, and the fact is that Sony offers the better deal. Go to a store and rent a game. What would you pay? 4 - 5 bucks? So that's what... $50 would let you rent 10 games for a week or so at a time. But that isn't what Sony is giving. For $50 (and at lucky times $25) a year you're getting access to these games, which builds up every week, ANY time you want. MS, $50 a year gets your digital access to games a majority of gamers would already have. Is having a digital copy of a game you own much better than having access to very large range of recently released titles? Fact: No. Undeniable fact. It's funny how I get disagrees for stating the facts first.
I never said games with gold was a better deal point out where i said that. Im saying Microsoft has to deal with developers more than sony does because they are actually giving you the game. I still believe ps+ is a better deal but you sony fans don't seem to know all the stuff sony and microsoft have to go through to give these games away.
I prefer "rentals" if it gets me tons of great and recent games over older games that I can keep forever. Xbox consoles are practically bricks without Gold... So it's not even that good of a trade off since you're pretty much locked into having Gold anyway. Why not just put "rentals" behind the paywall and give us better games, though this month is a step-up. I see my 360 friends bash PS+ and praise Games With Gold for giving them the games to play forever... They're currently subscribed to Gold and a few of them have Gold for the next 2-3 years...
So basically it is just like Titanfall. With Titanfall and any game you receive from Sony through the Instant Game Collection, you need to pay a monthly fee in order to keep playing it. The only difference is that Sony gives you the game free while Microsoft charges you $60 for it.
Ah, the old 'rentals' argument, I love that old chestnut. By the same logic 360 owners only 'rent' the multi-player portion of every game they BUY! I know which way I'd prefer.
Rentals? That's a really weak argument that Xbox fanboys use to defend the poor quality of Microsoft's games with gold program. In the end what matters is being able to play and enjoy the game which both programs allow you to do. And being able to enjoy higher quality titles through plus is much better than simply owning an decent title. What matters is the experience that you get from the game not the fact that you own it. As long as I keep paying for plus I get to play the games forever.
@ats1992 Let's not pretend that you wouldn't prefer it if Microsoft's GWG was more like Sony's PS+, You know those dusty old GWG games are going to sit on your HD and never be played.
"Microsoft is giving you the license" That Game with Gold licenses comes with a price. Microsoft will give you the license when you pay the monthly XBL fee. So that license cost somewhere between $4 and $12 depending on how you pay your XBL membership.."just saying. Facts are facts right?
Facts are only fact when its a positive ps fact. Thats n4g for ya.
I have over 150 games from Plus since I have been a member at less than $4 a month. Xbox Live costs more and still offers less.
@tommygunzll - pretty sure you can get Live for just as cheap as PS+. If you can't, then clearly you aren't shopping at the right places. PS+ is still a paywall service, as soon as you stop, you lose access to all your games. Hence the reason why Sony can offer to give you newer games. I do agree that PS+ is the better service up until this point, but this month was a good step up for MS. They will get their act in gear. PS+ has been going on forever, GWG is still a relatively new service. I was not thrilled with the PS+ for May (I only own a PS4 and Vita - before everyone decides to bash me).
[email protected] "@tommygunzll - pretty sure you can get Live for just as cheap as PS+. If you can't, then clearly you aren't shopping at the right places" Why are you insinuating that you can't for ps+ as well? Its standard price is 10 bucks cheaper so more or so it will be cheaper as well when you buy it from the right place as you put it.
Keeping the game like you can with x360 is a huge deal. Why? My brother in law just sold his x360 and because it had tons of games on hard drive from games with gold the price of the console went high high up. With all that for the cash he got from sale he bought XBOX ONE. Can you do same on PS plus?no you're just renting them. I didn't subscribe to PS plus for months now (last time loaded 2 months when got my ps4) so all of that games I had on ps3 are blocked away. How is that better? I don't understand your logic. I'm subscribed to xbox live for 2 years upfront. It's that good
That wasn't very smart of that customer, the licenses are tied to the Xbox Live account not the console, so all your brother in law has to do is initiate a license transfer and all those games become demos on that machine. And if you're subscribed for the next 2 years and beyond, why are you arguing against the PS+ model in the first place? It fits right into your paying habit and it's $10 a year cheaper to boot.
So it's a "huge deal" because you are able to scam some poor idiot out of his money? and whats stopping someone from selling his PS account that has games from PS+ on it? The buyer would only need to subscribe to PS+ to re-download the games and play them.
MS are greedy much.
Limbo and skullgirls! Can't wait!
The big difference is that with ms the games are yours! You just borrow them from sony.
And because of that the other much bigger difference is that Sony can "rent" us amazing recent games that aren't 5 years old.
Saints Row the third is 5 years old? Dust:an elysian tale is 5 years old? Hitman: Absolution is 5 years old? You see where i am going with this? The games on Gold tend to have a mixture of age ranges, I will give you that. However, an older game doesn't mean a bad game, I'd play a great old game over a crappy new one.
@Steelmanner: Saints Row 3 and Hitman Absolution were on PS+ months before they were on Gold, and neither are really that good anyway. But I agree with you, GWG got AC2 and PS+ got AC3, AC2 is a much better game and I'd take it over AC3 even though it's newer. Seriously though, screw AC3. And again, older games being better, I'd take Saints Row 2 over 3. I don't have a secret love for 2s and hates for 3s, this is just a coincidence... But, Bioshock Infinite, a GOTY runner up from last year was on PS+ within about 9 months... It was still going for $50 at retail in some places. That's crazy and I don't see GWG topping that any time soon. You're practically locked into having Gold for almost everything on the 360 and X1. If the 360 is your last Xbox console, then you might stop subscribing to Gold and just let the thing collect dust, but if you have an Xbox One, you're likely to continue to pay for Gold. So many people are unlikely to put the "no need for Gold to play the game" thing into use since many people are going to continue paying for Gold. Might as well make them rentals and give us more recent and good games (they've put out some games that hit both marks, but not enough to compensate the 5 years I feel I wasted on XBLG) if that's the case.
@Steelmanner Saints Row The Third - On PS+ June 2013. Hitman Absolution - On PS+ August 2013. MS are serving you leftovers.
Would you rather own a bicycle or rent a Lexus so long as your liscense is valid?