680°
Submitted by typoknight 132d ago | opinion piece

Games with Gold vs. PlayStation Plus: May 2014

GamerFitnation compares the free Xbox games from Games with Gold and the free PlayStation games from PlayStation Plus. It's barely even a competition. (Dust: An Elysian Tail, Limbo, PES 2014, PS Vita, PS3, PS4, Puppeteer, Saints Row: The Third, Skullgirls: Encore, Stick It To The Man, Surge Deluxe, Xbox 360, Xbox One)

« 1 2 »
corvusmd  +   133d ago
Too bad I never use my 360 or PS3 anymore
#1 (Edited 133d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(89) | Report | Reply
Kingthrash360  +   132d ago
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.
snipab8t  +   132d ago
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 :/
n4rc  +   132d ago
I would think owning vs. Renting makes it up for debate
One_Eyed_Wizard  +   132d ago
@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$.
ShinMaster  +   132d ago
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.
DragonKnight  +   132d ago
@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?
Old_Prodigy  +   132d ago
@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.
kreate  +   132d ago
the 'renting' is indefinite though.
u can keep gold games forever but u can also keep plus games forever as well.
n4rc  +   132d ago
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+..
fr0sty  +   132d ago
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.
Neonridr  +   132d ago
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.
Army_of_Darkness  +   132d ago
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:-)
elhebbo16  +   132d ago
Steam sales is next month, so excited. already saved $50 and wont spent a dime till it starts.
#1.2 (Edited 132d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(49) | Report | Reply
elhebbo16  +   132d ago
why the downvotes? I thought we where talking about savings here.
Bathyj  +   132d ago
No, we were talking about gold vs plus.
KonsoruMasuta  +   132d ago
No, we're talking about free games.
President  +   132d ago
no steam sales is in July, do your homework
ShinMaster  +   132d ago
Can you get Red Dead Redemption for $5 on Steam?

I did with PSN last week :)
MetaReapre  +   132d ago
@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.
elhebbo16  +   132d ago
@shinmaster hope you enjoy UT4 you peasant :)
ShinMaster  +   123d ago
Doesn't exactly answer my question.
Hope you enjoyed GTAV like everyone else did last year, you ass :)
#1.2.8 (Edited 123d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
elhebbo16  +   122d ago
@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.
showtimefolks  +   132d ago
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
Clown_Syndr0me  +   132d ago
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?
elninels  +   132d ago
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
showtimefolks  +   131d ago
elninels

no doubt man, its pathetic
dale_denton  +   132d ago
your loss
Chevalier  +   132d ago
As if you own a ps3 or ps4 what's your PSN?
MasterCornholio  +   132d ago
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.
SpitFireAce85  +   132d ago
To bad there is a lot of great PS+ games on the PS3
frontiermarine   132d ago | Spam
heisenberguk  +   132d ago
Too bad on who? YOU!!!
GusBricker  +   132d ago
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.
raymantalk1  +   132d ago
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 ?
TheKingslayer  +   132d ago
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.
#1.11.1 (Edited 132d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report
raymantalk1  +   126d ago
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.
cfc78  +   133d ago
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.
Elvis-20  +   132d ago
ps plus already had saints row 3 like a while back. lol
devwan  +   132d ago
It was last summer, Here in EU it was the same month as Battlefield 3 and Payday: The Heist.
MasterCornholio  +   132d ago
I thought it was Saints Row 2 not 3.

P.S I live in Europe.
brish  +   132d ago
@MasterCornholio

ps+ had both.

Saints Row 2
http://blog.us.playstation....

Saints Row 3
http://blog.us.playstation....
cfc78  +   132d ago
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
gigoran  +   132d ago
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.
ats1992  +   132d ago
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.
#3.1 (Edited 132d ago ) | Agree(15) | Disagree(48) | Report | Reply
64commando  +   132d ago
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
ats1992  +   132d ago
@ 64commando

So as long as you keep paying you can play the games. Sounds like rentals to me.
gigoran  +   132d ago
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.
#3.1.3 (Edited 132d ago ) | Agree(29) | Disagree(5) | Report
ats1992  +   132d ago
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.
#3.1.4 (Edited 132d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(20) | Report
zeuanimals  +   132d ago
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...
#3.1.5 (Edited 132d ago ) | Agree(26) | Disagree(2) | Report
Gameseeker_Frampt  +   132d ago
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.
TheSaint  +   132d ago
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.
#3.1.7 (Edited 132d ago ) | Agree(34) | Disagree(1) | Report
MasterCornholio  +   132d ago
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.
#3.1.8 (Edited 132d ago ) | Agree(16) | Disagree(1) | Report
Monster_Tard  +   132d ago
@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.
Ra3030  +   132d ago
"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?
shinrock  +   132d ago
Facts are only fact when its a positive ps fact. Thats n4g for ya.
tommygunzII  +   132d ago
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.
Neonridr  +   132d ago
@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).
jocomat9  +   131d ago
^^^^@Neonridr

"@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.
#3.1.14 (Edited 131d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
BallsEye  +   132d ago
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
#3.2 (Edited 132d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(19) | Report | Reply
RiPPn  +   132d ago
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.
#3.2.1 (Edited 132d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(1) | Report
Monster_Tard  +   132d ago
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.
dmitrijs88  +   132d ago
MS are greedy much.
thejigisup  +   132d ago
Limbo and skullgirls! Can't wait!
Masterh0ppa  +   132d ago
The big difference is that with ms the games are yours! You just borrow them from sony.
#5 (Edited 132d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(44) | Report | Reply
jessupj  +   132d ago
And because of that the other much bigger difference is that Sony can "rent" us amazing recent games that aren't 5 years old.
Steelmanner  +   132d ago
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.
zeuanimals  +   132d ago
@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.
#5.1.2 (Edited 132d ago ) | Agree(16) | Disagree(0) | Report
InMyOpinion  +   132d ago
@Steelmanner

Saints Row The Third - On PS+ June 2013.
Hitman Absolution - On PS+ August 2013.

MS are serving you leftovers.
AceBlazer13  +   132d ago
Would you rather own a bicycle or rent a Lexus so long as your liscense is valid?
one2thr  +   132d ago
Or buy a honda civic, on discount. And when your license is up you get to keep it....

Both cars over a bicycle any day.
InMyOpinion  +   132d ago
Who gives a crap if it's a "rental" or not?

It's not like owning a digital copy has any value since you can't re-sell it.

PS+ users get newer and better games. MS need to step their game up and offer something better to compete. Just accept it and move on.
#5.2.2 (Edited 132d ago ) | Agree(23) | Disagree(0) | Report
T2  +   132d ago
Actually with the lifespan of the average 360 no, you really aren't keeping the games forever
the1whoknocks90  +   132d ago
So you would have an xbox that can ONLY play very old games. Even though you cant access the games with out plus. You still get Netflix Hulu Internet mutiplayer and just about everything thats hidden behind a pay wall on xbox. So while you play games that I got for free and beat years before you. I still have full access to my console. Also If i decide to get plus again those games will still be available.
Bathyj  +   132d ago
No, that's a minor difference.

The BIG difference is people want plus games and rarely let their subscriptions lapse anyway.

Plus I'm pretty sure most people play their games within the first year of sitting them.
calis  +   132d ago
"The big difference is that with ms the games are yours! You just borrow them from sony."

Then you rent online from Gold.
jocomat9  +   131d ago
unless you have Gold you can't play the online portion of your free old games.
BLACKBIBLE  +   132d ago
Does it really matter when all the games are digital anyway? You can't trade them in. They don't gain value. You can't get games with gold with out a subscription , and you can't keep the psn games without the subscription.

No matter how you view it the playing field is leveled
jetlian  +   132d ago
Live is better this month last month too if my memory right. They need sr4 that one i dont have yet
jessupj  +   132d ago
There's a fine line between having an opinion and being completely and utterly out of touch with reality.

No prizes for guessing which one you fall under for that comment.
#7.1 (Edited 132d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
jetlian  +   131d ago
Lol nope ps+ has nothing this month worth downloading. Last month was merc kings and batman.

Reality lol its all opinion
ColeMacGrath  +   132d ago
MS offered me free XBLG 30-day trial, so I'll pick up DustAET, already played SR3 thanks to PS+. Good thing I won't worry about renewing XBLG since the game doesn't need the membership active.
SoulSercher620  +   132d ago
We still having this argument? PS Plus will ALWAYS trash Games with Gold. MS needs to step up their game and at least try to match the value of PS Plus
frankdrebin72  +   132d ago
its not the amount of games you get,..but the quality of them,...surely this must be taken into consideration??
Lets face it,....the games we purchase,..the ones we really want we get asap,..but others slip through the net,..the "free" ones are often those,..and we get to play those.
Its apples and oranges argument,..or my dick is bigger than your dick.
Bathyj  +   132d ago
I picked up puppeteer and payday 2, two games I've been waiting to play. As well as any vita games I always grab just in case I ever buy one. plus pays for itself every month.
Darkfist  +   132d ago
cant wait for SR4
ninjahunter  +   132d ago
I used to like PS+ which i primarily use on my vita. its a lot of bang for the buck. But my problem with it is this, Its good money value, but its not always good enjoyment value.

Like, Persona 4 golden has been on sale for $10 a couple times, I bought it because I knew I would love it, and I did. It just seems like on PS+, ive reached the point where, I already own the games that i REALLY wanted, and the rest are good, but I probably wouldn't spend money on them in the first place.
Crazay  +   132d ago
Yawwwwnnn...

9 times out of 10 I have the games being offered by either company if it was considered to be a marquee title at the game's initial release. I've managed to benefit very little from these promotions.
Transporter47  +   132d ago
Well unlike you i have in my library at least 200 dollars or more value on games from PS+, so for me it has payed for itself already. I own a PS3, Vita and PS4 also the Savings and the instant game collection is amazing. Hell if you are new and you get PS+ right now you get:

2 PS4 games
12 PS3 Games
6 Vita Games

IF that isn't bang for your buck you are just blind.
Crazay  +   132d ago
I never disputed the value that it may hold for some people - I'm merely stating the fact that it holds little value for myself. Most of the smaller/indie titles don;t interest me. Some of them have been absolute Gems without a doubt but I certainly haven't gotten much bang for the buck on MY systems from these promotions.
Transporter47  +   132d ago
There isn't just Indie games. Also what kind of games do you like? I have gotten from rpgs to fps to 3rd person shooters, racing games, sports games, fighting games everything basically. If you only like one genre then maybe you won't enjoy it as much. I have gotten Grid 2, Borderlands 2, Batman Arkham City, Tomb Raider, Street Fighter X Tekken, Metro Last Light, Bioshock Infinite, DMC, AC3, Dragons Dogam Dark Arisen hell I can go on I have so many games that are not Indie and you can't say those games right there are not high quality or worth the 49.99 a year.
xJumpManx  +   132d ago
The problem is if I wanted those games I would have bought them way before they became free and most of them I already did own on a console or pc way before they were free rentals on ps+. Both services are tailored for diff experiences. Sony fans are considered frugal compared to Xbox fans on buying games for their console. So ps+ is doing it for their fans. As where Microsoft has better up times and a better online experience that their users are interested in.
Crazay  +   132d ago
If you clearly didn't comprehend my statement.

Allow me to spell it out for you - I own at least 90% of all the games that have been given away for free.

Let's take a quick look at your list which is a PERFECT example which proves my original statement of "9 times out of 10..."
Grid 2 - Didn't own
Borderlands 2 - Already had it
Batman Arkham City - Already had it
Tomb Raider - Already had it
Street Fighter X Tekken Shamefully Already had it Metro Last Light - Already had it
Bioshock Infinite - Already had it
DMC - Already had it
AC3 - Already had it
Dragons Dogma Dark Arisen - Already had it

My simple math says that's exactly 9 out of 10.
Transporter47  +   132d ago
@Crazay

There is bound to be one person like you but the reality is that most people like me don't own all thoss games. Did you pay full price? If you did then PS+ gives someone like me which didn't own most of those games a savings for estimate sake lets put them half price which is 30 a pop for 10 that's 300 dollars so man sucks for you that you own all of them, but for me that's one hell of a deal and i Know a lot of people that have made the same savings like me. So it amazes me how you say you own all of the games. I can provide 30 more games for you, I am sure you're bound to own all of them too? ;)
Crazay  +   132d ago
I said that personally I've benefitted very little from these promotions dude. I see that there is some potentially awesome value for people who don't spend as much on games as me. I'm an oddity... I'm not begrudging anyone for loving the value. It's there. I see it and I understand it. All I'm saying is that for me, it's not there EXCEPT if it's an Indie title in which case I might download it and at least give the game a fair shake.

I might either own or have owned a solid majority of those other 30 titles unless they're not considered to be AAA titles.
#14.1.6 (Edited 132d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report
Transporter47  +   131d ago
PM your PSN name want to check your trophies :P
SuperBlur  +   132d ago
meanwhile on ea origin we got dead space last month and plants vs zombies this month ! free to keep forever without subbing to anything ! ohohhuhuhuhhahaha
Major_Glitch  +   132d ago
Yeah, not two games I would brag about owning, but hey, whatever makes you happy.
SuperBlur  +   132d ago
i know , hehe
xJumpManx  +   132d ago
I pay for online gaming not freebies they give you like xbox or the rentals they give you on PS+. PS+ gives you better freebies but the best online gaming experience is Live for consoles.
djplonker  +   132d ago
You cleary have never used psn since 2008 if you think live is better.... there is no noticable difference just that stuff like netflix is behind a paywall on xbl.
#16.1 (Edited 132d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
SoulSercher620  +   132d ago
OMG thank you! I'm glad there are people like you that have seen the light!

There is NO discerning difference between PSN and Xbox Live. The only people that don't know this are people that have never even used PSN.

I have used both so I know.
ShinnokDrako  +   132d ago
Oh, come on, every month is the same? PS+ >>> GGG

Even the value of the games is superior.
incendy35  +   132d ago
Neither service really offers hardcore gamers any value to be honest. We already have most the games worth playing and are trying to catch up on games we already own. It is one of those things that looks cool on paper but in reality is a completely worthless feature.

There are a couple of exceptions, for example Resogun was offered on day 1 and is an amazing game but that game is already fairly cheap.

Overall, I give both PS+ and Games with Gold a rating of "irrelevant", at least to most gamers.
calis  +   132d ago
For $60 I got Metal Gear Rising, Bioshock Infinite, Sly 4, Ico and SotC collection, Tomb Raider, Guacamelee, Borderland 2 and DmC.

So your arrogant idiotic statement about offering nothing of value is so far gone it's not even funny.
incendy35  +   132d ago
You are one of those exceptions that doesn't keep up with gaming trends. Every gamer I know bought Bioshock Infinite and Tomb Raider the day they came out.

For you it has value, for most gamers we already had those games.
calis  +   132d ago
No, I am a gamer who has other interests in life. I work, I travel, I go out, I have bills to pay.
Yet I am able to keep up with anything gaming related, aside from the actual technology within the consoles.

Once again, your ignorance shows how far gone your thought process really is.
InTheZoneAC  +   132d ago
you think M$ will make it an effort to give their customers a better experience?

of course not

they'll charge as much for live, try to sway you to their consoles then slap you in the face with no support once their console reaches the 2nd half of it's life.
shinrock  +   132d ago
Free seems to be the ps fan pillow. No wonder Sony's not making money.
Flames76  +   132d ago
Got to go with microsoft again due to the fact you own the games and not renting them.Plus been wanting to play saints row the third again.Cant wait for microsoft to start games with gold on the X1 in june
Major_Glitch   132d ago | Trolling | show
SuperBlur  +   132d ago
you have to be Gold to be able to get these "Free" games. you probably pay and most likely have been paying MS ever since you bought a xbox just to play online
oO_bizkitz_Oo  +   132d ago
Isn't it as long as you download them on ps + you can read download them anytime as you have a account?
calis  +   132d ago
Yes. All you have to go is "purchase them" from the online store or start downloading them on your PS3/4/Vita and they will be there.

I've been doing it for the past 10 months since I've been travelling around the world.
CRASHBASHUK  +   132d ago
there is one thing ps+ does that xbox gold games don't do.
here a example it is hard to explain:
borderlands 1 was on ps+ July/august 2012, borderlands 2 came out in sep 2012
saints row 3 was on ps+ july 2013, saints row 4 came out in august 2013
I hope you get my point
jetlian  +   131d ago
Which is what? Release previous games near new ones? Whats so special about that? Also proves ps+ waits 2 years for games.

Both have hardly any new games for me unless its in genres i dont regularly play
CRASHBASHUK  +   131d ago
well I would guess it would increase the sale of the new game right? it did for me for those 2 games
which I think is a smart move from the publisher
#23.1.1 (Edited 131d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
OllieBoy  +   132d ago
Must eat MS alive to give away something free.

Even if it's a half-assed ripoff of what Sony does.
Picnic  +   132d ago
Although Playstation Plus costs, Microsoft might have potentially made billions more in revenue from online charges because you could not play online at all with an Xbox360 unless you paid to do so.

So Microsoft are arguably SLIGHTLY better for exclusives in the first few years of the next gen. It's hardly so many billions better. It hardly makes us for the drought of exclusives in the last few years of the Xbox 360.

Some of the money will have gone on sports TV programming no-one outside of America necessarily cares about.

It's easy to look at the Xbox One and get excited about Sunset Overdrive and Quantum Break. But don't forget that Microsoft could be giving SO much more gameswise with all the money that they have from Xbox Live charges.
romancer  +   132d ago
If I were unemployed and had nothing better to do every day except play a steady stream of mediocre video games .... then this article might make sense.

But I tend to play fewer, better games as a "completionist" (whether trophies or achievements); I can barely keep up with such games as I already have on the go (Battlefield 4; Titanfall; plus the new AAA games that I add whenever they appear. "Watch Dogs" being next.

I did, however, (mostly) enjoy "Dust: An Elysian Tale" (360) in recent days and collected every Achievement. Whether a game is free or not, my time is limited. And I would rather spend my time PLAYING video games rather than argue about consoles.
DarthBigE  +   132d ago
Article says skull girls is free this month...it says 15 bucks on psn
lipton101  +   132d ago
The ps+ ps4 games let me down for the past 2 months, but Outlast was definitely my cup of tea and more than made up for it. Still waiting on knack
XStation  +   132d ago
PS+ is better currently. The way i see MS having a better service than PS+, is if they were to allow you to have 2 games that you keep permanently and 2 games you can play only while you have gold. That would be 4 games in all, and 2 you keep forever, but even then the games must be quality content. If they gave, Far Cry 3 and Metro: Last Light for games to keep that would be great.
Provolone24  +   132d ago
I hate to break it to my Xbox-gaming step-brethren, but the days of Xbox Live's superiority are over. Even comparing last gen, while Live was a little more solid, the mere fact that PSN is free on PS3 makes that a debate in itself.

Now that Sony has Plus running on all cylinders and VASTLY improved the sociability and user interface of the PS4, anyone saying Live is still better is simply in denial.

Microsoft can stroke their "300,000 servers" boner all they want, but Plus gives you more value and it's now just as easy to play with your friends on Playstation as it is on Xbox.
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember
New stories
40°

The New 3DS XL unlocks the potential of Nintendo's handheld

54m ago - Eurogamer: The New 3DS and New 3DS XL don't launch in Japan until 11th October (and not in North... | 3DS
40°

LoL World Championship: Team SoloMid Dominates Day 3

1h ago - "Team SoloMid and the Taipei Assassins have a bit of a rivalry starting in the early stages of th... | PC
40°

Hyrule Warriors Review - The Telegraph

1h ago - "Zelda meets Dynasty Warriors. It was obviously going to raise a few sceptical eyebrows. Not ever... | Wii U
40°

Rock Band Network Closes Shop, Ends New Submissions

1h ago - Hardcore Gamer: Four years ago, Harmonix announced the Rock Band Network, a service on the Rock B... | Wii
Ad

Start Making Games for the PS4

Now - Want to design the next generation of video games? Start learning game design today. Click for more info on how to get started. | Promoted post
30°

Opinon: How will amiibos work in Mario Kart 8?

2h ago - A speculative look at how amiibos could work in Mario Kart 8, including character dlc, levelling... | Wii U
Related content from friends