Xbox Games with Gold can learn a lot from January's PS Plus offerings

Sony's PlayStation Network may not have the most reliable servers -- especially when compared to Xbox LIVE -- but damn do they know how to incentivize a subscription. Launched in 2010, PlayStation Plus (commonly referred to as PS Plus or PS+) is a paid-for subscription service that provides users with "enhanced services" on the PlayStation Network.

[rambi80]

Free games are only half the story. Plus also gives some incredible discounts and (along with steam)is the reason for my moving towards digital distribution.

I bought one physical game this year for ps3...never thought that would happen at the start of the gen.

i still buy physical games for vita because of the one account per vita policy.

[TomShoe]

That's true, while MS's online servers are still very impressive, they're going to need to step it up with GWG, as PS+ provides much more value and gives people a huge incentive to invest in PS+, required multiplayer notwithstanding. Classics are OK to have and play, especially for free, but come on, Bioshock Infinite? That's just not fair.

Perhaps that was one of the motives behind Sony's courting of indies, so that PS+ remains as strong as it has ever been.

Also, I know this is slightly OT, but this post I saw on the article was pretty funny. I bleeped out some of the swears.

"No one cares you [redacted][redacted]! Also [redacted] this [redacted] idiotic [redacted]! Games with gold are FREE FOREVER not some [redacted][redacted] rental like sony offers for 10$ a month! Also xbl is half the [redacted] price [redacted]!"

- Sukmynutsac

Huehuehuehue, that's comedy.

[rambi80]

That comment was hilarious indeed.

Another reason for the indies push is the death/decline of mid-tier devs who normally take more risks.

Also, i feel its possible that sony will extend its marketplace to the PC, especially when Gaikai comes around. Hence, its in their best interest to start courting PC devs now. It would be cool to buy one copy of a game for pc, console and handheld.

Looking Forward to brothers. Was waiting for a sale but free is better.

[iamnsuperman]

There is only one way Microsoft can improve the service and that is to not give away the games for free forever despite not subscribing to gold. The problem is I think they would have a hardier time getting newer third parties on board unlike Sony's rental method.

Combine that with different regions getting different content means Microsoft is instantly at a disadvantage when it comes to bring in the big newer third party games. The reason why plus works is it is a kind of rental service (so there is a chance off people dropping plus here and there so they might buy the game) also because not all the region's get the same thing (and how the Internet works) these games are getting advertised on websites like this despite being in available in a different region.

I think Microsoft need to look at how Sony has done this because they are in a potion where they can do their own big games (I am shocked they offered up halo 3 instead of Halo 4) and some indies (which isn't a bad thing) but will struggle to bring in the big guns (third party)

[gaffyh]

The problem is that MS has gotten used to getting XBL money offering almost nothing in return last gen. This gen Sony has brought "it", so MS has to think about cutting Into basically pure profit from XBL subscriptions and buying games for GWG. That's why their offerings are so utterly shite compared to PS+ which offers full games, discounts and beta access to games across three platforms.

It's genius really, because it makes you want to buy the Sony consoles because you get "free" games on each platform = more console sales = more content (movies, games music) sales.

[Godmars290]

The best thing about PS+ which will likely forever put it over XBL is that its more optional. While you'll have to get either if you're strongly into MP gaming, PS+ can be ignored not only for SP titles but most if not all MMOs. You also don't need it for entertainment apps like Hulu or netflix, thought Sony really needs to bring the PS4's media support back up to what it is on the PS3.

[Giul_Xainx]

I don't think Microsoft stands a chance to take out the PS+ service seeing how Sony strikes a deal per developer to release their game for free. I don't know the specifics of the agreement but I am pretty sure there is a "No Compete" clause in the deal. Which means the more developers going all in at the end of their run with PS+ the better. Soon enough Microsoft will try something more robust.... but honestly.... It is seriously an uphill battle after the millions spent on the controller redesign. (Which seriously wasn't needed.)

[Sayai jin]

The games for PS+ for January are really nice....Bioshock Inf. Sony brings in good games an the norm. I agree with the article to some point. PSN is free for users and XBL Gold is not. PS+ is an addition to PSN and not necassary for online pay (thats a whole other debate). I look at PS+ like a better version of Gamefly. Cheaper in price and you can add 2 games on top of the others without returning them. The only issue I have with PS+ is that if you stop your membership then you lose all those free games. One could argue that the games are not free, but instead that thy are rented. Stillan awesome deal.

XB GOld on the other hand is andhas always been a paid service with some little perks like discounted games, but they never did give away free games. Due to the competitiors PS+ they had to dosomething. The games for gold are usually old or indie titles. The only thing I can say is that games for gold is included with XBL gold. Once downloaded you keep the games forever even if you cancel XBL gold. SHould XBL gold's other feature be free....again thats a whole other conversation. As the article says MS can learn from Sony's PS+...I agree, but PS+ is a paid subscritption for additional, free, and discounted content while XBL Games for Gold is an add on for free games on an already paid service...so they are not necassarily the same.

[H0RSE]

Let's focus on a reply to that comment, by "AlexanderTheGreat":

"@SUKMYNUTSAC I thought I would clear up a few things for you. First, PS Plus is $17.99 for 3 Months ($7 cheaper than XBLive) and $49.99 for 1 year ($10 cheaper than XBLive)."

- he starts off well.

"While it is true that if you lose your PS Plus subscription, you no longer have access to play the games, but once you renew you have full access to the games again. They never go anywhere."

- and then he starts to go downhill... In this statement, he is essentially justifying the paywall aspect of the free games mechanics for PS+. You know, the same sort of thing members of the PS community insult MS for with XBL...

"And now that PS Plus is required for online gaming on PS4, I think it is a great value that I am forced to subscribe AND I still get games like DMC and Brothers that I wanted to play but didn't have the time earlier this year..."

- He just stated that he thinks it's a "great value" that he's "forced" to subscribe to something.... Doesn't this sound eerily contradictory to something on Xbox One, that keeps being depicted in a negative light? Oh, yeah, the Kinect... So being "forced" to pay for PS+ is "great" because you get access to quality (opinion) free games (as long as you continue to pay) But being "forced" to buy a Kinect, regardless of the usefulness or functionality it can brings to the console, it's games, and/or the whole X1 experience itself, (also opinion) is just PR spin, and MS is really just greedy...

Seeing PS+ as a better service than XBL, is fine, but when you resort to things like double standards and justification, it just helps to hurt your case.

There is also a statement from the article itself that stood out to me as exceptionally ignorant:

"...would you rather play a game from 2006 or Irrational Games' BioShock Infinite, which was a candidate for many of 2013 Game of the Year awards?"

- Really? games are better based on how new they are? I just recently bought "Baldur's Gate 2: Enhanced Edition" on PC, a heavily modded/improved version of a game originally released in 2000, and it's currently one of my most played games.

As for the question itself, It would depend on the game. I already played and beat Bioshock Infinite, so their could be a number of games I'd rather play, regardless when they were released. Rainbow Six Vegas, AC2, Nuts&Bolts, DR2, Duels of the Planewalkers 2013, Shoot Many Robots - these are all older games offered from GWG that I haven't played yet, so I'd rather play them than Bioshock.

I can see where people can place value in PS+, but trying to contribute merit to the games offered based on how new or not they are, is completely short-sighted.

The bottom line is this - regardless which service you prefer, there is no amount of evidence or research that can prove your choice is factually better. It's all opinion

[Godmars290]

@H0RSE:
As I said before and above, you are only "forced" to buy PS+ if your most preferred type of game is online multiplayer and that's only on the PS4 with some exceptions. Whereas with either the Xbox 360 or XB1 you must have XBL gold in order to access basic online and community features.

Whether or not you want or even know about achievement points, you *MUST* have XBL to accumulate - and keep - them while trophies are something just there on PSN.

No matter how many times the differences are repeated and pointed out, no matter how much the counter arguments are drawn out, the Xbox fan camp seems to have no ability to recognize the flaw in XBL which holds it back. Cannot even tell the difference between PSN and PS+.

It become pathetic.

[P_Bomb]

@horse
The paywalls aren't the same. Free to play psn games like dcuo still work without plus and still will on ps4. On Xbl I'm locked out of Doritos crash course 2 of all things with my silver. I'm also locked out of the web browser with silver. A browser. Something every smartphone and smart tv comes with. I'm also locked out of all the apps like netflix, even though I already pay for netflix.

The games with gold are by in large of lesser retail value, release dates be damned. $4.99 value tower defense hardly justifies the more expensive MSRP subscription next to AAA fare like uncharted3, infamous2, ratchet&clank, sly, demons souls, lbp2, Xcom, borderlands2, all the bioshocks, and countless other fare like ssf4, ac3, saints3, hitman. Even the cloud storage on plus offers more space AND copies previously copy protected saves (drm) that xb gold does not. Ps plus backed up my mass effect 3 save, Xbl gold did not.

In a nutshell, by my experience the paywalls have been factually different. When one service cracks developer DRM'd saves and one doesn't, that's as good evidence as any.

[H0RSE]

@P Bomb

“The paywalls aren't the same. Free to play psn games like dcuo still work without plus and still will on ps4.”

- My point in bringing them up was not to try and say they are the same, only that they exist on each platform. Many from the Sony camp are quick to address the paywall on XBL, but then tip-toe past the fact that Playstation now has paywalls as well, not only to play online, but to access arguably the best feature of PS+ - the free games.

It is a classic example of double standards and justification, where they can't make it a case of pointing out what XBL has and PSN doesn’t, so it's skewed into PSN has paywalls, but XBL has it worse…

--

“On Xbl I'm locked out of Doritos crash course 2 of all things with my silver.”

- And as I mentioned, on PS+ you are locked out of arguably it’s best feature – the free games. With GWG, once I download the games, they are mine, regardless if I remain a gold member or not.

--

“ I'm also locked out of the web browser with silver. A browser. Something every smartphone and smart tv comes with.”

- Smartphones charge for data plans, something needed to connect to the browser. And if you are using a wifi connection, that connection also costs money, unless you are “stealing” internet or only accessing your browser where there is free wifi.

--

“I'm also locked out of all the apps like netflix, even though I already pay for netflix.”

- but since you are trying to access Netflix through another service (XBL) charging for it isn’t out of the ordinary. I’m saying it’s right, but it isn’t blasphemy either. Speaking for me personally, I never even use any of the apps that a gold account grants – I have a PC for that. I pay for a gold account for online gaming – everything else is extra.

--

“The games with gold are by in large of lesser retail value, release dates be damned. $4.99 value tower defense hardly justifies the more expensive MSRP subscription next to AAA fare like uncharted3, infamous2, ratchet&clank, sly, demons souls, lbp2, Xcom, borderlands2, all the bioshocks, and countless other fare like ssf4, ac3, saints3, hitman.”

- This “merit system” is just as flawed as placing value on games based on release date. They cost less therefore they are worse games? The price of a game does not dictate the fun players will derive from it. I own Defense Grid, and I had as much or more fun playing it than a number of the games you mentioned.

Unfortunately people (you seem to fall in this category) place a superficial value on games based on their price, even if they are receiving them for “free.” They seem to be more focused on the "status symbol" aspect of getting a retail priced game, vs a inde or arcade title, rather than what the game itself offers. It’s like saying someone got a better deal because they got name brand cereal and you got stuck with store brand…

--

“Even the cloud storage on plus offers more space AND copies previously copy protected saves (drm) that xb gold does not. Ps plus backed up my mass effect 3 save, Xbl gold did not.”

- I have no experience with saving anything to the cloud, so I can’t comment.

--

“In a nutshell, by my experience the paywalls have been factually different. When one service cracks developer DRM'd saves and one doesn't, that's as good evidence as any.”

- Being “factually different” (which I never claimed they weren’t) is not the same as proving one being “factually better” than the other (which was my initial statement, and still holds true)

[H0RSE]

@Godmars290

“As I said before and above, you are only "forced" to buy PS+ if your most preferred type of game is online multiplayer and that's only on the PS4 with some exceptions. Whereas with either the Xbox 360 or XB1 you must have XBL gold in order to access basic online and community features. “

- And yet many people have silver accounts, so despite them being extremely bare bones, they apparently still offer enough for people to warrant not upgrading to gold.

--

“Whether or not you want or even know about achievement points, you *MUST* have XBL to accumulate - and keep - them while trophies are something just there on PSN.”

- but these are a arguably superficial features on both services, which don’t necessarily add anything to the games themselves or playing them. Mention that players have access to them at all times on PSN, seems like a desperate attempt to create some sort of leverage to your argument.

--

“No matter how many times the differences are repeated and pointed out, no matter how much the counter arguments are drawn out, the Xbox fan camp seems to have no ability to recognize the flaw in XBL which holds it back. Cannot even tell the difference between PSN and PS+.

It become pathetic.”

- It’s not that they can’t recognize that XBL has flaws, it’s that largely, they don’t care. Many gamers still recognize XBL as the superior service for online gaming and social features (like cross game chat…) even among those who play on both xbox and PS. It becomes sort of an issue of the “ends justify the means,” where regardless of its “shortcomings” or its strict paywall structure, the end product is something they are pleased with enough to justify a $59.99 yearly price tag.

PS+ may be the better service for extras and incentives, but as the core service goes, for gaming and social interaction, I see XBL as vastly superior. Most if not all of the “benefits” that people claim put PS+ above XBL, are extras that I really don’t care about.

As for not knowing the difference between PSN and PS+. PS+ is an extension of PSN. Without PSN, there is no PS+. There are not 2 entirely different entities...

[Automatic79]

I think both offer an excellent service it all depends on how you look at it. I think one is offered as a rental while another is giving you games for free. Perfect example a good friend of mine lost his job his psn subscription ran out he decided not to renew he lost all the games in his subscription. On the other side if you have same scenario with an Xbox and you choose not to renew at least you keep the games. Right now fanboys will always spin it to make it sound like one is better then other the truth is they are both great whether new or old games. We all benefit.

[P_Bomb]

[quote]Unfortunately people (you seem to fall in this category) place a superficial value on games based on their price[/quote]

Not at all. I have no aversion to Indy games. But I've played enough to know that something cheap doesn't automatically makes it avant garde or better. A 10min hysteria project doesnt really hold a gameplay candle to 10hrs of sleeping dogs.

I've downloaded lots of free Indy minis via plus that I wouldn't have played otherwise including velocity and a space shooter for two bucks. But the difference is where GWG offers budget tower defense like defense grid as the marquee, ps+ offers the same tower defense experience with games like fieldrunners AND throws in a BF3 and FarCry to boot. It isn't superficial to prefer a AAA fps if you hate tower defense to begin with.

App wise, my smart tv has a netflix app built in and doesn't charge me an extra fee. I have a samsung bluray player with netflix built in as well. No additional samsung online fee. Netflix has never been behind a paywall on psn either. Or PC. There's no dell or vaio paywall. Charging extra for netflix *is* actually out of the ordinary. No reason it can't be available to silver members. I hope they change that someday

[H0RSE]

@P Bomb

"I have no aversion to Indy games. But I've played enough to know that something cheap doesn't automatically makes it avant garde or better."

- I never implied that it did. In fact, it would be more accurate to say I implied the opposite - that just becuase it's an indie title, doesn't mean it can't stand against AAA titles.

--

"A 10min hysteria project doesnt really hold a gameplay candle to 10hrs of sleeping dogs."

- I never played Sleeping Dogs, but I have spent at least 10hrs playing Defense Grid.

I've downloaded lots of free Indy minis via plus that I wouldn't have played otherwise including velocity and a space shooter for two bucks. But the difference is where GWG offers budget tower defense like defense grid as the marquee, ps+ offers the same tower defense experience with games like fieldrunners AND throws in a BF3 and FarCry to boot."

- First off, I don't see Defense Grid as the "marquee" of GWG... Second off, you are using the "new game defense" again, by mentioning that PS+ offers games like BF3 and FarCry. Hell, I think it's likely that more people have already played those games than Defense Grid, so what exactly are they offering?

The fact is, when it comes to the free games, both services are lacking, due to the fact that you have no choice over what games you are offered. One day GWG might offer something you actually want, another day PS+ might - it's a gamble.

--

"It isn't superficial to prefer a AAA fps if you hate tower defense to begin with."

No, but it is superficial to put AAA games on a pedestal vs indie games, just because they are AAA games, which is what you are doing. You are claiming to enjoy one genre over another, and somehow tying that into AAA vs indie - they are 2 different topics. What if a AAA tower defense game was offered vs an indie FPS?

--

"App wise, my smart tv has a netflix app built in and doesn't charge me an extra fee. I have a samsung bluray player with netflix built in as well. No additional samsung online fee. Netflix has never been behind a paywall on psn either. Or PC. There's no dell or vaio paywall. Charging extra for netflix *is* actually out of the ordinary. No reason it can't be available to silver members. I hope they change that someday."

- The flaw in your comparison here, is that those examples you mention - your smart tv, your bluray player, PC, dell, vaio, etc. are not services - they are devices that simply offer the app(s). therefore an additional fee would be unwarranted. The only accurate example you give is PSN, and the fact they don't charge a fee to use it, doesn't make charging a fee out of the ordinary.

I'm not saying I agree with MS for charging a fee to access their apps, only that they are justified in doing so. You are using an optional service to access an app that doesn't require the service to access. Think of of it like a "convenience fee." Bullshit or not, it is still justifiable.

You need to look at it from 2 angles - ethically and business-wise. Ethically, MS is a pile of shit, but business-wise, they are very lucrative. I am able to view things from both of these perspectives simultaneously, which is why although I may not agree with everything MS does, I can still see the merit in it. I'm like this with a lot of things.

[P_Bomb]

Justifying netflix behind gold because gold is a service? Netflix is its *own* service. A paid service. It doesn't need another paywall to work. It'd be the exact same experience on xbl silver.

Service wise, nothing about watching on gold makes it functionally better than tablet/PC/smartTV/vita/Wii-U. All it is, is artificially trying to inflate the value of their paywall by keeping things locked behind it that other hardware doesn't.

I can't give em business props for that. Not in a competitive marketplace where they're charging $10 more for comparable services and $100 more for comparable hardware. Are they justified? They can say they are, but so are customers then in looking elsewhere. Shades of E3. That being said, the new consoles only just launched and there's still lots of time for more amendments.

[H0RSE]

"Justifying netflix behind gold because gold is a service? Netflix is its *own* service. A paid service. It doesn't need another paywall to work."

- which is exactly why it is justified that XBL charges a fee to use it. You are choosing to utilize a service (Netflix) through an optional third party service (XBL) that isn't required for the initial service to work. It's like a company charging you money to pay a bill online or via phone, rather than simply mailing a check for free.

Like I said, it's like charging a convenience fee - the convenience of being able to not only use Netflix via your xbox, but to also have access to everything else the service (XBL) offers. It may not be ethical, and I'm not saying I agree with it (I don't) but it isn't a foreign concept either.

[Software_Lover]

Gold does offer discounts on digital purchases. It has for a long time.

[ainsleyharriott]

^ This

Bought some awesome games on the cheap with the weekly sales.

[ThanatosDMC]

There's normal sales on PS Store and then there's PS+ Sales, which is competitive to Steam sales.

Though Steam sales are still superior at how much it rapes your wallet.

[Sharingan_no_Kakashi]

I don't know what I'm gonna play first :)

[Rageanitus]

Sorry till the day consoles assure backwards compatibility I will stick with physical discs. At least with physical discs I can sell off my old games. What happens when you have a huge collection at near end of a generation your console bricks?

As for sales etailers for steam and origin keys offer a much deeper cut in terms of discounts and they are usually region free

Plus pay to play multiplayer is quite a cash grab imo

[HighResHero]

I buy physical and digital copies and I see no reason to change that.

[SpitFireAce85]

Sony keep it up..keep the gamers happy ...paid $20 for PS+ on black Friday...best
$20 I ever spent lol.

[infectedaztec]

"Sony's PlayStation Network may not have the most reliable servers -- especially when compared to Xbox LIVE"

As a gamer who primarily plays multiplayer, this is the most important thing to me and the major reason I went xbox one over PS4. With Azure, Sony will always be second best in servers (yes I know they but the start up gaikai but MS is the bethemoth in this field only matched by oracle)

[Infamous298]

My reaction to this comment:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[HeavenlySnipes]

Fair enough

I don't have a next gen console yet because neither have heavy hitter games yet, so PS+ is a huge plus for me on Sony's side

[iamnsuperman]

You do realise Sony has dedicated servers as an option (the reason why games like GT and R3 are getting their online turned off. Which only happens when their community dies). Microsoft also had some before but they have just expanded and brought the servers under a name they can sell to other companies (so competing with Amazon/Google and their cloud based service). They are just branding and expanding their existing server options. It isn't like the third party games are going to use them (I don't recall any of the games ending up using Azure)

The only thing you can say is Microsoft has more available than Sony for people and services to use. The quality difference (note only when it comes to gaming) is almost none exicstent (except more being available and possible prices which we don't see)

[n4rc]

Download speeds were a huge difference last gen.. huge..

And they did say awhile back that azure for xbl wasn't really documented and laid out for launch window games.. they were already too far along for that.

All future games will have access to them.. so all 1st party games plus any 3rd party that would shaft it's ps4 customers. Or pay out of pocket to provide servers for it's sony base..

Or maybe sony will step up.. who knows..

[iamnsuperman]

@N4rc

I don't see them using the service at all (apart from the smaller developers with exclusive deals). The big companies would like control over the servers and if the Sony game can't use it but a Microsoft game can it would cause all heaps of issues with management of the servers and preformance/development time (as both games would follow different development plans which could be costly). It is a great thing for the smaller developer though. Got to give Microsoft the credit for that foresight

[Kayant]

"And they did say awhile back that azure for xbl wasn't really documented and laid out for launch window games.. they were already too far along for that" - Where? Link? Because iirc for example COD:G was announced that it's using Thunderhead (Azure sectioned off for XBL)
by mark rubin yet it ended up using the hybrid solution that they used on all platforms. http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

"All future games will have access to them.. so all 1st party games plus any 3rd party that would shaft it's ps4 customers. Or pay out of pocket to provide servers for it's sony base" - So far if not all third party games are using their own solution instead and with more games are being announced to be always online or heavily online and based on evidence right now all signs points to third-parties going with their own solution IMO.

Like iamnsuperman said you will mostly likely see it with indie devs not big third parties because of them wanting control.

[johndoe11211]

@ n4rc

What you don't seem to understand is 'all third parties will have access to azure' and 'all third parties are going to be using azure' are two completely different statements.

Microsoft threw out pr talk to confuse the blind. Giving devs access does NOT mean that they will be definitely using it. Not all third parties will be using azure.

In fact, I'm willing to bet that most of the major studios do not use those servers as this will be relinquishing to much control over the game and community.

And again people seem to think that these 300,000 servers are dedicated to gaming, wrong. They will be shared with other services.

[n4rc]

It was on here.. I'm sure you can find it

You choose to assume 300k aren't for xbl when they said exactly that.. Google azure and you'll find it over a million servers..

And neither I nor they ever said all games would use them.. but they can..

And with the exception on ea.. nobody really provides a quality server solution.. if dedicated servers are available to them.. then sony would be the only thing holding them back.. can't alienate fanbase

[2pacalypsenow]

I play COD Ghosts and BF4 on ps4 and i dont see any diference in performance over xbox live

[sAVAge_bEaST]

Marketing,.. Love how the xbox camp falls for it every time.

"As a gamer who primarily plays multiplayer, this is the most important thing to me and the major reason I went xbox one over PS4"
_how is that new XboxOne party system working out?-
I can put money on it,.. that playing COD, or BF, online, is the exact same experience (except, you know, one has higher resolution, not that One.).

[Back-to-Back]

@infectedaztec

And I am here to say Sony's server have never been more reliable then now. I have had the ps4 since launch and have had no issues with PSN. I dont understand how people can still make this claim about xbl being superior in regards to servers. Hell forza 5 is the only XBOX EXCLUSIVE that is using dedicated servers. They have you fooled.

[Goku781]

PS+ is the best value for consoles period.

[Automatic79]

Please tell us your reason why?

[ALLWRONG]

Games with Gold you actually own the games and not just rent them like PSN.

[Infamous298]

Xbox fanboys love to use this stupid argument against PS+, they know that PS+ is superior but they dont want to admit ;).

[isa_scout]

Xbox fanboys never see the truth because that's just how Xbox fanboys are.

One of the best recent South Park Lines.

[PFFT]

This is not a stupid argument. I want to see you play those so called Free games after your Ps+ term is up. Go ahead do it and post a video up on youtube playing that said game while connected online on your PS3. Lets see if you are able. And no PS+ isnt superior in no way or form. Both are great networks the only difference is that Games with Gold games are yours to keep even after your LIVE term is up.

[gobluesamg]

Yeah you own them but have no interest in playing them because they're so old. I have PS plus through 2016 so I own these great games for at least the next 3 years.

[TKCMuzzer]

You try and make it sound better than it is. You need a Gold account to get the games in the first place, the problem is because everything else is behind the Live pay wall your always going to pay for Live no matter what otherwise your Xbox is pretty much redundant. Microsoft don't make money because their stupid, they just dress it up differently so you think your getting a good deal.
Ask yourself about these games you don't rent, are you ever going to ditch your live subscription to make your point a valid one?

[Seafort]

Yeah that's fine if you want to own 4+ year old games.

PS+ offers newly released games for the price of a subscription which you need now for multiplayer anyway.

We're all renting our games really even steam games. These companies could easily shut down their servers at any time and we wouldn't have anywhere to download them from.

This is the digital future. Being controlled by large corporations so we can play games we buy but don't own :)

[DigitalRaptor]

Oh, so with Games with Gold, you get to "own" the old games you've already bought and played? Or maybe you'll come to the realisation that you don't have ownership of any digitally licensed content, whether its "rented" or not.

Xbox fanboys are continually running out of logic.

[Gremdude]

So are you really going to let your gold subscription lapse EVER? I didn't think so. So again, what is the difference?

[2pacalypsenow]

Yeah you own old games that you will probably never play again , unlike PS+ with newer games that most have not played , like me

[MasterCornholio]

I got Farcry 3 with plus. I played the game and beat it. I'm done with the game.

So what if I dont own it? What matters is that I played the game and I enjoyed it.

Can't wait to do the same with DmC. I'm not a fan of the new Dante but the game looks like fun.

P.S Looks like defenders of Games with Gold are more interested in owning old games then enjoying newer AAA titles. Like BioShock Infinite for example.

[CocoWolfie]

when your ps+ does run out sure you no longer have access to the games, but when your xbox live gold runs out, you dont even have access to online right? (but if they let you keep the free games xblg offers then its all good) ..plus seeing as the games on ps+ only last a month and the shortest subscription is a month, then if you dont finish it, its on you.. and more games will be coming anyway :p

[SoulSercher620]

OMG you get to keep forever XBLA games that are really crappy and great games that are worth $10 already. Games with Gold is obviously superior.

Seriously stop with that argument because it's not a good one.

[FITgamer]

So if online MP and third party apps no longer required a gold account would you still pay $60/year for Games with Gold? Doubt it.

[Kryptix]

Facts:

A year for PS+ is only $50, less than the price of a new retail game. How is someone going to stop paying for Plus if they can afford renewing the subscription in the first place meaning that they don't really lose the privilege of playing those games any time soon?

By the way, your logic is bypassed by stating that when you're paying for Gold, you're also renting the online, the apps, and the servers those games and apps are kept in.

You're bashing PS Plus games for being "rentals" but you yourself are renting the apps since you can't use them after you stop paying on Xbox. The hypocrisy in this one is on a denial level.

[Belking]

Learn what. How to rent games. Neither is free and with xbox you actually own it.

[2pacalypsenow]

you dont own it MS does you just get a license to play it

[ALLWRONG]

No you "own" it because you can stop paying for Live and continue to play the game offline. If you stop paying for PSN+ you can't play the game period.

[fattyuk]

Yep it's a rental service,my 4 consoles ( 2 ps3/ps4 and vita) have many games on (ESP my ps3s which have literally a whole library of rented games) my membership runs in 2016, will I still be playing these games in 2016.... hello no!

Have I got VALUE FOR MONEY.... yes
Do I have to pay for a membership to gain access to MMOs ... nope
Do I have to pay for a membership to gain access to apps I already pay for like Netflix....no

And please no need to insult PS+ with saying "but you need it to play online mwhahahaha". since Xbox have been doing this for years, and still continue.... to add no real value to your membership!!!

Games for gold is like serving a turd on a plate and saying "don't worry you can keep it, forever"

[LeCreuset]

Neither service is free. I agree. The difference is, on Xbox you're paying to get a handful of games you either already own or have no real interest in playing, considering they've been out long enough to be heavily discounted.

[Hicken]

Good thing they're giving it games nobody owns yet, right? Brannew games a lot of people haven't gotten around to playing yet. It'd really stick if all they gave away were games you bought, played, and got rid of three years ago. I'm so glad they aren't doing that.

[Why o why]

Owning 4 year old games you've probably owned is better than renting 1-2 year old games you probably haven't in the eyes of the illogical. Enjoy your old games as its better than that yaris bone ms blessed you with but please, lets not compare the value of each for now. Its only questionable to the uninformed or the fanbotic.

[Back-to-Back]

If you think you "own" games go ahead and reverse engineer any of your games (including physical) and try to release your game to the public. Your ass you be getting sued so fast under the DMCA.

[GarrusVakarian]

Hmmm, let me think...do i want to own Rainbow six vegas/AC2 or do i want to keep Bioshock Infinite/AC3/Far Cry 3/DMC/Uncharted 3/LBP/Infamous 2 as long as i have a PS plus sub?....And let's be honest, what reason would anyone have to NOT renew their PS plus sub? It's amazing value...the collection you would have RIGHT NOW if you subbed is amazing, so many games that people actually want to play.

Easiest choice ive ever had to make. PS plus is LEAPS AND BOUNDS better than games with gold. I know you are pro MS and you know im pro sony....but there's no way you can say games with gold touches ps plus and keep a straight face........

[Kryptix]

You don't own any of the apps you download on an Xbox console because they're behind the Gold subscription paywall. I just used your logic against you thus exposing your hypocrisy.

Good day sir.

[nigelp520]

I have both
free games are free games. i havent played gears of war 1 or dead rising 2. i got them for free. next month cant wait fir bioshock 3

[fattyuk]

I am also looking forward to bioshock 3 if it's ever released! Would love another dive ;) into rapture.

Or was you referring to bioshock infinite?

BTW just to let you know dead rising 2 is about £4 or less ATM on psn... and yes you can can keep it forever.

[TwistingWords]

Wow it seems PS Plus and Games With Gold is like my National Geographic subscription, I pay them money and they send me magazines for free!

You are paying for a service, games are included within that service, but they are not FREE.

[LeCreuset]

Actually, as someone that has had Plus since its inception, the service I was paying for did not include games. It included discounts, which even then paid for the price of Plus, but not games. Games came later at no additional cost to me. So what do you call that?

[TwistingWords]

Apart of the service...

So tell me, did you think they thought of the idea overnight and just out of the blue decided to add it?

"Games came later at no additional cost to me. "

But what happens once you stop paying?

[LeCreuset]

@TwistingWords

The words you were looking for were, "added value to the service at no additional cost."

"So tell me, did you think they thought of the idea overnight and just out of the blue decided to add it?"

Irrelevant. They already sold me on what was available for the same price they are charging now that they have the Plus games program.

"But what happens once you stop paying?"

If you stop paying then you no longer have access to the service until you do again. No one has argued that. You seem to miss the point that the games program came at no additional costs to the service. If they started including Netflix with your subscription at no additional cost to you, would you start whining that the additional service provided to you in the form of Netflix isn't free?

Your complaining is ridiculous. For one, I'm not going to be giving up my Plus. That would just be stupid given the value proposition, and that's not even factoring in the need for it to play multiplayer on the PS4. For $50 a year I get numerous, relevant, quality, games which I can play without having to go out and buy them. That's not even factoring in the other benefits of Plus.

[TwistingWords]

I'm not complaining, why would I? Paying a small fee to play a decent selection of games; but I'm not naive enough to think that I would be getting them for free, to which you seem to be.

Don't shoot the messenger, but the actual fact remains, what you don't pay you don't get, you said yourself if you stop paying then you don't get to play the games, so again that's not the logical definition of free is it? not matter how hard you try to spin it.

You don't have to justify your own reasoning to have PS Plus to me because I don't really care.

[LeCreuset]

@TwistingWords

So why don't you crunch the numbers and tell me how much I'm paying for those games? Be sure to subtract the $50 all of the other Plus services already cost before the introduction of this complimentary program.

You are really trying hard to be that guy that attends a pro wrestling event and screams out, "fake!" From your initial comment you feel the need to point out that you have to have a subscription with Plus or Gold to get free games. Much like every other person at the wrestling event, everyone here already knows that.

If you want to compare it to your National Geographic subscription, it would be like you subscribing to receive the magazine and not only receiving the magazine but complimentary blu ray movies from parent company Fox at no extra cost to you. You are paying no extra costs on your end. It is free, like the drinks a bartender provides on the house for customers. Do you need to have a business relationship in those examples to receive these things? Yes, but they are complimentary. They cost you nothing. Sony and MS eat the expenses. It costs you nothing extra. I don't know how many different ways I can describe something you are receiving for free.

[TwistingWords]

Enough with the analogies, like I said, you don't need to justify your purchases with me.

Like I said from the beginning you are paying for a service to which includes the right to access(not own) certain games... So stop pestering me. The day you get to play those games without paying for PS Plus then send me a message and I will bow to thee, but until then, you best keep on coming up with those half baked analogies.

Your thought pattern is so one sided that I laugh at the fact that you think that not only Sony would give away games for free but for publishers and game studios would allow it without financial gain.

"If you want to compare it to your National Geographic subscription, it would be like you subscribing to receive the magazine and not only receiving the magazine but complimentary blu ray movies from parent company Fox at no extra cost to you. "

But I have PAID my subscription, I wouldn't have gotten it otherwise, that still doesn't constitute free.

Sorry "MikeGdaGod", but I have no xbox and have 0 experience with Live. I state facts as a middle man and not some nerd who sides with one faceless global corporation.

But how is it a dumb arguement?

Once you stop paying you stop access to your "free" games.

[LeCreuset]

@TwistingWords

You sound like you had your feelings hurt, but what you failed to do was tell me how much I'm paying for those games, like I asked before. If you are sensitive to being "pestered" (I guess that's what you immaturely call it when someone presents a counterargument to your own), then maybe you shouldn't be that guy or gal that hops into a comment section to let everyone know what they already knew—you need a subscription to receive the complimentary games.

Come back when you learn how to present a logical argument. My analogies are not rendered invalid simply because you say so with no explanation given as to how. The only thing you should be laughing at is your pathetic attempt to move the goalpost. No one ever said you own the games you get with Plus. The argument was over whether they are provided to you for free.

"Your thought pattern is so one sided that I laugh at the fact that you think that not only Sony would give away games for free but for publishers and game studios would allow it without financial gain."

That explains it all. I've been debating with someone who has absolutely no idea of how things work. Publishers and game studios ARE financially compensated for their games on Plus BY SONY! Sony takes the hit on costs (sometimes they can get a sweet deal from devs/pubs for certain reasons like a dev figuring the exposure will make up for the lower selling price), to provide a service at no additional costs to attract customers to Plus. Why do you think Gold's games are so lacking compared to the Plus offerings? It costs MS more to give away the game permanently, so they reduce costs by giving away games they own and games that aren't worth much to begin with.

[MikeGdaGod]

"But what happens once you stop paying?"

this is got to be the dumbest argument i see xbox fans make.

if you stop paying for PS+ you lose access to multiplayer (PS4 only) and the "free" games they gave you but everything else with the system functions normally.

if you stop paying for Live you keep the 4 year old "free" games, but you lose almost all functions of the console...even services that you PAY for (i.e netflix, skype, even IE) no longer work. so of course, any xbox user would never not have a gold member ship...they'd be chopping off most of their consoles functions.

PS+ > Live...get over it

stupid argument

[souljah45]

Ive got a backlog of 48 games from ps+. Too many good games on ps3 vita and now bought ps4 at launch with 4 games. Dont worry ps+ games il get to you one day. Too many games is better than too few.

[BossGamerKnowsBest]

When Xbox first announced the free games for xbox they were halo 3 and assassins creed 2 after that they gave the WORST games for free unlike sony who give bioshock infinite for free so honestly xbox is terrible at it i think they should stop doing it and find something else to keep xbox gamers

[Spurg]

Ps plus you pay to get to download the game for as long as your sub runs...after that you can't play the game unless you keep paying for ps plus.

Games for gold you get to download the game and get to keep it even if your sub runs out.

To me Games for gold seem much better deal.(not taking into consideration the games you get).

The comparison with the games you get are unfair...ps plus has been running for a long time whereas games for gold has been running for just a few month.

[GenericNameHere]

I agree that the comparison is unfair, as PS+ was also decent when it first came out. First month was Wipeout HD, a trial for inFamous, some minis and some other stuff. This is like the same people who claim you should buy a Wii U because there are no games on the PS4/Xbone, which is understandable but clearly idiotic as of course the system that had a year headstart should have more games by now than the newly released consoles.

As for PS+, yes, you do lose access to your games once you run out of your subscription, but anything you buy during a PS+ sale is yours even after your sub is over. For me, as someone who owns a PS3 and a Vita (maybe a PS4 too when they're in stock again or maybe when the PS4 inFamous Second Son bundle comes out), PS+ offers me so much more. Retail PS3 and Vita games, downloadable PS3 and Vita games, indies, some PS1 and PSP games time to time, discounts, etc. For just $50/y (and it shares across PS3/Vita/PS4 too!), that's a lot of games.

I'm betting the PS4 might not have such a stellar Plus offering for quite a while. A lot of indies have been promised as free titles, Driveclub will be free. I can see Knack being free around August though, maybe KZ in September, and ACIV on October. PS3 and Vita on the other hand, I see a very bright future. As more people get accustomed to the PS4 and the PS3 gets older and cheaper, developers will be more willing to put up their games up on PS+ to entice consumers of their next-gen titles. Oh, Bioshock Infinite is free on Plus next month? Well, download it! If you liked the game, then you can expect the same quality from that game in their next gen game! You just downloaded Borderlands 2 free from PS+? Well, would you be excited for an even bigger and badder open world game like that on next gen from the same developer? I can totally see The Last of Us free on PS+ someday, heck maybe even GTAV!

[chobit_A5HL3Y]

if any of the games on xbl have ANY sort of online game-types that you wanna play, you gotta pay for an xbl sub... the whole argument where you get to keep these "free" games is pointless. i'd rather have great, relevant games for a year(+), over old games that you'd only want to rent now in the first place.

there's no comparison to content value. there just isn't. you're a blind xbox fanboy if you believe otherwise. ps+ has better stuff for its members. period. lolz

not only that, but your "running for a long time" argument isn't valid. xbl has been around far longer than psn. ms has a huge library of games to chose from; they just CHOOSE not to give away better games. i don't even know why you'd think that was ever a valid point o.e

[JonnyBigBoss]

I can totally agree with this. MS needs to work on the value of Xbox Live Gold.

[Goldenarmz]

I just bought Brothers on Xbox for 4.99 when i could have gotten it for Free on PS+ UGH!

[kingPoS]

I've seen PS+ go from meager offerings to unprecedented vaule. If you've been subscribed since 2010 like I have, then you have four platforms covered, PSP PS3 Vita & PS4. It's kinda addictive in weird way, wondering what awesome game you'll get to play month after month after month after month.

Call it what you will, rental service, not owning them. It doesn't change the reason why I subbed for plus in the first place.... backing up my non & protected *cough tekken6 & tag2 cough* game saves. I'm at 821mb of 1gb already!!

Gateway MT6706 2008

[SoulSercher620]

Games with Gold is absolute crap compared to PS Plus. FACT!

[shmeedy24685]

I have both PS+ and Xbox Live and PS+ is by far the better deal. Xbox Games with gold started with Assassins Creed 2 and Halo 3 for free, which are both great games, but the majority of Xbox users already have owned those games. I bought a Vita a few months ago & thanks to PS+ I haven't had to pay for one game. I got Metal Gear Solid HD collection, Rayman and many more games free.

[Funky Town_TX]

PS+ is cool and all but when my Plus runs out I can't play the games. Xbox live's free games are very old and played out. Neither service is perfect so lets not act like it is. PS+ is a good value but online on the PS3 is trash in comparison to xbox live. Downloading games on the PS3 is a pain in the a$$.

[chobit_A5HL3Y]

explain how ps3 is trash online? if you have good internet you shouldn't have any problems. and how is downloading games a pain? you download and install...

[LeCreuset]

Haven't you caught the pattern by now? MS fans will cling to any perceived advantage and hype it beyond belief. Take having the better looking multiplats for example. Hyped to death by MS fans last gen. This gen, with PS4 multiplats holding an advantage over their counterparts on the One unlike any differences seen between the PS3 and 360, all of a sudden we're told by MS fans that resolution and frame rate don't really matter.

[NeoTribe]

Downloading games on the ps3 is the same as xbox 360. Download and install... Not being able to keep the games on ps plus really isnt that big ofa deal. Once i beat it im more than likely done with it. Gives you the chance to beat all the games you didnt have the crazy cash to dish out for. I downloaded 2000 dollars worth of content last year... 40 bucks a year is nothing lol. You cant rent games as cheap as that. Plus who the hell that owns a ps4 doesnt yave ps plus anyway so your always gonna have the service as long as you have a sony console. Get it?

[KratosSaveUs]

PS+ gives us games like Borderlands 2,Battlefield 3,Farcry 3,Uncharted 3,BioShock Infinite,and Resogun vs XBL giving ACII and Halo 3 games that everyone already have.

[chobit_A5HL3Y]

people should know by now that ms is NOT about giving away great deals and value. like, they give away the bare minimal just to say they have value. some of the sales on xbl are pretty good SOMETIMES but psn has it beat pretty much every week. better "free" games and discounts wins over party chat and supposed better servers on xbl. i've played on both online services and as long as i've had good internetz, i haven't had any problems with either~

[xxxGEOxxx]

Not gonna lie, I was upset when i heard that PS+ was required to play MP on PS4, but after getting all the benefits, it has more than paid for itself. I've downloaded Dragon's Dogma: Darkness Arisen, ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, Hotline Miami, Uncharted for Vita, Contrast, Resogun, and a few others that currently slip my mind.

Now all Sony has to do is make the online more stable, and we have a winner. I hate seeing network login issues lately.

[iistuii]

I bet the first game given away from Sony for PS4 plus owners will be Knack, I don't mean indie games, real games.

[toddybad]

I've just moved from Xbox 360 to PS4. I like the free games - and there's some really good stuff already - but the Xbox servers appear to be better than the Playstation servers.
It's a score draw for online services.

[Majin-vegeta]

I'll put an end to this bickering.
https://www.gamepointsnow.c...

[IIZANGETSUII]

Too bad i sold my PS4 for being able to purchase my PS4, january deals are just too damn good.

[Staypuftafroman]

That's either a typo or the craziest statement I've read on this website this week.

[Azzanation]

PS+ is nothing new. Steam has been doing it for years and will remain the best gaming service in the world. And its Free.

Both PS+ and XBL have a lot to learn from Steam. Sony and MS can give away as many games as they want, doesn't make the service better, since you have to pay to use the service anyways. While with Steam what you buy is yours and you don't need a subscription to play those games or a specific console.

http://n4g.com/news/1426964...

[Father Murder X]

here we go again. New day same old sh*t. If you have a pc then use steam. If you have a Playstation use Psn+. If you have an Xbox use Xbox live See how simple that was.

Another article designed to get hits from you idiots/ Once again you fell hook, line, and sinker. The services are not interchangeable. You can't run PSN+ plus on the xbox, you can't run Xbox live on the playstation so what is the point of this article and you idiots constantly bickering over the same sh*t every single day.

[P_Bomb]

Dbl post, sorry