Microsoft: Xbox Games with Gold lineup to improve
Microsoft's Phil Spencer has explained that the company sees Games with Gold as a different kind of service than other programs like Plus, but did acknowledge that he's taking steps to improve the line-up.
Xbox's Games with Gold program was largely seen as an answer to PlayStation Plus, but the reception hasn't been as warm as it was to Sony's subscription plan. Microsoft's Phil Spencer recently said that Microsoft's service is "fundamentally different," but did say he is working with the team to offer a better line-up.
"One of our issues with Games with Gold--not 'issues,' but differences between the other system we get compared to, is the fact that with Games with Gold, you get to keep that game, regardless of whether you continue to subscribe," Spencer said at a SXSW panel reported by Polygon. "And the business around Games with Gold, for us, is just fundamentally different from some of the other programs that are out there, which does put a different financial picture on a--you're gonna go buy a game that's brand new, the cost of putting that in, just to be kind of blunt about it."
Regardless of his taking exception to the comparison, though, he did seem to signal that he understands why some subscribers have not been thrilled with the line-up so far.
"That said, I have been sitting down, monthly now, with that team--some of the earlier months were already programmed--and playing a more active role in picking franchises that show up in Games with Gold, and I think you'll see at least something that feels, at least, more true to what I think Games with Gold should look like with the constraints that are there," he said.
Spencer had previously said that the Games with Gold program will be coming to Xbox One sometime this year, but didn't give further details on the timing of that expansion.
-
Steve Watts posted a new article, Microsoft: Xbox Games with Gold lineup to improve.
Microsoft's Phil Spencer has explained that the company sees Games with Gold as a different kind of service than other programs like Plus, but did acknowledge that he's taking steps to improve the line-up.-
-
-
-
That is awesome. At the same time, most of the games they've offered are games most 360 gamers have played. Also, to your point: I don't foresee cancelling PS+ ever. Not only do I get free games, but I get multiplayer (on PS4) and, more importantly to me, cloud storage for my save-game files. I'm kind of OCD about save-game files. :(
-
There are potentially 30 million 360 owners out there who do not subscribe to Gold (48 mil subscribers vs. 78 mil consoles sold), who could take advantage of the system should MS decide to change their game offerings to be more in line with Sony's, sans the active subscription requirement. I don't blame MS for being gun shy.
-
-
I don't think that there are many people who prefer having the (possible) chance to download Gears of War in 10 years (lol at 360s working in 10 years) vs having "temporary" rights to something relevant. He's right that the services are different. Plus feels like a value where you are getting something for the money, and Live feels like extortion.
-
Yes I don't see how getting 5+ year old games that you could get for a couple bucks from the bargain bin (even if you could keep them) is supposed to motivate people to sign up for Live.
If you don't want to shower people with your practically "first-party" games like Crackdown and older Halos,
that are ancient anyway, just because people could cancel the sub and keep them, don't even bother with free games (even newer indie or arcade titles), then, try free music or movies or other incentives. Cut a deal with Netflix, sports leagues... SOMETHING.-
People could also buy those games used for significantly less than the (tiny) monthly Live fee. So their point is even less relevant.
It's weird to see how strongly Sony managed to turn the perception of Live against Microsoft. A year ago, Live was the best thing for console multiplayer. Party chat, cross-game invites, flawless downloading and updates.
Now it's somehow a liability to most people. The perception is 'Oh, that shitty thing I have to get to watch Netflix. No thanks. I'll watch it for free on my PS3.' It's weird how quickly that turned.
-
-
-
-
-
-
""And the business around Games with Gold, for us, is just fundamentally different from some of the other programs that are out there, which does put a different financial picture on a--you're gonna go buy a game that's brand new, the cost of putting that in, just to be kind of blunt about it.""
Uhh...could someone please translate this into actual English?
I already have my own opinions on both services, I consider them to be almost exactly the same if you're already committed to paying for either one, but I have read and re-read this and I still don't get the point Spencer is trying to make. You gotta pay for Gold if you want access to future free games, so while you get to keep the games regardless of membership, you can't get them in the first place unless you're paying, and MS's goal isn't to get you to stop paying. There's no real difference between the services if you're committed to paying for either one, other than at the moment Sony offers newer 'free' games, more of them per month, and far better discounts. MS can easily catch up in this regard if they just become a bit more generous (and work out better deals with third parties). -
I still have 6 monthly codes I bought with a dozen copies of Kinect Disney waiting to be used when good games come up. I bought KD for only 1c a copy and got as many as I could from the shop.
I have already used half of my codes when I wanted to use something that requires live. I rather do it this way since I have 3 consoles in different places around the house and have different logins for each.