You must log in or register to comment.
Games with Gold literally gave you ownership of a game. This is a subscription that gives you access to games. That’s more than a semantic difference and is a trend we have to be wary of.
Games with Gold literally gave you ownership of a game.
Did they? I was under the impression that the games you collect with Gold won’t start if your subscription runs out similar to PS+.
360 games gave ownership, XB1 games require and active sub just like PS plus.
I think they meant more with Gold you always have access to those games. With a sub the available games can come and go, so you may lose access to specific games if they leave the service.
No longer an xbox user but for what one would pay in a year on this it would be cheaper to just pick them up in the steam sales over time.
!fucksubscriptions
Agreed
GwG only gave ownership of 360 titles. All XB1 titles required an active subscription so this isn’t a recent change.
Yeah, for $1 (between 9.99 and 10.99) this is just a price decoy / asymmetric dominance exercise.
Core will go away (or at least deprioritized from a marketing perspective) once they’ve successfully transitioned everyone off GfG.
Gamepass console doesn’t include online multiplayer. You need ultimate at 15 a month to get both the gamepass library and online play.
Ah man, that’s kinda goofy. I have PC Game Pass and I know they’re technically different products.
I agree it’s goofy. It’s just dumb that online multiplayer is still locked behind a paywall. I have Ultimate and I think it’s a good value at the moment but it still ticks me off I can’t play online on my Xbox without an active sub. Not to mention that Microsoft puts ads on the Xbox homepage that are not optional. Feels like they’re having their cake and eating it too.
They increased ultimate price too
Personally I’m fine with this. It would be nice to get a refresh more often than “2 to 3 times a year” though…
So…Gold once gave us 2 Xbox One and 1 360 game a month to keep for as long as we had Gold, regardless if they were in the “library” or not.
In the last 12 months, the service has “evolved” to just a tiny part of the Game Pass library and pretty much nothing else.
Glad I’ve got a PS5 instead of a Series X because this “service” has completely died.
This is why I’m not happy with the Activision aquisition. It’d be one thing if Microsoft had become a pioneer of QOL improvements for the consumer. But they’re not making any improvements. They’re regressing. At least Sony still feels like they’re trying to evolve into a better corporation. Their shift to Stars was mostly an upgrade. Microsoft continues to be anti-consumer at every chance they get.
deleted by creator
I wonder how long before a triple A game on PC has paid online, and which publisher will do it. 80€ for the game, 45€ for the season pass, 15€/month for online, 5€ for each additional multiplayer map, 2€ for each character skin.
deleted by creator
If accessible multiplayer is the metric, then the closed system of Steam makes it a poor recommendation. The cross-platform Epic Online Services available to any developer and store is better.
Then conversely, Steam offers the Big Picture mode making it easier to navigate for those used to consoles, though the beauty of PC is that you can use both and for free.
deleted by creator
Rocket League is cross-platform because it uses Epic Online Services. The multiplayer component offered by Valve on Steam and powering many of the games doesn’t work anywhere but on Steam, making it a closed system limited to other Steam users.
The bottom line is that yes, the game devs are free to use their own multiplayer systems but then what’s the role of recommending Steam in the context of this post? Why not PC as a whole?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
