So explain this process that's supposed to just magically make GWG better with time. What's holding it back now? Your comparison is the basis of a common misconception.
1) Offering games costs money. PS+, due to being new, didn't have the membership money already there like MS has from Live Gold, which has existed for longer than PS+.
2) The IGC really became what it is in response to the PSN hack, back in May 2011, when they offered their best ...
Proof that the talking point, of a competitive Xbox being good for gaming, is false. When you have people so brand loyal that they'll say "games for gold is a lot better than ps plus," the companies they support don't feel the pressure to offer better.
@Emrage
Bottom line: PS+ IGC saves you from buying current games. GWG lets you keep old, cheap games which you already have, by now, if you had any real interest in them.
Something that gaming's detractors lump in with mainstream titles to mislead people about video games. It's not much different than critiquing movies because pedophiles make child porn videos.
Wow. If Sony can't get any attention right now, I'd hate to see what sales are going to look like when Sony does start getting attention.
Wait. What? The "gaming industry NEEDS the Xbox division for healthy competition," but the idea of the Wii U (a console made by a company that helped put console gaming on the map) being that competition is laughable? Where do you people come up with this stuff?
What's laughable is this narrative that we need a console to do well, even if it isn't popular with gamers, because this will somehow, magically, make the industry better. What's good for the ind...
Let's be real, too. It took a minute to confirm it was satire, because it's not unbelievable that MS, and their faithful, would brag about something like that to cover disappointing sales.
Well Axios, during the month called January, in the US, the PS4, already supply constrained, with Sony gearing up for a Japanese launch, and with its stock spread out across more territories (Don't the MS die-hards always play that card?), outsold the X1, which has concentrated its stock in its strongest markets, by almost 2-1.
It's poking fun at MS trying to hide disappointment in Xbox sales by saying it sold more than 360.
@bleedsoe9mm and @lolCHILLbro
It's really getting hard to make this point without being insulting. It just boggles my mind that you, still, completely don't get it.
1) Xbox could have launched in the same territories Sony did, IF THEY WANTED TO. They did not, because they wanted to concentrate stock in the markets where 360 did the best, because they thought it would sell better there than if they diluted their stock by shipping to those other market...
I'm not one to complain about sales articles, but these articles are really nothing but dupes. The same information was contained in the first VG article for the week ending 2/22/14. All you have to do is click on "Europe" and you get this. Click on "global," you get the global numbers, and so on and so on.
"We can talk about our feelings for each other's consoles without it starting flame wars."
You say that, but the author ended a 10 year friendship, over a debate about Tomb Raider.
These things cost money, you know? Every game they give away is a sale they didn't make. Don't you think this UK move is already costing them?
Listen, I get it. It sucks, but they had to do it to stay in the race. I get being disappointed. I get being reluctant to buy their launch products, in the future. I don't get being angry, or demanding additional stuff.
It's not that deep, Stan. You're ending friendships over this stuff?
I am no defender of MS, but come on. You want an incentive? How about the multimedia aspect of Xbox being more geared toward the US than other markets? You are paying less than Europe. They need to shore up that market. What do you expect? Did it ever occur to you that the logistics of giving away games, cutting prices, etc., are different between the largest market, the US, and other markets?
@darth
Come on, son. So why aren't these same re-sellers buying up Xbox?
"Halo 2 sold 8 million copies despite having a 25 million userbase."
You said, while trying to argue that all Xbox needs is one system seller to compete with the PS4. All you demonstrated was a high attach rate, not the ability to move consoles.
What are you talking about? GWG was a direct response to PS+, and even tried to one up PS+ by allowing you to keep the game, regardless of subscription status. THAT is what is killing GWG. You can't give away a Bioshock or a Tomb Raider permanently (Well maybe the originals, in which case GWG might.). Who cares if you get to keep a $5 value (which you probably already picked up, by now, if interested) when PS+ is constantly providing games that save you from going out and dropping up to $...
Time paradox. Ow, my head. :)
Two was the best. It shifted to action from survival horror, but it helped Dino Crisis establish it's own identity, beyond Resident Evil with dinosaurs. A faster paced game was just more realistic, given that environment. And, man, the variety of dinos compared to the first game!
Let's be real. Those were some of the more current, and impressive, offerings from GWG. Sleeping Dogs was offered on NA PS+ last May, and Guardian of Light was offered on NA PS+ in June of 2012. To put that in perspective, PS+ is offering the Tomb Raider reboot this month, which will become the second Game of the Year candidate from 2013 to hit the IGC.