Skip to main content

June's free Games With Gold for Xbox include Just Cause 2, Thief and Massive Chalice

Owners of the Xbox 360 and Xbox One consoles with a paid Xbox Live Gold subscription will be able to download three free games in June as part of the ongoing Games For Gold program.

Xbox 360 games with Xbox Live Gold can download Just Cause 2 for free from June 1-15. The open-world action game sequel from developer Avanahe Studios and publisher Square Enix is normally priced at $14.99. From June 16-30, Xbox 360 owners can get Thief for free. The stealth action game also comes from publisher Square Enix and is normally priced at $29.99.

Xbox One owners with Xbox Live Gold can download Massive Chalice from developer Double Fine Productions, for the entire month of June. Massive Chalice is a turn-based strategy game that is making its debut next month as well and will normally be priced at $19.99. Here's a quick description:

"An early Kickstarter success, Massive Chalice is a tactical strategy game set in an epic fantasy world. You step into the shoes of the Immortal Ruler, and your goal is to defeat a mysterious enemy known as the Cadence, in a war that will apparently last 300 years. Yes, that's a pretty freakin' long time, but you've got plenty of troops to command, marriages to forge, and bloodlines to uphold. An immortal's gotta keep their multi-generation war machine fit and fresh, after all!"

In addition, Pool Nation FX, which is currently free for Xbox Live Gold members on the Xbox One, will continue to be free for those users for the entire month of June.

Source: Major Nelson

210 Comments
  • The 360 games look awesome! X1 games are kind of meh.
  • Yeah I agree.. Xbone free games are not so good
  • Give it time. They'll have better ones eventually.
  • Are you serious, the games on XB1, free for gold members are aload of crap, let's stop pretending & wakeup to the fact, that gaming on the XB1 is destined for failure, unless something drastic is done, the media part of XB1,is a different story but again it would not take much to screw that up either would it.
  • Gaming on the Xbox is not destined for failure....stop making ludacris statements.
  • I did like "Child of Light". 
  • I bought Child of Light.. D'oh! ... Anyway I did like Lords of the Fallen for $9 hehehe
  • ...and why are they gettin' Thief for free and XB1ers don't??? I just don't get it!!!
  • They need to make money off you first.
  • Idk man, doublefine did Brutal Legend with jack black and I thought that game was awesome. The music and everything was superb. Still one of my favs, mainly cause the music and jack black but still. Give it a shot.
  • Wtf seriously?? They must really hate xb1 users.. so disappointed..
  • Yeah it really sucks getting free games huh
  • They're not free. They require a Gold subscription. Hogordin's comment is the perfect example of what social scientists have known for decades: gift giving--especially when anonymous--is economically inefficient. Games with Gold is a stupid program. We'd all be much better off if we had a choice in what we got, rather than having to accept what Microsoft chooses for us.
  • Lmao your logic is flawed..
  • No, actually, it's not; it's backed up by decades of empirical research. Gift giving is economically irrational, and Games with Gold is on the far end of that spectrum since it's anonymous gift giving.
  • Considering the cost of LIVE has been the same since before games with gold, they are free. I'm paying for the same service I was paying for previously, and getting a bonus free game. If I were to subscribe to your logic, nothing at all that exists is free. There would have to be some investment of time, energy, or anything that could be considered of value.
  • All that means is that you were really getting ripped off before. Just because you're getting slightly less ripped off now isn't cause for celebration. And, yes, some things are free: like online Xbox gaming on Windows 10. Think about that.
  • Ripped off huh? Because the people that maintain servers, as well as the cost to run them should be absorbed by Microsoft? You have a skewed view on reality. Also, your free online xbox gaming on windows 10 is not free by your logic. You still ahve to buy a computer, pay for internet, pay for electricity, pay for food so your body can create energy needed to play. 
  • I have an informed view of reality, actually. Those costs are not "absorbed" by Microsoft. They're embedded in the prices of all products related to them. That said, I disagree with that model: I say people should pay for what they use. This is why I support charging money for online play. What I want is parity: right now, console gamers are subsidizing the costs of online gaming for Xbox gamers on phones, tablets, and PCs. There is no reason why Windows 8 and Windows 10 Xbox gamers should be able to play online for free but Xbox One gamers have to pay. Why would you support that? You clearly don't understand how logic works because nothing about what you wrote is "by [my] logic". Buying a computer, paying for Internet, electricity, food, etc. is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You're employing a fallacy in trying to pull them into the discussion (and, for the record, you'd have to pay for all of those things to play games offline on a computer too, which just shows how poorly thought out your false analogy was). Right now Microsoft charges console gamers $5 per month to play online and charges phone, tablet, and PC gamers $0 a month to play online. They try to compensate for this by providing Xbox Live Gold subscribers 'free' games via Games with Gold. However, the problem with Games with Gold is that it is economically irrational: it is a waste of money since never will the costs of the games to Microsoft perfectly equate with the value of the games to consumers. This hypothesis has been supported by decades of social science research. Games with Gold is idiotic. A better system would be to give gamers a choice in how the money is returned to them, or, better yet, don't force one group of gamers to subsidize things for another group of gamers, which is what you're doing now.
  • "They're not free. They require a Gold subscription." That is your logic, you said it, so as such anything that reqeuires you to pay for a pre-requisite is not free. Just as all other forms of gaming, require some kind of purchase or pre-requsite payment of some sort. You're also making assumptions of the cost of LIVE as opposed to the revenue it generates. Have you seen any reports that affirm your conclusion that LIVE subscriptions (which don't technically exist in the paid form on phones) make up for the added cost of running them on PC's? Do you have the numbers available to determine how much profit has been gained through LIVE subscriptions (and I mean subscriptions only, digital goods are a completely seperate animal in this situation). I would hazard to guess that the LIVE subscriptions are more apt to subsidize losses that the Xbox division suffers from the console itself. Both the 360 and the One have increased costs to the division and the money from that has to come somewhere. I won't disagree that I would love to pick what games, or even services and such I get from LIVE. That doesn't instantly make the current system in place "idiotic," Anything can be argued that there is room for improvement. 
  • "That is your logic, you said it". That's not logic. It's a fact. You going on and on about "prerequisites" is a digression. Stay on topic. "You're also making assumptions... I would hazard to guess that..." Chastizes me for making assumptions, follows it up by making assumptions. Nice. The fact that gift giving is economically irrational--that's what makes the current system idiotic. All the other parameters you listed are irrelevant. The only thing relevant to the discussion is that they are spending your money in an economically inefficient way. Why anyone would justify such irrationality, especially when it directly effects them, is beyond my comprehension.  
  • If you're going to quote me, ensure you do it in context. I did not chastise you, I also made an assumotion based on facts that I know, such as the Xbox costs the company money, you made your assumtion with nothing to back it up. So please back it up with any facts. As far as irrational gift giving, I'd hate to be related to or any part of your social group. Of course it's irrational to give gifts, but the people who recieve them, enjoy them, would you rather nothing?
  • The context is immediately provide in your post above. I didn't make any assumptions, actually. My statements are based on decades of empirical science. That you digressed is irrelevant to that. The research shows that any value that recipients get from receiving gifts is always less than the cost of the gift. That's why it's irrational. You want facts? Read the literature. You can start with Dr. Waldfogel's book, Scroogenomics. Then I recommend you read Dr. Molm's work on social exchange theory.
  • Now your trying to spin comments. Your assumptions are that live subs subsidize PC and phone games. If you're going to make a claim back it up with something.
  • I did, with the Fable Legends post. Development for the game is dual--for PCs and Xbox One. The servers are the same. It has cross-play. Only Xbox One owners have to pay to play it. Ergo, they're bearing a greater burden of the cost of the game. They are subsidizing PC players. Claim backed up.
  • Fable legends has a completely different monetization model. It's fueled by micro-transactions. That is where the subsidies(as you insist they exist) will come from.
  • Irrelevant to my argument. No matter how you try to spin it, the fact is indisputable: console players have to pay to play it online, PC gamers do not. Claim backed up.
  • It's only irrelevant for people who pay for LIVE solely for the purpose of playing fable legends. Which if that was a persons only reason for buying an Xbox, than they have really no right to claim they are getting ripped off, as they can decide to go the PC route for much cheaper. So I guess that refutes your claim that those players are subsidizing the costs of PC players.
  • Nope. That's a fallacy, for even Xbox One console gamers with Gold subscriptions who don't play Fable Legends are still subsidizing the costs for PC gamers. "they can decide to go the PC route for much cheaper". First tof all, PC gaming is not cheaper. Second of all, even if a gamer does go to PC instead, that does not change the fact that console gamers are subsidizing their PC gaming.
  • Plus the quality of games on XB1 v PC, eg.. GTA V, PC totally destroys XB1 in every aspect
  • That's just a hyperbolic statement. GTA V has better graphics and the addition of mods, that's 2 ways. Other than that, it's the same game that I finished before PC players even got a taste of it.
  • The problem is that XB1, is a flawed machine on the gaming side, I can't see it going anywhere that's why the choice is limited, there's always a problem with it constantly, I prefer my 360 any day
  • I'm not following what you mean by it being a flawed gaming machine. I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I am just trying to get clarification as to what you mean by that.
  • Its partition for games isn't big enough, to much went to media, it isn't what it was supposed to be can't do 1080 upscales it was rushed out, had it been done now I think it could have been perfect, but the fact is Windows 10. kills it
  • Gaming on Xbox is just fine and not flawed.
  • Yeah man. Especially when it's brand new, making it's debut, and I didn't have a chance to buy I already. That means it's guaranteed free! I can't complain that I already have it, how dare you Microsoft...
  • It's not free. You're paying for it: it's a gloried rental of a game you didn't choose that you have to pay for indefinitely just to have access to. A more economically rational program (for both parties), would be to give you choice in how your money is spent. As it is, Microsoft is wasting your money.
  • Dude even if you dont renew your Gold Subscripion it is still yours to keep. Its your choice to accept or reject the "gift"
  • That's not true on Xbox One. You have to have an active Gold subscription to play any Games with Gold game. And, no, it's not "my choice to accept or reject the 'gift'" because I've already been forced by Microsof to pay them the money.
  • In what universe are you forced to spend money on LIVE? That is about the most foolish comment I've seen in a while.
  • In the universe where you want to play your console Xbox games online.
  • You're not forced to play games online, so therefore you're not forced or pay Microsoft for anything. You CHOOSE to pay them for a service that you enjoy. Same as people CHOOSE to pay for Netflix.
  • The "you're not forced to do this so it's okay if you're getting ripped off" argument is ludicrous. Microsoft is wasting your moeny; the only people who would defend that practice are people that are uninformed. No, I do not "choose to pay for a service that I enjoy". I am forced to pay for a service because it is a requirement to do something I enjoy. The problem is that other sets of gamers  in the same ecosystem (e.g. Xbox gamers on PCs, tablets, and phones) don't have to pay for online play. Thus, I'm being forced to subsidize their play. Worse yet, I'm being overcharged to do so. This is evident in the fact that Microsoft is able to provide Games with Gold as part of the subscription. Intead of them choosing games for me that I don't want, they should charge me less money.
  • Coip, not sure its worth all the multi posts your making. Its pennies per week. Its literally not even beer money, its like a shot of caramel in my coffee money. It really isn't anything to get this exercised about. I love Live, and my Xbox, and I gladly pay to get a level a service from MS. Which is a good service.
  • I don't think you're understanding what I'm arguing about. I'm not saying Xbox Live isn't worth paying for. I'm saying that Games with Gold is economically irrational (and it is). They clearly are overcharging for the service, as is evident in the fact that Games with Gold exists and that PC, tablet, and phone Xbox gamers don't have to pay at all to play online. Instead of getting my "sorry we overcharged you" perk in the form of a game that I have no choice over, I want options: 1. cheaper Gold subscription, 2. pricing parity with other Xbox gamers (phones, tablets, PCs), 3. Xbox gift card instead of unsolicited games chosen by Microsoft executives who don't know me. What is astonishing is that people on here are actually defending the status quo. These are likley the same people who were defending Xbox Live back before Games with Gold existed (when they were really ripping you off). There is nothing wrong with demanding that companies operate more rationally, especially when you're sending them monthy checks for their service.
  • Since when has there been cross play between XB1, phone and tablet? XB1 is on its own server farm... Your argument is weak.
  • Servers are servers. Online play is online play. Xbox is Xbox. It's okay for them to charge me to play Project Spark online on Xbox One even though it's free on Windows 8.1 and even though THEY USE THE SAME SERVERS? Your argument is the one that is weak.
  • Please don't ever comment on cable tv tier pricing. My heart wouldn't be able to take the strain...
  • Spark doesn't require Gold to play, so your point is invalid.
  • No, that means my example was invalid. My point remains valid: only console Xbox gamers are charged for Xbox Live online play. That a few games eschew this requirement does not invalidate that fact.
  • Please, by all means, provide some valid examples then. If you're going to make the claim, back it up.
  • One of many: Fable Legends -- "Fable Legends will be free-to-play on Windows 10 PCs and free-to-play with Gold on Xbox One."
  • XB1 isn't on its own servers it's supposed to be
  • You're just plain incorrect on that. Xbox one has dedicated servers for multiplayer gaming.
  • I already replied to your whole argument elsewhere but I needed to address a few things in this post. "I want options: 1. Cheaper Gold subscription" XBL 12 month cards are on sale constantlly. I see every major retailer in the country discount it to $40 every other month and prices fall even as low as $30 at online vendors. This is MS providing a cheaper Gold subscription. "2. Pricing parity with phones, tablets, PC's" Windows 10 hasn't been officially released, and what you're asking is totally unfair. Why charge someone who only plays mobile games the same as someone who games constantly on an Xbox One and/or 360? What COULD be done is add more functionality or benefits with an XBL sub to the phone/tablet/PC side so that Xbox Live doesn't only provide huge benefits for consoles, but phones/tablets as well. "3. Xbox gift card instead of unsolicited games" AHHHHH, so you're the person who always asks for gift cards for Christmas. While this would be ideal for someone like you, it's really not that feasible or even FUN for the rest of us. And while people love to bitch about GWG, I see a flip side. It's becoming a great vehicle to promote brand new games and acquire a HUGE audience and fanbase for games that otherwise might be overlooked.
     
  • "XBL 12 month cards are on sale constantlly." This is irrelevant, unless it's $0, which it's not. "Windows 10 hasn't been officially released"
    But its polices have been officially announced: they get free online play; Xbox One users do not. "and what you're asking is totally unfair. Why charge someone who only plays mobile games the same as someone who games constantly on an Xbox One and/or 360" I never said they should be charged the same. I said they should be charged for what they use. Just like a cellular data plan. Why should I have to pay the same amount for Gold if I only use 544MB per month as the kid who uses 32GB per month? It's ludicrous. Meter the fees or eliminate the fees. That is fair. That's what I'm asking for. "gift cards for Christmas...it's really not that feasible or even FUN for the rest of us." It's not about "fun"; it's about economic efficiency. Check out the book Scroogenomics. Collectively, we as a society waste ungodly amounds of money buying things for $X and giving them to people who only value them at a fraction of $X. It's foolish. When it's your friend or kin, there are spill-over social benefits that help mitigate that gap, but that's not the case with dyadic gifts between consumer and faceless corporations. I don't want Microsoft wasting my money and neither should you.
  • Dude you cant be serious. First off Microsoft cant charge based on how much data you use that's based on your ISP. Even if they did charge XBL by data usage the price would be absurd. One Netflix movie and a Multiplayer match would be $10. Think about what you are saying because not everyone uses Netflix on Xbox Microsoft should start charging ppl to use it.. Like I said absurd
  • Of course they can charge based on how much data you use. This is separate from your ISP: this is you using their servers. The price would be cheaper now for the grand majority of gamers, most of whom are subsidizing the one-percenters out there who are overactive users. You would be paying less than you are now. "not everyone uses Netflix on Xbox". This has nothing to do with Netflix. What is absurd is people justifying getting ripped off. For those who have been disillusioned, the false consciousness of the masses is incredibly amusing to witness.
  • Here is the thing tho. I have paid 40 a year for Xbox live for three years with all the games and multiplayer matches I played.. Pretty sure im not getting ripped off because the value of the free games on both my Xbox one and 360 is more than 40 bucks
  • It's a common mistake for people to summate the MSRP price for the offerings, compare them to the price they pay for Gold, and then think they're getting a deal. That's a mistake, though, because the MSRP is not the true value of the game (i.e. it's not what Microsoft pays to give it to you), is nowhere near the true value to the player (if the player truly valued that game at the MSRP, they already would own it), and turns a macroeconomic issue into a unilateral, microeconomic one. The point is that the system is economically irrational; it's not that you are getting "ripped off".
  • "if the player truly valued that game at the MSRP, they already would own it" not necessarily true. There are many things I feel are worth the value they are priced at, or more, yet I don't own them due to lack of funds. There are many games I'd own but don't simply because I'd rather make my mortgage payment every month instead of buying every game I think is worth the money.
  • That's basic economic theory: if you can afford something and choose not to buy it, then it's not worth the MSRP to you. If you buy other games instead, then you value those games more than the ones you don't buy. You can try to convince yourself that that's not true, but rational choice theory says otherwise. If you cannot afford it and want it, then that's irrelevant to this discussion (and it also means you really shouldn't be paying monthly subscription fees for entertainment services, if money is that tight, especially since the odds of getting one of those hypothetical games you wanted to buy but couldn't through the spin-a-wheel selection process that is Games with Gold is minute).
  • Yeah the second half of your statement is so far from being correct it makes me wonder if you're nothing more than an educated troll or just completely dumb. You can't say that if you want it but can't afford it is irrelevant, because you're the one that said if it's worth it, the buyer would already have it. Don't make a statement and when someone counters it, say the counter is irrelevant. As far as saying because someone can't afford all the games they want so they shouldn't subscribe to LIVE, that's just a ridiculous statement that you're making for reasons I cant even fathom. A responsible adult puts themselves on a budget every month. So you're telling me that if 4 games come out in a month that I consider worth their MSRP, if I can't afford to spend $240 on games, I shouldn't spend the money on LIVE. That is so false and you're just reaching for things to try and prove yourself right.
  • Nothing I wrote is incorrect. It's the core tenet of economic theory. "You can't say that if you want it but can't afford it is irrelevant, because you're the one that said if it's worth it, the buyer would already have it." The irony of you calling me stupid and them making this statement is incredible. Let me explain it to you more simply: yes, I can say that if you want it but can't afford it it is irrelevant because you can't afford it. And I can say that if it's worth it the buyer would already have it. If it was worth it to the buyer, he would own it. That's economic theory. If he can't afford it, then that is not a possible buying option for the person and it is therefore irrelevant. Econ 101. "So you're telling me that if 4 games come out in a month that I consider worth their MSRP, if I can't afford to spend $240 on games, I shouldn't spend the money on LIVE" I've already debunked this fallacy above but I'll do it for you again here. Number one, pegging the value of a game at it's MSRP and then retroactively applying that value to whatever 'free' rental was imposed on you via Games with Gold is not how valuation works. The MSRP is not the value of the game. The value of the game is whatever it cost Microsoft to 'gift' it to you. The mismatch is in the customers' complementary valuation of the game, which never matches the true cost of the game. Ergo, the program is economically irrational. Four games on Games with Gold are not worth $240. You can't possibly be that obtuse to think that. 
  • And once again you choose to ignore what I say and spin it off in your own way. I never said GWG is worth $240, I said that if I value 4 games at $240, and cannot afford that in one month as disposable income, it does not prove that I should not be purchasing a subscription to use a service that I enjoy. You're the one who has proven to be completly obtuse, and I am done wasting my time with you. I'm going to go play Dark Souls, a game I got for free with GWG, and I'm going to enjoy it. You have fun paying for a service you hate and complaining about how much you hate it while you continue to pay for it.
  • Your four-game, $240 example actually supports my argument, as the four hypothetical games are ones of your choosing and the four you will get from Games with Gold are not. That's where the irrationality of it begins creeping in. The rest of your comment is a digression: you keep trying to (or, perhaps, you just don't understand what this debate is even about, which seems most likely, given your digressive replies) justify your purchase of Gold by, in a post hoc fashion, claiming it's worth it to you and you're satisfied with the games. That is not, at all, what we're talking about. We're talking about the mismatch between the money spent by Microsoft on securing Games with Gold for millions of people who had zero input in the decision-making process and who value those games at variable degrees. Games with Gold is not a unilateral transaction, yet you seem to think it is.
  • I get that I doesn't cost Microsoft as much but that's basic capitalism. Think about you go to a restaurant to eat you pay $60 for a meal for you and your wife. The restaurant didn't pay $60 bucks for that food prob much less but you are paying for the service. So the value of the meal goes up. Same principle applies to live.
  • And then the restaurant says, "Oh, by the way, here is a complimentary dish: rocky mountain oysters". Well, I don't want to pay $60 for a meal that I want and then have them give me a 'free' dish of something I don't want. What that means is that I should've paid $60 - whatever the rocky mountain oysters cost them. Otherwise, they're wasting their money and my money by giving me something I don't want. Same principle applies to Games with Gold.
  • You're almost comical at this point. Sure you may not want the balls, but you went out for dinner, I'll assume alone since you don't believe in gift giving, you order you meal, and the restaurant gives you something for free to try and win your future business. In your case, yes it's a loss, because you're an irrational human being, but in others cases, we would say "how nice, maybe ill come here again" not because we at hoping for something for free, but because it shows the place is stepping up to offer a similar, or better, service than the next place.
  • What is comical is your prefacing that digressive nonsense by calling my theoretically informed posts "comical". Here's where you entire digression falls apart: "because you're an irrational human being". I'm the opposite of that. I'm completely rational, and that's why I am taking apart those who act irrationally (i.e. those who ignorantly support anonymous gift giving). All your hypothetical example shows is that actors act irrationally. That you wrote that and don't even understand that, that is what is "comical".
  • What is truly absurd is that you think you know how to run a multibillion dollar division of a software company.
  • No, what is absurd is that you don't realize how fallacious that digression was. I never claimed to know how to run a multibillion dollar division of a software company. I claimed that Games with Gold is economically irrational. And it is. I know what I'm talking about. You've clearly revealed that you do not. Go read the literature. If Xbox executives don't know this, then they should read the literature too, because they're wasting everyone's money, including their own.
  • You're determining waste based solely on the value of the gift. If games with gold was not a thing, the subscription base, as well as hardware base would drop drastically, thus losing far more than the loss of the gift.
  • No, I'm determining waste based on the perceived value of the gift. That's what matters. The rest of your post was unsubstantiated, hypothetical nonsense that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. You can try to digress all you want, but I'll call you out on it every time.
  • There is also one other major absurdity. If games with gold is so terrible, and live is such a rip off and waste of everyone's money, why do you continue to subscribe to it? If you don't feel its worth the cost, why would you continue to spend that money?
  • Learn how to read. I never said Games with Gold is "so terrible"; I said it's economically irrational, which it is. I pay for Gold because I have to pay for Gold if I want to play online. I never said it wasn't "worth the cost"; I said it was overpriced, which it is, as is evident by the very fact that Games with Gold exists at all.
  • Semantics, you said GWG was 'idiotic', and something that is a rip off, or overpriced, means in your opinion, it's not worth the cost. That is the definition of overpriced, is it not? So apparently you don't think its overpriced because it's worth the enjoyment you get by playing with friends. Any argument you make is now mute because you've admitted it's worth it.
  • Semantics is everything. Games with Gold is economically irrational. Xbox Live Gold is overpriced: the existence of Games with Gold (especially added post hoc, as it was), is evidence of that. No, that is not the definition of overpriced. I don't know what else to tell you other than to maybe sign up for Econ 101 at your local community college.
  • Mother of God. THIS is what gets you all riled up? THIS is what grinds your gears? Not getting whatever free AAA games you want? Name any corporation that would willingly do what you're asking. Sony has the same policies in place for PSN. They choose the free games and once you stop paying, you lose access(even on PS3). Nintendo doesn't offer free games. Steam doesn't offer free games, HELL, they just tried to fucking monetize user generated content. These claims you make about empirical research on gift giving might have a ring of truth to them but until we see a real live company letting consumers CHOOSE what free content to receive, its all irrelevant. You're bringing graduate level economic theory into a discussion about complimentary video games given as part of a subscription. When a hotel offers free breakfast in the morning after you rent a room, is it something to get up in arms about if they don't have the right donuts? These games are an added value to a service you choose to use or not use. Its nothing nefarious, my god. I'm not even mentioning how easily you forget the history of Xbox Live. Back on the OG Xbox, you know, over a decade ago, server costs were undoubtedly much higher and the cost of maintaining a network like Xbox live REQUIRED a subscription. Over time the service grew and so did the competition, and so Microsoft started adding features to the XBL subscription to add value. Xbox marketplace, music apps, movie apps, NETFLIX, partnerships with sports coverage, and so on. GWG is simply another facet they have added to the service, but it might be the biggest one so far. We live in a wonderful era. You can spend $40 a year (come on, no one pays 60) to play games online and get dozens of free games *included in the subscription.* I remember playing on the N64 when I was younger and happily paying $50 for a single game. Why are we even having this discussion.
  • Not at all. Routine infant circumcision is what grinds my gears and gets me riled up. The stupidity of Games with Gold is just an amusing case of naive executives making theoretically uninformed decisions. What I'm asking corporations to do is to not foolishly waste money. Microsoft and Sony, if they had a sociologist or economist in their gaming divisions, would already be doing what I'm suggesting. That they're not is evident that they don't know what they're doing. "until we see a real live company letting consumers CHOOSE what free content to receive, its all irrelevant" We'll never see that until we effect change--change that will benefit both consumers and the corporations. Why people here are actually arguing against that like some odd case of Stockholm Syndrome is mind-boggling. "These games are an added value to a service you choose to use or not use. Its nothing nefarious". I never said it's nefarious. Tone down the hyperbole. I said it's economically irrational, which it is. Your hotel-donut example is a false analogy. To be relevant I'd have to be charged a fee for something unavoidable for most folk (like using the elevator) and then have them give me a "complimentary" breakfast as a "gift" for me paying extra to use their elevators. The history of Xbox Live is irrelevant. That they were charging before  and not giving games and are charging now and giving games (as long as you keep paying them, that is) is nothing but evidence that you were being overcharged before (and still are, mind you, given that Xbox games on Windows 10 will not require Gold to play online). "You can spend $40 a year (come on, no one pays 60) to play games online and get dozens of free games *included in the subscription.*" I would never give $40-60 a year to anyone and tell them to pick out monthly gifts for me. Why would you think I'd want to do that with a corporation? "I remember playing on the N64 when I was younger and happily paying $50 for a single game." Yeah, and now you have to pay $60 for 'most of the game', then another $30 for the rest of the content, then $5 a month just to play it online. "Why are we even having this discussion."
    Spurring a social movement to get Microsoft to more rationally manage the money that they've admitted, via the creation of Games with Gold, is ours. There is nothing wrong with demanding companies not waste your money.
  • The economics do work as people continue to pay what they are asking. If you want to change it, stop buying it.
    Otherwise, quit your bitching.
  • People act irrationally all the time. Change can be effected other ways. Anyone who would criticize a fellow customer who is working to make the program they're paying into better is, quite frankly, a myopic nitwit.
  • The assumption is that there exists something that is "economically rational" and that it would be the choice of rational people instead of "irrational economics". The assumption is, in short, that people will do the rational thing even if the irrational thing (economically speaking) looks better.  That assumption is obviously proven to be wrong since GOLD exists and people enjoy it. Without a degree in economics I find GOLD to be a good deal for me. I don't really care about online gaming much but I do enjoy the option. I do enjoy a selection of games I can enjoy for a small price, i.e. included in my subscription. I don't care if other players can play that game for free or not. Economics/money is all about value and what value people ascribe to something. It is not economically irrational to pay money for a service you want. Period. Regardless of how others can access the same service. on a different device. With GOLD I pay for the the possibility, among other things, to play a game I hadn't heard of for a certain price. They call it "free", I call it "included in the price of the service". I can play it on my big screen TV instead of a tiny smartphone. I can sit in my sofa at home and use a nifty controller, not a tiny touchscreen. I can use Kinect with it...and so on.  So no, we may think it is unfair or irrational when other can enjoy our game for free while we have to pay for a service that includes the game...but it simply comes down to what value we put on our purchase.
  • Congratulations: you're the closest anyone here has gotten to "getting it". The only stimulus I'll throw out there is to not that you're seemingly thinking about this as a unilateral exchange when there are actually millions of actors involved in the exchange whose valuations contribute to the economic irrationality of it.
  • Again, you are making an assumption about me and what I consider a good value. Sure, millions of people sign up for Gold and put a value on the service. However, that really doesn't influence my considerations of what value I assign to to it/Gold. Perhaps you are right about the service being irrational for Microsoft or from their perspective, i.e. wasting money as you put it. However, aren't I the judge of what constitutes a waste (or not) of my own money? If so, your point is moot because what you call irrational economics is simply your take or estimation of the value of Gold...something I and others take a very different approach to. For me it is entirely rational to pay for a service and enjoy all its benefits no matter if it is irrational to you, Microsoft or anyone else. Why? Because putting a value on something is subjective, not objective, and thus open to being rational to some but not all. Another example that comes to mind would be buying art.
  • This isn't about you--especially not about your post hoc self-reassurances that you're satisfied with the program. It's about economic rationality of the program. Microsoft isn't just wasting money on Games with Gold by doing something foolish like anonymous gift giving--which empirical studies have shown, for decades, to be economically irrational; they're literally doing it with your money. Complacency is anathema. Don't be content; demand a better system, one that doesn't waste any of your money and which gives you choices in how to spend it, rather than having a corporation pick out things for you, which will always result in a mismatch between costs and value.
  • I can understand your crusade for a better system where choice reigns and no money is wasted. However, the thing is that I don't care because I, the spender of my money, don't see a problem. I am a satisfied customer no matter if it is irrational economics from some objective point of view.  I don't believe that my money is wasted. I am content with Gold as it is. I am happy with getting a game or two of Microsoft's choice included with my subscription.   And it is most definitely about me, post hoc self-reassurances or not. I don't give a rip about Microsoft as a company but choose to use their services, which I find to be fair and entertaining. I don't give a rip about whether or not studies show MS practices to be irrational or not, economically speaking. From my point of view, it is about me and my money, not some large-scale attempt to correct MS or the gaming industry. If I have a problem I just stop using a service. If you have a problem with Gold or how Microsoft does business that is your problem, not mine. If you feel that Gold is irrational and a rip-off than you can argue for a better system. If you succed then people will rally behind you (since no one likes to be ripped off). The thing is...people don't feel ripped off even if they should and you have failed to show how another system would benefit me better than the current one, be it rational or irrational economically speaking.
  • "I don't care because I, the spender of my money, don't see a problem."
    Ignorance is bliss, they say. Unfortunately, ignorance also creates damage. "I don't give a rip about Microsoft as a company but choose to use their services." You should, because if they don't make sound financial decisions, eventually the services you enjoy may not be around any more. "From my point of view, it is about me and my money".
    Even from that point of view, they are spending your money poorly. "people don't feel ripped off even if they should"
    This is a perfect example of how ignorance creates damage. "you have failed to show how another system would benefit me better than the current one"
    Current system: you pay your Gold subscription fee, Microsoft returns some of it to you in the form of a game that you had no voice in choosing. Better system: you pay your Gold subscription fee, Microsoft returns it to you in the form of a choice between 1. a game that you had no voice choosing, or 2. an Xbox gift card in which you can store up, month after month, to buy a game that you do want. How, exactly, is that not better that the status quo, and why wouldn't you want that choice?
  • Sure, your option sounds nice too. But I am simply not that invested. I don't see how it is ignorance if I as a consumer is satisfied with my purchase even if I am not an expert in economics. It isn't my responsiblility to tell MS how to run their business and if you feel that it is yours...then apply. Also, I doubt Gold will put them out of business. If there is actual damage and not just some perceived damage considering the optimal solution...then the market will fix it. Supply and demand. If you are just irked that MS solution with Gold is not optimal or even irrational...even though people are enjoying it...then I guess you must be irked a lot considering what is going on in the market right now. Thanks for an interesting discussion. Good luck convincing MS to change their policy. Maybe they have read this thread and have been convinced. I have not.  
  • Thank you for your response. If you truly don't care, then that is the way it is and that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the other people on here who are not indifferent like you, but who are actively trying to defend the rationality of the program, despite decades of empirical evidence suggesting it is not, and directing anger at me for trying to make the program better. That, I just don't understand at all. It's like they have Stockholm Syndrome or something: "Oh, look at this guy with his scientific evidence that shows that the program we enjoy isn't as great as it could be, and here he is suggesting an alternative that will still enable us to enjoy it exactly the same as we are now, let's criticize him!" It's very bizarre.
  • This^^
  • Could say thanks?
  • Yay! Another game i couldn't care less about for Xbone. Come on, MS. How about something like Ryse?
  • That would be awesome
  • I know what you mean, but consider this: I own Ryse, I bought it at launch. If GOG was ryse, I'd be out a free game for the month (I wouldn't complain, free is free, but it's just a fact). However by releasing games simultaneously with them being featured on GOG, everyone is guaranteed a free game for the month.
    I'm not saying one way is better than the other, obviously it depends on personal preference, but I do think this strategy works very well.
    The only change I'd 100% accept would be doing the 360 model of two games a month, and then maybe a new release and old game each per month.
  • Debuting new games as Games with Gold is definitely the way to go. I've already been short-changed on four Games with Gold offerings (Max, Halo: SA, Super Time Force, and D4) that I had already purchased; it is vexing becuase you are subsidizing the program for other gamers and it's punishing you for being an early supporter of games.
  • Do what I do, I bought those games, then when I got them free turned around and sold my original games for half of what I bought them and still had the game.  I've done this since they started the program, most times I make more than half of what I bought them for.
  • Most Games with Gold on Xbox One so far have been digital only. In fact, only one has been a disc game.
  • This is normally for older games, since the old games are still new and big titles MS can't afford to lose out on the money of giving these big titles away, hence smaller/indie games fo free. Give it a year or so.... Still free games bro
  • Except on Xbone you only have the games as long as you have a Gold sub. So the 'free' games are really an incentive to maintain a subscription. Sadly, it's not always a very good incentive.
  • I don't see it as an incentive though, I pay for all the online services (not just the games side). That money goes towards a lot of things, Microsoft offer a hell of a lot more than Sony.... Free games every month is a bonus :)
  • Ryse wasn't particularly good. Just because it was $60 once doesn't automatically mean it's more worth playing than something brand new that's actually attempting some unique gameplay elements.
  • Ryse? You mean that cliché stereotypical AAA game with the most "original" plot line (wow vengeance? That's creative) and the most engaging combat (yay for button mashing)? Oh, and it's also conveniently filled with bugs. No thank you. I'd much rather have Just Cause 2, a brilliant, massive open world game where the whole game is an action movie that you direct. I'd much rather steal a 747 out of mid-air after leaping out of my jet after just destroying an entire oil rig rather than half heartedly watch a decent battle during a pathetic auto-aim turret section. The only thing Ryse has going for it is that it's pretty but I much prefer the more colorful, vibrant hues of Just Cause 2. With Ryse I get four hours of game play. With Just Cause 2 it could take me 48 hours just to hundred percent it. (Oh yeah and nothing makes a game shine like micro transactions huh Ryse?)
  • Well you can't beat free... So cant really complain lol.
  • Man I though Thief would be on Xbox One.
  • Don't worry. It's not a very good game.
  • They need to make more Xbox 360 arcade games to the XB1. I wouldn't mind playing some Outrun arcade or some Guardian Heroes...
  • Right
  • I'll use limbo as an example. It's on IOS, maybe when WX comes to xbone, we'll get our old games back... Question would be, universal buy once play on PC too? Transfer over from 360?
  • XB1 Hasn't got long left I'd say 2 or 3 yrs max
  • Pipe down, Blue-Nose.
  • XB1 always have garbage free game..smh! It would be nice if they brought MWF2 or BO2 onto the XB1. Meh.
  • Massive Chalice is a nice game, COD is the one that suck. I would take indie game over COD, im sure many agrees with me here.
  • I agree with you. I much prefer Indy games from new up and coming developers with new ideas and a greater interest in taking risks and producing games that are innovative and not the same old cookie cutter bs.
  • I read that Massive Chalice was supposed to be good so I'm looking forward to trying that one. Also, I love Double Fine!
  • Thanks for shitty games on the next Gen system you keep pushing everyone to buy. Don't get me wrong I love getting free stuff but free stuff you wont use isn't really a bonus.
  • Son of a..
  • So disappointed
  • Entitlement mentality. Say thank you and move along. Or, or, and this is just a thought here; if you don't like the games either don't download them, cancel/quit paying for Xbox live or sell your system.
  • It's complete entitlement and attention seeking. Do I particularly like or care for Pool Nation? No. But I've never felt the need to bitch and complain about getting free games. Download, play and move on or don't download and move on.
  • Thank you. Common sense doesn't seem to be very common on the internet sometimes. Posted via my HTC One (M7)
  • Agreed, sir. It's FREE. You're paying for the usage of massive online servers, not to get these games every month. If you want to buy Ryse or COD or whatever game go buy it and stop paying for Xbox Live. Microsoft doesn't have to give you free games, so say thank you and move on.
  • There is nothing "entitled" about not wanting your money wasted. The problem is mindsets like James Rufer, who tell people to just "accept it or leave" rather than cajole Microsoft into developing a more economically rational system. Gamers should not be happy that Microsoft is misspending the money they give them.
  • Honestly gamers don't have and should not have direct input on how MS spends their money, that's for shareholders and business partners. You gave MS money, they can spend it how they see fit and they choose. The only way gamers can vote is by not spending your money. If you don't like it, cancel your Live sub and when they ask, say you don't like how the games for gold program is ran.
  • You are misunderstanding. I'm talking about Microsoft spending money for you. They're taking your money for Xbox Live Gold. Some of it they keep for themselves (infrastructure costs, costs of business, etc.) and some of it they return back to you in the form of Games with Gold. That's your money. They're returning it to you. You should have a say in how it's spent. Console Xbox gamers who want to play online but who don't like Gold don't have a choice. They have to pay for Games with Gold and, in doing so, subsidize the cost for people who do want to pay for Games with Gold. That's unfair. Give the gamers a choice.
  • If I recall correctly, in the beginning on the 360, you paid to play online and that was it. so the games are like a bonus. I don't think costs have changed.
  • All that means is that you were getting more ripped off then. That doesn't mean that gettling slightly less ripped off now is okay.
  • I understood what you meant. The money I agree to pay MS yearly is for online services and multiplayer. That payment does not entitle me to any opinions on how MS spends it, nor should it, it's their money. That's where you're missing it, it's not our money anymore UNLESS you are a MSFT investor, THEN you have a real voice. As a non-investor there only way you can vote is through not paying for live. Not playing online is a sacrifice gamers need to make if you want your voice heard by not paying for live. You can't have your cake and eat it too. As it stands gamers do have a choice: Download the free game or don't download the free game.
  • It still seems you don't understand what I said. The money they are "gifting" back to us in the form of Games with gold is absolutely our money. And you are absolutely entitled to voice your opinion in what for you get that money in. I am a Microsoft investor, but that is irrelevant. What's relevant is that I'm a Microsoft customer. No, I should not have to give up playing online just because I don't want Microsoft wasting my money. You can  have your cake and eat it too: it's called a social movement. Not downloading the free games doesn't do anything except line Microsoft's coffers and let them off the hook for their poor economic decisions.
  • This coip lady has REALLY thought about this. Not that she's right. $50 must mean more to her than me. IDK...
  • $50 means nothing to me. Economic efficiency is what I'm about. I've done more than think about this; I've published research on it.
  • Oh, please do present said research.
  • You don't get all the way through a PhD and still be dumb enough to post personally identifiable information online. I recommend you check out the work by Dr. Waldfogel and Dr. Molm as a primer. If you follow the rabbit trail, perhaps you'll stumble across my work too. But by then you'll be well-read enough to know I was right.
  • Did you know that if you get the last word in, you automatically win the argument?
  • That's not true. Winning an argument is entirely dependent on the positions one takes, not the order in which they vomit out said positions.
  • That's not true.
  • Yes, it is. Go sign up for a debate class at your local community college and learn all about it.
  • Nah
  • That's your choice, but if you don't want to get educated then don't try to have academic discussions with me.
  • What you're not smart enough to realize that I'm not having an academic discussion with you? You've been nothing more than an amusement. The office has started a poll to see when and if you'll stop posting.
  • Apparently you're not smart enough to figure out that I'm not the one who is the pawn here.
  • Nah
  • You're reply is perfectly redundant with a previous one. Stop being lazy.
  • When I play PS3 and Xbox360 online my experience is very different.  PS3 online is painful, on the other hand Xbox360 is very pleasant.  And the reason is, is that you pay for a service that they put time and resources in to make work.  Many of my friends and I said many times that we would have paid a fee to have PS3 online experience fixed.  Now the PS4 comes along and they have fixed many but not all their former problems they had with PS3 online, they have to include it to fix or repair their reputation for online play.  While Microsoft continues to charge for a service that worked and continues to work.  That is what your paying them for, a service that when I want to get on it works and works well.  My PS4 still goes down more than my Xbox, and I would pay a premium to Microsoft to keep doing what they are doing to keep me playing online when I want.  The games are a gift to a service I pay for and enjoy its stability.  And Microsoft is no dummy.  Many of the games they give have DLC that you would have to pay for if you want it.  Like giving them the razor and making them pay for the blades.  I play games on consoles and that's all.  Any other device for me is irrelevant.  I want to be able to sit down any time I want and play a quick game and have it work, and Microsoft does that for me time and time again.  I own all the consoles and I love many of PS3 and PS4 games over Xbox, but when it comes to connecting with my friends online I can always count on Xbox working and working well, very fluid and easy to do, and that's what I pay them for, a subscription to keep connected.  It's worth every penny to me(I'd pay a $100 a year), and if they want to give a game or two to try every month, more power to them.
  • I appreciate your response but it really misses the entire point of my argument. The flaw is in viewing Games with Gold as a generous, free gift. It's not. It's a refund for an overpriced, required service. And it operates in an economically irrational manner.
  • I can't believe this is still on going. Look, GFG is a freebie, just like when you buy a car they throw in satellite radio, or when you buy a Lumia 630, they have you a fitbit. If you think all companies should never throw in any free perk (goodbye to buy 2 get 1 free at the grocery!), only operate at break even and never work to hit fiscal goals that they set out for you, the stock holder, then that's your opinion. I'd prefer to pay my $60 a year for a good service and collect a couple free games every month.
    And I need to find how to unsubscribe from this post. Sheesh.
  • There is a link provided at the end of every email notification that you can click on to unsubscribe. Games with Gold is not a freebie. Neither is a satellite radio or a Fitbit. All of those things are rolled into the cost of the product, and usually they are subsidized by other consumers. You clearly don't understand what the discussion is even about. Which would you prefer more, 1. paying $60 a month for a good service and having them choose a couple of free games every month, or 2. paying $60 a month for a good service and having a choice between a couple of free games every month that they chose or receiving an Xbox gift card? If you choose the former, you're hopeless. If you chose the latter, you shouldn't be arguing with me.
  • But that's my point.  It is not an overpriced service.  I believe and many others are saying they pay to have a great experience and service of being connected and it works very well to stay connected with friends.  That is what you are paying for period.  And you are getting a good return.  The games are free, you can choose to download them or not, it is not a forced requirement to the service you already pay for and use.  It's not a refund for a service that is worth more than what you are paying for with an added bonus of getting a free game.  Play the other consoles that don't make you pay to stay connected, they suffer from a poor experience of connecting with friends and staying online.  Your view of worth and other's view of worth on a particular service are what's in question, not that you are getting free games on top of that service.  There are plenty of games or game modes that don't require online play, then their are those that do.  You pay a service to play those games or game modes online, not to get free games.
  • My point is that it is an overpriced service. The proof of this is that Games with Gold exists at all (it wouldn't exist if Gold wasn't overpriced) and that Xbox gamers on Windows, despite using the same servers, don't have to pay for online play. In other words, you're subsidizing other players. The games are not free: they are paid for by your Gold subscription. You have no choice in the matter: they will use your money to buy those games regardless of whether you want that game or not. That's economically inefficient.
  • Your talking about a service that existed years before Games with Gold came out.  Games with Gold is a marketing maneuver to get people to buy DLC and look at games in the same Genre that they wouldn't have otherwise and spend more money on those games.  This is marketing 101.  You add something to a product after it has created a firm establishment in the market.  This is why they bundle games with consoles after it has been on the market already.  You are paying for the console and they throw in a free game.  They do this with thousands of products. You pay for Gold service that is already established and then they through in free games to open other marketing opportunities for them to make additional money.  Gold service again is not about free games, it's a service about being connected.  If the games went away, people would still pay for the service of being connected and the experience it delivers.  And comparing console play with PC play is very difficult to do since you are getting very, very different experiences.  Ask anybody with their friends over to play games.
  • Most of the games that have launched on Games with Gold for Xbox One so far have not had any additional paid DLC options. Console gaming and PC gaming have all but merged together, with the launch of Windows 10 being the final demarcation point. See Fable Legends as an example. You can play it on your Xbox or your Windows 10 PC, you can use a controller on both, you can stream from your Xbox to your PC and, probably not too far off, you will be able to use keyboard and mouse on Xbox One and stream from PC to Xbox One. There will be no distinctions anymore.
  • Over half of your users of console gaming do just that game on a console, and not on PC.  When they have their friends over playing they can all sign in to their own unique gamer tag that is attached to all their achievements and connected to all their friends on any system.  That is the service they are paying for and it doesn't exist as clean and easy to access on any pc.  My pc has Origin, Steam, COG... and on and on and they don't communicate with each other, keep track of friends all in one place, play different games and still be able to chat with each other or have 3 of my friends sitting together in front of one screen comfortably lounging around.  Different experiences and one is better at keeping you connected because it has the service available to connect it all seamlessly and you pay for it.  Again any game that is free will introduce you to a genre that you may have not of thought of playing before and opening the doors for you to spend more money on more games(marketing 101).
  • I'm not talking about Origin, Steam, COG and other parasitic gaming services on PC; I'm talking about Xbox. It's coming to Windows 10. Same gamertags; same Gamerscore; same games; cross-buy; cross-play. And, again, Games with Gold games aren't free: they're rentals paid for by your subscription fee.
  • I could of swore we were talking about a service that is only unique to the console experience, that can't be had on a pc, that just so happens to give you free games.  Windows 10 allows some sharing features, but a different experince all the same.  It will be interesting to see how much they will share, like if you can hook up to eight controllers and be able to all chat with others online on your pc.
  • That explains your confused response. Xbox Live is not unique to consoles; it can be had on a PC; the games that come with Gold are not free; playing Xbox on Windows 10 and on Xbox One will be exactly the same.
  • Actually it won't be, you need an Xbox one to play on windows 10.  And you need the service (Xbox live) to use the special features of the service that you can't get with windows 10 alone.  So you pay for the service to get those features, and then you get free games on top of that.  Not really the same, just an appendage to Xbox one.
  • That's incorrect. Full Xbox Live is coming to Windows 10. See Fable Legends. You don't need an Xbox One at all to play it (nor a Gold subscription), just a Windows 10 PC.
  • I just read Major Nelson's remarks(all on Twitter), he does say Most Gold features will be available, and that multi play is free(like Silver accounts).  He doesn't say all features or that you don't have to have Xbox One Gold to experience all features available.  And that it is up to the publishers to make it available for both, but will always be available for Xbox one.  It will be interesting to see how Microsoft will make it worth their while to do so.  He also said that for the games you have now may work with Windows 10 with updates if provides by those publishers.  So I think from the get go, it will still not be the same, or ever can if you can't have several controllers hooked up for party gaming with headsets to play online(thinking FIFA and Madden online).  Now if they made a Xbox One video card for you PC that would be awesome, with ports for extra controllers, then you wouldn't need an Xbox One console at all, and it would be cheaper too.
  • What's the point of getting some nonsense xbox one games instead of real games? They must attract new gamers instead of disappointing current users.
  • Well I don't pay for online there always way for free online just gotta know how ;)
  • So you don't pay for it, from your comment you are probably stealing it, but you are so disappointed in the games that you had to go on a rant (many of your comments were deleted) about how disappointed you are in the selection? The very definition of entitlement.
  • You must have a lousy service. When you get a job you'll love the fact you actually earn something in life. You're in for a treat. Eventually.
  • What the hell is wrong with all you inconsiderate, rude, entitled, immature people? You're not owed a G damn thing. You choose you pay for Xbox Live out of your own free will. Microsoft chooses to mark the price of games down to $0. Then you complain and tell them they suck for doing it. Imo, if you dislike the free games that much either don't download them and move on playing some other game/s or F off and cancel your Live subscription. Either way grow up and stop acting like Mitches!
  • ^^ Posted via my HTC One (M7)
  • The problem is that the games aren't free. You are paying for them. It's only natural to want to have a choice in which games you get, since you are paying for them. Giving Microsoft a free pass for mismanaging your money just because previously they were ripping you off even more (i.e. collecting your money for online play privileges but not giving you 'free' games) is not a smart strategy. That they are doing Games with Gold now is evidence that the Gold subscription was overpriced. You shouldn't be happy that they're now trying to compensate for that by force-feeding you games you have no input in rather than giving you a choice about how your money is spent.
  • The games are free so most of your point is moot. What you are paying for with your $60 is access to and the maintenance of the Xbox live network and ecosystem. GWG is a perk of your subscription, not a direct result. Remember, this thing did not exist 2 years ago and you were paying for XBL all the same.
  • The games are not free. You only get them if  you have a Gold subscription. Gold is not free. That they are giving Games with Gold away as part of Gold is evidence that Gold is overpriced and that you were getting ripped off before. Games with Gold isn't a "perk": that's what they want you to think. But there are no 'perks' in the business world. What Games with Gold really is is an admission that Gold is overpriced, and it's meant to try to distract from that fact by making you think you're getting a 'perk'. "Remember, this thing did not exist 2 years ago and you were posting for XBL all the same." I first became an Xbox Live gold member in November 2013 and never posted about XBL before that date.
  • The games are free as a perk. If you buy a membership to a country club and in a year the club installs a pool and gives you access, the pool is now a perk as a thank you for membership. I've been a XBL member since 2006, so yes, I completely see this and treat this as a perk of my membership.
    If you think there are no perks for customers in business, I'd hate to go into business with you.
    Whether the service is overpriced or not is out of scope for this discussion. I also meant "paying" not "posting" in my last comment.
  • The games are not "free as a perk". They're a part of the subscription. If a country club installs a pool and gives you access, that's only because you helped pay for that pool (and had no say over it, by the way). If they had the extra funds to build a pool (just as if they have the extra funds to "give" you a "free" game), then all that means is that they are overcharging you for the subscription. No offense, but if you think there are perks in business then I'd never go into business with you because it means you don't understand business. That Xbox Live is overpriced is very much in the scope of this discussion: it's pretty much my entire point. Regardless of whether you meant paying or posting, I wasn't doing either in relation to Xbox Live Gold two years ago, as I never became a Gold subscriber till November 2013.
  • Overpriced !!!! 76 pence a week for xbox live I could sit here and list the free games I have got but cant be bothered. I get digital downloads on triple A games and get two copies for the price of one for me and my son and you say its overpriced. Damned if you do damned if you don't. It really makes me titter when I see people moaning about free games as I have said before on this site there is a portion of gamers who aren't happy unless they have something to whine about.
  • It doesn't matter how much it costs; it can still be overpriced at that price. And it is (the fact that Games with Gold exists is proof that Gold is overpriced). If even one of t hose "free" rentals you got was a game you didn't want (which is a given, then that is all the evidence needed to show that Games with Gold is econically inefficient, as it means that Microsoft spent (your) money on a game you didn't want, instead of just giving you the money back.
  • Reading your comments I keep hearing Styx "Too Much Time On My Hands" in my head.
  • That's pretty ironic coming from someone who took the time to post that irrelevant ad hominem.
  • the Xbox One free games have been Meh for a long time
  • There have been some pretty solid ones: Super Time Force, Dark Dreams Don't Die, Max: The Curse of Brotherood, #IDARB, Guacamelee, Child of Light, Rayman Legends, Chariot, Halo: Spartan Assault, etc. That said, I'm opposed to the Games with Gold program for the very reason you intimate: they can't please everyone with their selections, meaning that some gamers are subsidizing the costs for other gamers, which is really unfair.
  • No one is subsidising other gamers, The are games that are free, play them or don't, its your choice.
    When a game comes out on GwG that you are interested in will you reject it because someone out there isn't interested in it? XBL costs the same amount it has for a very long time, GwG is just an added benifit.
  • Most peole are subsidizing other gamers, actually. If I pay for Xbox Live Gold and D4 is the game of the month but I already own it, that means I paid the same amount of money for something and got less for it. That's called subsidization. That Xbox Live Gold cost the same as it did back when it didn't have Games with Gold simply  means it was way overpriced before, whereas now it's just overpriced.
  • The comments here are really bad. Massive Chalice is a Double Fine game that isn't even officially released yet. It's been getting pretty good reviews in Steam Early Access, which is a good sign given internet's generally weary attitude about DF development releases. This isn't an even remotely obscure 'indie' title or something, but people would apparently rather have some old bad 'AAA' titles for free because...why exactly?
  • I'm excited about Massive Chalice (though, not the turn-based gameplay system it employs). That said, the comments here are "really bad" because no game is for everyone, and not having a choice in the games you get is expectedly vexing for the majority of gamers every month who are given a game they don't want. Microsoft would be better off giving gamers options: "Take this $20 game for 'free'. Or accept this $5 (or whatever is equivalent to whatever it costs them to offer Massive Chalice for free) Xbox gift card. Or, switch to the Xbox Copper subscription that is only $2.50 per month instead of $5 per month and lets you play online but has no Games with Gold". Boom, options. Problem is, at least, mitigated.
  • Internet will always complain. It's no use. No one cares anymore, people over do it, complain-wise.
  • Most people complain because they care, not because they don't care.
  • Not really. Just the other day someone was saying he didn't know why Final Fantasy was still alive, while admiring he never played a single game. Make no mistake, people love to complain and it's not because "they care".
  • Just Cause 2? Fantastic. I'll take 37.
  • Slap in the face to not give Thief to Xbox One owners too. Instead we get Pool nation for another month...
  • Xbox One Thief sucks.
  • How so? I only ask as i have played neither yet.
  • I have enjoyed some of the Games with Gold titles.  Child of Light was a gem I'd never thought to try otherwise.  I'll be interested in checking June's titles. They look like they'll be fun.  I'd like to see an older AAA title before too long, but I think pushing the games they have is good.  I already know and buy the AAA games I want, and this just exposes me to games I wouldn't normally look into.
  • Finally someone who understands what GWG is meant for. Its not to give you free stuff and that's it... No, its to get you into games you would never have thought to play,
  • Massive Chalice is a disappointment. Double Fine has been lackluster since they discovered Kickstarter. They're a talented studio but need adult supervision.
  • Xbox one free games are lame.
  • Massive Chalice ! Yay! Love Double Fine.
  • I would pay for live without the free games...Sometimes they're crappy sometimes they are decent. Only an idiot would complain about getting something for free.
  • Awesome, i love myself some freebies. Never got around to playing Thief or Just Cause 2 so June is looking good. The X1 game doesn't really interest me but hey free is free. 1 year sub = 36* free games between the 360 and X1, i call that a win even if i only play 25% of them games. The self entitlement in the thread is confusing and moronic.
  • " i call that a win even if i only play 25% of them games" Now imagine that, for the same price, you got to choose those 25% of the games you were interested in and, instead of the other 75% of them being worthless nothings, you got additional Xbox gift cards or a reduction in the Xbox Live Gold subscription as compensation. There is nothing self-entitled about wanting your own money spent rationally. A program which only nets you a 25% satisfaction rate is not a good program.
  • The Version of GwG you present is indeed a lot more interesting but i could just as well say 'Why don't we get a AAA newly released title every month?' The answer to that and your entitled need is GwG is a gift, those that give decided what is given.
    And before you say it is your money let me just say this, No, you are wrong. The money you pay is to maintain XBL servers and to improve the XBL service plus a little profit which is to be expected from a company.
    Microsoft decided to have some titles Free every month, at no extra cost, for you to keep if you wish too. You give off the impression that you feel entitled to something better then this when you are not.
    If you went out tomorrow and bought a brand new Phone that came with a free case, a case you had no interest in, would you complain that you paid too much for the phone when the case was just a freebie offered at no extra cost?
  • We don't get a new AAA title every month because that would be even more economically irrational than the already economically irrational system. Games with Gold is not a 'gift'. It's a refund for overpayment. The money I pay is to maintain XBL servers? Then why don't I have to pay to maintain XBL servers when playing on Windows 8.1, Windows RT, or Windows Phone? Microsoft didn't magnanimously decide to throw in some 'free' titles every  month, "at no extra cost". They were forced to do so because Sony's PS+ started doing it and exposed Xbox Live as a ripoff. The problem, though, is that Sony's PS+ system is economically irrational, but gamers are largely uninformed and didn't realize it. Thus, Microsoft was forced to follow suit. The downside is that they are now wasting our money. Your phone case analogy is a false analogy.
  • I see a lot of people have been trying to talk to you about this but you don't seem to get why you are wrong. The only thing i can suggest is getting a PC and then all this will be a moot point. Good luck in your future endeavours.
  • It's because I'm not wrong. I've read the literature. I've contributed to the literature. Dyadic gift giving between anonymous parties is incredibly economically irrational. Decades of empirical studies undergird this claim. The very fact that your suggestion is to get a PC where I don't have to pay to play online is all the more evidence of how ludicrous it is that console gamers commenting on this thread are so blinded by false consciousness.
  • Cool. I enjoy trying games free I would not normally look at buying. Child of light was great. As was rayman legends. Soon many titles from year one on xbox one will be free like ryse, dead rising 3 etc. It just takes time for xbox one games to go over a threshold. Also love the discounts you get as a gold member. I got sunset overdrive only 3 months after release for 22.99. Its still 34.99 in game now.
  • Pool FX again? Come off it. -.-
  • Time to dust out the old 360, while the XB1 games don't seem too appealing...
  • And I'll pass again this month not a big fan of indie games got batman in a few days anyways so ya
  • broken comment system
  • Please don't remind me of Thief, I nearly die playing that game 1/10
  • Aww, but i want to enjoy it.
  • Trust me, you'll get bored to hell.
  • Anyone seen the ps4's free subscription games... According to unknown sources they actually get proper games..
  • I would just be happy if my kinect worked again. Not worked properly since October preview update.
  • Another epic fail for xb1.
  • They know Thief is on the Xbone too right? So why cant we get that as a game on gold?