There's been a lot of discussion over the past couple of weeks about whether or not Xbox Live Gold might eventually be phased out, following the news that 12 month subscriptions have been removed from the Microsoft Store.
So, let's say it does happen, and the rumours and speculation are correct - what then happens to Xbox Games with Gold? The service has been providing games at no extra charge to Xbox Live Gold subscribers for almost a decade now, and if multiplayer went free, it would likely have to either be phased out or transitioned to Xbox Game Pass.
There are other issues that could crop up with this as well. If Microsoft does away with Xbox Games with Gold, what happens to the vast collections of games that players have built up over the years? Do they remain?
It's a curious scenario, so we want to know how you feel about this. If Microsoft was to do the unthinkable and make Xbox Live multiplayer free, would you be happy to trade Xbox Games with Gold in return? Let us know below.
Comments 28
Oh absolutely. I've got hardly any value out of GWG (or PS+) "free" games for a while now personally. Most of the bigger titles that come to these type of services I've already played if I have interest in.
With Game Pass around as well the games offered seem even less interesting usually.
But appreciate I'm somewhat privileged to be able to get a fair few games whereas others might be more dependent on the monthly games.
Yes, definitely.
I don't really play multiplayer so I don't care as long as I get to keep my Games with Gold. There are a few in the pile I have yet to get round to so don't want to have to buy the games unless they get heavily discounted.
I don't give a flying you-know-what about free online multiplayer. Most of my friends don't play online anymore, or if they do, they stick to one particular game that I don't like playing all the time (such as Destiny 2), and personally, I greatly dislike playing with strangers, so obviously I voted for keeping Games with Gold.
Yes, the games on offer have definitely become less and less interesting, but all in all I still welcome the initiative of being able to at least keep two of the four games that are on offer on a monthly basis, and no amount of other services can replace that, because things like Game Pass are just a rent-a-game service, and a highly restrictive one at that, what with games being pulled as fast as they are added, and no game ever truly becoming yours, unless you pay extra.
Yes, certainly!
Can't they just intergrate that into Game Pass Ultimate and just call it "Ultimate Freebies" or something idk
Of course. Game Pass is such good value it’s not a surprise that GWG have deteriorated in quality. And anyone who doesn’t play Online can free up funds to buy games.
For sure, the quality of Games With Gold has sharply dropped since the quality of Game Pass sharply increased.
Free games were great to start with, but I'm looking at nearly 700 digital games on xbox one, and when a game I'm interested in does go GwG, I normally already have it through a really good sale.
Free MP on the other hand would be a big deal for every xbox gamer I know. It can be a big barrier to playing online and socially. I have a fair few nephews, and I have a son, with another on the way. And trying to make sure everyone has a console, copy of the game, and gold, even when sharing gold home privileges, can be expensive. You're looking at £100 just for my family, a few hundred for all of us.
In contrast I can put us all on Switch Online for £35 a year.
Doing a larger game sharing programme and/or gold sharing/free programme would of be a major plus for the platform. Far more consumer friendly and enticing than a lootbox of free games each month.
I voted to make multiplayer free. Microsoft seems to be bringing that PC mentality to consoles & PC players never pay for multiplayer.
It’s an outdated system & needs to go away. And people thinking that they will yank all of your GWG games from your library, calm down. I would highly doubt they would do that. And they could even merge GWG into Game Pass in some way, so it’s a win-win for everyone. 👍🏻
Plus it would put pressure on Sony & Nintendo to do the same.
@KelticDevil I would gladly sacrifice all the xbox one games I got through GwG for free online.
Yes.
I'd rather have free multiplayer than free games that I don't get to choose, frankly.
Yes, yes, YES ! Multiplayer has to become free, now. IT HAS TO BE. That would make a HUGE advantage over the concurence (until they'll finally go that way, too, cause they'll have to) AND simplify their offer.
So much people would be interessed in a transition to the gamepass formula, if they didn't have to pay for gold.
Whats interest me more is this : if they announce something like that (let's say they do it in august, when they'll want to talk about the Series X launch), what happens to the gold months already paid ?
There's a lot of people who has subscribed for the next three years, already... So, will their subscription be automatically converted to gamepass ? But in that case, that would represent a HUGE discount over the ones who didn't have a gold subscription...
I voted "It Depends" because, while of course I'd rather have free multiplayer than "free" games I'd have to purchase permanently anyway (and I give the majority of the offerings on Gold a hard pass because they'd just be dead weight occupying space on my hard drive) should my $60 annual Gold subscription lapse, there's the caveat of where GamePass might lead Microsoft's business model in the future. If offering free multiplayer is a Trojan Horse to get consumers trained on the idea of no longer owning their games via a subscription model, then a day could come when they suddenly pull the plug on purchasing games altogether. That would be the day I walk away from the hobby I've loved and supported since the Atari 2600, make no mistake.
Personally, I have no use for GamePass. I know which games I want and prefer to purchase/own them permanently (as much as possible in today's EULA-dominated hobby). In a scenario where I never had to pay an annual fee for either Gold or GamePass to enjoy online multiplayer, I'd be a happy camper.
@Richnj
I agree. I can’t remember the last time I actually played a GWG game, to be honest. I play the games I want to play right now. And Game Pass is great with that too.
But I know a lot of people will flip out if they yanked all the previous GWG from people’s libraries, so I doubt that is the way they will go.
In a heartbeat.
I said 'depends'. If the standard of games on offer continue to be of the 'current' standard, then maybe I would happily drop the Games in Gold in favour of free MP.
I don't subscribe to Game Pass so its quite nice to have some games that I don't know I would have bought or experienced without Games with Gold. Also, I wouldn't want to have the XB1 Games with Gold suddenly stop being available to me which has been another reason I have continued to pay for Gold. As such, I think it depends on the consequence and future plans for the service. I don't necessarily want to be forced into paying for Game Pass either just to keep access to the past 6yrs of XB1 games I have added or lose that access so it will depend on the consequence of moving to free MP and the standards of games offered in the future.
I don't feel its a simple answer for me as I have a large library of XB1 games I could bring to Series X - a lot that could also be lost without a 'Gold' subscription and I don't know that I would be happy to lose access to all of those just for free MP.
Yes i definitely would, I never got much out of GWG for some reason...
Hmm.. I don’t really care either way. I can’t say that I’ve played one of the gold games I’ve downloaded yet but I did get a couple Shantae games a few(?) months ago. So while I’m not interested in the bulk of the games they offer it’s still nice sometimes.
I’m a Gamepass ultimate subscriber- the online is built into the subscription so that being free doesn’t entice me since I’m paid up through January and periodically they have some good Gamepass discounts through retailers.
I can’t imagine that Microsoft will lower the cost of Gamepass Ultimate if multiplayer goes free but rather find something else to include/ bonus- I think the price point is in a sweet spot.
I would probably keep games with gold, but it just depends on the quality of what’s on offer. I loved playing through Watch Dogs, Sleeping Dogs, Inside, Turing Test, Gone Home and Saints Row IV through the service. I know people complain about quality, but just 1-2 games per year that connect with me personally make it worth the price.
While free online MP is nice, MS is obviously pushing Game Pass. That the quality for GwG seems to have declined is no accident, MS wants you to stop liking the idea of keeping games as long as you subscribe so you can buy into an even worse model. In Game Pass, games leave the service. To me, that doesn't seem as consumer friendly as allowing you to keep games as long as you sub.
I think this is a faulty premise. They can make multiplayer free and still continue to charge for games with gold.
Don’t forget that Sony used to charge for PSN+ back in the PS3 days, when their multiplayer was free. They were literally just charging for their free monthly game program.
They can keep things exactly as they are now:
Gold = free random games (you might or not like) Once claimed, they yours so long you keep paying (unless they 360 games, those you always keep.)
GamePass = Library of games to pick, but some might go away next month.
Game Pass Ultimate = both together.
Maybe they should rename Game Pass Ultimate to Game Pass Gold 🙃
I don't really need Games with Gold when I already have Game Pass Ultimate. That being said, I don't play multiplayer most of the time anyways so neither outcome really affects me.
Not important at all.
Quick heads up. Some online retailers have 1yr of LIVE still available. I got one, used it, then upgraded to ULTIMATE for $15. So I got a year of ultimate for $75. New or returning members.
Free online multiplayer. Doing this will put serious pressure on the gaming industry. MS has control of the PC pie, so it makes sense to ditch paid online mp. If consoles are getting closer to be like computers, they should act like computers.
As a main Nintendo fan owning an XB1 (as my thanks for what MS been doing with Nintendo) and PS4 Pro and even a gaming laptop, I sense Nintendo will switch back to free online multiplayer with ease, because they typically follow what the frontline companies do and improve from any mistakes they make. Plus, while their Switch Online deal for all it’s worth for $20 makes a decent impact despite rough beginnings, the bigger point is how cheap the assumed paid online mp price would work out for them. Assuming its like $5 a year for online in their deal, then they can just instead put an extra $50 max on the console price tag that will cover online interactions for potentially an entire gen. You could argue they would not put a price tag for online mp anywhere at all and thats fine too. Nintendo got so much room in their pricing designs on this issue, so I can sense they are in a good spot, even with the mess they make. Now, I had to give out my analysis on Nintendo even tho I say this as a Nintendo main, but dont think too much about it, BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE SONY IN COMPARISON NEXT UP...
Sony will be the one that will be pressured the hardest, if the move to free online mp is true. I love the idea of MS doing something that the #1 console maker has some trouble with when they ought not to be in the industry. $60 a year for online mp and some monthly games that are hit or miss, then $60 a year for PS Now, for their large library, but steamable games and no first party offerings... Then you have MS’s offerings of $15 a month of Ultimate (with maybe minus the price of Gold missing in the bundle in the future) with a good bunch of games you just download and play. Whoa... (altho still waiting on a yearly price, I want that)
Now, Im interested in the entire Sony community’s reactions to the move and Im aware of how the fanbase can be. For all I know, they could just defend paid online mp in their claim to be the top dog while the rest of the industry decides to move on... I know there are people out there that will pay gladly for no paid online mp out of principle alone. I really want that shakeup to happen, its MS that’ll be forcing good standards on the industry with the move. I am tired of a potentially arrogant #1 console maker when they should be just a good competitor making more meaningful impacts in the game industry. Is the PS5 and its games gonna be great, yeah and I do plan to get it, but at what cost they ignore? They just stick to their strong points and not improve the rest of their stuff on their own. Someone else has to step in to make them and the time is now for MS.
At the end of the day, it’s all about playing games and their value and nothing else. MS’s offerings are great and can be potentially even greater still. I do appreciate the Game Pass library offered. And even if you happen to refuse the concept of the Game Pass with the removal of paid online mp for some reason, guess what? You still get to pay for just games. An entire game industry where they offer just games to pick from in the places they offer for gamers sounds excellent.
heck yeah. I used to be a huge fan of Games with Gold, but it seems like after Gamepass was released the quality of games started to drop. And tbh, I don't blame MS. Gamepass has so much more potential.
@Bobobiwan there's previous form for this though, when they were persuading people to go Ultimate, they added up your GamePass and Gold subscription months, which was an absolutely huge saving.
Free multiplayer, no contest, it’s a constantly used feature, and it will help Xbox massively next gen. Even better if it makes Game Pass cheaper or with extra multiplayer features over the free version.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...