While PlayStation Plus subscribers are getting relatively new games to enjoy each and every month free of charge, folks on Xbox Live have be "treated" to age-old favorites like Halo 3 and Assassin's Creed II... both which launched a very, very long time ago and aren't particularly relevant in 2014.
During a Q&A at SXSW, Polygon reports, Microsoft's Phil Spencer addressed the disparity between the two services, assuring Xbox Live Gold subscribers that improvements are on the way.
One of our issues with Games with Gold — not 'issues,' but differences between the other system we get compared to, is the fact that with Games with Gold, you get to keep that game, regardless of whether you continue to subscribe. And the business around Games with Gold, for us, is just fundamentally different from some of the other programs that are out there, which does put a different financial picture on a — you're gonna go buy a game that's brand new, the cost of putting that in, just to be kind of blunt about it.
That said, I have been sitting down, monthly now, with that team — some of the earlier months were already programmed — and playing a more active role in picking franchises that show up in Games with Gold, and I think you'll see at least something that feels, at least, more true to what I think Games with Gold should look like with the constraints that are there.
Do you think the ability to keep a game forever regardless of subscription status is worth the limited number and type of free games that Microsoft can offer to its consumers? Should the company instead adopt a model more akin to PlayStation Plus to bolster Games with Gold's available content?