Login | Signup

Your Next Free 'Games With Gold' Are... A World of Keflings and Iron Brigade

Author:
Jonathan Lester
Category:
News
Tags:
A World Of Kelflings, Games With Gold, Iron Brigade, XBLA, Xbox 360 games

Your Next Free 'Games With Gold' Are... A World of Keflings and Iron Brigade

Microsoft has revealed the next two games to be featured in the Xbox 360 'Games With Gold' programme. From today, Halo 3 and Might & Magic: Clash of Heroes will be replaced with A World Of Kelflings and Iron Brigade - one of which is a charming avatar game while the other is a Double Fine-developed tower defence mech 'em up. I'll let you guess which is which.

I personally like the fact that Microsoft are featuring slightly niche XBLA games that a lot of people probably haven't tried, but they probably ought to be offered alongside something meatier. What do you make of the November update?

Add a comment19 comments
DivideByZero  Nov. 1, 2013 at 13:08

Must hide this from the GF... World Of Kelflings. God damn... her playing Kingdom for the Kelflings in bed is the reason I can no longer stay in bed in the morning.

DivideByZero  Nov. 1, 2013 at 13:11

Though as for this "I personally like the fact that Microsoft are featuring slightly niche XBLA games that a lot of people likely haven't tried." I would word it as "Cheap alternatives to popular games and that fall way short of what PS+ offers".

But better than a kick in the ****.

ChrisHyde  Nov. 1, 2013 at 13:14

Cheap alternatives to popular games and that fall way short of what PS+ offers


Probably doesn't have the same marketability as Jon's approach ;)

But yeah Divide, I'm kind of with you on this, the PS+ offering for me is by far the better option.

JonLester  Nov. 1, 2013 at 13:19

I discussed my take on Games With Gold back in these comments, as did plenty of others. It's definitely a pathetic lineup compared to PS+, but PS+ is still a totally optional service that has to convince people to part with extra money. XBL is mandatory for online play, meaning that Microsoft doesn't really have to do this at all. It's like comparing apples and oranges... but not for much longer.

In a month's time both services will have to compete on a more equal playing field, since they're both necessary for online multiplayer. If Sony keeps up the Instant Game Collection quality, Microsoft will have to step it up.

Whether they will is anybody's guess.

EDIT: I do feel that these smaller games should be offered *alongside* much higher-profile freebies though, not just the be all and end all

Last edited by JonLester, Nov. 1, 2013 at 13:25
DivideByZero  Nov. 1, 2013 at 13:34

Your edit says it all Jon. It's great they are there, but they should be there along with a bigger title, even something older like Halo 3 was.

While PS4 network gaming will need to be paid for, my main question is not will the games level out vs the XO, but will the PS Network improve with all the extra cash injected in to it.

JonLester  Nov. 1, 2013 at 13:35

Yeah, I realised that I hadn't quite put across my full opinion there - felt I'd edit the post itself as well as the comment.

CarlPhillips  Nov. 1, 2013 at 14:52

I discussed my take on Games With Gold back in these comments, as did plenty of others. It's definitely a pathetic lineup compared to PS+, but PS+ is still a totally optional service that has to convince people to part with extra money. XBL is mandatory for online play, meaning that Microsoft doesn't really have to do this at all. It's like comparing apples and oranges... but not for much longer.

In a month's time both services will have to compete on a more equal playing field, since they're both necessary for online multiplayer. If Sony keeps up the Instant Game Collection quality, Microsoft will have to step it up.

Whether they will is anybody's guess.


I agree with this in terms of next-gen, but we have to remember that PS+ will still an optional service for PS3 and Vita owners, so on that front I feel we will continue to see some excellent games on offer. After all, not all PS3 owners will be upgrading to the PS4 just yet, and there's still a huge library of games to get through.

X10  Nov. 1, 2013 at 14:57

Have we really become such a society that we think we deserve something for nothing.
"These free games should be better gosh darnit!"
Sure.

I think that people should stop moaning about not getting the best AAA title available immediately. Free is free and the games have a value of their own, whether or not you like them.

OogaBooga  Nov. 1, 2013 at 15:19

I'm sure if MS charged for a rental service they would offer better games too.

tapi  Nov. 1, 2013 at 15:24

agree with x10, they're a recent addition to something you were paying for.

With the Sony offering, you're really paying specifically to access games for a period of time - a rental service a la 'netflix'. Most people seem to agree that the money didn't seem to go on services.

With MS, you were paying for the xbox live infrastructure (and there's arguments either way whether that was worth it - I believe so) and now they've come along and said "hey, for every month you subscribe we'll give you two free games to keep"

with Live there's also special music shows, live streaming events and other elements - I honestly don't know if there's an equivalent on PS?

either way, Apples and Oranges - they're both good services but appeal to different sensibilities.

Last edited by tapi, Nov. 1, 2013 at 15:26
Breadster  Nov. 1, 2013 at 15:33

Have we really become such a society that we think we deserve something for nothing.
"These free games should be better gosh darnit!"
Sure.

I think that people should stop moaning about not getting the best AAA title available immediately. Free is free and the games have a value of their own, whether or not you like them.


Yeah but it just seems like a typical Microsoft thing to do - add a new deal that is just the bare minimum of what it could be. "We're going to start giving away free games, all of which you will have either already played, or have no interest in playing".

Seriously, I play quite a variety of games, and when games are coming out for free and I still don't really want to download them, something is going wrong.

Take physical versions of some of the games they've offered to trade in a shop, see how much value they have still.

tapi  Nov. 1, 2013 at 16:18

But Breadster - that's a little bit like saying " I went to Shell and they were offering a keyring with every 50litres. That's just the bare minimum of what it could be - I've got loads of keyrings, I want a free High Power Torch"

it's an add-on. They're not charging any extra to the service they were already providing and there was never any expectation from previous subscribers that games would ever be part of the package. So what's the problem? as x10 said

Free is free and the games have a value of their own, whether or not you like them

DivideByZero  Nov. 1, 2013 at 16:31

Well you say that, but I stopped buying gold becuase I can game online for free on every other system I own!

If you compare apples for apples, Gold and PS+ are the same price and with one you get 2 crappy games and network support and with the other you get a bunch of good games for 2 systems and you already have network support.

Why any consumer would argue that they don't want better or more is beyond me. Surely as a consumer we should all want everything for free and it's the suppliers who dream of offering us next to nothing for loads of money.

In the example of a free keyring... if Shell offered a keyring but Esso offered a Torch and their fuel was the same price, who offers the better deal and where would you fill up?

Last edited by DivideByZero, Nov. 1, 2013 at 16:41
Breadster  Nov. 1, 2013 at 17:03

I mean every promotion or deal they ever do is the bare minimum, it sucks as a whole. If they had good offers at other times and still had the poor games for gold I wouldn't be quite as bothered.

The deals of the week are always pretty lame, xbox live rewards is essentially pointless in most cases, you get demos like week early as a gold member as another pointless way of trying to make it seem more valuable.

Gold is a rip off for what it is. They just artificially limit what you can do if you don't have it. Why can't you send messages from Xbox.com for example?

It's not so much the poor/old games themselves that annoy me, it's just that the offer stinks of Microsoft's bs.

oogabooga2  Nov. 1, 2013 at 17:13

you guys are struggling to see the difference between free and rental.

DivideByZero  Nov. 1, 2013 at 19:04

And it sounds like you are struggling to see the difference between free to keep for as long as you want and rental.

That's certainly how the PS3 and Vita games work anyways.

tapi  Nov. 1, 2013 at 22:43

so what happens when you stop paying?

whylove1  Nov. 2, 2013 at 18:24

I have both systems, but its an easy choice which I prefer to pay for. Even friends who used to have an xbox 360 only are buying ps3's because of plus. However, I don't know what will happen
next gen, as they won't have the back catalogue available.

DivideByZero  Nov. 4, 2013 at 12:50

tapi: good point I guess. However, Sony are not exactly giving me a reason to even consider stopping subscribing at the moment.

When you talk of game rental though, that inspires thoughts of Blockbusters where you pay a small price for a specific game you want and you get to keep it for a couple of nights.

Subscription services are very different to rental though. Sure you don't own it and can't sell it on, but chances are that you will own the game long enough to play it to death and get bored of it.

Email Address:

You don't need an account to comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.