Good points, yeah we should keep it simple and fair. I’ve never counted the GwG games either for myself and I suppose there’s a reason for that. You need a Game Pass sub to access them too to be fair so yeah.
The 360 games I do feel could be allowed?
Hold on to that point for a while until we’ve discussed this properly with more people chiming in 
Yeah, the 360 ones are fine since they stopped giving them away a long time ago and they appear under your owned games.
I think since they already finished coffee talk they can have the point. If anyone has a games with gold game in progress at the moment and intend on finishing it for the challenge it can count too, but they should declare it within a week or so and it be limited to that game.
I don’t feel strongly one way or another. On one hand sure they were free and didn’t cost me anything, on the other hand the only reason I originally got gold was for the games with gold because I didn’t play online at all back then. I also only claimed ones I thought would be interesting. Honestly I’m fine with whatever though.
I completely “no-lifed” this game over the last 8 days. I’m not sure exactly how long it took to complete. My Steam clock says about 90 hours, but the in-game clock is closer to 120. Regardless of the actual time, this was another looonnnggg completion for me this year.
I have played the Legend of Heroes series out of order. I played Cold Steel I and II on PS4 a few years back. After enjoying those quite a bit I decided to do a complete playthrough, so I backed up to Trails in the Sky I - III. Last summer I completed the two Crossbell games (which I always forget the names of) - and this summer I wanted to complete Cold Steel III and IV and (hopefully) Reverie.
For those not familiar with the Legend of Heroes series, all of the games mentioned above form a single cohesive narrative, though the main cast changes between each of the major arcs. However, the great thing about the series is that it never abandons characters. So, if you fall in love with Estelle and Joshua in Trails in the Sky you can see them again in the Crossbell games (and in Cold Steel IV and probably later games as well). The same goes for the antagonists. New ones are introduced in each arc, but the old villains (at least the surviving ones) are still in the picture as well.
I was apprehensive when I started playing Cold Steel III because most of the cast from Cold Steel I and II were not in the first few hours of the game. But they were gradually reintroduced as the game went on. By the end of the game, I had a massive party (15 or so) of all the main characters from Cold Steel I - III plus a few carryovers from earlier games - and each of those characters was given something meaningful to do in the games concluding hours.
I won’t go into details about the plot - but I will say the series features complex storytelling that is simultaneously political, mysterious, mystical, funny, heartwarming, and heart breaking. The fact that the developers are telling a cohesive story over (I think) thirteen games (and counting) spanning a twenty-year development time is remarkable. I don’t think there is anything else like it in the gaming world. I think the only thing that can be compared to is long-running novel series or movie series like the MCU.
Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed my time with Cold Steel III. I only have two real gripes with the game. First, it’s too freaking long. In the last half of the game, I found myself actively avoiding combat whenever I could just to speed things up. The other issue is that the series can be pretty “tropey” at times - with tropes from anime, jrpgs, and the series itself showing up over and over.
I highly recommend the Legend of Heroes series for anyone who loves long-form story telling, great characters, or good rpgs. Unfortunately, I don’t think any games in the series are available on Xbox and Trails in the Sky is only available on PC (I think) so the series may not be very accessible for many Xbox gamers.
I just think it is important to have a standard in place and I think the easiest to implement would simply limiting what is considered a “backlog” to games you have purchased intentionally. As the only way to lose a point is buying something. It also keeps the playing field even as it is the only method that applies to all participants equally, as some people may have never had GwG or any other subs/means of acquiring free games.
Speaking of which! Time to lose some points…
-6.5
Total: 10.5
I’m very much in this boat. I only claim games that I’m interested in and intend to play. I treat them the same as purchases and consider them part of my backlog.
And while GWG might have ended, there’s still PS+/Prime/Epic/GOG giveaways, etc.
I like the current rule, to be honest. Either you count them for both (+/-) or you don’t count them for either. Up to the individual, leaving enough flexibility to accommodate the different approaches to “free” games (some people claim everything under the Sun, others only claim select titles.)
We’re also half way through the year, so everyone’s tally would have to be adjusted, to keep it fair. I’d suggest to maybe adjust the scoring system at the start of 2025, if necessary?
I didn’t expect me asking about an old GWG game would spark so much discussion! As I mentioned originally, I can see it both ways, so it’s not a big deal to me either way. I had considered the game in my backlog, so completed it is reward in itself, regardless if I get a point or not. I am at the bottom of the leaderboard, so one point isn’t going to make much difference anyway.
Recent example, Nick on the latest XboxEra Podcast for a PC Platform he doesnt even own.
I think this is the most fair way to look at it, which gives no advantages to anyone. As long as you take the negative points for claiming a game you want to add to your backlog as well, treating it as a purchase, no one is skirting the rules. This is supposed to be run on an honor system anyways, and we are adults.
Now, everyone get back to completing games
This will be my last counter point, but I don’t really agree with that take. If I have a subscription, in this case PS+ that is giving me free games, the suggestions is that if I claim games off a service I am paying for, that I automatically get docked 3-4 points by default, I’m not a fan of that, they just shouldn’t be included at all. The implication is that you should just not capitalize on a service you are paying for. For most, that is the only reason to subscribe to PS+, as I have never played a MP game on a PS console. Those games also cease being yours if you subscription expires.
No in this case you would only be docked points if you claim them for your backlog, like a game you would purchase. If you don’t count them as part of your backlog, you don’t need to take the negative points. You would also not count them as backlog completions when/if you play them.
I just feel like making all these caveats makes this far more convoluted than it needs to be.
“I claimed 48 PlayStation games this year, but I don’t consider them in my backlog” “I do consider them in my backlog, -48 points for me”
If you claim and finish its a net zero so it is pointless to include anyway. You could apply the same logic to Game Pass and Game Pass doesn’t count.
“I consider Indiana Jones part of my backlog, -1 for playing it on Game Pass”
Personally, this is just my 2 cents, it makes the most sense to treat GWG/PSN+ games the same as Game Pass - “counting” them as a net zero, if you count them at all. Backlog seems to be defined by us as games that you’ve purchased prior to this year, so per @Searsy82, those games aren’t purchased by you (you don’t own them and for the majority, they’re removed from your library once unsubsribed). With the recent “I’m going to make my own rules” contestant being booted, I’d really like to not have to have a Rosetta Stone to determine if someone’s playing fairly in the future…
Literal case in point: I recently beat Metroid Zero Mission on my Wii U, even though the game also got launched on the Switch’s online service (so you don’t ‘buy’ the game), I didn’t go that route because I knew it wouldn’t count, so I played it on my Wii U where I had previously purchased the game.
I get where people are coming from on this, it’s just that in the specific case of games with gold, since the program is ended and nothing is being added, it seems like if we claimed it and want to play it, it’s something we have the rights to and aren’t adding new games to our backlog this year from it?
I did look briefly at my completions and I THINK if we said items that show in the tab for games with gold (which I think is mostly xbox one and newer) don’t count, I’d only need to subtract one for myself for highrise architect because apparently I’m a crazy person and have bought the other ones on that tab that I’ve completed this year. But I can’t add new things to that tab by subscription this year, so to me they seem claimed / mine.
And don’t forget to get your Daily Tidies handled!
Why does everyone have to bring up so many good points?
I can see both sides, but yes, it should be as uncomplicated and equal as possible.
Shall we just agree that games requiring a subscription doesn’t count?
So would this mean: if it shows on games with gold tab and not as owned on that tab, it doesn’t count, but if it’s an Xbox 360 and the original source was gwg it does count since it doesn’t put those there and you don’t need an active subscription?
Just want to make sure I know how to count them, like I said I’ll be fine with whatever.
Correct, if your GP Core or Ultimate subscription expires you lose access to those games.
The Xbox 360 titles are yours to keep forever. They are not considered a negative either as they have been a part of your owned library since they stopped giving them away.