Do you expect PSN and XBL to be comparable next gen?

[Soldier 95B]

I have had PSN since 2008, and Xbox Live since the inception. I am well versed on both, so I am taking into account my experience using both.

[admartian]

Simple fact.

Is isn't PSN, so Ghost won't like it,.. no matter what we say.

So, I'm outtie.

The same could be said of Xbox Live and it's fans - no matter what other people say - those who only wish for Sony to be behind, won't like it.

Me, I couldn't really give a shit who is perceived to be "on top". So long as fanboys don't dick on a service just because it's not their preferred one.

If you like a certain service over another fair enough, just don't go try saying it's the best when the competition is more than sufficient.

[Cuguy]

The same could be said of Xbox Live and it's fans - no matter what other people say - those who only wish for Sony to be behind, won't like it.

Me, I couldn't really give a shit who is perceived to be "on top". So long as fanboys don't dick on a service just because it's not their preferred one.

If you like a certain service over another fair enough, just don't go try saying it's the best when the competition is more than sufficient.

i don't say it's the best. i say it's the best for me, so try to not be so defensive

[admartian]

i don't say it's the best. i say it's the best for me, so try to not be so defensive

I wasn't necessarily aiming it at you. I was only saying the same could be said about PSN (or anything for that matter).

In fact, I'm saying that I agree with you (or those that believe whatever they like to be the best).

Just far too often you see people try and "change minds" by arguing and in doing so, start spinning so much in order to justify their tastes, that they actually believe their lunacy.

[Soldier 95B]

I am on the same page as CUGUY. It is what is best for ME, not everyone. I couldn't even begin to know what everyone else has for a preference.

[Sub-stance1]

I wasn't necessarily aiming it at you. I was only saying the same could be said about PSN (or anything for that matter).

In fact, I'm saying that I agree with you (or those that believe whatever they like to be the best).

Just far too often you see people try and "change minds" by arguing and in doing so, start spinning so much in order to justify their tastes, that they actually believe their lunacy.

I don't see anyone trying to "change minds". People are just speaking from experiences.

[F34R]

Xbox Live is definitely better. Whether it is better for "you", well that's preferences. PSN could be a better service for "you" because it's free. That doesn't make its features better than the features provided for Xbox Live Gold subscriptions. Period.

[Soldier 95B]

If service A has 5 features and service B has 10 features, that is a fact, not opinion.

[radgamer420]

Double post.

[radgamer420]

You can check your account, register your avatar with certain sites, compare profiles, games, achievements, etc.. all from your PC. You can go to XBOX.com, load up your download list, purchase titles etc.. all to be downloaded when you get home (or start if your box is on). Your gamertag is an identity. Not just a logo on the PSN. The XBL is so popular as the gaming community it is DESPITE the pay to play, because it is unified. Hard to explain to haters and people who don't use it, but you just get the sense of the reach of where your online persona is. For me, XBL is a superior service also because it has things my family uses a lot. Gold allows me to use my Netflix account, Hulu, etc.. all things I also use on PC, but if I am sitting in my gaming area, I can use them without worry. The service is also more reliable in terms of game connectivity despite not being dedicated servers. Technically speaking - XBL has much smaller file size updates. They also don't come every three weeks it seems like the PS3 does. XBL, as a service AT MY HOUSE (can't speak for others) runs light years faster than the PSN. Fewer updates, all downloads can be background downloaded (some select titles can't on PSN), no games on XBLA or demos, etc.. require an install. You just download and play. The number of arcade titles and indie games you can get access to on XBL is a big plus in my household as well. Being able to try EVERY XBLA title, not a demo, before you buy is awesome. So for me, after having been exposed to both consoles for this entire gen (been a multi console owner the entire time) I can say that fun factor, functionality, reliability and title availablility all are far ahead on XBL over PSN, for what i use the systems for. I can also tell you that with my experience with PSN it is a lot harder to join in and find games, even harder to hook up with friends. So before you go on a little tirade about "well PSN can do this, and PSN can do that, and PSN WILL do this ... " I will snap you off and say, right now, my experience, my opinion is PSN is like an antiquated, cold, lifeless system that is free to play and functional. It is not inviting, it is not unified, it is not fun. Having had to review several games for PSU and test the online, this is how it feels to me. Most games just give me a server time out. Pisses me off, I go to XBL and I am in playing MW3 in a matter of seconds. You like PSN more, I already know, so I am just stating my opinion and in no way is it fact, nor should anyone take it as that. We are not talking about PS4 and PSN, as I know that will be a different ballgame, and may solve some of my complaints, but not without cost to us.

I agree. Having been a dual console owner this whole generation myself I have had the same experience when comparing the two services. Xbox Live is definitely the better service to me.

[Yungstar 2006]

I also don't think they will charge, MS is the onyl gaming platform to do that, they are the exception, not the norm.

i'm sure Nintendo would charge if they had something worth paying for, with Sony they were late to the party and perhaps never gave a thought to charging until it was to late and then tried to use the free online against MS in keeping it free as a marketing selling point. it will by now have cost them 10's (if not 100's) of millions by not charging and i'd imagine they are trying to fit a charge into PS4 so that it becomes a must for on-line rather than an add on like PS+, they are in business after all to make money..

of course, there will be many in the PS3 user base who will not want to pay next gen, but i'm sure Sony will be adding up what they might lose from some over what they will gain.

[Yungstar 2006]

I am on the same page as CUGUY. It is what is best for ME, not everyone. I couldn't even begin to know what everyone else has for a preference.

i've only ever looked at it from the point of view that when playing multi-player PS3/360 that they gave the same result for me, i played against others without problems. i'd never thought of it the way Cuguy pointed it out and has showed me just how far MS is ahead of Sony this gen. hats off to the guy..

[Soldier 95B]

also don't think they will charge, MS is the onyl gaming platform to do that, they are the exception, not the norm. PSN/SEN will remain free but they will probably have a sub service that offers badass bells and whistles.

Actually, Microsoft wouldn't be the exception. They were the first to bring a full fledged high speed online gaming service to consoles, called Xbox Live. It's a service with many features and continuous updates that exceeds (feature wise and infrastructure) any other console network. The exception would be PSN and Nintendo. I imagine if PSN and Nintendo networks had the labor force, the features, infrastructure and a system that pays for developers hosting fees like Microsoft has, they would charge too.

So for PSN, being free, it's great! And for XBL being $38 a year, it's great! (IMO). You get what you pay for. PSN+, FOR ME, is not great, BUT for others, it's awesome.

[mynd]

I think people have to remember where PSN started life out.
Sony wanted nothing to do with online infrastucutre in either the O/S or game servers.

There philosphy was to let third party deal with net connections, they only saw the internet as means to hook your game up to some one else, just the same way as internet was being used arond that time.

But even PC gaing has evolved past that now, Steam for exmaple.

I think they didnt charge you for online play, because there was nothing to charge for.

That quickly chnaged when they saw what was happening on the other platform, and it has very mouch evolved.

BUt still onc eyou draw that line in the sand, I dont think you can take it bakc this generation.

PS+ is a very good rental service, and it show that Sony does want to make money from this now.

Hell lets face it Sony have stated that network is one of their main focus now.

Will they charge on the PS4? WHo knows, but I wouldnt be surprised either.

I certianly think they could justify it more on the PS4.

[emmerich]

Cuguy has it spot on in my opinion. I was going to do a post very similar to his earlier on this week but I couldn't put it in to words as well as he did.

[AaronSOLDIER]

PSN does all I want and its free, so I'm fine with it. If they charge next gen, which I doubt, then I'll stick to SP. Simple.

I don't need to be online to enjoy games, nor do I see the point in buying all FPS games which offer pretty much the same thing and only depend on online gameplay, which is why 90s shooters on PC shit allover shooters today.

[admartian]

If service A has 5 features and service B has 10 features, that is a fact, not opinion.

So quantity of features = quality?

I again I'm not arguing against anyone on one side of the matter. All the posts just reek of self-justification that's all.

I'm not even trying to say one is better than the other. Just trying to say what makes one the best? Who's to say one is unequivocally, empirically, and universally the best?

Who has that authority? Only you can decide what's good for you - not for anyone else.

None of this "just fact" bullshit because it isn't fact (for everyone).

You can say 7 is more than 5 - but so? What does that mean to the person that doesn't give a shit? All you've proven that 7 is numerically higher than 5 - nothing more.

Again, I don't see why everyone is pushing so hard one way or the other.

Xbox Live is definitely better. Whether it is better for "you", well that's preferences. PSN could be a better service for "you" because it's free. That doesn't make its features better than the features provided for Xbox Live Gold subscriptions. Period.

You've just said what I've been trying to say but that statement contradicts itself by saying "XBox live is better" when you've said it's about preference.

So I don't think you can say it's better for everyone no matter what (if you that's what you were trying to say).


I know you guys are all going to argue for it and that's fine (honestly ). But that's just because that's what you like!

I really don't have a preference as I barely play online anyway. And when i do, I don't want to pay for it and nor should anyone (I don't when I go on Steam/PC or on PSN).

The reason I'm posting , is that I think it's wrong to try and make it out that one is awesome and one isn't when they're comparable.

[F34R]

So quantity of features = quality?

I again I'm not arguing against anyone on one side of the matter. All the posts just reek of self-justification that's all.

I'm not even trying to say one is better than the other. Just trying to say what makes one the best? Who's to say one is unequivocally, empirically, and universally the best?

Who has that authority? Only you can decide what's good for you - not for anyone else.

None of this "just fact" bullshit because it isn't fact (for everyone).

You can say 7 is more than 5 - but so? What does that mean to the person that doesn't give a shit? All you've proven that 7 is numerically higher than 5 - nothing more.

Again, I don't see why everyone is pushing so hard one way or the other.




You've just said what I've been trying to say but that statement contradicts itself by saying "XBox live is better" when you've said it's about preference.

So I don't think you can say it's better for everyone no matter what (if you that's what you were trying to say).


I know you guys are all going to argue for it and that's fine (honestly ). But that's just because that's what you like!

I really don't have a preference as I barely play online anyway. And when i do, I don't want to pay for it and nor should anyone (I don't when I go on Steam/PC or on PSN).

The reason I'm posting , is that I think it's wrong to try and make it out that one is awesome and one isn't when they're comparable.

You are misunderstanding the basic concept of this I think. Look.. the Live service has more features, better features, period. That means Live is better than PSN. That isn't a preference... that's just how it is. It's a fact. Now, how that means to each person, is based on their own preferences. Get it?

It's like the Vita is a better system vs the PSP. However, some people might like the PSP better, and it's the better system for them.

[admartian]

You are misunderstanding the basic concept of this I think. Look.. the Live service has more features, better features, period. That means Live is better than PSN. That isn't a preference... that's just how it is. It's a fact. Now, how that means to each person, is based on their own preferences. Get it?

It's like the Vita is a better system vs the PSP. However, some people might like the PSP better, and it's the better system for them.

I get the more features argument, sure (even this can very from being very important to not at all) - but what's to say what a "better" feature(s) is/are?

The only thing really is game stability (while online) and isn't that largely due to the developer of the game anyway? (and would depend on other factors such as speed of the player's internet, location, etc).

[F34R]

Kill that one with the knowledge of the infrastructure that you go through, thanks to Microsoft.

Yes, each person decides on which is better for them. Still doesn't change the OS integration, matchmaking, network infrastructure, etc., that one console has, and the other doesn't.

[admartian]

Kill that one with the knowledge of the infrastructure that you go through, thanks to Microsoft.

Yes, each person decides on which is better for them. Still doesn't change the OS integration, matchmaking, network infrastructure, etc., that one console has, and the other doesn't.

I don't know what you mean by the first part (sorry).

Yes that's true and that makes a difference to some people. But sometimes, even that doesn't mean much to people - just look at Android phones/tablets over iOS stuff.

[mynd]

I don't know what you mean by the first part (sorry).

Yes that's true and that makes a difference to some people. But sometimes, even that doesn't mean much to people - just look at Android phones/tablets over iOS stuff.

Think of it like this..take away the price, look at them purely as a service.
In other words, if they were both free, of both the same price, which one is "better"

I mean I know a Lamborghini is better tech than my Honda Ascot.
But I know which one suits me to take to work everyday.

[Yungstar 2006]

Think of it like this..take away the price, look at them purely as a service.
In other words, if they were both free, of both the same price, which one is "better"

I mean I know a Lamborghini is better tech than my Honda Ascot.
But I know which one suits me to take to work everyday.

the more i read and think about what i get out of LIVE, its just not a service MS would ever be able to give for free and at the same time i begin to understand why the services on LIVE that i like will never be on PS3 and maybe not on PS4 unless Sony charge for them.

[Soldier 95B]

So quantity of features = quality?

Um, no. I was pointing out what a FACT is. Everyone here seems to be pushing their opinions as facts. I was making sure people understand the difference between fact and opinion. If something has more features than the other, there is documentation proving this. Has nothing to do with which service is better than the other.

Fact: Network X has 5 features. Network Y has 10 features

Opinion: Network Y's 10 features are better than Network X's 5 features
Opinion: Network X's 5 features are better than Network Y's 10 features
Opinion: Network X > Network Y
Opinion: Network Y > Network X
Opinion: Network X has more value than Network Y
Opinion: Network Y has more value than Network X

People will keep beating the same drum over and over and over, hoping that someone will bite and take their opinion as a fact. Not gonna happen.

Does anyone have any documentation as to which service (PSN or XBL) is more expensive to operate, and by how much? People might all agree that XBL is more expensive, in their opinion, but are there actual facts to back that up? Until then, it is just an opinion.

[DeviousOne]

Source: http://www.gadgetreview.com/2012/07/...-psn-plus.html

interesting read, I feel it comes down as everyone has pretty much said it comes down to whats best for you