How Xbox Live is blatantly better than PSN (humorous article)

[F34R]

Here is some excellent PSN service. This is the time from a 165MB update file, on a connection that is currently at:

[sainraja]

If just playing online is the goal, then the PS3 will be fine for you; and free. That doesn't make it a better service.

That was mickice's point.

PSN has other services like XBL. I don't need to list those as I am sure most of us know what they are (Netflix, Amazon Video etc.) So, if just playing online, watching Netflix/Amazon, is the goal, yes the PS3 will just be fine for you; and free online with not additional fee for Netflix/Amazon.

Anyhow, I am afraid if I ask this any other way you'll ignore it, so what exactly is it that makes XBL a better service for you?

[F34R]

That was mickice's point.

PSN has other services like XBL. I don't need to list those as I am sure most of us know what they are (Netflix, Amazon Video etc.) So, if just playing online, watching Netflix/Amazon, is the goal, yes the PS3 will just be fine for you; and free online with not additional fee for Netflix/Amazon.

Anyhow, I am afraid if I ask this any other way you'll ignore it, so what exactly is it that makes XBL a better service for you?

Can't think of the other way you'd have asked lol, PM it to me...

Integration into the OS, demos for all xbla games, community features, matchmaking system, store bandwidth... off the top of my head.

[sainraja]

Can't think of the other way you'd have asked lol, PM it to me...

Integration into the OS, demos for all xbla games, community features, matchmaking system, store bandwidth... off the top of my head.

The other way wouldn't have been a direct question.

• Integration into the OS -- hmm..
  
• Demos for all xbla games -- okay I can see this as an advantage
  
• Community features -- depends on what they are, but I can see this as an advantage too
  
• matchmaking system -- not sure how this is better than PSN -- I have played online on the X360. Halo Reach, Gears 2/3
  
• store bandwidth... -- not sure about this, I just did a test of downloading the demo for Kingdoms of Amalur on the PS3 and X360. In 10 minutes, on XBL -- the demo was @ 8%. On PSN, it was @ 10%.

And my connection is...

[F34R]

The other way wouldn't have been a direct question.

• Integration into the OS -- hmm..
  
• Demos for all xbla games -- okay I can see this as an advantage
  
• Community features -- depends on what they are, but I can see this as an advantage too
  
• matchmaking system -- not sure how this is better than PSN -- I have played online on the X360. Halo Reach, Gears 2/3
  
• store bandwidth... -- not sure about this, I just did a test of downloading the demo for Kingdoms of Amalur on the PS3 and X360. In 10 minutes, on XBL -- the demo was @ 8%. On PSN, it was @ 10%.

And my connection is...

XBL: In 10:04 turned from 29% to 30%. File size - 1.9GB
PSN: In 10:00 - 43MB downloaded. File size - 2594MB

Here's the speedtest results after canceling the PSN download.

[TGO]

Here is some excellent PSN service. This is the time from a 165MB update file, on a connection that is currently at:

The Vita does actually download & transfer really slow
For comparison, Infamous 2, Motorstorm 3 Oddworld strangers was downloaded in less then a hour, thou Just cause 2 did take me a few trys as I had to keep deleting it cuz it wasn't installing and that was taking a hour just for 7gb each time until I rebooted my modem and turn its Wifi off, and tried again, the game was downloaded by time I made a coffee & had a cigarette, bout 10-15mins

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2

[F34R]

The Vita does actually download & transfer really slow
For comparison, Infamous 2, Motorstorm 3 Oddworld strangers was downloaded in less then a hour, thou Just cause 2 did take me a few trys as I had to keep deleting it cuz it wasn't installing and that was taking a hour just for 7gb each time until I rebooted my modem and turn its Wifi off, and tried again, the game was downloaded by time I made a coffee & had a cigarette, bout 10-15mins

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2

The PS3 transferred at a snails pace.... read a post above yours.

[mickice]

It all boils down to each year an average xbox gamer walks out of a store with COD and a Xbox gold card.
A PS3 gamer walks out with COD and Fifa.

Yes the features vary, but the core plus extras are provided in PSN with a smooth experience with other players. For free.

[Pez_555]

The Live yearly fee seems to me to be something PS3 fans like to use as an excuse to show why PSN is better. People have different perceptions of value. The fee is negligible when you factor in the amount of gold subscribers using a 360 (dont know what the number is these days). If the yearly fee was such an issue, why dont people just buy a PS3 instead?

[LfCpS3]

Sorry, but post sounds like:


With the latest fall beta xbox live just proved its superiority even more with a better web browser than PSN has. That and many other things set them apart.

Better web browser?

TBH i could creat a better web broswer.

What, 5 years later? About time. TBH i haven't even turned my xbox on in like a good 6 months. Not sure how different it is ( though the ps3 also has not been used much)

PC>All

[J3ff3]

It all boils down to each year an average xbox gamer walks out of a store with COD and a Xbox gold card.
A PS3 gamer walks out with COD and Fifa.

Yes the features vary, but the core plus extras are provided in PSN with a smooth experience with other players. For free.

its 44 pence a week. not even the price of a chocolate bar.

the point is, it IS worth it. i get the feeling those that don't see it have only really used XBL on occasion, and haven't actually spent much time with it.

i rarely play online (once in the last 5 months) - and i still pay, just on the off chance i will. it is fuck all money wise.

[mickice]

The point is MS could offer the exact same service for free.

[J3ff3]

The point is MS could offer the exact same service for free.

they could also offer MS word for free. they don't. for pretty obvious reasons.

its not like LIVE is free to run or maintain.

[Yungstar 2006]

The point is MS could offer the exact same service for free.

i'm sure MS could offer the exact same service for free, but then it would be no better than PSN. simple..

[F34R]

It all boils down to each year an average xbox gamer walks out of a store with COD and a Xbox gold card.
A PS3 gamer walks out with COD and Fifa.

Yes the features vary, but the core plus extras are provided in PSN with a smooth experience with other players. For free.

lol. Where did that average come from?

The point is MS could offer the exact same service for free.

Either could give their console for free too....

[sainraja]

XBL: In 10:04 turned from 29% to 30%. File size - 1.9GB
PSN: In 10:00 - 43MB downloaded. File size - 2594MB

Here's the speedtest results after canceling the PSN download.

That's weird because my download was @ 232 MB after 10 mins on the PS3. XBL got up to 8% for me and PSN was @ 10% for me.

I am on a slower connection than yours.

I'll do some more tests. At the moment, I am not buying into your bandwidth argument as an advantage of XBL.

[Pez_555]

its quicker for me to download on live also, always has been. Again, i'm not sure why as i'm using the same connection.

[davin_g]

I think it all comes down to preferences. Just the same as I prefer Sony exclusives over Microsoft and I prefer the duel shock over the xbox controller. I also prefer free over paying money. That said I'm pretty much the worst person to ask about this because I'm biased against Microsoft and try as hard as possible not to support anything they run because of my personal opinions of the company as a whole (nothing necessarily against xbox). I don't like their business practices, affect on the media, and their support and general quality of their operating systems/programs. So I should likely be ignored for this topic.

That prefaced I think this is all about preference. Price is just part of the package. It shouldn't be really part of the equation. Some say ps+ is like renting...but then xbox live is like renting online...because without paying for it you can only play half your game online. You lose multiplayer and online coop I assume. Some people like one interface and others like the other. To me you people make no sense arguing. I understand why people like live and I understand why some prefer the network. Its like the choice between Pepsi and Coke to me. If you just give me one drink I would take a Pepsi (because its sweeter) but if you give me a whole glass I want a Coke (its smooth and the right mix). Fact is it really depends on what one wants to use. Live may be better for people or some may not use all the features or even like those features. Regardless both are very good services and plenty to offer. Its just a preference deal. One is not superior. One may be more appealing depending on what the users preferences are.

That all said I fully believe Microsoft will always have a more attractive user interface/online setup. First off they do charge for it. Second off they build operating systems/software. Its in their blood! Its what they do for a living. They are experts at it. Just like I believe Sony offers a better quality console. Hardware wise. That's why they are able to redesign/shrink it better. They have better quality of performance/less failure. Sony is primarily a company of engineers. So while one company is superior at software/operating systems the other is primarily experts at building/engineering consoles. One would likely argue that Sony builds a better quality console and a superior console. One might say but well price...360 is cheaper...just like some said Playstation network is cheaper. Its all about preference again. Some may not care to send 3 and 4 consoles in for rebuilds. Some may not care for blu-ray movies. Lots of others may. In the end this comes down to preferences. I believe fundementally Microsoft is more adapt at making and designing operating systems/software and Sony is much more adapt at engineering hardware and consoles.....and probably superior at content because they make movies, release music albums, and have a much bigger first party studio.

If one service basically was broken, failed to work, or was generally unusable or didn't exist I would say you could say one is superior...like Nintendo has no basic online services almost. This isn't an issue where one does everything the other does and more...we have a lot of things both companies provide...and then each have their own parts of the service the other doesn't. So it comes down to preference in my eyes. Just like it is almost impossible to say COD is better than Battlefield...they both provide the same type of gaming but each has things they do a little better and one offers some features and gameplay elements the other doesnt. One is more popular...but does that mean it is superior??? One is definately prefered more....so just like that...Live is prefered more....but I wouldn't say its necessarily superior.

[emmerich]

its quicker for me to download on live also, always has been. Again, i'm not sure why as i'm using the same connection.

Same with me.

Live is by far the quicker and better service in all aspects. I'll never understand those who fail to see it.

[F34R]

I think it all comes down to preferences. Just the same as I prefer Sony exclusives over Microsoft and I prefer the duel shock over the xbox controller. I also prefer free over paying money. That said I'm pretty much the worst person to ask about this because I'm biased against Microsoft and try as hard as possible not to support anything they run because of my personal opinions of the company as a whole (nothing necessarily against xbox). I don't like their business practices, affect on the media, and their support and general quality of their operating systems/programs. So I should likely be ignored for this topic.

That prefaced I think this is all about preference. Price is just part of the package. It shouldn't be really part of the equation. Some say ps+ is like renting...but then xbox live is like renting online...because without paying for it you can only play half your game online. You lose multiplayer and online coop I assume. Some people like one interface and others like the other. To me you people make no sense arguing. I understand why people like live and I understand why some prefer the network. Its like the choice between Pepsi and Coke to me. If you just give me one drink I would take a Pepsi (because its sweeter) but if you give me a whole glass I want a Coke (its smooth and the right mix). Fact is it really depends on what one wants to use. Live may be better for people or some may not use all the features or even like those features. Regardless both are very good services and plenty to offer. Its just a preference deal. One is not superior. One may be more appealing depending on what the users preferences are.

That all said I fully believe Microsoft will always have a more attractive user interface/online setup. First off they do charge for it. Second off they build operating systems/software. Its in their blood! Its what they do for a living. They are experts at it. Just like I believe Sony offers a better quality console. Hardware wise. That's why they are able to redesign/shrink it better. They have better quality of performance/less failure. Sony is primarily a company of engineers. So while one company is superior at software/operating systems the other is primarily experts at building/engineering consoles. One would likely argue that Sony builds a better quality console and a superior console. One might say but well price...360 is cheaper...just like some said Playstation network is cheaper. Its all about preference again. Some may not care to send 3 and 4 consoles in for rebuilds. Some may not care for blu-ray movies. Lots of others may. In the end this comes down to preferences. I believe fundementally Microsoft is more adapt at making and designing operating systems/software and Sony is much more adapt at engineering hardware and consoles.....and probably superior at content because they make movies, release music albums, and have a much bigger first party studio.

If one service basically was broken, failed to work, or was generally unusable or didn't exist I would say you could say one is superior...like Nintendo has no basic online services almost. This isn't an issue where one does everything the other does and more...we have a lot of things both companies provide...and then each have their own parts of the service the other doesn't. So it comes down to preference in my eyes. Just like it is almost impossible to say COD is better than Battlefield...they both provide the same type of gaming but each has things they do a little better and one offers some features and gameplay elements the other doesnt. One is more popular...but does that mean it is superior??? One is definately prefered more....so just like that...Live is prefered more....but I wouldn't say its necessarily superior.

The argument of which is better isn't about preference at all. That's pertaining to something more like, "which do you like better?" It's a completely different argument or aspect of comparing the features between both services. One gives you more services, for a fee. It's a better service, but you do have to pay for it. That's indisputable. If we're going to go by the service someone likes more, then this would have been a dead thread lol.

[Yungstar 2006]

That all said I fully believe Microsoft will always have a more attractive user interface/online setup. First off they do charge for it. Second off they build operating systems/software. Its in their blood! Its what they do for a living. They are experts at it.

simple as that..

[TGO]

The PS3 transferred at a snails pace.... read a post above yours.

Dragons Dogma?
I see how long it takes me I try upload some pics



a bit slow today but I think that because its peak time, but as you can see I've downloaded 40% in 4 minutes, which is way faster then both yours & sainraja's

[sainraja]

XBL: In 10:04 turned from 29% to 30%. File size - 1.9GB
PSN: In 10:00 - 43MB downloaded. File size - 2594MB

Here's the speedtest results after canceling the PSN download.

I am not getting the same results as you, F34R. There is no consistency at all -- so far the PSN seems to be ahead of XBL in terms of how fast it's downloading the demo content (not by much, in some cases, but seems to be ahead.) There is still an advantage that Microsoft has in terms of how their downloads are set-up. You've made no mention of it yet and nobody here has either.

262 MB in 10:00 (first test) and 509 MB in 15:00 in second test.

I took pictures of the end result both times. I didn't post them at first -- didn't feel like I needed to. But I think I should share to prove my results. You conducted a test yourself to see (I am glad that you did -- since it shows that your connection although faster, downloads slower than mine does on PSN.)

Kingdoms of Amalur (10 min)


The Expendables (15 min)

its quicker for me to download on live also, always has been. Again, i'm not sure why as i'm using the same connection.

Same with me.

Live is by far the quicker and better service in all aspects. I'll never understand those who fail to see it.

That's not proving to be true for me. XBL downloads are slower for me. I wonder why that is.....supposedly it's better right?

Now, I do expect that my post will go ignored....meh..

[TGO]

@ sainraja
you're right, as you can see from my post & I made sure you could see the time too to demonstrate, PSN atleast on my end is several times faster

[sainraja]

@TGO - the results seem to differ (in favor of PSN) but yeah so far it's not proving to be true for me (that PSN is slow or XBL having an advantage here.) If one service was better in an area than another, you'd think there would be consistency in that.

I set a timer both times....and paused the download for PSN to capture the results. You can't seem to pause the download for X360 so it still got a little (slightly) more time while I was taking a picture...