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

[davin_g]

@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...

I don't know or care too much which is faster but indeed the PSN looks well faster...because the file sizes are considerably larger compared to the live versions and more still has been downloaded.

I still think this is about preference. Microsoft probably gives a better, quicker, seemless online functionality (again because of their expertise with operating systems and software) but they charge and some of their features like less lag/faster downloads is very much debatable. Sony offers a free service but yes it doesn't have the smooth user interface but again...they are experts at engineering. They offer a much more durable, advanced (blu-ray), graphics (first party only), and to me software lineup (again I enjoy their first party games more but thats an opinion). To me its all an opinion/preference. The differences are pretty negligable. One is free and has tons of options and abilities. The other charges and perhaps ease of use and a little nicer features. To me which is superior is up to debate. To offer what Sony does FREE OF CHARGE could very well be seen as a SUPERIOR SERVICE after all.

[Pez_555]

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.)



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..

Isn't it obvious that it is going to vary from person to person? Until somebody surverys the internet and finds out which is the slowest service for each and every user we will never know which is faster or slower....

This could go on all day with people posting their results, but in my experience Live downloads quicker than PSN on the same connection....simple as that, that alone justifies the yearly fee I pay for Live - thats what i was getting at.

[sainraja]

You're helping me prove my point.

If it ranges person-to-person, you can't really say (with confidence) that one is better than the other. Otherwise, we would have consistency and XBL should have performed better for me than PSN in both tests (regardless of connection.)

In your experience, Live downloads perform quicker than PSN on the same connection and therefore you say it justifies the cost. For me, it doesn't. Would you still say that if you were getting the results I am?

There are areas XBL is better than PSN. This isn't one of them.

I don't know or care too much which is faster but indeed the PSN looks well faster...because the file sizes are considerably larger compared to the live versions and more still has been downloaded.

I still think this is about preference. Microsoft probably gives a better, quicker, seemless online functionality (again because of their expertise with operating systems and software) but they charge and some of their features like less lag/faster downloads is very much debatable. Sony offers a free service but yes it doesn't have the smooth user interface but again...they are experts at engineering. They offer a much more durable, advanced (blu-ray), graphics (first party only), and to me software lineup (again I enjoy their first party games more but thats an opinion). To me its all an opinion/preference. The differences are pretty negligable. One is free and has tons of options and abilities. The other charges and perhaps ease of use and a little nicer features. To me which is superior is up to debate. To offer what Sony does FREE OF CHARGE could very well be seen as a SUPERIOR SERVICE after all.

I didn't see your post. I had assumed (without checking) that the download sizes are the same.

Perhaps 8% is the same as 10% on the PS3 / 29% being the same as 43%. Regardless, my results were different than F3AR's, where he was only able to download 43 MB in 10 mins on the PS3; which is not true in my case (I got 263 MB.)

There isn't any consistency. If one was better, there should have been.

I don't really care either honestly but...well I had to point it out and PSN downloads always went quicker for me when I had cable internet.

I am on 4G internet now.

[TGO]

Isn't it obvious that it is going to vary from person to person? Until somebody surverys the internet and finds out which is the slowest service for each and every user we will never know which is faster or slower....

This could go on all day with people posting their results, but in my experience Live downloads quicker than PSN on the same connection....simple as that, that alone justifies the yearly fee I pay for Live - thats what i was getting at.

Yeah but one can not say downloads are faster on Xbox live its as simple as that when people are getting better speeds from PSN but your not
Or in my case I'm downloading many times faster on PSN compared to your fastest speed on Live
It becomes a problem with your connection not PSN and the fact that you pay for a service theres no ifs or buts, its none debatable
And it can't be used as a reason to pay for live, thats just ridiculous
But if Live is better service in general then sure people can except that as fact but you can't use the download speed as a way to measure why its better & worth paying for, because it not
Its your connection and I can't see how anyone can debate that


Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2

[Pez_555]

Yeah but one can not say downloads are faster on Xbox live its as simple as that when people are getting better speeds from PSN but your not
Or in my case I'm downloading many times faster on PSN compared to your fastest speed on Live
It becomes a problem with your connection not PSN and the fact that you pay for a service theres no ifs or buts, its none debatable
And it can't be used as a reason to pay for live, thats just ridiculous
But if Live is better service in general then sure people can except that as fact but you can't use the download speed as a way to measure why its better & worth paying for, because it not
Its your connection and I can't see how anyone can debate that


Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2

it is for me, because things download faster on xbox live for me - that is my experience, you cannot state whether it is something i value as having a reason to pay for it or not. So no, it isnt ridiculous, its my experience.

definitely isnt my connection - cant even tell you how many people have said that it is my connection. I've tried it too many times for it to be a coincidence or my connection. Live is faster for me....thats not to say it isnt for other people.

[sainraja]

You can't attribute the speed to XBL when it ranges from person-to-person. You can believe that it's because of Live. If so, then why isn't it the same for me?

Also: This

[F34R]

The Live download speed is consistent, whereas the PSN isn't. That's the point. It's not dependent on individual factors. It is dependent on the bandwidth they provide. Sometimes it takes ages, and sometimes it doesn't. This is only logical and common sense to see that the PSN download speeds are atrocious at times, while the Live downloads aren't.

[Soldier 95B]

Live downloads about twice as fast for me than PSN does. Add to that, no install on the Xbox.

[F34R]

Like I said, they provide more bandwidth than PSN. Period.

[radgamer420]

Live downloads about twice as fast for me than PSN does. Add to that, no install on the Xbox.

Yep same here. And like F34R said its because Live has more bandwidth. I'm sure our Xbox Live payments go towards that as well as other things. That alone is worth what little I pay.

[davin_g]

You're helping me prove my point.

If it ranges person-to-person, you can't really say (with confidence) that one is better than the other. Otherwise, we would have consistency and XBL should have performed better for me than PSN in both tests (regardless of connection.)

In your experience, Live downloads perform quicker than PSN on the same connection and therefore you say it justifies the cost. For me, it doesn't. Would you still say that if you were getting the results I am?

There are areas XBL is better than PSN. This isn't one of them.



I didn't see your post. I had assumed (without checking) that the download sizes are the same.

Perhaps 8% is the same as 10% on the PS3 / 29% being the same as 43%. Regardless, my results were different than F3AR's, where he was only able to download 43 MB in 10 mins on the PS3; which is not true in my case (I got 263 MB.)

There isn't any consistency. If one was better, there should have been.

I don't really care either honestly but...well I had to point it out and PSN downloads always went quicker for me when I had cable internet.

I am on 4G internet now.

What I was stating is actually the PSN download is bigger...and still more is complete. EX. 10% of 100mb is 10mb. 8% of that same size would be 8mb. Now however since live has smaller downloads 8% of say 80mb is actually only 6.4mb. What I am saying is live is CONSIDERABLY slower for you in this instance. Not only is it less % done but less % of a smaller file size....meaning even less mb have been downloaded. People may say live is faster but that could be attributed to the fact the file sizes are smaller??? IDK it really doesn't matter. What we have found out...is amazingly the service varies from one person to another...making this entire discussion...wait for it....SUBJECTIVE.

[J3ff3]

you REALLY see the difference in speed when downloading OS updates.

it doesn't matter what the size is, my psn updates have never been quick. its fucking annoying.

i'm just updating LIVE right now (which i don't think i've done in about 5/6 months) - its taken about 1/2 minutes, including install.

i think f34r is right - its not that the psn CAN'T be fast on some peoples connections, its that its often flaky, and for some people permanently so. I've only ever been happy with my psn speed a few times. i've never really been unhappy with my live speed.

[keefy]

When I used PSN to download stuff it alwasy maxed my connection out, always. At the tiem it was 16Mbit.
That was 6 months ago.

[sainraja]

you REALLY see the difference in speed when downloading OS updates.

it doesn't matter what the size is, my psn updates have never been quick. its fucking annoying.

i'm just updating LIVE right now (which i don't think i've done in about 5/6 months) - its taken about 1/2 minutes, including install.

i think f34r is right - its not that the psn CAN'T be fast on some peoples connections, its that its often flaky, and for some people permanently so. I've only ever been happy with my psn speed a few times. i've never really been unhappy with my live speed.

F34R was using content download speeds as a benchmark to say that PSN is slower. If he wasn't saying that PSN can't be fast on some people's connections, then why didn't he say it?

The Live download speed is consistent, whereas the PSN isn't. That's the point. It's not dependent on individual factors. It is dependent on the bandwidth they provide. Sometimes it takes ages, and sometimes it doesn't. This is only logical and common sense to see that the PSN download speeds are atrocious at times, while the Live downloads aren't.

Hmmm.....then I totally missed the point. That's not what I thought you were saying.

[F34R]

F34R was using content download speeds as a benchmark to say that PSN is slower. If he wasn't saying that PSN can't be fast on some people's connections, then why didn't he say it?

No I wasn't. I initially said, "STORE BANDWIDTH". You came up with the speed. I replied with the different results from the same two demos. The idea of store bandwidth is that it is more stable with speed. I NEVER said the PSN doesn't have a good speed at times.

[sainraja]

No I wasn't. I initially said, "STORE BANDWIDTH". You came up with the speed. I replied with the different results from the same two demos. The idea of store bandwidth is that it is more stable with speed. I NEVER said the PSN doesn't have a good speed at times.

I edited my post above yours. Sorry.....I didn't understand what you were trying to say.

[keefy]

Is PSN+any better for those that pay? Does it offer different less congested servers to download from or is everyone still together with the poorpers?

[F34R]

Is PSN+any better for those that pay? Does it offer different less congested servers to download from or is everyone still together with the poorpers?

No. It took all night to download what would normally take an hour.

[TGO]

Is PSN+any better for those that pay? Does it offer different less congested servers to download from or is everyone still together with the poorpers?

Nope, its takes less 10 min to download a 2gb demo regardless of PS+ or not,
Subject to internet speed & location
or in F34R case it'll probably take him 2 days to download Dark siders which is 10gb, while me its a half hour download
Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2

[F34R]

Nope, its takes less 10 min to download a 2gb demo regardless of PS+ or not,
Subject to internet speed & location

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2

Unfortunately it doesn't relay that criteria to others consistently.

[TGO]

Unfortunately it doesn't relay that criteria to others consistently.

Tbf I do have a 60mb connection, thou PSN is capped at 30mb

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2

[J3ff3]

Tbf I do have a 60mb connection, thou PSN is capped at 30mb

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2

the point is, while LIVE doesn't max out my connection speed, it does get close, everytime. whereas the PSN only rarely seems to get anywhere near.

i have yet to see someone try to account for that.

[F34R]

I'll say it one last time lol.

It's definitely a fatter pipe on Live than with the PSN. When the congestion gets on PSN, it's affected a lot more than congestion on Live due to the pipe.

[J3ff3]

I'll say it one last time lol.

It's definitely a fatter pipe on Live than with the PSN. When the congestion gets on PSN, it's affected a lot more than congestion on Live due to the pipe.

oh yeah, i know - i meant, noone who is disagreeing with LIVE being faster, seems able to account for it.

the answer is obvious

slight speed differences when dling demos on individual connections are different. my psn is like a bloody yo-yo, and at its lowest it is pretty bad.

[F34R]

Nope, its takes less 10 min to download a 2gb demo regardless of PS+ or not,
Subject to internet speed & location
or in F34R case it'll probably take him 2 days to download Dark siders which is 10gb, while me its a half hour download
Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk 2

It'll take me an hour (give or take) on the 360. I'ma put it on the PSN right now, and download the hour game trial, it's 10GB. We'll clock it. I'll have some video.