Should I still be paying monthly fees for games? - Xbox Live vs PS+

[mickice]

Did that adapter appear out of thin air?

Mine was a slim btw with built in network

Used to play:
Socom Combined Assault
Midnight Club 3 remix

For free.

[TDbank24]

it is anything but a simple fact and you are quite wrong in your assumption.

There has not been a console in the history of consoles that offers as much gaming as 360 does.
Be it retail, through Arcade and XBLIG to kinect. Multi-plats or exclusives. No console offers more to a gamer.

Of course, there will always be those exclusives like Mario, Halo and Uncharted where you have to own more than one console.

But please, never get confused as you appear to be over what console offers the most to a gamer.

I'm not confused at all but thanks for your concern. I own both a 360 and PS3 and i've played them extensively. I know exactly what each offers.

In my opinion if all you care about is single player experiences then the PS3 is the greatest console of all time. Current titles, HD collections, great exclusives, solid multiplats, free online play, a service in PS+ that caters to the gamer by giving you actual gaming content. What's not to love about the PS3 if you're a gamer who picks up a controller and plays games?

The 360 has less exclusives, marginally better multiplats, and an online service that i believe is a must if you're really serious about online competitive multiplayer gaming. Nothing about Xbox Live is essential to my gaming experience though. It's all done on the PS3 and for free. Sorry, i don't need party chat to enjoy playing a good game. The only time i even use the service really is to catch up with my friend who moved cross country about a year ago. I pay my gold sub because i want to play Gears of War, Halo, and some multiplats with friends online. The 360 is the only outlet to do so.

So yeah, to me it's pretty simple. The PS3 is a better single player console and the 360 is a better multiplayer console in my opinion. Both are great all around though and i wouldn't want to part with either.

[radgamer420]

I'm not confused at all but thanks for your concern. I own both a 360 and PS3 and i've played them extensively. I know exactly what each offers. In my opinion if all you care about is single player experiences then the PS3 is the greatest console of all time. Current titles, HD collections, great exclusives, solid multiplats, free online play, a service in PS+ that caters to the gamer by giving you actual gaming content. What's not to love about the PS3 if you're a gamer who picks up a controller and plays games? The 360 has less exclusives, marginally better multiplats, and an online service that i believe is a must if you're really serious about online competitive multiplayer gaming. Nothing about Xbox Live is essential to my gaming experience though. It's all done on the PS3 and for free. Sorry, i don't need party chat to enjoy playing a good game. The only time i even use the service really is to catch up with my friend who moved cross country about a year ago. I pay my gold sub because i want to play Gears of War, Halo, and some multiplats with friends online. The 360 is the only outlet to do so. So yeah, to me it's pretty simple. The PS3 is a better single player console and the 360 is a better multiplayer console in my opinion. Both are great all around though and i wouldn't want to part with either.

Well said. I agree with your entire post. You summed up my feelings on this topic perfectly.

[mynd]

I dont play it because of the charge to play online,simple as.

Originally i got MW3 on it last year,Forza 4,and have just bought FIFA 13,and a 3mth live sub. Which i resent.

What am i paying for exactly??

I won't deny the lines between the services is getting slimmer these days.
I'll return to what I have previously said though.
MS charges because they were first to have a unified online service. And for most of this generation Sony had been playing catch up.
At the end if the day, people see value in Live, if they didn't they wouldn't pay for it.

[chrisw26308]

Nothing to compare really. Its not like a multiplat game.

If u have a 360 its live or nothing. Gotta ps3, then its psn.

Both deliver good content.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[admartian]

I'm not confused at all but thanks for your concern. I own both a 360 and PS3 and i've played them extensively. I know exactly what each offers.

In my opinion if all you care about is single player experiences then the PS3 is the greatest console of all time. Current titles, HD collections, great exclusives, solid multiplats, free online play, a service in PS+ that caters to the gamer by giving you actual gaming content. What's not to love about the PS3 if you're a gamer who picks up a controller and plays games?

The 360 has less exclusives, marginally better multiplats, and an online service that i believe is a must if you're really serious about online competitive multiplayer gaming. Nothing about Xbox Live is essential to my gaming experience though. It's all done on the PS3 and for free. Sorry, i don't need party chat to enjoy playing a good game. The only time i even use the service really is to catch up with my friend who moved cross country about a year ago. I pay my gold sub because i want to play Gears of War, Halo, and some multiplats with friends online. The 360 is the only outlet to do so.

So yeah, to me it's pretty simple. The PS3 is a better single player console and the 360 is a better multiplayer console in my opinion. Both are great all around though and i wouldn't want to part with either.

Well said. I agree with your entire post. You summed up my feelings on this topic perfectly.

Yeah same as how I see it. Though the friends thing depends on how many of your friends are on either.

[TDbank24]

Yeah same as how I see it. Though the friends thing depends on how many of your friends are on either.

I have more friends on the 360 but i've always liked single player gaming on the PS3 more. So i've got a good balance going. I play the 360's exclusives online and multiplats with friends like Call of Duty and NBA 2k and i do the the bulk of my single player gaming on the PS3.

Early on when i only had a 360 i did a ton of single player gaming on it, mostly multiplat games. I always felt the campaigns for Halo and Gears were more fun with friends though. I think that's what Microsoft was aiming for with Live. Everything about it screams play with friends.

Whereas Sony just focused on pumping out the single player games. It's two different styles that have made me a happy gamer. A lot of the PS3 exclusives i've beaten and haven't touched again but they were simply amazing experiences. On the the 360 i can still go back and play the original Gears online and not get bored with it 6 years later lol.

Both the 360 and PS3 have gotten their use this generation and both were well worth the money spent. They're truly the best of both worlds.

[Yungstar 2006]

As a newly subscribed member to XBL (12mths) i really cannot see what i am getting for my £15 a quarter,over what i get for free on PSN??

<snip>

Hence i have an almost new 360 just sat there,played about 4 times in 12 months.

so your a newly subscribed member of XBL(12 months) and yet you admit to having used your 360 4 times in a year.



i'm wondering what magical power MS have for you to sub to a service for a console you don't use?

[Yungstar 2006]

In my opinion if all you care about is single player experiences then the PS3 is the greatest console of all time.

if you only like single player games then no console offers more of those than 360. somewhat greater than ps3 then.

Current titles, HD collections, great exclusives, solid multiplats, free online play, a service in PS+ that caters to the gamer by giving you actual gaming content. What's not to love about the PS3 if you're a gamer who picks up a controller and plays games?

who said there was anything not to love?

The 360 has less exclusives

not true.

marginally better multiplats, and an online service that i believe is a must if you're really serious about online competitive multiplayer gaming.

marginally better = better

Nothing about Xbox Live is essential to my gaming experience though. It's all done on the PS3 and for free.

so why do you have a 360 since the PS3 does it all?

Sorry, i don't need party chat to enjoy playing a good game. The only time i even use the service really is to catch up with my friend who moved cross country about a year ago. I pay my gold sub because i want to play Gears of War, Halo, and some multiplats with friends online. The 360 is the only outlet to do so.

but you just said "Nothing about Xbox Live is essential to my gaming experience though"
Gears, Halo and some multiplats with your friends say something about LIVE is essential.

So yeah, to me it's pretty simple. The PS3 is a better single player console and the 360 is a better multiplayer console in my opinion.

as an opinion you would be right in your opinion, but the fact is...
360 offers more of single and online gameplay than any other console.

[Soldier 95B]

On live you basically cannot play on live unless you install the patch, decline the offer and your diconnected from live.
there is no way of going online with a game and having the wrong verison of the game

Not sure if your question was answered totally. The PSN+ autoupdate feature can turn on, download, and install a patch (or multiple patches) over night or whenever you set it up to do it. So technically, you could come home from work every day and play your PS3 and NEVER be prompted to update your game title or PS3.

but I've never seen anyone berate GameFly or Netflix.

True. But on the same token, I have never seen anyone say that they got a whole bunch of free games with Gamefly or Netflix PSN+ is a rental service, but it's a great rental service for those who really enjoy the games that they have chosen for you.

If you pay for internet why wouldn't you connect your PS3? Again its free!

So do you think porn sites, storage services, and all other sites and services that have fees on the internet should be free just because we are already paying $30 a month to access the internet?

if you only like single player games then no console offers more of those than 360. somewhat greater than ps3 then.


who said there was anything not to love?


not true.


marginally better = better


so why do you have a 360 since the PS3 does it all?


but you just said "Nothing about Xbox Live is essential to my gaming experience though"
Gears, Halo and some multiplats with your friends say something about LIVE is essential.


as an opinion you would be right in your opinion, but the fact is...
360 offers more of single and online gameplay than any other console.

I couldn't have said it better.

[chrisw26308]

Seriously, not being a smartass when I say this but 360 really has more single player quality titles?

Maybe I made the wrong choice on consoles becsuse single player is why I got a ps3, that and console reliability.

I dont spend a lot of time looking this stuff up though either.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[F34R]

Seriously, not being a smartass when I say this but 360 really has more single player quality titles?

Maybe I made the wrong choice on consoles becsuse single player is why I got a ps3, that and console reliability.

I dont spend a lot of time looking this stuff up though either.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

Nothing wrong with your post chris. It really depends on the genre and the types of games in those classes that you like. I've not been left in the cold on either console in that respect. I'd have to do a lot of homework on the games I've played over the years to try and see which I've had the most on which platform.

[radgamer420]

Seriously, not being a smartass when I say this but 360 really has more single player quality titles? Maybe I made the wrong choice on consoles becsuse single player is why I got a ps3, that and console reliability. I dont spend a lot of time looking this stuff up though either. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

I actually play more SP than MP even on my 360. But I have to say that the 360 also has great MP games (and great SP too). Like TDbank said the PS3 games have alot of epic SP experiences but once youre done there isnt much to keep you coming back due to usually weak MP components (U3 being the exception). But 360 games tend to have great and addicting MP that keeps you playing those games for years after. Thats why I tend to rent PS3 exclusives but buy the 360 ones.

[TDbank24]

I actually play more SP than MP even on my 360. But I have to say that the 360 also has great MP games (and great SP too). Like TDbank said the PS3 games have alot of epic SP experiences but once youre done there isnt much to keep you coming back due to usually weak MP components (U3 being the exception). But 360 games tend to have great and addicting MP that keeps you playing those games for years after. Thats why I tend to rent PS3 exclusives but buy the 360 ones.

Yup, to me the PS3 has more single player experiences to choose from between the exclusives and multiplats but a lot of the exclusives you can rent or borrow from a friend and beat them a couple times and never touch them again and get full satisfaction out of them.

With the 360, it has less exclusives that i'm interested in but the ones i do play like Halo and Gears i get years of gameplay out of them. Between coop gaming and multiplayer i never get tired of Gears of War in particular.

[Soldier 95B]

Seriously, not being a smartass when I say this but 360 really has more single player quality titles?

Maybe I made the wrong choice on consoles becsuse single player is why I got a ps3, that and console reliability.

I dont spend a lot of time looking this stuff up though either.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

You are covering two topics with your question. One of which is something nobody has claimed.

1. You interjected the word quality with single player experiences. That is a subjective question. Nobody but you can answer that. It's based on your experience and personal preference of the games on each respective platform. There is no right or wrong. To some, the PS3 is home for quality single player experiences. To some, the Xbox is home for quality single player experiences. And then there are people like me that find that they are BOTH home to an equal amount of quality single player experiences.

2. Quantity. The Xbox is the console that has the most exclusives and has the most single player experiences (and multiplayer). That doesn't mean they are BETTER though. Quantity =\= quality.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[chrisw26308]

Yes quality is important. My daughter has a wii and I have yet to play or even see a title which interests me. Im still baffled how it sold so many units, or how many decades u can spin mario games but that is another story.

Im one of those rare few who hates call of duty and madden online. I game for a good single player with an interesting story and on that front sony delivers. I cant speak for MS because I dont keep up with them.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[F34R]

Mario is always the same story.

[Soldier 95B]

Yes quality is important. My daughter has a wii and I have yet to play or even see a title which interests me. Im still baffled how it sold so many units, or how many decades u can spin mario games but that is another story.

Im one of those rare few who hates call of duty and madden online. I game for a good single player with an interesting story and on that front sony delivers. I cant speak for MS because I dont keep up with them.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

Mario Galaxy and Super Mario for the Wii are quality titles IMO. As is Donkey Kong Country.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[F34R]

U do realize that most of the games you play on line are hosted by users. or the publisher servers.

Yea. MS is making you pay twice for what you already paid for and adding extra few features. Why not make online play free and make users pay for features if they really want it?

Lets not fool ourselves here. Biggest lure of Live is online multiplayer not the features. Otherwise, MS wont force you to pay for something you have already paid for.

What have you already paid for? How does whatever you answer is make a service free?

[mickice]

I think the vast majority of Xbox gamers would appreciate if the service became free like PSN tomorrow, but since they have no say or choice they lump it like always.

[TDbank24]

but you just said "Nothing about Xbox Live is essential to my gaming experience though"Gears, Halo and some multiplats with your friends say something about LIVE is essential.

Yeah, the sub i have to pay to play those games.

If i had the choice of being able to play online for free or paying for all the bells and whistles i'd probably just go the free route. A lot of times i don't even plug my headset in when i'm playing on Live.

Essentially, most of us pay for Live to be able to hear little kids yelling in our ears. Nothing is essential about the service besides being able to play the games online. If Halo and Gears were multiplats i'd just play them on the PS3 for free probably.

[mynd]

U do realize that most of the games you play on line are hosted by users. or the publisher servers.

Yea. MS is making you pay twice for what you already paid for and adding extra few features. Why not make online play free and make users pay for features if they really want it?

Lets not fool ourselves here. Biggest lure of Live is online multiplayer not the features. Otherwise, MS wont force you to pay for something you have already paid for.

Yeah Im still not getting how I've paid twice?

Yeah, the sub i have to pay to play those games.

If i had the choice of being able to play online for free or paying for all the bells and whistles i'd probably just go the free route. A lot of times i don't even plug my headset in when i'm playing on Live.

Essentially, most of us pay for Live to be able to hear little kids yelling in our ears. Nothing is essential about the service besides being able to play the games online. If Halo and Gears were multiplats i'd just play them on the PS3 for free probably.

Your right most of us would, and the end result would be Microsoft would loose money on the product.
People need to step back and reliase that PSN is free because Sony drew what they thought to be a cheap line in the sand and said "it's free".
If they knew what PSN was going to have to turn into to remain somewhat competitive, they would never have done that.

A lot of people assume that PSN is free becuase it actually doesnt cost anything to Sony.

The reality is Sony subsidise the heck out of it, and it contirbutes to make a loss for Sony.

Hooking every console into an online server is not free to either company, the infrastructure is insanly complex, and they both have invested a heavy amount of money into server farms. Thats not free.

People who use PSN, should be eternally greatful that Sony give you a product thats costs money for nothing.

But people need to stop kididng themselevs into thinking this shold be a free product. Infrastructure costs money.

[faaeng]

You're still paying too much. Doesn't cost me a cent to battle my buddies or rank killer high scores.
Heres how, PSN is free.

I've both a PS3 and 360. Some friends have both, some have one or the other. I seldomly use my 360 but for $1/month what the hell right? Much better then $40-50/yr for live knowing I may not use it much. I was just offering a nice tip to get live dirt cheap for those who may not know about the loophole. Does every post need to be turned into a whose better then who competition?

Some updates are mandatory, some are not. (I don't know what you're arguing on about though).

PS+ is really about the games. Call it a rental service or what you will, but I've never seen anyone berate GameFly or Netflix. But since it's Sony it's suddenly ok....

Trophy sync and cloud service are just extras of that service.


But hey, if people want to shit on it, they're welcome to. Just don't see the point just because they don't own or like the system (as much as their Xboxes).

One service being good does not invalidate the other fyi.

And I've never argued against Live. And even there are those that do, my point still stands.

Just wanted to point out, the dif between PS+ vs say Netflix or game fly? Well Netflix and game fly you get to pick what you want to watch/rent whenever u want to rent it. PS+ they pick what u can rent whenever they decide they wanna let u rent it.

It was nice, but lately all they've been offering is games I already own and a bunch if minis I couldn't care less about, so it has become not really worth it for me as of late.

[admartian]

I've both a PS3 and 360. Some friends have both, some have one or the other. I seldomly use my 360 but for $1/month what the hell right? Much better then $40-50/yr for live knowing I may not use it much. I was just offering a nice tip to get live dirt cheap for those who may not know about the loophole. Does every post need to be turned into a whose better then who competition?



Just wanted to point out, the dif between PS+ vs say Netflix or game fly? Well Netflix and game fly you get to pick what you want to watch/rent whenever u want to rent it. PS+ they pick what u can rent whenever they decide they wanna let u rent it.

It was nice, but lately all they've been offering is games I already own and a bunch if minis I couldn't care less about, so it has become not really worth it for me as of late.

That's fair. But do you honestly think it's realistic for them to be doing that with all their games - at least those that are new releases?

It's a good service. Its value (like with anything else ever) is subjective and is gauged differently by each person. So to you, sure, but clearly to millions of others out there it's enough and more.

Same with those who find it perplexing paying to play online (obviously those users are getting more out of it than that) on XBOX live.

[faaeng]

That's fair. But do you honestly think it's realistic for them to be doing that with all their games - at least those that are new releases?

It's a good service. Its value (like with anything else ever) is subjective and is gauged differently by each person. So to you, sure, but clearly to millions of others out there it's enough and more.

Same with those who find it perplexing paying to play online (obviously those users are getting more out of it than that) on XBOX live.

Why not? You can get all those game including new releases from gamefly. Well, the ones available on disk at least.

I understand the worth of PS+for many people. I've had it from the start. Like I said it was nice for me from the start, but as of late not so much. At least not for me. I'm essentially just paying for cloud storage, auto updates, trophy sync and discounts on some games which discounts and maybe cloud storage aside really should be free anyways.

As for live, what % of people do you honestly think would pay for a gold sub if MS left the online gaming and in game chat free and gold was for all of their other benefits like cross game chat, Netflix ( which I honestly don't understand why u need gold to use to begin with since you already pay for Netflix... it you didn't have to pay for nf n it was part of Live I would understand...) what else is their? Really, I have Live and nothing else comes to mind o_O?