So you’re a gamer that can only have one “premium” gaming service active at any given time, and you want to know which has the most “BANG” for your buck, right? Fear not my intrepid readers, I’m going to break down the pros and cons of each service so you can decide for yourselves which to get. Obviously the preferred choice is to get both, but not everyone has the resources for that, so which should you leave as the standard free service, and which should you go ahead and upgrade?
20°
40°
30°
30°
Ad 
30°
To be fair, if I don't play those games and would never buy them otherwise they are hardly worth $180 to me?
Furthermore, once your subscription runs out all those games are no longer accessible to you, so you didn't really get *free* games, but rather access to them.
Again to be fair to some that distinction doesn't matter, but it certainly isn't *FREE* because you paid continually to access them. It's a service!
Also, I want to re-iterate that Xbox Live Gold is a choice. You chose to buy the Xbox 360 which clearly says there is a fee for certain features. It isn't some unknown "thing" you found out afterwards, and it certainly isn't an issue trading in or sell the console when you do. In fact, most people discover this within the 30-day return window so they take it back to the store!
Again to be fair to some that distinction doesn't matter, but it certainly isn't *FREE* because you paid continually to access them. It's a service!"***
Just like how in XBL when your subscription runs out you no longer have access to the multiplayer side of your games?
You see people need to stop looking at it like that.
PS+ doesn't just give you access to free games and XBL doesn't just give access to play multiplayer.
Both services give you MORE than that. If you only get PS+ to get free games and you only pay for Live just to play the multiplayer portion of your games then you are not doing yourself any good in the first place.
In your opinion. I was the only person in my group of gaming friends who waited to get a PS3. The rest all bought 360s. None of those people have a 360 anymore and none of them think XBL is better than PSN. None of them have PS+ either, so that's the free PSN they're talking about.
-
@nukeitall
Trying too hard again.
'Outside_ofthe_box' makes a good point.
From the article: "Sony has a plethora of benefits for it's paying members, while Microsoft only offers what base PSN users get for free"
Yep, that about sums it up. With PS+ you're paying for access to 3 full PS3 games per month as well as free PSOne classics, free minis, tons of discounts, cloud game saves, automatic downloading and access to betas. Xbox Live is a total ripoff. Online play should be free on Xbox 360, especially since most 360 games these days are multiplats you can play multiplayer in on PS3 or PC for free.
however u want to interpret 'free'
xbox gold = psn
psn plus > xbox gold
HOME alone has tons of free games, add on the free psn games giveaway HOME itself pwns xbox silver.
i recieved diner dash for free by looking up the answers on google and submitting via HOME lol
and kudos to ppl who recieved fat princess for free during the scavenger hunt :)
unfortunately i havnt played HOME in a very long time so idk how much it has changed over the last 1-2 years
I want new technology, im tired of reading all this crap about these blind fanboy driven platforms.
P.s: @iiiDystopia yes PSN does have cross game chat (Party) on the PS vita and it also has the cross game text chat on ps3 which does the job quite well and I have no issue with; the PS3's low RAM is what stops it being able to do voice chat across games currently; not the PSN so using that to argue against PSN is stupid really, and yeah if you don't want to use home you wouldn't download it; it's there as an option and clearly plenty of people enjoy ad use it I personally haven't been on it in a long time- might have to check it out as I hear they redid since I was last on. (Hom#s probably still crap though lol)
PS Plus offers tremendous value, even if you want to bring up the fact that game access expires when you stop subscribing. It's a choice to continue the access to games you would otherwise have to spend upwards of $200 per year for, and there's always some really nice surprises in there too like the recent addition of LBP2, inFamous 2, Deus Ex etc. And then there's services like Netflix which is essentially the same thing and no one complains that you have to pay again to access that service.
The biting point here is that simple online play is being defended by Xbox people because they have no choice but to pay, so they feel obliged to defend that unnecessary investment. That is the reason most people pay for it. Then Xbox Live has ads which shouldn't be there for Gold members... inexcusable. It's ridiculous to also charge to access free services and other subscription services like Netflix, but the ones who pay will never admit that. All it is is an app. You don't see Apple or Google charging you yearly to access your apps. Why is BBC iPlayer free on XBL but the rest of them aren't? Inconsistencies in standards - what's with that? What's the difference, other than BBC told MS "no"? More questions that shouldn't have to be brought up but it's another relevant area unfortunately.
Really here, we're comparing premium services of both consoles. The top tier services when compared means this, and exactly this...
More games vs. More features. As a gamer I know EXACTLY which one I prefer, which makes this argument pretty conclusive.
And as far as features go, PS4 will have the capability to offer everything XBL does, once there is enough RAM to implement them. It's not even speculation - Sony can't afford not to. PS Vita has that RAM, and PS4 most definitely will too. That is the REAL biting point. PS4 will offer free online play with pretty much equal services to XBL at this rate, especially with the GAIKAI absorption which will expand PS+ even more.
Choice vs. less choice. Hmmm.
MS needs to either add a similar thing to PS+ for Gold, or remove pay to access multiplayer, going into the future. It seems to be ridiculous to pay for something that everyone else get for free, and that's the simple ability to play games online, that doesn't require your funding of $60 per year. What's worse is that they'll be using that money to funding endeavours like Kinect and we all know how that's turning out. Just think about these things before you defend them, alright?
the way you think new cars should come with a padlock on the gas tank an you have to pay a extra fee to chevy ever month just to use the gas you already bought.
claim that live isn't a choice when you yourself said "if I don't CHOOSE". That alone is admitting the use of a choice, even if you can't see it yourself.
Everything is a choice, even death is a choice. The reasons behind the choice do not matter, once a choice is made then there was a choice.
To act or to not act on whatever it is you contemplate about? = Choice
Edited for missing word.
the inherent flaw in your argument can be boiled down to these things:
1. while it may be true that you don't have access to those games once your subscription has expired, you're not realizing and/or understanding that that's (in the above poster's case) $180 he didn't have to spend on video games. and just because *you* don't think they're worth $180, doesn't mean they're not worth that much to him. i've been a member since day one, and i've saved around $500 on games. that's not including the money saved from the discounts, free avatars, free DLC, etc... which you get to keep no matter what - so for $50, that's a pretty good return as far as i'm concerned.
2. i don't know about you, but once i completely finish a game, i don't play it again, ands keeping all that stuff on the HDD is doing nothing but take up space i could be using for other games - unless it takes you a year to finish golden axe?
3. sure, i guess it's a choice to get a gold subscription, but if you want to do anything worthwhile with the console, you *need* that subscription. and guess what? once your subscription expires, you no longer have any of those features *gasp*! you don't need PS+ to be able to access a lot of the same online features that an XBL gold subscription provides.
4. PS+ isn't an unknown thing you find out about afterwards, so i don't knwo where you're getting your information from.
5. you're a notorious anti-sony troll, so nothing you say really has any merit.
that's your logic. there are no dumb choices just choices. that whole idea is what's dumb.
see how dumb it is if you want to play with words. you can "choose" to get shafted by always buying half games. makes titles like bf3 cod an halo look real good with no mp.
look dude if your argument is sidetracking word meanings then you lost the debate. i bet it smarts when you can't debate the actual subject an have to retreat like that. retreat! Retreat! RETREAT!
If you think XBL is better, fine, just don't start crying and whining about people that disagree with you.
What the? you sure do sound self-centered.
This really comes down to preference, because it isn't an Apples to Apples comparison. It's kind of hard to compare an experience which changes from person to person.
For me, I don't play or care about the games given on PSN+, but I do play online a lot so having the ability to easily get games going with my online friends is monumental.
People that do that a lot know how frustrating it is that you can't communicate with your friends while they are playing a game. With XBL party system and cross game chat, it is as easy as jump into the party (while playing a different game), check status and see if I can join.
I'm hoping MS makes a queue system next, so as soon as the game is over then drop me right into the game with my friends for the next one.
They are always well wrote but always found on Sony/PS3 articles showing bias towards the 360 haha.
Anyway, i have to disagree(i no longer own a 360) i got one to play with friends because i was the only one gaming on PS3 from the start and all i would hear was XBL is way better, cmon just get one.
I finally gave in awhile back. Party service/chat was fantastic.. it DID let you sort a game fast and communicate better..if you were all playing the same one.
If i was in a different multiplayer game i found it annoying because i'd rather be using the in game chat to talk to my teammates so we could win.
I also found it annoying when trying to play a singleplayer player game and being invited into a party and having to listen to them all being loud while i'm missing parts of the story, i found myself muting them far too often.
So yeah in my experience unless it was being used while you were idle(purposely using it for chat only) or playing the same multi-player game it wasn't as good a feature as made out, not only that but the only MP wanted to play was COD, gears, a little halo and Fifa(which i never owned).
I understand you have your preference but it honestly added nothing special for me, certainly not for the price because that feature a side to the barebones version of each not much is different at all.
TL;DR - I disagree, my experience did not justify the price.
For the guy who's complaining about waiting till Christmas to get the subscription.. If you're getting a yearly renew then it doesn't matter, but like stated earlier, they have sales year round.
I think both services are equally good. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. Unless Xbox adds more to their service, however, PSN+ will be better once they add cross chat (I know Vita has this, but not many people have a Vita, I do and love it...go get a Vita people!.. and that doesnt change the fact that PS3 doesn't).
Now to the crappy article.. wrong facts? check. Comparing features that have nothing to do with Gold vs. +? check. Seriously, UI has nothing to do with either. He's reviewing a paid service using criteria that has nothing to do with the paid service. UI isn't even a PSN nor Silver thing, it's just a UI.. Cross Party chat is on PSN but that's on the Vita only. I'm sure there's more but I don't care enough to pick this article apart even more. Poor stuff.
That's your problem not your 360. Show it some love.
Honestly, Gold sickens me. Actually Microsoft does. Pay $60 a month for online access, cloud storage, crosschat and ads. Yeah. Ads. Psn doesn't even have ads and it's free! In fact the only thing it is missing is crosschat, ads, cloud storage and a price. Psn+ fills all of those but crosschat and Ads.
So, how is it superior?
Though i do respect sony for allowing free PSN and i hope next gen they keep it that way along with adding party chats ect...once those are implemented, PS4 will have an edge on xbox 720.
For now, XBOX Live is superier in allmost every way.
Yeah so "superier" that you, the game is forced to pay a company to use your OWN bandwidth for there online features...
So "superier" that games are limited to the space of a Dvd9 disc...
So "superier" that the same online/chat features that you named isn't found anywhere else, oh wait Vita does that...
So "superier" that one of its greatest selling game titles wasnt even compatible to, play on the said system you mentioned from microsoft, which in turn caused it to go through a series of updates to become more playable...
So "superier" that it only has about 4 good games coming out between this year and the end of the next...
This supposed, "superier" console is inferior in the eyes of the superior console owners, but I shouldn't have to spell out which console that is good sir... Good day to you
On the other hand PSN has a lot more dedicated servers for almost lagless gaming, yet you keep paying for the privilege to use your own bandwidth to play laggy P2P games.
I get Sony fanboys, but I just can't understand MS fanboys.
@jessupj
PSN GAMES do have more dedicated servers, but Live has a lot more servers running the network itself, which is why it connects players faster, is faster moving in and out of games, has the bandwidth to support VOIP(PSN does not) and faster downloading content. It still all comes down to preference.
But that alone doesn't define the experience for many gamers. It is still the value of the games for the dollar that is going to win over gamers. For that reason PS Plus is such a better value...more games!! What is lost going from LIVE to PS3 isn't going to be more significant than that for most gamers.
Amen brother. The only reason why you have one bubble is because you don't worship Sony with your posts.
I mean heck, his question about why more people pay for Live Gold is a rather obvious one isn't it? They pay because they 'have' to, in order to even touch multiplayer. What are the chances it would be the same if their basic online MP access was free?
Marvel Pinball
Back to the Future 1-5
Tomb Raider: Underworld
Final Fantasy V
Fatal Inertia
Awesomenauts
Castlevania: Chronicles
Trine 2
Rock of Ages
Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light
Hard Corps: Uprising
Saints Row 2
Rathchet and Clank All 4 One
Just Cause 2
Virtua Fighter 5
Little Big Planet 2
Infamous 2
That's not all the games I've downloaded for free from +, just the ones that I think people do definitely pay money for. There have been several games that went up for free on + that I already paid for as well.
"Ppl need to understand that most games that ps+ offers wouldn't be bought in the first place by many gamers. "
That is utter Arrogance, AND TO TOP IT OFF HOGWASH.
THE Arrogance ON BOTH SIDES ABOUT WHICH IS THE BETTER SERVICE OFFERED
IS BEING QUITE FOOLISH!
SUCK IT UP AND ADMIT BOTH SERVICES OFFER WHAT GAMER'S WANT AND THAT IS GAMES!
GOD..its that d@mn simple enough for people?
I have tried out both systems online and guess what, they are not that d@mn "superier" over the other.
they offer thing's on one service that's not on the other..yay, for services offered to the gamer's.
it's based on preference nothing more nothing less
discounts on DLC,avatars and themes
i got my money's worth the day i signed up because i got 12 games for free and 3 more this month. so if 3 new games every month till my renewal is up i should have tippled the value by than
let's put it like this one is optional and other you have to pay for to even go online just to download a demo
going forward let's say if wii-u really step up and has a good working online store within 2 years along with psn from sony MS will really have a hard sell with xblive when parents can buy the other 2 HD consoles and get online for free
Best online gaming went to Xbox Live for this article, yet the Sony sheep don't mention anything to do with this. The most important part of it all is online gaming, but why should we expect you SDF to understand that? You guys don't really game online like the 360 people do. PS fanboys are more of 1 player game types, rather than multi player. Hence why games like COD suck on PSN compared to Live.
Funny how sony fanboys passed this part of information up and go straight to the free games. Ya, you get free games because they're embarrassed that PSN was hacked.. did you all forget? You like free games that get taken away when your subscription ends too... but nobody talks about which has the better online play.. which in this article, goes to Xbox Live.
Summarize.... Xbox Live>PSN Plus for Online Play... the most important. I love how people rather have content, over a great service. Ya.. that's the deal.. give me free games that go away, over great service. I'm the PS3 fan of 2012.. I don't care about good service.. just free crap for my service that gets hacked, and I have my credit card numbers compromised, and they give me free games to make up for that mistake, then take them away when my ps plus runs out.
CONTENT OVER GREAT SERVICE!
Next, where the hell is the actual comparison of the stability? They mention that XBL is the more stable offering, how did they come to that conclusion? What testing was done? What about a comparison of download speeds?
And when did Sony promise "cross game chat" was coming. If I'm not mistaken, Sony has said time and time again that it wasn't coming because they can't do it. "It's not possible to retrofit something like that after the fact." It's due to the way RAM is handled in the system. Right there that tells me that little research was done for this article.
I agree with their ultimate conclusions, but this article doesn't offer much. Having used both services extensively I don't see that XBL has enough to justify paying $60 a year over the PSN's free offering. If I'm going to spend $50-60 a year, I'd rather go for the service that offers online play AND $450-500 worth of free, retail games. This is one of the biggest reasons to get PSN+, and it barely gets a sentence.
And I'm so sick about hearing of "cross game chat". What a useless, annoying feature. I never used it on XBL, I'd never use it if it came to PSN. Ever answer the phone and try to talk to someone when they're gaming or watching a movie? It's one of the rudest, most ignorant things you can do to a person and I've always just said "Dude, hang up and call me back when you can talk." If you can't give me you're full attention, talk to me when you can. This isn't a "feature" to me. I group this in the same category as those annoying, voice changers.
How do you call it a win to play online when virtually everyone else doesn't, plus NO regular discounts and NO free games regularly? It's like ID: 10-T tax, if you follow me (no offense, justsayin').
PS Plus is like a Sam's card: you pay to get at the good stuff for cheap, plus free samples some days. Don't get me wrong, I still haven't got Plus myself, but I can see the benefits because you get more than what you pay for in free games; it's like a return on an investment. Yeah, all of them aren't AAA games, I know, but AA games are pretty good to get your hands on every month, plus some of them ARE AAA titles.
- "When you get online on PS3, it feels so dead , especially with it's terrible boring XMB".
Okay, I don't see how the XMB makes playing online exciting or not, the games do that for me; but to each his/her own. Hey, maybe you can tell me how exactly the XMB makes you feel like there's a community? I actually don't follow that, so maybe you can help me understand that.
The difference between "free" games and "online" for subscriptions is that one can be finished, meanwhile, the other can only last as long as the subscription.
Difference is people who want to play online with the XBOX360 are forced to pay. So it's not entirely accurate to suggest they are 'willing'.
If XBOX Live was free to play with others online then yes, it would be better than the free version of PSN, but this is about the paid option of PSN versus Gold. Personally i think PSN+ offers greater value than what one gets with XBOX Live Gold. XBOX Live Silver is missing one key component, the ability to actually play games with other people online.
And another thing. I don't know if you guys noticed, but most of the games offered have very limited to no MP sides to the games. They are mostly single player games. Why? So people can't complain when they lose the game once the subscription is over. What are you going to do with a SP game once its done? How many finished games do you have stockpiled at home that are left untouched after you finished them. You pay $50 and get dozens of games to play and finish before the year is over.
Its not like they are shitty games either. I paid $60 to get InFAMOUS 2 and there it is free to all PS+ subscribers (who paid $50 and get that plus more)
I don't see how Kinect is better when more people are willing to buy a Wii.
I don't see how [fill in the blank] is better...
See the flaw of your logic?
I can still shoot my bud a letter if I really wanted to talk to him, and I can send the same letter to multiple buds, if the need arises. Cross game chat is a nicety, not an essential component to my gameplay. I know people talk about coordinating games together with friends, but really, if you *have* to talk to your friends to do that, you can make a clubhouse in home and go there to talk together with your mics. I know some people cry foul and say "but we can talk during our different games to do it". Yeah, so? If you're coordinating to play a certain game, eventually you won't be playing different games now, willya? Therefore, some of you will be switching out anyways, so what's the problem? People are splitting hairs about the actual sequence is what actually makes cross-game chat better or not? They both have solutions, there you go.
Playing the multiplayer on a game that I bought is an essential component to my game play, and that should not be hindered. That's why I also say although I like XBL (it's a great online experience, no doubt), and it's not like I'd refuse to play on XBL ,that would make me a little pig-headed for turning down an excellent experience, I do refuse to pay for it (at this time, seeing that all games and consoles may do that, removing the lynchpin from the games industry; ultimately cause it to collapse).
That's the soul argument of net neutrality (the techy term for double-dipping) and is worse than DRM (and I hate DRM). Let's say that DRM made you have to pay to listen to the last half of a song or the rest of a movie, that would be insane, wouldn't it? Can someone tell me how paying for access to the other half of your game after paying for it is NOT insane?
Could I charge you a little for the other half of your sandwich after you paid for it, maybe?
A Napkin fee, why not?
so by your logic, controllers with batteries that need to be replaced are better than controllers with rechargeable batteries because the Wii outsold the other consoles.
could it be that people pay for Live because its the only way the can fully access a game they already paid for?
people are sheep, the fact that people advocate for a service that makes them pay for something they already paid for is no surprise.
If you bought the game on discount, and the PS+ ends YOU STILL OWN THE GAME(can play it)
if you got the game free, and the PS+ ends YOU DO NOT OWN THE GAME(cant play it)
(From what i understand)
The games that PSN+ let you borrow while you have a subscription are nice, but a lot of the time they are just the bottom rung of games that nobody really wants. This last batch that were announced at E3 were pretty solid though, I dig both services, but Xbox Live is more for online play and social aspects, easy to find friends, game competitively and things like that, while PSN+ is just like a discount service and some games to borrow while you are enrolled.
PSN is fine enough for playing online games, but it really feels like it lacks depth for me, almost like it doesn't have a true identity. Its very bare bones. When I heard Sony was launching PSN+, I though they would actually improve their online services, which hasn't happened.
I didn't say anything negative about PSN+ aside from the fact that a lot of the games they end up offering to lend you aren't top tier games.
You should hang your head in shame, sir. I would expect a Simpsons fan to be more informed about something before they open their yapper about said thing.
You seem more like a Family Guy fan to me. The way you're just repeating what someone else said first, not really coming up with that yourself.
For you to say PSN hasn't been upgraded since launch means that you 100% for sure havn't had a PS3 since 2006 to be able to make a statement like that as though it's fact in the first place.
HAD you actually been a PSN user since the beginning you would know PSN is like a whole new animal compared to what it was at launch. And since PSN was hardly even in place when PS3 launch, PSN has come this far in LESS THAN a single console generation. Live has had 2 whole console cycles to get where it's at.
Perspective.
I had the free PS+ after PSN got hacked, didn't have it for a long time because I just buy the retail games. I recently got a year for only $15, so I renewed and could still access old games like Golden Axe, Streets of Rage 2, Sonic 2, etc. I already have Just Cause 2, LBP2, inF2, etc. on disk, but downloaded them anyway on another PS3 in the house.
Minor correction. Some free DLC can no longer be used after the sub expires.
PS+ is a much better value.
Service goes to Live Gold.
PS+ for me because I get the stuff I care about.
Service goes to Live Gold."***
That actually sums it up perfectly imo.
But mind you I haven't really played much Xbox Live or checked out what you get from the XBL Gold service, So I could be wrong, If you have a PS3 then PS+ is just incredible have right now!. PSN - Neo-Axl
Live dominates PSN + as far as the user experience IMO, it has for years, SONY has better luck with PS4 and a more robust online exp.
This is purely opinion, for me and millions of others the social experience on PSN is the better experience. Just like iPhone users and droid users both feel their respective platforms are superior. It all comes down to the end user and their experience there's no definitive "lithmus" test to determine superiority whenever they both offer the same basic features.
psn is better by faaaaaaaar
However, in terms of value for money, PS+ absolutely DESTROYS live. I joined just for the free games, and I do most of my gaming (online especially) on the 360. For the same money as live you get X amount of free games. Yeah some of them are rubbish, but I currently have Infamous 2, LBP2, Strangers Wrath and Human Revolution amongst others on my hard drive ready for me to play whenever I want, and they are all top class games that didn't cost me much.
I would find it more odd that people wouldn't use it if they had Netflix.
Besides, all Octo1 was trying to say is, it's free on PSN but not on 360. Which sucks.
Bu.. bu.. he saves in electricity. Think of the children...
Gold gives you access to the online portion of games you've already paid for.
Once you stop paying for either, both of those paid for "services" go bye bye.
PS+ is obviously the better value.
Xbox Live is almost a scam.
What will be the excuse when PS4 has party chat for free? Vita already has it and PS4 will too
Pay for XBL - Get free ads
there are a few things that ps+ had that gold has..but nothing that would change my opinion..
a combination of the two feature sets would be awesome tho
When you are buying a game like Call of Duty or Battlefield for 50£, and much more than 60% of the content in the game is in the multiplayer mode, and you have an Xbox 360, can't afford Xbox LIVE Gold because that's the only way you can use the part of the game where the most unique conent is you're screwed and Microsoft is forcing you to use even more money to buy their membership service to access the other part fo the game is unnaccaptable. You bought the product, why should you use more money to get access to the other part of the game? That's a big bitch.
And that's how Microsoft get all their customers from. Because they ar ebeing forced to buy Xbox LIVE Gold mermbership to get access to the other part of the game which you just actually just paid to get even more access fore if you only have an Xbox 360.
1) continue charging for live
2) concentrate on online shooters
This works out PERFECTLY for them like we've seen. USA loves their shooters and when MS is also from USA the fans will defend it and their practices to their deaths. They also get a LOT of help from the media since most sites are from USA too.
This sure has been a lopsided gen. I can't believe how much MS gets free passes on stuff that get barked to death if it happens on Sony's side.
Same with this site. A comment like this will be disagreed to death even though everything I just said is so obvious. And to add insult to injury people will still say this site is full of Sony fanboys. SSDD move along....
Are you even aware of all the stuff you can no longer access when XBox Live subscription lapses? Pro tip: It's not just online games.
When it comes to XBLA, there's no ownership because there's no content. It limits your access to subscription services, it limits your access to online play and a host of other things, but there's no tangible, playable content.
So, it's not really the same, nor is it truly comparable. XBL is paying for access. Don't worry, Live defenders have their own little features they list as well.
Besides, digital games will not beat physical games.
You and your ilk keep saying that, even in the face of people breaking down which is better.
You can spend money on Live and get Cross Game Chat and the ability to use the online portion of games and apps.
You can spend money on + and get lots of deals and access to plenty of games to play for free.
When the subscription for both ends, you lose all those things.
What you're telling me, though, is that online play and CGC on Live are worth MORE than the value of all the games and discounts you get over the course of a year. Do you seriously believe that?
That access to online, the use of apps, and talking to people across games is worth hundreds of dollars each year?
Really?
The best way to play games is around people not away, Microsoft has promoted don't be near anybody just play online and be alone. I know people have germs, LOL.
The problem with that is not everyone wants a vita and you shouldn't have to buy a handheld to get it. Live is still better. More expensive but still better.
The Vita can do it so obviously the PS4 will do it.
For the record.. I feel like a fairer comparison would be GameFly VS Plus (to some degree) seeing as Xbox Live is more of a "toll" to gain basic access and Plus is more of a NetflixGaming-on-crack kind of thing.
Wow, way to be a sheep. Try thinking for yourself for once. It's thought processes like that, that have made Microsoft able to get away with offering nothing unique to the gaming industry while still making a profit. Good job sheep!
Otherwise you're comparing a subscription service to a free service, which is just ridiculous. You don't compare Hulu to Netflix. You compare Hulu Plus to Netflix.
Not to mention you're comparing an add-on to what comes in the box (aka, PSN comes with the PS3, and XboxLive Silver comes with Xbox, where you need to buy something outside the console and base activation to get Gold and you need to buy nothing at all in order to get basic PSN).
I bet I'll get a million disagree's just because I'm telling people something they don't want to read. Something factual.
I knew I'd get a bunch of disagrees...N4G just rides Playstation's dick all day.
Some people are laughably stupid...
So you let PSN+ run out? What happens? You can't play Saint's Row or LBP if you downloaded them free.
So you let Live run out? What happens? You're screwed out of $30 for EVERY game you've paid $60 for, as you will no longer have access to half, or 2/3s of that game.
How any logical person compares an additive experience like PSN+ to a necessity like Live is beyond me. Now, is Live better than PSN? Depends on how much you love cross game chat, because that's the only difference.
I mean, PlayStation still doesn't have a functional chat system, and Sony still doesn't have the support after its games. Yeah, there's a sale for content every month but that's greasing the wheel, Playstation has nothing from a longlife standpoint, Resistance and Killzone are online jokes compared to Xbox.
Also, every knows third party support on the system has been lacking for some years. And you still need to install a game right after it has been downloaded. And the PSN interface is boring and uneventful.
In addition, the online community for Xbox Live is light years ahead of PSN and that alone with worth my $5 a month.