“Xbox Live is Old News” Why?

Anyone who’s ever read my work knows I don’t normally do this, but for some reason I felt compelled to respond. I read an article today talking about how PSN+ trumps Xbox Live, which had the potential to be a decent piece if the author had provided any relevant comparison of either service. Instead I was greeted with cold hard journalistic research informing me of important facts like: “Sony’s PlayStation Network to hold the crown for offering the best network to PS3 and PS Vita owners” or “it is one thing to claim that the PS3 is better than Xbox 360, which is a sometimes forgotten fact.” Although I was shocked that Xbox Live and Steam would would take a backseat to PSN for PS3 owners, I continued to read.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Septic1961d ago

This article is old news.

Septic1960d ago

Let me clarify, we have had countless articles such as this from both sides and to be honest, no one ever comes to an agreement.

It's so easy to make flame-bait articles (I know this isn't one- its just a response to one) and anyone can put their own spin on things. Let me show you how easy it is:

"PSN IS OLD NEWS" - 5 years on and you can't even send voice messages...its official- the PS3 is weaker than the original Xbox.

I pay for Xbox Live and whilst I don't agree with things like having to pay to have access to features such as Netflix and Internet Explorer, I still think that, out of all the consoles, the 360 is the only one that really gets online gaming right. The quality of its interface and speed/intuitiveness are unmatched by other consoles.

BUT, as far as value for money is concerned, PSN+ is definitely superior in my opinion.

Either way, its up to you to decide what you prefer. Don't let others rail-road you into liking what they like.

rapidturtle1961d ago

You didn't give us any facts. You wrote an article based on your opinion. You bashed the previous article for not having facts, and then did the same thing as the previous writer.

DarrenMG1961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )

I'm not sure what facts you're looking for. You're pointing out that I wrote an opinion piece and posted it in the proper section of this community site and you're condemning me for it? I believe I even stated in the article that;

"I just wanted to tell our readers what I thought of this “popular” article."

So I'm not sure of your angle with that comment, if you're suggesting that I re-write another sites work. Think again. This was my opinion on an article that I read, much like I'd discuss a newspaper article with family or friends.

Wintersun6161961d ago

You're complaining about an article that claims biased opinions are facts, and then you do that very same thing in your own article. His point being, that's quite hypocritical.

rapidturtle1961d ago

I was just saying that you kinda bashed the other guy for writing the same type of article.
" I read an article today talking about how PSN+ trumps Xbox Live, which had the potential to be a decent piece if the author had provided any relevant comparison of either service. Instead I was greeted with cold hard journalistic research informing me of important facts"

MikeMyers1960d ago

Why is Xbox Live old news?

1. Friends cap is still set at 100
2. Very rarely if ever it supports mods
3. Most games are still capped at 16 players. Why have we never seen a Halo game for example with 64 people?
4. It still has ads even though it's supposed to be a premium service that comes with a fee.
5. Speaking of fees you still can't play online for free.
6. Patches and fixes are still being held up at Microsoft's end.
7. It still doesn't support MMO games very well. Games like Huxley have all but disappeared.

Instead what Xbox Live has evolved into is a social media service where it really benefits the U.S. the most. That's because it has services only available in the U.S. and most of these social things they are adding don't have much to do with gaming. I wanted to see the actual gameplay within Xbox Live evolve and that hasn't really happened much since they came out with cross-game voice chat.

ALLWRONG1960d ago (Edited 1960d ago )

@MikeMyers invite your buddies to a party while playing Uncharted, COD, BF3, SOCOM or anything for that matter.

Might be easier just to call em.

Lvl_up_gamer1960d ago

@ MikeMyers

1 - A cap at 100 friends is plenty of room. NOBODY has 100 friends that they play with all the time. 10 - 20 close friends that you game with is the norm. I feel sorry if people have 100 friends online. Get a life and go outside.

2 - If you want mods stick to PC. Mods general purpose in multiplayer games is to give someone an unfair advantage. Best to keep the mods off of home consoles.

3 - Yes most games are capped at 16 players, just like how most games are capped at 16 players on the PS3. Yes some games are over the cap like Frontlines on the 360 which has 50 players and 256 players with MAG but there is a cost to graphics and gameplay to have that many players on a console. Hopefully next gen consoles will see a standard 64 players and maintain graphical fidelity and performance.

4 - The adds on XBL are minimal at best. Over several slides on the dashboard, I counted 3 adds that were unrelated to gaming. 3!! and they are very small and only turn on when you highlight them. I have NEVER in the 7 years playing on the 360 watched or seen an add when I didn't want too. However, I see an add every time I turn on NHL 13 when I launch an online game for either Mcdonalds, Red Dawn or something else unrelated to gaming. These adds are ALSO on the PS3 version.

5 - I also can't get HD channels on my TV for free even though I have other channels. I pay for the HD channels because they are a premium feature. I also pay for main events like boxing matches and UFC fights...even though I have cable and internet. Why do people pay for PS+? All you are doing is paying a fee so that you can pay for other things at a lower cost...So you are actually paying even more then $50 a year as well as you don't get to keep free content unless you keep paying....So please stop being a hypocrite. Both MS and Sony charge for exclusive content.

6 - Patches and fixes have to meet a standard of quality. Why you would find a negative in this is beyond me, and show me 10 examples of MS holding up patches and fixes.

7 - MS not supporting MMO's has nothing to do with Huxley's "disappearance". Huxley could have still released on the PC or even the PS3. It disappeared because when the beta came out the game received poor reviews. It's still in "development" but is pretty much vapourware. Nothing to do with MS or it being an MMO over XBL. Please get your facts straight. As for MMO's there are a couple such as FF XI, and the recently released Happy Wars. But out of all the games released this year on the PS3, how many of those are MMO's? What like 3 over the 7 years of the PS3 being on the market? Give me a break. Stop being so 1 sided and delusional.

Not only does XBL have party chat, but it also has a unified gamertag. Not having to make a new name in every game is great. Also when I am invited to a game, I just put the game in and XBL automatically will put me into the game I was invited too. There are plenty of great features XBL has. It just seems that the only ones who complain the most and are the most uninformed are those who choose to play on the competition.

MikeMyers1960d ago

Lv Up Gamer, since XBL is a premium service by demanding a fee customers should expect more. If I pay for satellite radio I want it to be ad free and offer better and more options. What exactly does Live offer the other free services do not? Yes Live is the most seamless but aside from cross game voice chat I don't see much. Instead we have more restrictions. No MMO games aside from an old Final Fantasy. Hardly if any mod support. You have people like Gabe Newell questioning that while doing a better job with Portal 2 on the PS3. Then you have indie devs who cannot afford the high cost of patches that are not there on the Wii U or Stream. I see Sony taking chances with games like Dust and MAG. On XBL it's still limited to peer to peer hosting.

Live used to be quite ahead of its time back in 2002, now 10 years later not so much. If they truly think the service fee is justified then offer a free alternative and see how willing customers continue to pay.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1960d ago
Eyeco1961d ago

His argument basically boils down to

"i want it so i'm gonna pay for it, what's wrong with that ?"

And to answer that question , nothing's wrong with that, the question I'm asking is a point that was brought up in the previous article is, how long are you gonna be paying for XBL ?

Thats the real question, what's gonna happen next year when the Valve console launches with superior free online ? Or what about the PS4 guaranteed cross game chat, free online as well as the optional £10-30 PS+ ? What are you gonna be paying Microsoft for ? Aren't you gonna feel scammed paying for a service that the competition offers free , and in Valves case a superior service for free?

It's not so much that XBL is getting old , it's more so to the fact that reasons for paying for the subscription is starting to deteriorate, so again come next year are you guys STILL gonna be paying for XBL ? if so how are you gonna justify that ?

Wintersun6161961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )

The OP says:

"I agree with those that say PSN+ raised the bar in what a console premium service should and could offer to paying subscribers and yes Microsoft should improve in that regard, but that’s where it ends. Sony missed the boat this generation with online and that’s not a Xbox fanboy remark, it’s a fact supported by much mathematical proof.

You may get angry that I said it, but the fact remains that if we’re comparing the number of paying customers, not what perks are provided to those customers, Xbox Live wins. And I know this is a cold reality for some of you but, revenue and profit are what measures success in the world of business. Unfortunately how satisfied your customers are is secondary to the fact of whether they continue to pay or not."

But we're gamers here. Which is why I care a lot more about the perks I get than how many other people use the same service. Your logic is flawed and you're not any better than the fanboys you complain about in this OP.

Ares901960d ago

That's because, for online gaming, you HAVE to. PS+ is like the name says, a plus. Not a requirement to play online.

MasterCornholio1961d ago

What we’re left with is the all familiar stench of Sony bias we’ve come to expect from their, and every other, community of sensitive and angry, yet painfully loyal, gamers."

Looks like the author is angry and a bit paranoid over fanboys lol.

Motorola RAZR i

Eyeco1961d ago

I stopped reading at that point

bumnut1961d ago

Sorry I don't agree, having to quit a game to chat killed PSN for me.

That was a couple of years ago, no longer have a PS3 so apologies if that has changed.

My friends used to joke that PSN is awesome..... as long as you have your mobile phone handy!

SuperSonic2661961d ago

I said PSN+

You are paying for 1 feature alone, while PSN plus gives you constant free games, exclusive dlc and discounts, just face it, xbox live is outdated.

WetN00dle691961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )

That is the spoken truth! Perhaps not the connectivity BUT the content PS+ offers leaves LIVE in the dust!

bumnut1961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )

Cost is irrelevent, XBL is just a better designed service. I don't think its worth paying for, in fact I think it should be free. But it is the better of the 2 imo.

I don't own a 360 either btw.

Show all comments (41)
The story is too old to be commented.