To answer the title with no suspense... Yes.
PS+ filling my backlog since June 2012. Keep it coming Sony May already looks good for Europe.
where the hell is my ps4?
it coming...just be patient. Now, to those below who are asking about Live and ads. you need to understand the way things are laid out. The XMB is the UI for the PS3. It is (in itself) just the menu for navigating your PS3 and its different sections. Think of it like a "Mall". Each section is independent of the next but within each section is a shortcut to the PS Store. That is where you will find not only the content pertaining to the section you entered from (games or video, ...) but you will ALSO find ads. Ads that are generally promoting the various content available on the store. When leaving the store you are prompted if you really want to do that. something I didnt quite understand sony did...but its their store so its their way of doing things. There is no seamless transition between the different parts of the store to the xmb. Now Live is often time criticized for the "ads all over the place" as many like to say but they never really see the reason its laid out like it is. The 360 UI is not just for navigating the features of the 360. It is built around the entire live marketplace in one contiguous design. Very much like a department store. You can seamlessly transition from one area to the next and content that is being advertised is available in all areas. There are promos for non game related things but those too have a purpose in that they 'sometimes' give you free things for looking. It could be avatar stuff, gamer pics, entries to various contests...whatever. But you never really leave the "store". That is what makes the marketplace such a hit for MS is that it is built into everything a 360 user sees and does. You can jump from browsing games, videos to playing a game without ever being prompted that you are leaving one area for another. It is very likely that kind of integration will be applied to the PS4 because sony would also like there to be smooth transitioning between the different features the ps4 will offer. Especially the social integration and being able to be in a game and jump to something else without that lag of the system pausing/stopping one thing to focus on another. The sizable amount of RAM in the PS4 seems very ideal for multitasking in that way. It can be speculated that the next xbox will be an even smoother feel than the 360. As for the ads themselves...both service will have them. The important thing to remember is will they be "intrusive"???? Would you have to watch an ad before starting a game? When we go to movies, we watch previews (and ads) before the movie starts. I would hope they (both MS/Sony) dont subject their consumers to the same tactic when they want to play a game but I could see them doing similar before you watch a movie or stream some sort of media content. Ad revenue is just as important to these companies as consumers buying the games. I dont have a problem with the ads on the 360 dash just as i dont have a problem with them in the PS store. sometimes they catch my eye showing me there are some deals going on in other parts of the respected services. Oh and people confuse one thing for another. PSN (the service) is free but the ps store (accessible from the XMB) does have ads. Live is both free and paid and the dash (fully integrated marketplace) has ads. So both have ads. People just choose if they want to see them or not. "Intrusive" ads are those you have no choice but to see.
PSN: No, but it's a nice service and considering it's free makes it a close offering to XBL. PS+: Yes, without a doubt.
...i feel like darthv72 just said a whole lot of nothing. Whether you see the entire dash as a store or not, there are still ads all over the place for non-gaming related things like cars, shaving cream, etc. You can write a book trying to spin that into a good thing but no matter what you say, the number of ads on the 360 dashboard - as well as the content - is just ridiculous, especially for a paid service. Really - for a paid service that gives you nothing in return unavailable for free elsewhere - there should be absolutely 100% no ads to be seen anywhere. It's inexcusable and im surprised people stand for it.
I, as a PS3 exclusive user, gotta agree.Sony has the upper hand when it comes to content but in terms of techinal fluidity XBL wins. The extra memory just makes it faster..
PSN is free and isn't full of ads. I would not pay £40 a year for a 'fluid' service.
@Squall I would never even consider buying and Xbox and paying for my net, lol. I was merely stating a fact. Xbl is faster but I'd still take my PSN over it any day :).
@Squall5005 I never understood that. Why are they paying for a service that has ads plastered all over the place? I mean TBH, I always thought Sony was going to use advertisement to make up for additional cost, considering it's a free service.
What's everyone's Internet speed, I don't have a problem of PSN being slow. But I do have to worry about eating too much data from the ISP.
@fareastorient they're talking about the response time for the xmb to pop up after you hit the ps button etc. has nothing to do with internet speed. ontopic: yes
"Ads plastered all over the place" What are you on about? You mean that little minature square tile at the bottom corner that you guys make such a big deal about but those who ACTUALLY use Xbox Live don't even notice/care about? I'm sorry but as far as this generation of consoles is concerned, playing online games has only really been viable on the Xbox 360. Its not just fluid, it's kept up with the times. The PS3 can't even send voice messages. Think about that for a second. And now think about the fact that the ORIGINAL XBOX let you do that. Let's not even get into cross-game chat. I'm sorry but N4G simply doesn't get it. I get the impression from many on here that you either 1) talk about games more than actually them (2) are not into online play (3) haven't even got a 360 or used Xbox Live before. The fluidity of the online interface of the 360 should not be understated. N4G doesn't get it but ironically, Sony does (finally). Look at the PS4. Fanboys....smh
@septic. Thank you. I found PSN to be horrid. PSN+ is a great idea, but the actual online infrastructure has to be improved. Fortunately, it looks like Sony is making that a priority for the PS4.
So for a PS3 exclusive user, you're an expert with XBL? Did i miss something?
Chat is all that's left. People can argue Psn is more value for money sure(including Ps+ too)...because it definitely is haha. But Xbox live is a better service for gaming. It just costs more in the greater end of things.
"PS3 exclusive user" Don't knock it till you try it. This isn't some made up story but my buddy was a hardcore Sony guy and he finally went out and thought he'd try the Xbox 360 this year and he says he's been playing it more than his PS3 lately. He says Xbox Live is worth paying for. Yeah, I know you won't believe that but I'd have him verify that if he had an N4G account haha. To each his own, I like the PS3 but I had way more fun on my Xbox 360 this gen as well. Also worth noting is that these "Ads" often consist of things you wouldn't see or know about such as Gears of War contests/Black Ops 2 contests, sales every week on stuff in the Marketplace. You wouldn't know unless you went to check out the marketplace, so it's nice knowing that there's stuff on sale all the time.
@Septic So exactly how many free games has XBLG given you over the past 5 years or so? I know PSN+ has given me a shit ton of small and large titles. Yeah okay I can't cross game chat...don't really need it so much since I prefer single player games mainly and I like to have all of my attention invested into those games. The few MP games I like to play I want to play with friends so I don't need or really want Cross Game Chat. It all depends on personal preference of the gamer. For me if you can go on auto pilot while playing a game and talk about random stuff with someone who is playing a different game then I have to ask myself...why did I buy that game if I'm not really into it... Other gamers should ask themselves something similar...did they buy the game to have something do while talking to a friend online, did they buy the game because everyone else was and it's cool to play the game because everyone else is? I guess I'm just different, I prefer games that either grab my attention by the throat, pull me in and never let me go or are so fun online with friends that you can sink 100's of hours in and not regret even one min spent on the game.
" What's everyone's Internet speed, I don't have a problem of PSN being slow. But I do have to worry about eating too much data from the ISP. " I don't have a speed problem either. I downloaded a game a few months ago that was 19GB total and it only took two or three hours. That's pretty fast. I don't remember the total time but I started it during the evening and it was done before 11 pm.
In terms of advertising, is everyone blind? There's more adverts on the Xbox 360 user interface than on my high street.
Free games from Live: Hexic (no longer available) Undertow (not sure if this is still available) Ageis Wing (no longer free) Yaris (not very good but...it was free) Dorito's Crash Course (fun wipeout type of game) Dorito's Dash of Destruction (? if still avail) totem Ball (live vision camera required) Happy Wars (gold required for multiplayer) Harms Way (gold required for multiplayer) Those are just ones on my own 360. There were others that are free to start with but you pay to add more content. That would be like pinball FX and Crimson alliance. Now I may be a gold member, but you only need Gold to play the multiplayer (like happy wars). The games themselves are still playable in single player by silver members. also, some may no longer be available on the marketplace. MS and Sony can offer games totally free for a limited time but if you take advantage, you may only be able to redownload them so long as they are still available. Some time ago, sony had given away Flow for free. i swapped out the 80gb hdd for a 160gb and did the backup/restore process and unfortunately the promo for Flow was no longer valid. i earned a couple of trophies on it, it shows up in my download history but unfortunately i can no longer download the game for free. i can pay for it if i want to earn more trophies. i asked sony and they said that promo games are not allowed to be downloaded after the promo period ends. I still have rag doll kung fu though totally free but that was after i changed hdd when i got that one. oh well...it is what it is.
@darthv72 To be honest I have never heard of any of those games before...hell some of those are chip games...um okay whatever not my thing. I was talking more like AAA titles that are also sold in retail or at least considered high quality digital titles along the lines of Journey or Shank. Those are more of what I meant. In the future I guess I should have been a little clearer. Also I'm a PSN+ member and once you download the title during the promo you can continue to download it after the promo as long as you are still a PSN+ member did it just the other week with Spec Ops the line. I'm not a XBLG member...can you do the same? Just checking since I'm not sure.
The new ps store is insanely slower than the old one was. Other than that I'd say psn is plenty "fluid".
"I'm sorry but N4G simply doesn't get it." N4G certainly used to "get it" back in the good old days though, huh? Back when it was a 360 dominated site? Back when it was an enlightened place for the high minded gamer to browse gaming related news and rumors? lol Times changed, didn't they? 360 started fast, then faltered. PS3 started slow, then hit the afterburners. N4G's demographics have reflected that. As for fanboys, every gaming friend I know in real life bought a 360 and had one for several years, along with XBL Gold. Now none of them has a 360. None of them think 360/XBL is superior to PS3/PSN . That's based on playing both consoles and using both networks. Are they fanboys?
"I'm sorry but as far as this generation of consoles is concerned, playing online games has only really been viable on the Xbox 360." wow...that's an arrogant one...and ignorant too! guess all those online PS3 games are all big fat lies ha? and you still have the nerve to say "haven't even got a 360 or used Xbox Live before." talk about the pot calling the cattle black!
@majiebeast Good to have a friend that leases you games since 2012. If you're not paying for MP, you're paying to rent games.
You MUST pay for MP, you don't have to rent games. Yes, you can choose not to pay for MP, but then your console is only half of what it could be.
Do you keep the games once you stop paying for PSN+? If you don't, you were renting them. So letting you borrow some games is just getting you to pay for MP. But I applaud their ability to get people to think otherwise. Sony might not spend a lot on marketing, but they are very good at slight of hand.
Any free games obtained via PS+ are lost if the subscription end, however ANYTHING purchased with the PS+ discount or "other" free content such as add-ons, premium themes, and such you DO get to keep. I got to keep all the free premium themes I had downloaded with my free 3 month PS+ subscription, along with anything I purchased at a discount. If you are already paying for PS+ though and getting all those free games and taking advantage of the discounts and other freebies, would you ever give that up? For most PS+ subscribers I'd bet the answer is a resounding "No". It's like asking as XBL Gold user if after years of XBL Gold and online gaming, would they give it all up for the free XBL Silver? I guarantee you would get the same answer for the majority. Of course the two services are not apples to apples, but the basic idea of someone paying for an upgraded service is the same. There is a certain point were the majority of users become dependent on the additional features that they'd loose by downgrading.
Anything purchased with a Gold membership remains yours also. So again, they loan or lease you games. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying it's a cunning way to get money from people to pay for PSN. If they are allowed to work it the way tax law is(or used to be) in the US, it's very smart. They games they give someone access to could be deemed a "loss" because they could have sold it instead. I used to work with tax lawyers. Several of the partners explained to me that I should incorporate myself and "sell" Avon. Actually what you do is sell it for what Avon gives it to you for. So you get to right off every dollar under what they suggest you sell it for. If the suggested price is $5 and you get it for $3. Sell it for $3 and right off the $2 on your taxes as a loss. It cost them nothing to give you a digital item. If they then get to write a portion of it off and use your money to help pay for the MP service, they have done a good work around. Add that the PR people have convinced users that they aren't paying for MP is gravy. Again, I applaud their slight of hand. It's how corporations and rich people have done it for years. And why they remain rich. The majority of CEOs are not that smart, they just have lawyers that understand how the system works. And in most cases, if you're hiring the better people, you're hiring the ones writing the laws in the first place. As long as the loaned games are things you want to play it's a great deal. But it's always a good deal for them. Good honest answer GameSpawn and logical way of seeing it.
If I go to McDonald's and buy a salad, I'm not paying for a cheeseburger. McDonald's may use my money to further their cheeseburger making, but the transaction I participated in had nothing to do with cheeseburgers. Now that we're clear on that. Can you play online on PSN without paying a cent? Yes. Is PS+ required to play online? No. PS+ is a rental/discount service. Like you said, it's a very smart business strategy. It has tremendous value for the consumer because it allows them to download as many "free" titles as they want, as long as they pay the subscription. On the flip side, consumers get to try games they wouldn't ordinarily try. They may become fans and buy future games. It's a win-win. But PS+ is nothing like XBL. They are two entirely different services. This article is comparing PSN and XBL which are like-for-like. One is free, the other is a subscription. XBL is a better service, in my opinion, but it wouldn't be worth the extra $60 a year if all my friends weren't on Xbox. It's a bad investment, but I'm okay with it.
I know what you are trying to get at. I recently signed up for PS+ and while yes the games they give you free arent "FREE" they are free for the extent of your membership. Now you touched on a part that many seem to gloss over. What if that free game included a multiplayer aspect??? In essence, the paid membership to get the free game has just now become (on a very thin technicality) like paying to play online which is what live gold is. So while you get the disagrees, I can understand what you were trying to convey. Bottom line on ANY of these services. If the content is worth paying to be a member of....you simply dont let your membership lapse. That is how they get you. They make things to enticing to simply walk away. The flip side to that coin is that with everybody being a paid member....sony (or MS) can say we dont need this free side anymore. People become accustomed to paying so they wont notice the free side is now gone. Where i think sony needs to focus is not just the giving of the games as part of the membership. But really something compelling that makes it the ONLY way to play is by being a paid member. They can keep the core of PSN free for online but instead of everyone playing the same "level" of online, actually make PLUS member more entitled to content that isnt available to the free members. "Members Only" should be something sony does to get people to sign up. Members Only servers to play on with more load balancing and game types. Members only map packs for games like killzone or uncharted. Members Only spaces in Home that would be full of features that free members just wouldnt have access to. The giving away of the games...yeah people could just simply buy them and play them and ultimately...keep them instead of being a member. The membership needs more perks than discounts and freebies. It really needs something to differentiate those who have the means to pay to be a member from those who would simply be the freeloaders to the service. Sorry if that sounds harsh but now that I am a plus member, i want more that defines the service and really makes me WANT to remain a member than just the giveaways that anyone else could just pay for.
dcbronco Ha ha, slight of hand you say. You are willingly paying just to rent the muliplayer component of every game you've already paid for.. No payment NO ONLINE GAMING If sony are cunning then MS just dont give a fcuk just using our own blood for lube. Some guys kill me.. I'd have to ask, have you ever rented a game before and did you have or need them for a whole year because I can pretty much finish any game in that time so trying to downplay ps+ is just the fanboy defensive element rearing its little head out of ya. There were plenty games I may not have played if it wasn't for ps+ and for me that's the important thing... I've enjoyed more games for my money than I have paying for live. If your preference is x game chatting then xbl's your thing. IF access to more games is your thing, then ps+ is your thing.. @ darthv72 smh 'Sorry if that sounds harsh but now that I am a plus member, i want more that defines the service and really makes me WANT to remain a member than just the giveaways that anyone else could just pay for' Firstly it seems you should NOT of signed up for ps+ as access to games is its MAIN purpose and angle to justify the cost...what was you expecting?? Auto updates, cloud saving, early beta access, regular discounts which, when used on paid titles, don't stop the content from being played after expiry, full game trials and......what else? Compare that to live, which is a solid service but you KNOW you're paying just to unlock a game you've already paid for whilst being advertised to. Never noticed you saying you have this yearning for more for you to remain a member of xbl....makes no sense to me as added access to games for a year isn't a negative, its a positive.
"Never noticed you saying you have this yearning for more for you to remain a member of xbl..." I can only say i've been a live member since the beginning. I've seen the service expand and get better without ever having been a free member to it. I know no other experience. I wasnt always a PS+ member though. Only recently so while the service started out as more of a discount service, it too has expanded to be more. Being a paid member, I really can't look at it the same way as before. I want to see sony do more to define the service to the paid members but it could be at the cost of certain features that free members have now.
So you think making people rent part of a game they already bought is the same as renting an entire game that they haven't bought? You actually think those things are the same? That's really odd to me. OT - I can only go by the opinions of all my gaming friends, since I was the only one that didn't buy a 360. None of them has a 360 anymore and none of them thought XBL was superior or worth paying for. My time on XBL at their places didn't impress me, and I always found the 360 interface in general to be a mess. That's my honest opinion.
@shadow2797, What you don't get is that if Sony were doing fine with free PSN there was no need for PSN+. They made PSN+ simply as a way to get people to pay for the maintenance of the network. said before, a digital copy cost them nothing to loan out. In fact, they save money if the tax situation is still viable. Your whole salad thing makes no sense. If the difference in PSN and PSN+ is $50 and free games and the games cost them nothing or very little, then their point was to make money from you for the network. It's no different than MS including all of those digital titles in their bundles. It cost them nothing but it makes it feel okay to the buyer to pay $300 for a console that cost less than $150 to make. darthv72, I'm not saying you're paying for the MP on loaned games. I'm saying a handful of people are footing the bill for all of PSN. Like I said above, adding something that cost you nothing(or next to) to get additional sales is a gimmick used for many products over the years. It's gets you to buy what you don't want or to pay more than you want. Free games are the toy in a Happy Meal. The toy sells more meals and the games sell PSN+. Which is just getting you to pay for online. @Why o why Why o Why are you helping my case. You pay for a years worth of a service for games you could finish quickly. The games cost them little or nothing. Tell why you are paying then. You're paying to help cover cost of their network. Just like Live. $50 doesn't cover the cost of four or five games a month. But it does cover the cost of that network. @MysticStrummer I don't care about the interface that much. If you struggle to figure it out then you've got bigger problems than paying for a network. Funny many of my friends have both consoles. They all prefer Live. Sound quality, chat, matchmaking(benefits of a unified network). That may be changing, but so far they all usually get the 360 copy of games. In fact, they used to use Live to talk when they did play PS3. I know I'm paying for the network on Live and any improvements or security that goes with that. I think it's cheap. $40 a year. Big deal. But I make my own choices. Many don't and just repeat the same phrases that have been repeated by others. PSN+ is a great deal. Though I really know why I would be paying. But that is also why I don't mind paying for Live. PS fans need to be honest about why it cost.
Games cost little or nothing you say.... really. Ok then because when I saw okami hd on the store im sure it was over a tenner, dantes inferno, 18 quid, motorstorm apocalypse, 15 quid. Dead space 2, 20 quid. Mass effect 3 , 15 quid.... the list goes on and if they are so cheap, why aren't any of them available on xbl. Somebody must have to pay to allow us rentals. You think game renting companies don't pay a lot therefore the value to the end user is somehow lower....that's ridiculous spin imo, bordering on stubbornness. Sonys main goal is always about money, we get that, but with ps+ they did in a way that's straight up better for their 'gaming' customers. You can negative spin till your hearts content; I'm a gamer so more access to more games is a positive...you almost sound like we should be less pleased than those who get zero access to anything, gaming content wise, worth talking about for the same cost....leave it out mate.
A game on PSN cost little or nothing. It was already made and sold in the retail pipeline. Now it just sits on a server as a link. It cost nothing in shelf space, no new development cost, no new nothing. Just maintain the server. Just 5 to 10 gigs of space. Giving it to you cost them nothing. They don't have to make another one. No pressing a disc, or buying a box or paying a shipper. What you see in a store is completely different. There is shipping, retail mark-up, storage, disc packaging. Why do you think so many cut out the instructions manual? Seems cheap until you have to buy a few million of them. Sure developers are still selling them. They may even sell a copy from time to time. If the store doesn't kick it off the shelves for low sales. But with digital, I can let Sony loan it out. I can use the same tax trick Sony does and Sony can pay me a fee also. Say PSN+ has 10 million users and all DL a particular game. Sony pay 25 cents per DL to the dev. There's 2.5 million the dev wasn't getting. Times 60 games and that's 150 million. But those 10 million PSN+ memberships are paying 500 million in fees. So Sony makes 350 million to cover server maintenance. Again, add any accounting tricks. It's not spin, it's that most people don't understand the fraud that the tax system allows for big business or when a trinket is used to exploit them for more money. But don't get me wrong, that trinket is a matter of personal desire. If those games bring you hundreds of hours of joy, you got a great deal. If you do it for that reason I understand your motivation. But let's all just acknowledge Sony's motivation. It's estimated that the security hack cost them as much as 300 million to address. Having money to properly secure your network is always cheaper. So again I'm not saying you're being cheated. I've said several times it's a great deal. But the simplicity of Live is a small cost to me. With Live I know what I'm paying for. I'm just saying Sony fans should just acknowledge what they are paying for. The games are the toy in the meal.
@ DCBRONCO What you tried to convey there is just a set of jumbled garbage to try and justify XBL Gold's point of entry and downplay PS+, a service that you will probably never experience, and is a genuine consumer choice. And THIS, is the funniest part. "With Live I know what I'm paying for. I'm just saying Sony fans should just acknowledge what they are paying for. The games are the toy in the meal." You know what you're paying for huh? Did you know that with XBL you're paying for half of the game the developer intended you to play out of the box? Did you know that you're leasing out a feature that is free on every single other platform for free because that is the established standard. What is that standard that MS exploits??? Peer 2 Peer. You seem knowledgeable regarding technology so I'm going to assume you know what that is. MS charges you to access the online parts of your games which uses P2P. THAT is diabolical and beyond a joke. It doesn't cost them anything when you're using your own pre-subscribed ISP bandwidth to connect to these games you've already payed up to $60 for. What else are you paying for to access in XBL? FREE apps. Yep that's right. Applications of which are free to access on every single other platform and device out there. I mean it would be one thing if MS charged you to use Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Netflix on a one time basis, like how most premium apps are. But MS charge you for FREE apps, EVERY SINGLE YEAR. How is this legal again? And how is this not a undeniable slap in the face. So despite XBL Gold's advanced features (which are the ones that should be the draw), I don't believe you know what you're paying for, and if you do... well then that's just disgraceful. You say you make your own choices, so you choose to be played by MS and anti-consumer practices. Smart, whilst every one else knows what's going on.
@ DCBRONCO (cont'd) TL;DR -> at the bottom ... Then you downplay PS+ tried to marginalize the cost and say its Sony's proxy premium service. Guess what? Those licenses aren't free to begin with, and would be on sale anyway - just like Steam and just like on XBL - so as we all know we're renting licenses, for the most part (there are a few that haven't nor will expire, and these are sat on my HDD). What's more pathetic is, you've admitted that you don't have a PS3 or use the network service, but you somehow know that it's Sony's proxy money maker, and use it to make Sony's practices look shiftier than MS, which considering you personally pay for things that everyone else gets for free (like a sucker) is very, very rich. - "You pay for a years worth of a service for games you could finish quickly. The games cost them little or nothing. Tell why you are paying then. You're paying to help cover cost of their network. Just like Live. $50 doesn't cover the cost of four or five games a month. But it does cover the cost of that network." How are you missing the point? Just how? Games are sold as licenses. Movies are and so is music. There's nothing wrong with this because people can choose to distribute their products in any means they choose. Digital distribution is just one of those. Licenses. You expect entertainment that is free? Go pirate that sh!t. Meanwhile, Sony are just providing you with another option and flexibility in experiencing games on their platform. In regards to you "covering the cost of the network" deal. Again. How are you being this blind? MS are giving you no choice, but to pay to get full access to features of games that developers intended that were 'out of the box'. Technologically and in means of distribution, there is no means to justify why MS charges you for online play or (and especially) FREE apps. None whatsoever. Sony offer you the choice to avoid fixed license agreements and pay on a rental basis. Those games would be sold as licenses without the PS+ service existing, as do XBL games and Steam games. Again, with MS and their $60 barrier to play games online - that cost is not common to ANY other platform on the face of the planet. Utterly bad comparison/justification. - TL;DR The ultimate lesson to take away from this very long response is: MS clearly don't respect your choices because you have none in regards to XBL. Whilst Sony give you MORE choices, and IF that somehow enables their network, at least you know you actually don't have to do this to play games you've already purchased in full.
Simple answer yes but it all comes down to if you have more friends who have ps3 or Xbox 360 Next gen I see ms loosing a lot of its xblive subscribers when PSN will offer the same if not better service for free without ads
PS+ is amazingly great value and M$ needs to find a way to counter it with the next Xbox. PSN has improved so much since 2006 and the PS4 appears to be improving where previously it failed (party chat, included mics). However, PSN is simply not on the same level as Xbox Live. PS3 is good for exclusives, but no multiconsole owner would willingly choose PSN over Xbox Live. Aside from the above mentioned features, Xbox Live is an ecosystem of interactivity, where everything is streamlined and easy to use. PSN on the other hand is a work in progress. Including mics with the console means EVERYONE can speak. On PSN too frequently it's so silent that it feels like I'm playing against bots. Party chat means you only need to talk to your friends, no strangers or pre-pubescent COD players. This features are what make Xbox Live far and away the better online system and why I'm excited for the PS4. You have to wonder if SONY is focusing so much on catching up to Microsoft, what will M$ bring to the table to revolutionize online gaming, again?
Considering its reputation, that of screaming entitled homophobic bigots, communication in general but on especially on XBL is overrated. Might be great for friends and party chat, but even PSN has its share of foul mouthed trolls when there's the option. And then there's the the even more annoying point that overall move to support multiplayer gaming which crossing gaming introduced has negatively impacted singleplayer games.
If Sony include a mic with the PS4, I suspect the mute button will be getting a lot of use on my console. One of the things that irritates me the most about the 360 is the constant screaming, abuse and whining on most multiplayer games. And I just LOVE having to listen to someone's crap music playing in the background while I'm trying to game!
Then again, there is this feature called "mute". It's very accessible on Xbox Live. If you don't really play online, you don't understand the value of XBL. That means a lot of PS3 players that aren't used to this kind of community, of course won't see the value. If you play for a while on XBL, then switch you will instantly see what the heck we are talking about. Now on the flip side, free rented games are easy to quantify. To some degrees, so are features to, and specs as well. There is a reason why a lot of us choose to pay for XBL Gold. It's like trying to explain why a certain color[or insert a game] is awesome!
@Jdoki "One of the things that irritates me the most about the 360 is the constant screaming, abuse and whining on most multiplayer games" Agreed, last time I jumped onto my friend's 360... was literally BOMBARDED with kids trash talking, whining, and moaning... -_- ...NEVER...AGAIN... Rarely EVER had that problem on PSN though. Look at the difference on how many videos get uploaded... lol http://www.youtube.com/resu... http://www.youtube.com/resu...
Sonic200, Do you believe the nonsense you say or are you just joking around? The foul mouths on Xbox Live is no different than PSN or any other online service for that matter. The big difference is the all powerful Party Chat. Where you never have to listen to those foul mouth brats. When I play Halo 4, I party up with my team of 4 or 8 and never have to hear randoms. Easy Peasy. No such luck on PSN. :(
@Jdoki no sony is trying to counter trolling and annoying people online by convincing people to use their real names. people are much less likely to troll with their real name. a real clever move by sony.
@nukeitall: No one who own and Xbox 360 chooses to pay for Live. They choose to play online and are forced to pay for Live to do it. Live is Microsoft's consistently ongoing online pass.
@StreetsofRage "The foul mouths on Xbox Live is no different than PSN or any other online service for that matter." Sure man. Whatever you wanna tell yourself. I'm sorry but in my experience, the amount of screaming little kids on XBL, IS JUST TOO DAMN HIGH! Especially when compared to PSN. And not to mention PC. : / http://www.youtube.com/resu... vs. http://www.youtube.com/resu...
" but no multiconsole owner would willingly choose PSN over Xbox Live." I did for a simple reason . That's where most of my friends where , and the networks issues and myth about it were vastly exaggerated . Pretty much all that is missing is cross chat for those hat care and a better chat system
....my friends aren't going to pay 50 bucks just so they can play online, so they pick their MP games up for the PS3, and that's where they are, and so that means that's where I'll be. And PSN+ has surpassed XBL in pretty much each and every way.
I did it for free online play.
PSN has cross chat... Or did you mean the PS3 doesn't have cross chat?
Yeah, that was a stupid comment by NeverEnding. I have PS3 and 360 and I have never even been interested in paying just to play online. It's that simple. I paid for PSN because it's a great value and I get tons of free games and discounts that more than justify the cost. I have no interest in cross chat or even chatting in-game. Most people say dumb stuff anyway.
@ NeverEnding. I normally don't reply to guys like you, but I'll make an exception. PSN is used accross 3 gaming platform which are the PSP, PS Vita, and PS# with its best iteration so far being on the PS Vita. The PS Vita has Party Chat, and it has the mobility factor, meaning that you can take anywhere with wifi and join a party and play. And the Vita also has PS Plus. So I firmly believe that PSN combine with PS Plus has surpassed Xbox live. It is used accross more platforms and offers incredible value for the gamer.
"but no multiconsole owner would willingly choose PSN over Xbox Live" speak for yourself pal i prefer psn over live for alot of reasons - 1 price 2 lag - yes from my experience lag is more prevalent on the xbox from my experience and 3 x-gamechat. i really have had enough of friends constantly ruining my gaming experiences when i play single player games by interrupting me wanting to have a chat im sorry if i want to join a chatroom i will use skype. also when in party chat if there is more than 3 people in a convo it becomes a clusterfuck of noise and babble with everyone trying to talk at the same time. so me i prefer the psn way of only being able to speak in the same game although voice messages of 30 secs max should be allowed through all games that feature i would love on psn
For online multiplayer, Live is infinitely better than PSN for the reasons you stated, but i don't do too much online multiplayer as i used to, so i really appreciate the goodies with PS+(Like saving hundreds of dollars on my Vita library) PS+ is better for me right now, but PSN is crap for providing a social aspect to online gaming. They both have their own merits in the end.
I agree arcade is dead and sony keeps invoating. There are a few games e.g COD which is still find more enjoyable on the 360 but I acrtually found battlefield much better on my ps3 so I will be getting 4 for that or ps4.
Yes, as for me.
Nope, XBL is still far superior. This argumnt has been discussed hundreds of times withbthe same results.
How? It only has 1 important feature than PSN doesnt have and thats party chat. PS+ is far superior, you get a ton of free games per year and discounts. all up you get hundreds of dollars worth of free content. I choose free games over cross game chat. The only people who still think XBL Gold is better than PSN are the casuals who are uninformed about PS+.
"The only people who still think XBL Gold is better than PSN are the casuals who are uninformed about PS+." That's an ignorant statement to make. While Xbox Live Gold is way overpriced, the online service itself is incredibly more stable and reliable than PSN. Then there's other things like much, much faster downloads and installs, updates and patches, party chat, smoother home menu integration (regardless of being online or not), etc. You can like whichever one you want of course, that's why we all have opinions, but sounds like you're a fanboy if the "only people" that prefer XBL Gold to PSN are "casuals".
:the online service itself is incredibly more stable and reliable than PSN." Myth. For online gaming it uses P2P servers which are horrible. For everything else, PSN is just as stable.
Seriously , the only thing i've seen better on XBl are indeed faster updates and patching . Not worth the fee , alongside the other features for me . Of course the network perf is game dependant , for both anyway . Last i checked yeah cod is probably better on xbl , but then again the game itself is worse on ps3 . And i'm beyond caring about playing CoD . I play fighting games instead , and for those i've had either better online or better community on ps3 , if not both anyway .
clearly this discussion has different results
Many of you are saying Live is superior, but I don't understand why. Streamlined? Both consoles have the same online features and both have easy access to them. I've been using both services for years now and I honestly don't see a difference, apart from cross game voice chat. Even then, I don't use it on Live. I use Skype for that, since all my friends have it and not just the ones on Live.
Both have good things going for them, I don't get why they have to compete. Most people own both consoles now anyway, one thing I will say is that Microsoft need some kind of free online gaming service with gold being an option with more features this time.