PlayStation Plus vs. Xbox Live Gold: Which Online Service Is Best?

Tech Times writes:
"Ford vs. Chevy. Pepsi vs. Coke. Xbox vs. PlayStation. Each of these rivalries include two products that are similar in every aspect, yet you have to pick a side. At some point it comes down to personal preference, but it's hard not to compare the two. Surely, one of these must have an advantage over the other.

Such is the case with PlayStation Plus and Xbox Live Gold. These subscription services for Sony's PlayStation consoles and Microsoft's Xbox platform are identical in nearly every way. Both allow gamers to play games online with their friends. Both give away free games every month. Both score consumers discounts in their respective virtual marketplaces. Both cost a yearly fee. Heck, even their websites look nearly the same."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
lifeisgamesok1187d ago (Edited 1187d ago )

Xbox Live is more reliable and is less likely to get your personal info compromised IMO

I've seen a few people say they had hackers buy games using their info on PSN

SpaceRanger1186d ago

With that logic(regarding your second sentence), if I found a few people who have had people hack their Xbox Live account then I could say the same thing about Xbox live...basing your statements on argumentative fallacies is the reason why people disagree with statements like that. Not because it has anything to do with being a fanboy.

Unfortunately, every technology driven company has had their devices affected by hackers one way or another.

On Topic:
But in regards to bang for your buck, the website simply followed the facts about each Online Service and said it how it is. Although, the "Extra Perks" category seemed lacking in detail considering all that you get from both services respectively.

nicksetzer11186d ago (Edited 1186d ago )

Ask this question last gen, xbox live was much better (for online play and social features) this gen they are both pretty terrible. They are both down frequently matchmaking is less accurate and slower, and social features work very inconsistently.

Really not happy paying for either In their current states.

mikeslemonade1186d ago (Edited 1186d ago )

Lol which service was offline for more than one day most recently? The answer is XBL

I'm sorry PS Plus not only better but also by a considerable amount, and it should not even be up for debate:

1. PS Plus free games program is whole lot better and has won every month! Maybe only tied twice so far.

2. Downloads are faster on Plus. I have both systems so I know.

3. Installs are faster as well.

4. Interface is better on PS Plus. Everytime I go on the X1 I am confused where to access a certain app. It takes me a minute to figure out where the main settings menu is and where the free games is.

5. Twitch, Gamesharing, Gamebroadcasting etc. are all better on Plus. On XBL you got less options and it's less seamless. The service on XBL is not as snappy overall.

6. The overall slower service is XBL. I find the interface to chug a lot more.

7. PS Plus is $10 cheaper MSRP. And it seemed like PS Plus gives me a relatively $20 more value.

DigitalRaptor1186d ago (Edited 1186d ago )

1) No it isn't. Xbox Live has been down or problematic more times in the past 12 months than PSN. Whenever PSN goes down there is plenty of warning because it's called "Scheduled Maintenance", and even then, if you're logged in you can still play online during the maintenance. Here we go:

2) Xbox Live is not less likely to get your personal info compromised. A few years back there was a blog exposing people losing money via XBL called Hacked on Xbox that nobody wants to talk about or recall. Here we go:

This thing isn't one-sided, but you're making it that way, for obvious reasons. Before anyone wants to pretend I'm hating here, I'm just providing a more balanced side to this guy's one-sidedness.

@ SpaceRanger

We've had this same opinion piece discussion topic on N4G at least 3 times in the past year and it always devolves with an Xbox fan making crap up with no supporting evidence, and people like us responding with logic to expose lies.

On Topic:
This is a good analysis. Microsoft has had more experience in the online field. They've had a better and more unified service for years. However, PS+ and the online ecosystem offers better value through cross-buy and free games. It depends what you prefer, but it's no longer 2008, and PSN is easily as reliable as XBL and as good in the ways that matter to most gamers. PSN is providing what are the most innovative gaming features on consoles this gen. Share Play alone takes the cake. It also has Spotify, and it's great.

@ Moldiver

Saying that PSN is functional at best, shows how little you know about the service in the same way you are accusing me of not knowing about XBL (not XBLA, that's the arcade game category). PS4's online is not PS3's online. Also the evidence about XBL's issues was in the link I provided from somebody who recorded each time problems were recorded by MS themselves. Even members of this site like Septic and other Xbox users have confirmed that online play has been inaccessible several times when these status notifications are received by N4G. It could be regional and temporary, and not affecting you, but it has affected others. My point remains.

You seem not the understand that Share Play is completely different to Microsoft's vaguely-described family share.

1) XB1 doesn't have it, and it's not innovative, since PS3's network allowed multiple people (up to 5, reduced to 2) to download a single game license.

2) It could have been added at launch, because what you are describing is the same as PSN offered last gen without the exact same DRM that everybody complained about from XB1. MS could have offered family share LAST YEAR, on digital games especially.

3) Leading on from point 2.... Family share was never going to be what people perceived. Why? Because MS never explained it beyond vague marketing terms, and because publishers weren't happy about PlayStation gamers sharing 5 digital copies of the games last-gen, so it was forced down to 2. Why would publishers let MS let people share each of their games with 10 of their friends, if they were unhappy with Sony doing half of that number?

3) Share Play is jumping into somebody's else's player session as well as playing their game remotely. It's completely different and as I said it's not innovative. It's a Sony advantage until MS comes up with something comparable. Family share is not close to comparable.

Moldiver1186d ago

*It depends what you prefer, but it's no longer 2008, and PSN is easily as reliable as XBL and as good in the ways that matter to most gamers.*

Thanks for the lulz but XBLA is the better built service. PSN is functional at best. And Im not sure where you get this nonsense about it being down more than PSN. granted the freind list has been playing up a little bit in the last 6 months but the system has not gone down. even when their are status notifications about the storefront and friend list not working properly (which is not often at all) always works. I did a year of PSN last year ( I didnt own an X1 last year)and it reminded me how much stuff on xbl I take for granted. If you think the difference between two lies simply in online security and reliability (both, areas where XBL beats PSN), then you dont have a clue what you are talking about.

"Share Play alone takes the cake. It also has Spotify, and it's great."

MS original familyshare idea trumps share play. Up to ten people would have been able to download (not stream and have to deal with slight input lag and image compression, like shareplay). When that feature gets added back into the xbox (remember it was removed due to the way it was tied to DRM, it gives xbox a clear win in that area. for now its a sony advantage. But my most of my friends have money and buy their own games so shareplay is moot.

Spotie1186d ago

@Moldiver: Sorry, but no.

What Microsoft MIGHT have been alluding to was the same thing PS3 had last generation. That's not even in the same league with allowing someone to watch and then take over your game while you play.

thanhgee1186d ago

I heard from a few people that ghost can fly into your xbox and grab all the information and transfer the info into a hacker's computer

DrumBeat1186d ago

Not these days.

They're both highly susceptible to attacks of all sorts. Though, I suppose Xbox Live service is generally more stable due to its beefier infrastructure.

On that note, PSN has been behaving quite well this gen as regards to online gaming/connectivity/quality.

ziggurcat1186d ago (Edited 1186d ago )

no, lifeisgames... there has not been a single case of anyone's information being used maliciously as a result of the PSN issue a few years ago.

and this article is about PS+ vs. XBLG, so really... if we're talking about which service has better value for the money, it's PS+, no question. more games, more discounts.

n4rc1186d ago

they lost a class action lawsuit... still have the email somewhere..

now i dont know if anyones data was used, one can assume it was..

ziggurcat1186d ago (Edited 1186d ago )

They never lost a class action suit, to my knowledge.

And there seriously hasn't been any incidents as a result of the hack. Sony forced everyone to change their passwords when the network was re-established, so anyone claiming that people bought games using their PSN info are jumping to an erroneous conclusion/lying or they had their CC info skimmed from somewhere else.

kickerz1186d ago

Xbox live 300 000 servers . It's a no brainer.

n4rc1186d ago

thats just what they allocated...

azure is up to 14 million last article i read

ziggurcat1186d ago

The amount of servers has nothing to do with XBLG vs PS+. The article is about the subscription services, not the networks.

NuggetsOfGod1186d ago (Edited 1186d ago )

Steam beats both.

Stiffler1186d ago

Yeh right... Just yesterday morning I was trying to get on to play Reign of Kings and steam was down.

Keep trolling.

RosweeSon1186d ago

Well my xbox live account was hijacked and games bought so it works both ways no company is 100% safe in that respect, you've gotta be pretty desperate to steal my data anyway but generally I just stick to pre paid cards and don't store my card details to avoid any such problems as for the day to day running the both do exactly the same thing both have down days ie scheduled work or hacker groups being muppets but I really don't think there's anything in it these days. PS+ is better IMO just because they were the first to offer games each and every month for the subscription as part of the subscription, this is before online play was tied into the ps4 side of things, not just an after thought like microsoft who copied the competition and essentially just charged the £40 a year just to play online and download demos a week earlier than free silver members for over 8-9 years.

USMC_POLICE1186d ago

I never been hacked pretty sure Xbox was hacked too, also friends and parties are always having issues on Xbox.

CryLessGameMore1186d ago

xbox live just got hacked like 4 days ago

Khajiit861186d ago

"Ive seen a few people say _________________"

Oh, you are one of those types.

Xbox One crashes daily and has no games..... Now go tell people what you heard here.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1186d ago
Kingscorpion19811186d ago

They're both great in their own way.

Stiffler1186d ago


Thank you! Atlast a logical, non-fanboy flaming comment here.

It comes down to which service you prefer. They both have their ups and downs no matter which way you swing it.

3ndulg31185d ago

King you are right,but I like live better,I bet if Microsoft didn't rush to release Xbox one it would not have that many bugs.

Kingscorpion19811185d ago

They're both unique in their own way. I don't try to look at it as a competition. It really depends on your preference and what you're looking for in a gaming console.

1186d ago Replies(1)
Blank1186d ago

Depends on the person and their own opinion because I think the network where most my friends game at is the best one.