Top
690°

PSX Extreme: Online Service Battle: Network Outstripping Live

PSX Extreme writes: "When I first brought home the PlayStation 3 in 2006, I already had an Xbox 360. At the time, Xbox Live was the undisputed leader in terms of online service for consoles, and although I was interested to see the Network take early strides on the PS3, I basically dismissed it. I knew it had a long way to go, and while I'd keep an eye on it, I wasn't the type who spends hours and hours online every week, anyway."

Read Full Story >>
psxextreme.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Simon_Brezhnev3074d ago

but according to 360 fans live beats PSN because of cross in-game chat

Chrisny853074d ago

and honestly i see psn catching up alot and i favor my ps3 when a game comes out on both systems. (unless its a shooter)

But i would like to see cross game chat and better connection. When it comes to shooters like cod4 i rather play on 360 because the bullets register better and i don't get caught up in lag kills. Also more people socialize with the microphones.

I know im gonna get 10000 disagrees but im a gamer telling it how it is and what needs to be improved. As i said before i do favor my ps3 and appreciate the free online/bluray/better graphics/controller.

Syronicus3074d ago (Edited 3074d ago )

It doesn't. Sure you can have more features with Live, there's no denying that but in the end, some gamers just want to play online and could care less about these other features. When I am playing online, I am playing with the guys I want to chat with so cross game chat is useless to me but there are some that love that feature. In the end it's what you want. I want free online play, and some want features that help justify a 50 bucks a year fee. It's all in what you want.

Bnet3433074d ago (Edited 3074d ago )

Hmm ... PSXExtreme thinks PSN is better than Live ... PSXEXTREME ... "PSXEXTREME" Alright. The quality of the downloadable games doesn't measure the quality of the online service, which is exactly what they are pointing out. Look man, I have both, so I can talk. PSN is not better than Xbox Live. I can sit here and bore you to death with the list PSN needs for it to be top notch, but I won't be doing that because I know you guys are smart enough to figure it out. The only thing PSN 1up's Live on is having a web browser and even then, no one really cares about that on Xbox Live, just a few of people.

3074d ago
Ahmad-3074d ago

Although you may lead to beleive that because it is a playstation site, its not all that biased, so you should read the article b4 talking. I own a ps3, and my cuz brings over his 360 alot wen he comes over. So ive played both, and i can honestly say that psn is better

GameGambits3074d ago

I have both and the only feature I really want from Live on PSN is of course---Cross game voice chat. I know PS3 owners have been hammering for this since day 1, and we STILL don't have it. I just don't get why. It shouldn't take almost 3 years to include something people are screaming for. It'd be even more sad if Sony didn't know how much we want this, as if it were somehow only kept to places like N4G and no one of the main stream let them in on it.(FF13 having japanese voices in USA version wasn't known as something we gamers wanted until it was finally shed light on by IGN I believe)

Someone needs to ask Sony wtf is up and why we haven't got it, and when we will.

I worry for my Xbox though, because when PS3 DOES have cross game chat my 360 will be donezo for being turned on everyday like my PS3 is. I turn my PS3 on to play MGO, Uncharted 2 beta, Killzone 2, or whatever single player I'm working on. My 360 is turned on to have a party chat going on with buddies. The last 360 game I bought was Gears of War 2, which I sold a month later. Since then it has been nothing but PS3 play time.

The one thing I wish Xbox Live did with its first party exclusives that Sony does with theirs----dedicated servers. I'd probably still own Gears of War 2 if it had dedicated servers. I'll be the first to admit I'd pay extra money out of my pocket for them for ANY game I'd want to play online. I not only feel, but KNOW they matter for that perfect lag free, and nearly free of all forms of BS.

iHEARTboobs3074d ago

I know what you mean about the COD4 lag on the PSN. For some reason, COD:WAW runs a lot smoother and better on both my PS3 and 360 which leads me to believe there's something up with COD4. It sounds weird but that game has given me the most problems as far as connection and lag is concerned. I don't think it has anything to do with the PSN but who knows, it might be my connection that doesn't like COD4 for all we know.

Syronicus3074d ago

And never have issues unless the host has a poor connection. Maybe you might want to try out another ISP.

3074d ago
Chrisny853074d ago

i heart boobs too

i feel like activision favors 360 with not only special editions and timed map packs but they also don't take advantage of ps3 ram. on youtube i saw a video of cod running on both systems split screen showing fps and even though we all know ps3 is the stronger system, the fps averaged about 10 fps better in favor of 360! in scenarios where a lot of action was taking place.

dcbronco3074d ago

They had separate teams for COD4. The DLC was was most likely at a cost to MS. And while the PS3 has faster RAM, the 360 has access to more RAM. The 512 in the 360 is shared so the GPU can use what the CPU isn't using. The PS3 can't do that. The 360 also has 10MB of RAM on the GPU die that the CPU can access for things it needs on a regular basis. Those are some of the things that make the 360 version frame rate more consistent. Blame Sony's design, not IW.

Syronicus3074d ago (Edited 3074d ago )

Yup, played it on both systems and due to more of my friends being on the PSN, I stuck with the PS3 version. Although, I never did complete the single player on the PS3, the online works just fine.

Also, CAT6, CAT5e, it makes no difference if your ISP sucks. What are your upload/download/ping speeds? CAT5e will support 100 MHz and nearly 1gb/second so anything less than that will show no improvements on performance with a CAT6. You would need some blazing speeds to show any difference. I have 20dl/4ul with a ping average of about 32ms and have no issues with COD4 on the PS3.

I feel for you too about the RROD issues when you hit the third prestige. I finally have gotten to my 6th prestige and have only about 15 days online but that is because I put the 360 version down after about 5 full days and only 3 prestiges. Wish I would have spent all that time on the PS3 version because I would that much closer to the level 10 prestige.

a_squirrel3074d ago

yup, because live has one more feature than a free service, its better, even though that one feature can be added just like that on to the ps3 through firmware updates

Raptors3074d ago

There's no doubt about it, PSN has made very good strides in improving itself. There's zero debate about that. But to say its better than Live is ridiculous. Its definitely getting closer but its not better than Live. You guys take off your fanboy goggles for a sec and stop being bias.

king dong33074d ago

and stupid fanboy blogs wrote especially for the fanboys on blogs4gamers.

the psn is good, no question. and for a free service at that. i love killzone2 on-line, and i have the adaptor so i can use the 360 pad with the ps3 and it makes it even better. r2 runs well also.

but to sit there and claim something as ridiculous as the psn "outstripping" live shows one of a few things.

you're either a fanboy(of which n4g has easily the highest concentration on the net) or you've not played on xbox live.

everyone with both consoles thats not a pathetic fanturd knows whats what, and needs to ne done before it even comes close to "outstripping" live.

outstripping...fanboy word of the week!!!!!

velaxun3074d ago

I've never used Live so excuse me for being ignorant, I think PSN works fine and all, but I don't understand why Live is supposedly better. Yes Live has cross game voice chat, but is that it? I keep seeing people come in here and say NO LIVE ISH BETTAR!! But not giving any reasons why. Aside from having cross game chat, what makes Live SO MUCH better than PSN? Please don't resort to being turds about this either, I would like a valid and constructed answer.

All-33074d ago

--> Well, the PSN library already has gems like flOw, Flower, Wipeout HD, echochrome, and others...

What about the 360 games? Games like....

Braid

Portal: Still Alive

Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2

Geometry Wars

Rez HD

Castlevania: Symphony of the Night

Peggle

Etc...

--> and while I know you can find original Xbox classics on Live, the lineup really can't compare to the PS1 classic selection on the PSN.

Where's all the PS2 games though?

--> I've also noticed that first-party titles get better support on the Network as far as DLC goes; the amount of stuff on the PSN for LittleBigPlanet, Killzone 2, Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, and other exclusives is pretty impressive, and one can almost assume that future exclusives will get the same treatment.

How much DLC is available for games like Halo, Halo 2, Halo 3, Gears of War, Gears of War 2, Mass Effect etc etc... and for games like Fallout 3, The Orange Box, or The Scrolls IV: Oblivion, etc etc?

--> Qore is typically worth a look...

For $2.99 per episode or an annual $24.99 fee? If it's such a great feature - then Xbox Live gold subscriptions for playing games online are only half the price most people quote, because the other half of the subscription fee could be stated to offer similar features to the PSNs Qore.

The article never mentions all the other features the 360s online service provides - now why is that?

Immortal Kaim3074d ago

I'm disappointed in PSX Extreme, you guys seem to be starting flamewars lately just for the hits...

Kaneda3074d ago

PSN got cross platform chat.. pick up your damn celphone and dial the number. Also won't hog your bandwidth...

HDgamer3074d ago

Oblivion is the same across all platforms. The same DLC and game is available on pc and ps3. Check out the Game of the year edition.

velaxun3074d ago

PSN has castlevania as well

And as for PS2 games, I think they may show up after Sony discontinues the PS2, but until then I imagine we won't be seeing them any time soon. As for the other games, the PSN has roughly the same amount of quality titles, each platform has it's own exclusives and they're all great games. I will give you Qore though, one could indeed reason that Live is cheaper if you subtract the cost of Qore, since you guys who pay get the same features PSN users that would pay for Qore.

Still, I fail to see a major difference between the two. Aside from cross game chat, they're more or less equal services so far as I can tell. I can give credit where credit is due, MS has done a good job with Live, as has Sony, both companies have done some fairly solid work this gen and I don't understand the bickering between sides. I only have a PS3, but I don't hate on Xbox users for not having one, I would like to get an xbox to play some Gears, or alan wake when it comes out.

I think we should all end the console fighting [email protected] that is killing this site, both consoles are amazing and the few that have both are very lucky individuals. There really is no point to bickering over who has the better online service, who has the best exclusives, which games look better where, everyone should just be thankful that we can actually PLAY these amazing games.

Blaze9293074d ago (Edited 3074d ago )

..."I don't understand why Live is supposedly better."

and it's people like you why we have articles like this being made and people actually BELIEVING PSN is better than LIVE.....really...BETTER than LIVE? I just don't understand fanboys...particularly Sony ones.

IdleLeeSiuLung3074d ago

Everytime I see an article from Ben Dutka, I know it will be PS slanted. Just take a look at his article history....

Ignore and move on.

JD_Shadow3073d ago

Says people who would approve a 360 fanboy blog blindly without even thinking twice.

How about reading the article before going off on your rants? It's too obvious that it's always the SAME people that do this: b!tch about a "PS3 fanboy blog" showing up on N4G, but will never say a word about a "360 fanboy blog" on here.

velaxun3073d ago (Edited 3073d ago )

Thanks for attacking me and still not giving me a reason as to why Live is better, in essence you pointed your finger at me and said "NO U!!!!" Dude, I'm not being a fanboy or anything, you read my points on PSN and it is in my opinion that both services are pretty much equal, Live gets a slight edge because of cross game chat but other than that, they're identical in terms of quality games and content. If you don't agree with me, tell me why, construct an argument with some valid points, don't just scream "NO" and assume victory.

IdleLeeSiuLung3073d ago

I don't tend to point out blogs or articles unless there is a clear history of writing on one extreme side. Simply there aren't too many of them, but Ben Dutka is one of them extremes ones.

For your information, I did read the article and if you look through my "news approval" you will clearly see that I approve news that is both positive and negative to the 360 and PS3.

Before calling people out, I suggest you go through their history before you blindly and ignorantly assume things about other people.

+ Show (23) more repliesLast reply 3073d ago
3074d ago Replies(4)
StanLee3074d ago

Live is better than PSN. Always has been. Only a fanboy would like to think otherwise. PSN is evolving and constantly improving but it's in a state of perpetual catch up. Ben Dutka is a fanboy!

onanie3074d ago

It is his opinion, as you have yours. I don't think you've read his article really. His main contention is that of content - PSN's content appears to be more appealing to him than Live's.

dalibor3074d ago (Edited 3074d ago )

Sorry to burst your bubble but I would hate to pay in order to be able to play online. Thats just me though, I realized after 3yrs of using Live you would shell out $150 that could have gone towards games, DLC or even better.. another console. The reason I say 3yrs is b/c I have been using the Psn for that long. As far as content goes I don't really know, I would have to check out Live & really dissect both Live & Psn but I would think they both provide awesome content. I didn't give you a disagree by the way.

Raf1k13074d ago

dalibor makes a good point

StanLee3074d ago (Edited 3074d ago )

I did read his article and in terms of content, Live still eclipses PSN; in quantity and quality. That's not opinion, that's quantifiable fact. Something we can thank the growing dependence on metacritic for. *Sigh* Not just content but how content is distributed and downloaded in better on Live. It just is. I took Ben to task a couple weeks ago for how insightful his articles are. Look at the headline "Online Service Battle: Network Outstripping Live". That's not fact it's a weighted opinion not supported in anyway by facts. How is it not inflammatory?

StanLee3074d ago (Edited 3074d ago )

Funny how people pay for Live but yet Live has generated 3 times as much content revenue as PSN and has twice the amount of content. The price argument has no place here because the article addresses content and content is availble to Silver members who have free Live service. When you look at content, user interface and functionality, Live is the better service. I have and use both so this isn't conjecture.

onanie3074d ago (Edited 3074d ago )

In what way does Live's content eclipse PSN's? In addition to the games that he mentioned, I could also add larger games such as Warhawk, GT5P and Siren. The PS1 library is also a huge reservoir of classics. Sony first party DLC is well supported indeed. I don't think Ben's argument is that far fetched.

I think your "three times as much content revenue as PSN" is just fanboy BS. There is no way to separate subscription costs from Live's total revenue - what you have is really just conjecture.

dalibor3074d ago

I could care less what service has a better revenue, I am here to play games. But your statement about Live having twice as much content interested me. If Live does in fact have twice as much content than it is a better service. You happy now lol. By the way I am going on Live & really finding out the truth myself. It's not that I don't believe you StanLee, it's just that I like to make comparisons myself you know.

StanLee3074d ago

Braid, GTA: Lost and Damned, Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved & Retro Evolved 2, Rez HD, Castle Crashers, Peggle, Ikaruga, Poker Smash, Rocket Riot, N+, Galaga Legions, Burnout 3: Takedown, Ninja Gaiden Black, Space Invaders Extreme, Fable, Psychonauts, Duke Nukem 3D, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Doom. Those are just some of the games I've bought on Live in the past 3 years. Dutka's article isn't even relevant to his inciteful headline because in his article he cleary concedes that PSN is not there just yet.

gamingisnotacrime3074d ago

funny how MS has done so much in revenue and still they screw u with the Gold membership. Even more incredible is to see u are happy with this fee. Pay to play online, yeah right

UnwanteDreamz3074d ago (Edited 3074d ago )

"When you look at content, user interface and functionality, Live is the better service. I have and use both so this isn't conjecture." - StanLee

This is your opinion and nothing more. Your opinion, as a faceless member of the interwebs, weighs as much as his. I love how you guys try and pass it off as anything else but one persons opinion.

"I did read his article and in terms of content, Live still eclipses PSN; in quantity and quality. That's not opinion, that's quantifiable fact" - StanLee

Really? Do you care to give us a source to your claims? More specifically I would like to know more on the quality subject. I thought it was proven that PSN offered more critically acclaimed titles when you look at the ratio.

StanLee3074d ago

Dude, why do I care about Gold membership. That's not what the article or my argument is about. And if you can get 20 million people to pay for something why would you give it away for free? That's just not good business. If you're saying PSN has more content that appeals to you, that's fine. That's an opinion. To say it has better content isn't fact.

DarthChris3074d ago

@dalibor 100 per cent agree. being made to pay twice for the same service (net access) is a disgrace anyway you wanna dress it up.

dalibor3074d ago (Edited 3074d ago )

Heres another question for everybody to ponder about. Will both Live & Psn be free when the next gen systems come out? And when is internet going to be free? I hope internet becomes free soon.

likedamaster3074d ago (Edited 3074d ago )

I'm with Stan Lee on this one, plus Ben D!cka has no cred.

StanLee3074d ago

How is ratio comparable to volume? Better quality ratio means nothing when you have half the content. Of course there'll be a better ratio. That's common sense.

UnwanteDreamz3074d ago (Edited 3074d ago )

Here is a quick explination for you because you don't get the math.

These are made up numbers:

If the 360 offers 400 games but only 20% get good scores you are left with 80 good titles.

If the PS3 offers 200 games but 40% get good scores you are left with 80 good titles.

To some it would seem looking at these numbers they are offering the same quality on both services. That is just not the case. The ratio of games released to games that are good is how you compare the quality offered.

Or you could just have your opinion and stop trying to pass it off as fact.

"Better quality ratio means nothing when you have half the content"

To be logical this would have to read: More content means nothing when you have a poorer quality ratio.

Arnon3074d ago

And yet, you don't understand that a 'good game' is subjective to the person. So why would you NOT want 400+ games compared to 200+ games? I mean that's pretty much just deprivation.

Xbox LIVE:

-Xbox LIVE Arcade: 219 (All have a free demo)
-XNA Community Games: 321 (All have a free demo)
-Xbox Originals: 29
-Xbox LIVE Demos: 209
-Xbox LIVE Add-ons: 215 games in Add-ons folder
-Xbox LIVE Movies: 1,124 (Not including Netflix)
-Xbox LIVE TV Shows: 794 (Not including Netflix)
-Xbox LIVE integrations(and soon to be): Cross-game invite/chat, 8 player party chat, Netflix (different than browser), Facebook (different than browser), Twitter (different than browser), 1 vs 100.

I was not able to find all of the Playstation Network content due to the fact that they don't have it organized to look at the max number within the database.

UnwanteDreamz3074d ago (Edited 3074d ago )

"And yet, you don't understand that a 'good game' is subjective to the person. So why would you NOT want 400+ games compared to 200+ games? I mean that's pretty much just deprivation."

I completely understand that and if you had reading comprehension you could see I think it's all a matter of opinion. That being said why would you want to wade through 300 average/ mediocre titles to get to the 100 good ones? You may like spending your cash that way but I do not. Once again its a matter of opinion. Oh and you might want to edit this:

-Xbox LIVE Arcade: 219 (All have a free demo)
-XNA Community Games: 321 (All have a free demo)

I believe you pay like 50$ a year for access to this "free" content.

EDIT : For the record I have no problem with anyone feeling like Live is the better service. If you love live and think PSN is shat then say "I love Live and I think PSN is shat". Lets just not present our opinions as the law.

Arnon3074d ago (Edited 3074d ago )

Lol... reading comprehension on the internet. Funny. I have insomnia right now, which explains me not reading too much at the moment. Sorry. Also, again, it's a opinion on what is mediocre and what is not. And honestly, I would spend $50 a year to have a demo of every game, rather than take a shot in the dark and buy a game I may not like. And no, PSN is not crap. It's nice and does what it does and it's free.

thesummerofgeorge3074d ago

Stan Lee calling someone a fanboy, meanwhile you're arguing that since Microsoft can charge their customers for something they should... You think it makes sense as a business to always squeeze their customers for everything they can get away with? That logic is asinine. While a business needs to make money, if they can keep their customers happy by giving them a break where possible, it makes more sense than saying "if we can make em pay, do it!" You know you're a fanboy, when you justify a company charging you more money because they can. You're more concerned with their profits than your own enjoyment.

Anyway, I pay enough bills, I would never pay a yearly fee to play online when I already paid for the machine, and I already pay my monthly internet bill. I like PSN better, you can't say that's ridiculous, cause it's my opinion. I mean I can understand arguing that you like Live better, but to argue in favor of them charging you fees because you think a company should charge as much as they can for whatever they can.... Well unless you're a shareholder, you've taken fanboyism to a sick and unhealthy level there guy.

HDgamer3074d ago

Wow Stanlee you really are a fanboy. First of all it's everyone's opinion, second of all I could just say Dedicated servers are mostly used on the ps3 which has games that do not have any type of lag available.

When I look at the content "I want" the ps3 has was won that battle also other things like most of my friends are on ps3 and well I love metal gear online and killzone 2.

velaxun3074d ago

You know what? I'm getting rather tired of all this baseless arguing.... Just to let you know guys it gets a little tiresome looking at comments and seeing nothing but lists of games that either side thinks is better than the games on the other.

Both systems have quality titles. Both systems are more or less the same in each aspect. One console may surpass the other in one category, but it may lag behind in another.

THIS is fact my friends. Lists are nothing more than opinion.

+ Show (19) more repliesLast reply 3074d ago
TheBand1t3074d ago

Live is better, but PSN is free. Can't complain about that.

cellmember3074d ago

I have a PS3 and a 360 and i'm sorry but PSN is not even close still to LIVE.
It still a long way to go. Not only than but if you live in the UK like me PSN is even more lacking in content.