"On paper the PlayStation 3 offers by far and away the superior online experience in the console market, so why then do the figures suggest that in reality, it is coming a distant second to Xbox Live?" - gameplayer
Yikes that PSN list is weak. "Lobbies/Matchmaking for instant online gaming Scores/Ranking for player comparison " Those are benefits? I don't think you can even have a functioning online service without those.. LOL No mention of Trueskill ranking on XBL? Dunno where you cut and paste that from but it's lacking bro.
I don't think the article is about a epeen comp: it is actually analyzing the figures and suggesting paths for improvement.
It's alright though. As superior as some people may feel LIVE is, I never pay for it and stick with PSN =D
It`s from the wiki...you know...usually doesn't have everything on there. Sorry..
The problem with Live is that it's like paying for cable. You pay for all these features and use two or three at most. Not to say it's not a good service. The reality is that both PSN and Live are quite similar with similar and different offerings. I'd say having a web browser integrated into your console is a big plus for any gamer. Like for example, when I'm looking for all the bobble heads in Fallout 3 for that Gold trophy I can easily look online for a quick IGN guide and hop right back into game. I can also look for quick news updates on N4G, go to Youtube to watch a music video, or post on Twitter. All without having to exit your console experience. PlayStation Home will be big once they integrate more community features for connecting with friends. Blu-Ray is also another great feature if you want to boast about watching movies, or buying full movies from the PlayStation Store -- something you can't do on Live. Let's not get into the advantages of the PS3 as a media hub... Live has some nice features like Party chat, some minor community features, and Netflix, but that's about it. imo. Just like Blu-Ray or a web browser are the missing links to Live. Last FM is good too, but you can't use it while in- game, essentially eliminating it as an effective community feature for gamers.
Can I play online? If the answer is yes, then I'm happy! Really now, I don't even use many of PSN's features, so what advantages does Live offer someone like me who doesn't use any of those extra features and just likes to load up a game and play? (That was a serious question)
The truth is no fun. Xbox Live does and will always kill PSN. Get used to it.
PS3: You forgot to mention the XMB interface which is integrated within the features to make for a far more flaunt and enjoyable experience. Also being a Technical Award based interface is a granted advantage You forgot to mention Recent player list, which lists over 100 players during your time online gaming against others You forgot to mention having Access to Playstation Store which includes new game content, games, demo's, viewable HD 720p/1080p trailers with 7.1 surround sound, Themese, Wallpapers and Classic PS1 Games all categorised and laid out in a appealing interface You forgot to mention the Parental controls accessable via the Internet Browser which limits children's exposure to indecent material and also protects from harmful Virus.
Cuz the only paper Microsoft uses is green and sadly its the only kind it accepts
lol wut? Someone must've been high...or drunk....or both
I'm with you man. Even PSN offers more options/features than I ever even begin to consider using. All this bickering and flaming about extra lil fluff features is just beyond me. There are things I've heard people claim are "ESSENTIAL" (usually something live has that psn doesn't) that I just sit there and think "What in the world would I ever use that for". I'm of the same frame of mind: as long as I can connect and play a game with a community of people (doesn't even have to be thousands upon thousands upon thousands, like some use as proof of "dominance") then I'm fine. That's all I can ever ask for, and all I ever will. I'm more of a single-player gamer anyways, just like to jump online once in a while for stuff like SOCOM or maybe a sports/fighting game from time to time. And I have NEVER had a problem whatsoever doing any of this efficiently and easily on PSN (or if I have it wasn't a fault of PSN, more the game or the developers).
XBL has been doing that since the launch of the 360. So I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to get at here.
I lol'ed at this quote: "the PlayStation 3 offers by far and away the superior online experience in the console market"
lol What's there to disagree with in my above comment? Somebody beg to differ and say that I do use all of the features that PSN offers me? Or maybe one of you thinks I'm lying when I say I have no use for some of these "essential" features that PSN is always ridiculed for missing? Or maybe someone disagrees that I am content with being able to just simply get online and play a quick round or something without the need for all the "fluff" that evidently so many of you need? No, wait, I know what it is. Someone here would beg to differ and assume to tell me what I like and say that I'm wrong when I admit to being a mainly single-player gamer and that's more my preference, with the occasional online match here and there, huh? lol You people are good entertainment, will give you that.
Let me ask you this... Does Xbox Live let you play online? Does the PSN let you play online? That is the single feature I need so that I can play the game I paid 60 bucks for online with my buddies. Now, which of these two is free? Live is great for those that "need" all those extra features but me, I need only one thing. I need to play online and since both services let me do that it all comes down to price.
Couldn't agree with you more, Syronicus. Plain and simple that is basically the only purpose of either system: to let you play games online. And since I can do that for free on PS3, I'd never even consider paying for it on 360. Hell I'd never even consider paying for it if both of them charged, I just wouldn't play online. I honestly just don't see the big deal is with all these superfluous features.
Exactly. I too would drop support for PSN if I had to pay for it and would go back tot he free online play on my PC. I supported Live for a couple years and found that after the initial feeling of how it was something new and cool to do on my console that it was just not worth the money and since the PC and PSN were free to use, they were and are the better choice - for me. People can say all they want that Live costs so little and that I should skip out on that #1 Value Meal at Mickey-D's but when there are other services out there that allow me to do what I want and do it for free, I will eat that Value Meal and play online at the same time. Why should I sacrifice when there is an obvious choice to be made? I will have my big mac and eat it too!
And it is exactly the same as the 360 version. Send game invites and join up in your squad and keep moving from match to match in the same squad. In reality PSN really is not trailing that far behind live, that is just b.s. dont forget psn is free and that really makes the difference.
The article mentions that 485 million bits of content has been downloaded by PS3 users and 1 billion bits of content by 360 users in it's lifetime. That's a completely meaningless comparison. Throwing in "active accounts" doesn't prove anything because the services differ greatly and there's plenty of active but duplicate accounts out there. I personally have an active account and my wife has an account, as I'm sure in different households each kid is going to have a different account - that's why there's more accounts than PS3's out there. Obviously only one account is going to be buying content. To get a true sense of how the services compare, shouldn't we look at the services at the same point in each services lifespan? Wouldn't that make more sense to see how the PSN was doing at the 2 1/2 year mark vs how XBL was doing at the 2 1/2 year mark - instead of PSN numbers at 2 1/2 years vs XBL at 4 years? It takes time for the networks to build momentum and to build up the content available, so obviously 2 1/2 year numbers aren't going to match 4 year numbers. How can this article ignore so basic a concept?
also on the PSN that you forgot: -Recent player list, which lists the lasts players a user has played with and the game title -Bio section in which one can list personal interests, URLs, etc. -Parental controls, limiting children's exposure to other users ("Family Settings") - News ticker - remote play/view Game/movies on PSP - Share PSN games/movies upto 3 consoles. - Photo gallery can replace wallpaper as slideshow(not in game) Upcoming features -using home as the lobby for some game. to plan out battles and setup teams. (you can already launch in to some games)
Lol, Where do you get a year and a half? In truth, it wasn't even a full year in difference between the 360 and ps3 launches (though it was close). Now your making it a year and a half, haha. Next I'm gonna see you saying 2 years.
The majority of us lol'ed.
no i did not lol. i nodded in agreement.
"The truth is no fun. Xbox Live does and will always kill PSN. Get used to it. " that wont stop the denial and ignorance unfortunately.
for me I say, if they were both free Id say live would be better. Now I have to look at the price of LIVE and see if im willing to pay 3-4 dollars a month. I am, so Id say live is better for me. I can see how people would disagree and say that PSN is better simply because it is free. I see their point too. I can see both sides to the argument. It is funny to see the ps3 fanboys rag on people and call them poor and suggest that the reason they have no ps3 is the money, but the next article they will talk about how much more expensive every useless add on for 360 is and that live is a rip off. LIve is like dunkin donuts coffee, and PSN is the free coffee you get at church. Which is better?? Depends on what your tastes are, and how much of a value you place on the fact that one is free. Some swear DD coffe is great, others cant taste the difference, some think the free coffee tastes better. Some dont think coffee is worth any money at all cause they dont like it. At the end of the day LIVE is a service and its your choice to pay or not. We make decisions every day whether something is worth our money or not, why is it a huge deal that people are willing to pay for live?? I for one, dont mind paying because I truly believe that paying for LIVE has helped improve the service. I can tell that live right now is better than LIVE a year ago. Being upset at people for paying for live is like being mad at someone who pays extra for a DVR or extra channels. MAybe you dont value it but others do. What if I think TV isnt worth it? Does that make you a moron if you have cable? does it make me a moron for not liking TV? NO Should we attack people who pay for MMOs, call them stupid for paying 120$ a year to play JUST ONE GAME ONLINE. NO, because they place value in it and its their money. Even though I would never pay for a MMO I understand taht some get alot of enjoyment out of it, and honestly I dont give a rats ass how other people spend their money. And If you care about how others spend their money, then you need to get a life. EDIT-- also I must add that no matter which service is better I dont think it matters as the Wii is trouncing both systems as far as sales go. I think we can all agree that the wii has a horrible online system, and yet ohh so many people dont care?? strange huh.
XBL started - 2002 PSN started - 2006 PSN has made great leaps and bounds in its short time out. Who knows what it will look like once it reaches the same age as XBL. Thats right XBL started on the original xbox for the fanboys that dont know. PSN started on PS3.
gameplayer.au no bias no bull "Despite being clunky and ugly, the Xbox 360 dashboard... The PSN on the other hand feels cold and desolate and on face value is more complicated to operate... Sony would do well to bite the bullet and to do some copy and pasting."
Yeah sure, key word "ACTIVE", whatever you say. blah, blah, blah
This article blows... Flame bait at its best.
The article is simply comparing the facts listed by the two companies themselves. It would seem to me to be quite a good analysis of the two services. It takes a shot at neither of them and actually shows how both are quite good, only suggesting that Sony needs to sharpen their direction a little to begin making inroads. While I am sure there will be users here who turn it into flameage, the article itself is quite level headed I thought.
facts like "On paper the PlayStation 3 offers by far and away the superior online experience in the console market" and "Unfortunately a large part of what’s wrong comes down to design. Despite being clunky and ugly, the Xbox 360 dashboard and user interface is still warm and accepting, as well as easy to navigate." really aren't flamebait. No mention of the fact that PSN users span 3 platforms and there's no limit to the number of accounts any one user can have. The bias in this article is horrible.