Top
190°

'Solid' Live still better than 'Shiny' PSN Plus

Everyone knows that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, which is why Live is still better for gamers at its core than PSN Plus…

Read Full Story >>
360magazine.co.uk
The story is too old to be commented.
DA_SHREDDER2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

"We’d rather play an honest £40 with no ‘extras’ for a basic service that works effectively than count up ‘extra value’ and ‘freebies’."

You rather pay then play online for free? I see logic has flown out the window in this article.

." (Go ahead and compare an online game of MW2 on PS3 with one on Live, it’s a whole other world"

Yah, there are way more douche bags and little kids playing MW2 on xbox live than on the psn. I gotta agree with you on there brother.

@ SleeBurger

I aint paying for ps+, but I will as soon as cross game chat and other services come with the subscription. The only thing that xbox live has over psn is cross game chat, but how bout the fact that the psn has 6 man video chat? You can only do one on one with xbox live. And you pay for it! Its free on the psn. LOL! Also, what happens when ps+ gets cross game chat? All the extra freebies are just gonna be icing on the cake. How does anyone in their right mind even open their mouth about the subject when its just plain logic and science that suggest the psn offers more for less? Xbox fanboys are the epitome of ignorance.

Danja2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

gasping for straws arent we ?

people seem to be forgetting that PSN+ is a choice for PS3 gamers you dont need to pay to play online games on the PS3 as that remains free that alone right there is a huge advantage over Live... nothing else needs to be said... etc

zootang2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

@shredder @Danja

I'm with you, it just doesn't make sense.

I say PSN is the better service because you can game online for free!

Free Online gaming with the ability to chat in game! Free!

Sleeburger2716d ago

@Danja BTW, the term is 'grasping at straws'

Danja2716d ago

lol thanks man was typo im on my iTouch we all know how typing on these things are...

Sleeburger2716d ago

Haha! Yep, been there before. Damn predictive text! :)

sikbeta2716d ago

lol seems like someone made an article about something he doesn't even get...

PSN = FREE On-Line Gaming
PS+ = Service -> $50 per year -> You can CHOOSE to get it or not

Next Month I'll Subscribe, I don't care if people don't Understand this Service, bad for them, I'll start to make Collection of PSN Games, This Service will Only Get Better, so lets Enjoy it...

morganfell2716d ago

Here is a simple rule. If you can't properly name a service then you are something of a moron for attemting (vainly) to criticize said ervice. It isn't PSN+, it is PS+. PlayStation Plus. Since failed at even the most basic research, here is a link to help get you and your fellow incompetents started:

http://blog.us.playstation....

captain-obvious2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

lol

says "360magazine.co.uk"

HolyOrangeCows2716d ago

The guy who wrote this doesn't have a Ps3. He just wrote down supposed negatives that he heard about on the XboxRepublic forums.

moparful992716d ago

I just find it funny how he's daring enough to criticize ps+ for using the pay as you go structure, meaning you lose access to content if you do not re-up, but Isn't that exactly what xbox live is? Seriously if you dont renew your subscription to live you lose the ability to Play your games online and access to your content. Not only do you pay for your console, game, internet connection but you have to pay just have the privelege to play that game online? Whats even worse is the horde of ravenous xbox zealots that whole heartedly defend that fact by using cross game chat as a tool for leverage. But at the end of the day what do features like cross game chat and other social features really add to the game experience?? Nothing at all.. They are all social interaction tools that having nothing to do with the core experience. So in essence they are paying for a social network.. It just blows my mind how they can defend something like that... Also 90% of the content on the ps store aside from games is free like themes, avatars, demos, some dlc and so on.. Xbox live charges for nearly everything.

harrisk9542716d ago

LIVE is an system that MS requires you to purchase to play online. You do get some other services that Xbox fans tote, but bottom line is that you are PAYING TO PLAY ONLINE... This is completely different than what PSN+ offers.

PSN+ is a value-added discount program that gives its subscribers free and discounted stuff, including Qore, which on its own is $25 per year. Based upon what I've downloaded through PSN+, I've almost already gotten my money back in savings. And it's only been 2 weeks. Imagine the offerings that Sony will have once the service gets its legs.

LIVE Gold membership is required to get things like Hulu (next year), Youtube, Netflix, Facebook, etc.

On PSN, those things are FREE and will continue to be FREE... And with companies like EA now charging for online play and things like Hulu, Xbox owners are going to have to pay twice!

The 2 services are not the same at all.

KingME2716d ago

One good point is the fact that when and if you cancel your subscription most of the "FREE" stuff that they gave you somehow get's taken away. That actually equates to a rental and not "free".

One thing that Sony did smart was to leave playing games online free. But as businesses go, even this could be in jeopardy. If they don't get enough subcribers for PSN Plus.

D4RkNIKON2716d ago

How come when I pay for a $60 game for my PS3 (lets say COD for example), included in that price I can play multiplayer online with friends or single player campaign. The same $60 COD game on 360 requires me to pay even more for the feature built in and on disk. It just doesn't seem right.

There's nothing wrong with MS offering a subscription based service with features that justify the price but online play should be free and that's all there is too it. Especially since all of these other game devs are talking about subscription based services for their games, we shouldn't have to pay several subscription fees every year to play online.

SoSLy2716d ago

"One good point is the fact that when and if you cancel your subscription most of the "FREE" stuff that they gave you somehow get's taken away. That actually equates to a rental and not "free"."

It doesnt "go away" it gets "locked up" only to be unlocked once you renew your subscription, like live you can play online again once you renew your gold.

WildArmed2716d ago

Honestly, the site is named 360magazine.co.uk.

They have to show some bias regardless.
But i see no logic what so ever in their comments.

ThanatosDMC2716d ago

Gotta love misinformed jounalists who pull facts out of their tight asses that wont accept that they're getting ripped off. Oh well...

KingME2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

I'm really not trying to start an argument here but "Locked Up, Locked Out, however you want to spin it still equates to being taken away.

If I lock you out of you house, although you can still see it sitting there, it doesn't do you much good now does it.

@D4RkNIKON - Really, is that the best you can come up with?

"How come when I pay for a $60 game for my PS3 (lets say COD for example), included in that price I can play multiplayer online with friends or single player campaign. The same $60 COD game on 360 requires me to pay even more for the feature built in and on disk. It just doesn't seem right."

Online play is not included in the price son, the game is sold by Activision, they can give-a-shit what you do with it. Hell Activision will sell you a copy of COD even if you don't have a console and it'll still cost you 60.00. Stop spinning it, the price of a game has nothing to do with live or psn. You guys are going to be totally speechless when you loose the free online play leverage, that seens to be the only thing you have left.

If Sony start to charge to play games, there are going to be many a rivers cried or boat loads of crow eaten.

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 2716d ago
Chug2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

Clearly written by an emotional fanboy trying to justify why live is worth being a paid service.

Edit: Brought to you by 360magazine.co.uk...lol!

@ Below: And your online multiplayer portion of xbox live will disappear as soon as you quit paying! See what I did there?

Sleeburger2716d ago

But you're still paying for PSN+! The supposed 'free' stuff that you're getting will disappear as soon as you stop paying your subscription. At least Live is upfront about it.

FunAndGun2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

@ Sleeburger

Do you not understand the difference between OPTIONAL and MANDATORY?

Here, this will get you started ---> www.dictionary.com

Edit @ below -

Yes it does, PS+ is an optional service. I don't have to pay to fully utilize my system out of the box. With Live, it is mandatory to pay if I want to use all of the features and play online.

You are comparing something that is optional with something that is forced. Of course some people would "rather" pay for Live BECAUSE THEY HAVE TOO to enjoy their system fully.

You can't just forget the fact that one service is optional and one is mandatory. I have a 360 and a PS3, I don't pay for Live because I can't justify paying for something that should be free.

OSU_Gamer2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

FunAndGun

I don't think you understand.

If you have $50 would you rather spend it on Live or PSN+?

No where does mandatory vs optional come into the equation.

Edit: @ everyone

So is XBL Gold offering more than PSN+? Would you rather go with free online with PSN and get PSN+ for $50, or stick with XBL. That's the real question. How many more people have unique XBL paid subscriptions? Look it up. You can't out-reason fact. More people want XBL.

zootang2716d ago

@OSUgamer

Well really you have to spend it on live because otherwise you can't game online.

nix2716d ago

i dont think you understand.

how about i don't pay any freaking money and still play online for FREE!

Rhythmattic2716d ago

OSU_Gamer

Capital D _______ lusional.

nycredude2716d ago

OSU gamer

WTF are you getting at. Stop trying to justify MS raping you guys. No where else on any platform or any console, pc or handheld do you HAVE to pay to play online. Face the facts LIVE is a ripoff.

nefertis2716d ago

WTF DUDE? dont talk anymore u are not making any sense.

ThanatosDMC2716d ago

I see, people really think we have to pay for PS+, huh? No, we dont. It's not mandatory and yes we can play online and most if not all Sony games are lagless.

I really think that 360 owners cant believe we dont have to pay and think we're just lying douches spreading fud on N4G.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2716d ago
mastiffchild2716d ago

Why is Live more "solid", anyone? Both services seem equally solid and stable to me-and more of the games I play on PSN run better because more have dedicated servers.

The constant FUD about PSN+ which is purely an option astounds me but there you go, some people just have no grasp of fact and feel a bizarre need to lie to people. Live forces you to pay extra on top of what you did when buying a game JUST to play online, PSN gives you that, as it should, gratis and PSN+ has NOTHING to do with it. PSN+ is simply a rental and discount service with added extras like betas and such-you can ignore it all you wish and it'll never stop you playing online. where's the gun Son are putting to our heads over online gaming? If PSN+ doesn't appeal to you or doesn't look like you'd get value from it(like I don't and won't be subbing to it)then don't subscribe-you won't lose anything unlike you will when you stop your Gold sub.

There's only a comparison iof you don't understand PSN+ or desperately wish to make it out to be fair to make us pay for basic online gaming after we already paid our ISP! It's THAT simple-unless you think XGC and a better invite system are worth the entire cost of your Live sub then, if that's your opinion, fair enough though, personally, I don't and think XGC is a crappy feature that encourages bad manners in any case.

Colonel-Killzone2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

Well live always been that way. Its been around for a while.

I'll make this simple.

IF you want a choice PSN is the way to go. If you want to pay mandatory least if you wanna play online XBOX LIVE is the way to go.

The main reason the PSN wins is we have a choice.

OSU_Gamer2716d ago

PSN doesn't and isn't winning, that's what I don't understand.

It would be completely different if i was arguing the same point and PSN had more unique subscriptions. The fact still remains that even though you can have as many accounts as you want for PSN, XBL still has more paid subscriptions.

I am happily paying for XBL and I have a PSN account, I think it is better than PSN. you cannot tell me that I am wrong. I can't tell you that you are wrong for thinking that PSN is better. That's the point being free doesn't mean better.

asyouburn2716d ago

which one is better? with psn, i can take FULL advantage of the 60 dollar game i just bought, whereas live, not so much. thats how you find which is more valuable. take it away and see what happens. take modern warfare for example, 60 bucks new, and without live, your stuck with a 4 hour sucky ass single player, but without psn+, i ca still play the full game i just paid for. its your money, you can give it to whom you choose, but just know that your buying thier system, buying the game, paying for your internet access, then an extra fee only to get P2P online gaminig

ER-AM2716d ago

I know that's not what you were going for, but you just proved that Live is more valuable. By taking both away, Live shows that is more valuable because you get a valuable feature by paying for it. PS+ is inherently less valuable because you lose nothing by not paying for it. PS+ is a luxury while Live is a necessity, in gaming terms. Necessities are always more valuable.

Nicaragua2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

Oh my god, i cannot believe you just used that logic to to try and prove that Live is better - your an idiot mate.

You have completely missed the point that you sholdnt have to pay for it in the first place.

PC gamers dont pay for it, Apple gamers dont pay for it, Nintendo gamers dont pay for it, Sony gamers dont pay for it - only Xbox gamers pay for it and are dumb enough to think they are getting a good deal

What a joke.

klado2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

ER-RAM, ok here simple for you...

"I know that's not what you were going for, but you just proved that Live is more valuable. By taking both away, Live shows that is more valuable because you get a valuable feature by paying for it. PSN is inherently less valuable because you lose nothing by not paying for it. PSN is a luxury while Live is a necessity, in gaming terms. Necessities are always more valuable."

Now that we fixed the fact THAT + IS OPTIONAL, did what you said made any sense? it didn't, oh man, really, did you even go to school!, it isn't that hard to understand.

The fact that PSN is FREE and PS+ is OPTIONAL, makes PSN a more interesting service THAN A PAID ONE.

Here let me help you.

Mandatory, SPELLED "man-da-to-ry" an ADJETIVE...
1. Required or commanded by authority; obligatory: Example for empty heads...."To play games online LIVE is mandatory".

Optional or let me spell it for you all
"op-tion-al" another adjetive...
1. Not compulsory or automatic, left to personal choice...Does it need any example?...

Dac2u2716d ago

@OSU_Gamer:
"The fact still remains that even though you can have as many accounts as you want for PSN, XBL still has more paid subscriptions."

I'd love to see where you got those numbers, because everything I've read tells me the opposite. In January 2009, PSN and XBL both had 17 million accounts each. Considering, the PS3 has sold better worldwide every month, it's safe to assume the numbers have risen accordingly.

iceman062715d ago

Logic does not always equal truth. Sure, you followed a wonderfully logical thought, but the end didn't really prove anything....Example. I require oxygen to remain alive. A fire requires oxygen to remain burning. Therefore, since a fire requires oxygen it must be alive??? How bout the one from the Heineken commercials...I like women...women like Neil Sedaka...I like Neil Sedaka???" *LOL* Funny, but not very true.
There is a concept of false value. It's value is tied to it's need in a pay structure. However, would it be as valuable if offered for less or even free? So, sure paying for online in XBL is of value, but in comparison to it being offered for free does it still hold it's value?

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2715d ago
JokesOnYou2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

There are plenty of little kids and douchebags on both, but in my experience playing games on Live is just more fun if you enjoy a large community type feel where most people are talking, organizing parties, and generally know whats going on(less noobs/harder to win). In my limited time on psn with games like KZ2 and UC2 it was mostly silent aside from the little kid or douchebag screaming at me when they got raped. Keep telling yourself that Live isnt worth it and "free" psn is just as good, whatever helps you sleep.

JOY

DA_SHREDDER2716d ago

Oh its definitely not worth it. Im having fun playing 256 players online with virtually no lag on dedicated servers (that are free to play on btw). Then you got games like MW2 with their p2p connections, and guess what? I find alot less lag on the ps3 version than on the 360 version. Same goes for COD WAW. Alot less lag on the ps3. But ya, you think xbox live is better than the psn? Keep telling yourself that. Almost every first party exclusive use dedicated servers, even racing games. Have fun paying for your p2p connection bud.

Motion2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

Damn, I would probably scream too if I were being raped. I hear its pretty traumatic.

Colonel-Killzone2716d ago

Call of duty is equally retarded on both systems mate. Same 12 year old kids screaming racist remarks hackers boosters they are on both systems. Different consoles same experience honestly. Since I played Call of duty on both I can tell you the experience and nightmares are the same.

Chug2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

No, you keep telling yourself that Live IS worth it and free PSN ISN'T as good.

Game-ur2716d ago

You're not arguing the quality of Live but the quality of the company you keep.
I myself only started plying online because psn is free, and I convinced three of my brothers and a lot of my friends to play online for the same reason.

JokesOnYou2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

lag? "Same goes for COD WAW. Alot less lag on the ps3." lol I play games all the time on Live and lag is rarely and issue, however stuff like cross game chat, including most players actually talking about stuff going on in-game, organizing parties, and overall ease of use with Lives functionality easily trumps what psn offers which is just a basic type of "play online" experience, what really sets Live apart for me though is that I feel connected to all my friends and family, its very easy to see who's on when I'm on and join their game. Hey to each their own but I don't get the same quality online experience from psn(which I admit I rarely play).

pffft...p2p, lag?, lmfao You can downplay 360's online experience all you want but theres a reason why most shooters fans choose 360/xbl for online gameplay with multiplats when you could play for "free" on psn.

JOY

edit: vvvvv very true, but if the experience wasn't worth it why wouldn't shooter fans gravitate to a console that has the same(equal) experience for "free"? So the answer lies within the question, most shooter fans are on 360 exactly because thats where the best experience for online gameplay on a console is.

Game-ur2716d ago

"theres a reason why most shooters fans choose 360/xbl for online gameplay"

Maybe because the 360 has the most shooters fans?

moparful992716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

Lol you obviously haven't spent much time on psn. I have over 100 hours logged on kz2 and people talk more then enough on there.. Main difference is you dont have a bunch of immature idiots arguing and mudslinging the entire time. Lets not forget mw2, unfortunately its alot like xbl with a bunch of arguing and childish behavior that I just end up mutting alot of people. My point being the only "connected" feature that xbl has over ps3 is cross game chat which seems counter productive to me. I wouldnt want someone from outside my game talking to me while I play a game, especially a shooter. Only reason xbl live tends to be the platform of choice for shooter fans has alot to do with Microsoft marketing and pr and not the strength of xbl as an online service. Only game on psn that lags is mw2 due to activision using p2p servers on the ps3 and that lag isn't that common. You're entire argument is flawed and irrelevant...

spooky2052716d ago

a better service than PSN. The games run about the same. The lag is about equal. The amount of douchebags is equal on both. The only thing that MS did well is that they had the foresight to include a mic in every xbox sku. Thats why live seems like a more robust community. Its a good thing and a bad thing. Good cause you chat and make friends with like minded gamers and bad because you have annoying douchebags screaming nonsense. The community feels more robust but that doesnt exactly equate to a better service or justify the price tag. I mean its pay or dont play. Live isnt some sort of magical service people make it out to be.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2716d ago
Double Toasted2716d ago

So you're not going to pay for PSN+ until it has the features of Live? Sony says..."Help a brother out!" lol.

OSU_Gamer2716d ago

How does it feel to make up sh*t and somehow try and use it to prove your point

"We’d rather play an honest £40 with no ‘extras’ for a basic service that works effectively than count up ‘extra value’ and ‘freebies’."

First of all he is comparing the value of XBL to PSN+, NOT XBL to PSN.
Did you even read the title of the article?

Also, where does it say anywhere that he would rather pay to play online than play for free. No one in there right mind would say that. His quote clearly states that he would rather pay for an basic EFFECTIVE XBL over paying for the extra value and freebies that PSN+ offers.

I really just don't understand how you comprehended that statement the way you did.

"How does anyone in their right mind even open their mouth about the subject when its just plain logic and science that suggest the psn offers more for less? Xbox fanboys are the epitome of ignorance. "

Considering you have no idea what he actually saying, your point is completely worthless. Now who is the epitome of ignorance?

Colonel-Killzone2716d ago

In my opinion You cannot compare PSN at all to XBOX live.

If they were both free to play games online and also had a subscription fee then I would try and make a comparison.

MysticStrummer2716d ago

Not a single person I know who had a 360 thinks XBL is better than free PSN. Not one. They all have PS3s now and are happy they made the switch. Jump around.

AAACE52716d ago

Let's just say at some point MS made it free to play online for all gamers on XBL, and they would just charge you for a gold membership similar to PSN+, would you guys still think that XBL is worthless? Or would you just find something else to complain about?

Biggest2716d ago

Here's one for you then, AAACE5. If the green elephants were kind enough to rain gold rupees on everyone while shaving your name in Central Park, would you still think red up steak who?

If you didn't understand that then I made my point. Your comment makes about as much sense.

SoSLy2716d ago

if that ever happens then the Moolah/Dollaz/Money/Greens will stop flowing towards Microsoft and if that happens then Mr. Bill Gates will be mad, You have to know that "Microsoft only wants your money" ;)

Jab-dees-nuts2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

SUPER HYPER COMBO FINISH!!!

LOL WELL SAID

D4RkNIKON2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

@ Jab-dees-nuts lol I agree.

Garnett2716d ago

If you have $50, you would be better off buying GOLD because PSN is free, why pay for discounts? That makes no sense...

LiquifiedArt2716d ago (Edited 2716d ago )

One is a content service and the other is a service that UNLOCKS a games ability to be used online.

~ The More You Know (cue rainbow)

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 2715d ago
SamBandah2716d ago

But at the end of the day I have to say one should get what one pays for, and can all the free stuff really justify what PSN Plus seems to be missing? I'm on the fence now..

BeaArthur2716d ago

I'm sticking with what I have. Live at $50 and PSN free. I'm not going to take advantage of most of the features of PSN+ so there is no point in having it.

nygamer282716d ago

i love my ps3 more then my xbox....but i rather pay for live then psn+

iistuii2716d ago

the demo's and beta's start being kept from the free side of PSN, and the likes of GT5 demo or K3 beta are only being played by the paying customer, then the tears will flow.

thewrathman2716d ago

thats so true. payin users will just get wot the free users now gets.and the free user will just get shafted harder.and the demos and betas and DLC will just be delayed longer for them.

it isnt about the the payin user getting more.its about the free users getting less.

Fiona2716d ago

Oh my god! Online still free!! that what matters! i you dont want PSN+. Dont Get it! simple as that. I have not renew xbox live since 2008. I cant use netflix since i am not in the US. And i dont care for social things like facebook, twitter and all that crap. Comparing Xbox live to PSN+ doesnt make any sense imo.