Sony: PSN Doing More Than XboxLive. That's Not A True Statement

Eric Lempel of Sony says that they are not playing catch up and in some respects they are doing more than Xboxlive which is obviously not true. Still to this day there's features gamers have been starving for that after 2 and 1/2 years we still don't have that's very instrumental to the success of online gaming.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
dizlaoboi9163482d ago

i do agree that psn lacks alot that xbox live has, voice chat and such forth, although being free is what psn still has over live

table3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

what it lacks in a few features it makes up for being a more stable online experience. I get lag playing 1v1 on virtua tennis on xbox live yet when I play killzone2 and Resistance2, two massive player count games, I get no lag. I don't know why this should be since I'm not a tech boffin. I prefer the live features and interface but in some respects live is actually playing catch up.

Harry_Manback3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

And I absolutely hate paying for live. In my eyes, live isn't all that much better that psn.

For the people that think they're getting a great value for their money with live- it must be an illusion (Or you're a silly fanboy). Its human nature to think that something thats more expensive/costs money (xbl) must be better than something thats least expensive/free (psn).

But in reality, its a rip-off & you're only paying for it because you HAVE TO.

3482d ago
Anon19743482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

I own both a 360 and a PS3. I used XBL for years before finally asking "What am I paying for here, exactly?" and just downgrading to Silver.
For me, I don't know anyone else who games on XBL, but I have tonnes of friends with PS3's - so I never used the cross game chat or cross game invites (and they never had party chat when I used it).
I just wanted to be able to play online - and both do that well, but one costs me. It was kind of a no brainer for me to switch over, and I discovered that I don't have to mute 6 people at the start of every match like I was doing playing COD4 and Halo 3, which was an annoyance I didn't mind not having to deal with.

Ultimately I think it was a cultural thing. 60% of all 360's out there are in the US, where only 30% of PS3 are, so online with the PS3 you're more likely to play against people from Japan or from all over Europe. I think that's why you don't get the racist, homophobic 10 year olds nearly as much on the PS3.

menoyou3482d ago

It is a true statement. PSN is superior, it has the features that matter plus tons more innovative stuff, the designs and integration to the console is superior, and best of all, everything is free.

nothere4133482d ago

This article is just a flamewar waiting to happen.

And it's HipHopGamershow... that just makes it worse.

Chubear3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

people keep talking about X-game chat like it's "A LOT OF FEATURES" when that's the only thing live has that PSN doesn't. The Other features the PS3 has but it's done differently and not as unified but that's not a count to "A LOT OF FEATURES"

PSN also has tonnes of very distinct features that the 360 doesn't have as well but to make X-game chat the end all and be all is BS.

We as gamers go online to game not use features. When it comes to what actually matters for online gaming, PSN hands down beats live and it's still growing. If you say other wise then tell me this, how the hell does a system say it's better online when:

1) It's standard online # count is 8v8 while PSN's is 16v16

2) Why we can't see more stable gaming with anything above 9v9 but we see 20v20, 30v30 and 128v128 on PSN

3) Why are people paying $250 every gen for online when they're flooded with ads and the free service in PSN isn't.

4) why are people paying 250 every gen for online when P2P is the standard used and thus the quality of actual online gaming is lower than that of a free service in PSN.

5) and this isnt' really online matter but - why are you guys paying the same amount for games when MS uses a last gen format in DVD9s and Sony uses Blu-ray? Shouldn't 360 games cost atleast 5-10 bucks less? why does a DVD cost as much as a Blu-ray disc?

This X-game chat feature as been used to propel Live into some nonsensical BS target point. Is it a nice feature to have for some? sure but many people like myself have little use or need for it. I dont' want to be talking with somebody outside of my game while I'm online with others playing. If you like that then cool but dont' tell me that ONE feature is worth the price of what you pay for an entire console.

PSN is hands down a better service than Live. Using X-chat to make it seem other wise is BS. Looki here, PSN as a feature in HOME, a feature that had MS used would have a 99.99 yr payment for but it's free on PSN. PS3 has a browser from the start with options for other OS's but the 360 has none but would certainly charge people extra for that for sure.

Live is not better than PSN at all and only dummies will keep paying MS an extra $250 every gen for pretty much ONE feature that most people wouldn't really give a toss about if it wasn't there to begin with.

Blaze9293482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

Becuase its true. You aren't continuously hearing this for no reason. Get a 360, use that free month of Xbox LIVE for evaluation, then go back to you PS3 and see if you make the same comment.

IM tired of hearing PS3 owners saying PSN is equal or better yet, BETTER than LIVE. That's not even NEAR the case pertaining to FEATURES and its ridiculous. Besides PSN being free, I honestly don't know how one could prefer that over LIVE.

I'm not talking about "I have more friends on PSN" or "i prefer my PS3" or the infamous "hearing little kids scream in the mic or racist people" those are personal preferences/reasons. As a SERVICE, again, besides it being free, I don't know how one could prefer PSN over LIVE besides SOME PS3 games having dedicated servers...thats right, SOME...just like SOME 360 games run on dedicated servers. I really wonder how these arguments would be if LIVE were free I really do.

And I'm not saying that out of a fanboy rage, I own both systems, check my profile and actively use both PSN and LIVE but come on, can we all take the fanboy goggles of for a second?...or forever. I actively use Xbox LIVE alot and whining over $50 a YEAR is complete idiocy to me but I guess everyone is in a different financial situation. When I use my PS3, it's just really annoying FEATURE wise the things that I still can not do compared to LIVE.

Applegate3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

Well looks like racists prefer the 360 to the PS3

Maybe it the white that appeals to them....they probably dont know a black Xbox exists too.

iDystopia3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

Go Sony! Can't be stopped! Everyone knows PSN is number 1.


Gamertags3482d ago

be to the most polish and easy to use network amongst the next gen. systems. MS updates often adding more and more for gamers to enjoy. Netflix, Facebook, FM music, Twitter....and that is just a sample.

While you have to pay for it, yeah free is better of course, but with Live, it is worth it. The online is better. Voice chat is better. Joining games with your friends is easier, smoother and....better.

While I like the PSN, I love Live.

For anyone that doubts that Live is better, try it out! That is all that you have to do!

Chubear3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

Many people who have had 360 then got PS3 stopped with their gold subscriptions cause it's obvious that that paying to play online is BS after using PSN.

Here, I'll do you one. What do you think would happen if MS gave online play to silver subscribers for free but kept "all the features" like X-game chat for gold member to still pay $50 a year for?
Yup that's right, there'd be a flood of 360 gamers dropping their gold subscriptions cause they know paying for communication features is a joke.

Now, you may feel X-game chat is better than PSN's X-game texting but 50BUCKS A YEAR BETTER?! So when Sony implements X-game video chat... then what? what excuse will you use to say Live is better when obviously X-game video chat trumps the hell out of X-game voice chat.

I've said before and I'll say it again; every gen there's a sucker and these companies like MS bank on it.

Anon19743482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

I used XBL far more than I've used PSN, and I still can't tell you what people think makes XBL better. All I can think about is the cross-game chat/invites and the party chat. And that doesn't instantly make it better, it just makes it different.
You forget, the PS3 had facebook/twitter a long time ago - but no one cares. Why would you use twitter on an Xbox? Netflix is only good for one country and I can't figure out how you think XBL has more polish. That just baffles me.

I think both have different strengths but at the end of the day you just want to go online and play a game like the developer intended. Both do that, one charges you more to do it.

Edit Above: Here here! I'm one of those who dropped XBL in favor of PSN, and I used XBL for years on my original Xbox and my 360. I agree 100%. If XBL silver could game online, but you had to pay for gold for cross game chat, Microsoft could kiss at least 1/2 billion in revenue a year goodbye, and considering that MS Entertainment is in the red again despite increased sales and increased revenue - MS will keep milking their users for as long as they can.

3482d ago
StanLee3482d ago

You are high or a fanboy if you think PSN is equal to or better than XBL.

3482d ago
3482d ago
Chubear3482d ago

Ok you tell me, you would still pay 50bucks a year if online gaming on Live was free just to have these "features"? Please tell me. You won't, why cause you know paying for features is BS.

GO on, tell me you'd still pay $250 every gen for X-game voice chat.

GiantEnemyCrab3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

Darkride: Maybe you haven't run into them on PSN or maybe that's just a bit of your fanboy talking(yeah that's probably it) because going into Home is an excercise in basic KKK training.

And as someone who was in the Closed Home Beta when they had voice going it was very interesting. Within my first 20min in home I had already heard people calling others [email protected], n*, etc. I was in Home yesterday and in the theatre a user name Johnny Cokc or something similar was running around asking everyone who let all the "n*ggers" into the theatre.

I know XBL has it's share of idiots but this isn't a service related issue this is a society issue and they are everywhere.

@1.21: I have both and I disgree. PSN is decent but I do prefer Live and I prefer it enough to pay the $50 a year.

@1.23: haha, that must be it... oh wait.. I'm white and I have a black Elite. :/ *sings* "it's the Sony magic, Sony magic..." lol

gaffyh3482d ago

If you have both consoles, you'll realise that Live is not worth the money, especially when PSN offers almost as much for free, and pretty soon PSN will offer EXACTLY what XBL offers and more.

Everyone knows it's coming, you can't deny that.

3482d ago
sack_boi3482d ago

Wrong GEC.
Racists only buy X360, coz it's white, don't you get it?! And the few that buy PS3s just don't happen to have a headset. It's the Sony magic.

HOME is like Disneyland where everyone is full of joy, hold hands and sing joyful songs.

Sing with me : "it's the Sony magic, Sony magic..."

Sitdown3482d ago

"Ultimately I think it was a cultural thing. 60% of all 360's out there are in the US, where only 30% of PS3 are, so online with the PS3 you're more likely to play against people from Japan or from all over Europe. I think that's why you don't get the racist, homophobic 10 year olds nearly as much on the PS3."

Hahaha....seriously, how old are you?
Anyhow...I would think it would be more so for the reason that a lot more 360 users have a microphone...and therefore, the more amount of people with mics means an increased chance of running across one of the "racist, homophobic 10 year olds). With that said, I just usually do party chat with family, and don't have to worry about anyone else.

cyberwaffles3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

i know it may seem odd, but besides the cross game chat, invites, and in game music (not a big deal at all for me to begin with anyways), i really like the visual aesthetic to XBL. it seems very descriptive of everyone's actions and more streamlined into the operating system compared to pSN. i still like PSN more, but i just love the way XBL looks and that small detail in my opinion, just makes XBL look more appealing.

however, sony can always change their layout if they wanted to. the dashboard for the 360 was hideous, and NXE was the only reason why i thought XBL started looking "cool" again. and like i said, PSN could easily change the way the XMB looks. whatever the case, the PSN gets more things done than XBL does for free (silver). i have a friend who isn't employed and his parents don't want to pay for his online so he's always on those rewards1 web sites doing over 100 surveys just to get one month of XBL. pathetic in my opinion.

7thNightvolley3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

seriously y are sony fannys so blind well... i guess u cant really know or understand an experience unless u get experience it urself, i dunno about u guys but xbl is A HELL lot better in terms of community and just getting around friends and this one i agree with HHG, i wont even put cross game invite and all that .. PARTY VOICE with 8 ppl ALONE all together alone put live heads ahead and there is more coming with the whole twitter and facebook thing coming its all one word COMMUNITY. being able to talk and play what ever game u wanna play and everyone doing ther own thing while laugh ur head with friends is a blast i know all my friend on my friend list via voice and i know them not just as a simple gamer anymore but as a friend with a human personality which i can add a VOICE to. seriously guys i dunno how u play kz2 multi and txt chat at the same time i am sure alot of ppl must be waiting for over 30 mins to get a reply to their questions well unless u die alot.. so u reply in ur spawn time. that is just plan silly to me.

and what i seem to feel is the slow down for sony not putting this stuff is one MAYBE... its too expensive for them to impliment since its free u get what u pay for right?... lool..
secondly, i am not sure but i heard the ps3 using one of the SPUs to handle to OS and the other 7 plus the cell run the game itself so in other words ther is no room for them to even have such features such as playing music, voice party chat cross game invites and all that coz the system cant do all that and run the damn game and also the OS all the freaking SPUs are busy doing shades and what ever they do to process the game so asking for more from ps3 would be suicide to the machine..(JUST GUESSING).. oh well.

ps .. i got both and this is just my opinion.


Anon19743482d ago

@ GiantEnemyCrab. Yeah, I understand Home had some problems initially but my forays into home have been great so far. Horny teens seem to be it's biggest problem now, but those are ignored easily enough. I know PSN isn't completely idiot free - I'm just saying in my experience it's night and day compared to what I witnessed for years on XBL. I don't know what the reasoning is.

@ Sitdown. I'm 35. What does my age have to do with my personal observations? Yes, I understand party chat helps the problem, but it's still there and it just isn't such a huge problem on PSN. And I don't buy the "no one uses mics" argument, because when I'm playing over half the Killzone 2/COD4 players are miked up. I don't know what the reason behind it is, I just know that the PSN doesn't struggle with this issue like XBL does.

gaffyh3482d ago

@1.26 - KZ2 supports voice chat. >_>

Syronicus3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

You could substitute watches for phones and phones for cars for all I care but no matter what you substitute it for it's still a silly fanboy comment.

As for the PS3 price and it's features, of course people argue that one. When you compare prices the PS3 comes out to be the least expensive

Xbox Pro = 299.99
First Year of Live = 49.99
WiFi = 99.99

Total = 449.97 (no taxes)

Or you could buy the PS3 for:

PS3 = 399.99

With the PS3 you get online for free and the WiFi comes installed. Swap the Premium 360 with the Arcade and you save 50 bucks off the price listed above but you still have no hard drive...

The sad part is that the price for Live is a recurring cost so the price of the 360 setup above get's more and more expensive with each passing year.

Year one = 449.97
Year two = 499.96
Year three = 549.95
Year four = 599.94

and so on, and so on...

PS3 would look like this:

Year one = 399.99
Year two = 399.99
Year three = 399.99
Year four = 399.99

See what's going on here? See the cost savings?

Mind you, this is no reason to not own both consoles but in the end, any idiot fanboy that wants to argue price, then you better come to the table with some proof and from what I am seeing, there is none other than that which proves the PS3 to be the less expensive choice.

Rob0g0rilla3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

Some fanboys find it so hard to believe someone can prefer one service over another and live without some certain features. They'll call other people fanboys because of what they think. To be honest, it's pathetic and they need to get over it. I think PSN being free makes up for the lacking features it's competitor has over them. Regardless of how many features it doesn't have, playing games online is free. And soon, most of the features you'll be paying for on Live will be non-gaming related. But your opinion will always be wrong on here, no matter what. Even if there's facts to back it up.

edgeofblade3482d ago

Yeah yeah, we can do math. Ten years is *gasp* $500. That's like a whole PS3!

...but it doesn't change the fact that it's still only $50 a year. If you have trouble coming up with the $50 per year, you fail at life... same way you would fail if you struggle to come up with $500 over ten years.

The argument is total bullshit, and anyone who isn't a dyed in the wool sony fanboy can realize it.

7thNightvolley3482d ago

i play it and hear how ppl sound like they are speaking from baby monitors. what i mean is not chat with some random kid i mean with my actual friends that dont wanna play kz2, remember the last update psn gave us the txt chat thing, and how is that ment to work properly if i am too busy playing a mad online game and cant be bothered always looking at the chat log.... that is my point.

Lifendz3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

but in the long run the PS3 is cheaper. That is unless you don't play games online.

But on topic: I think Sony may be neck and neck with Live, but until we have cross game chat and/or a party system, I can't declare it the better service. I give a large amount of credence to Sony's PSN being free. That really was a huge factor in me choosing a PS3 over a 360. I can't tell you how many multi-console people I know that let their XBL account expire because PSN is free.

But it's really subjective at this point. Until Sony adds what Live has, and remains free, or MS allows silver account members to play games online with a set of features similar to PSN, then we can't say one service is heads and shoulders above the other. It's all a matter of personal preference.

randomwiz3482d ago

I have both, but really, which is the better one is dependent on one main factor - FRIENDS

I have more fun on live because I have more friends who play. Although paying for it I absolutely dislike because psn gets me through what I want to do.

if most of my friends had a ps3, then I don't know if I would pay for live.

HDgamer3482d ago

When it comes down to it preferences is really the only thing going here. For which fanboy side to say one is better than the other is only subjective to their experience and their preferences. In my eyes I like psn over live for a lot of reasons but at the same time I still play on live and psn.

poindat3482d ago

I have a PS3. I like to play online with my friends. PSN allows me to do that. I like PSN. If I had a 360 and wanted to play online with my friends, I would pay for Live. From what I have seen of Live, I like Live.

See, I put everything into simple terms for all of you who are mentally challenged enough to argue over this. Wait, that would be an insult to the mentally challenged, you bunch are worse.

Seriously, grow up. The PSN does its thing good and for free. Live does it slightly differently for a measly sum of money. Either way, you win with a great online service.

Christopher3482d ago

The absence of capabilities from one application does not mean that it provides less overall. Just because PSN lacks in VoIP options doesn't mean it doesn't offer a Web browser, Home, Radio stations, TV/video services, and more. Sure, they're not available everywhere, but they're still there and being used.

Beast_Master3482d ago

You guys seem to be all missing the point, PS3 has a better network for online games because it is server based. 360 has better software interface with alot more bells and whisiles.

In the end which would you perfer from your gaming console: stable online in multi-player games or ability to chat cross game. Eric Lample was making the comment about how they work harder on their network capabilities than Live does.. Case and point Lag free MAG, adding features every month. MS started building their service with the original X-box in 2001, Sony started just 3 years ago. So it would be not be unfair of Mr. Lample to state they are working harder today than MS is bc they are still laying the foundation as opposed to having the foundation already built.

locos853482d ago

Just last month I stopped paying for Gold on XBL since the only thing I use it for is to play online. Why whould I pay to play online when I can play online for free on my PS3.

And to those who didn't know. You pay for gold just to play online. silver has the same features as gold, except for the party feature.

Prototype3482d ago

I've used both PSN and Live and here's my personal take on this"

PSN - Free, easy to log on, has all the features I need (Cross game chat to me isn't needed since I have a cell phone if I want to call someone), and it has a far more mature crowd

Live - I paid for a 1 year subscription of Live and after 4 months I got sick of the racial players, and also was tired of being heavily pressured into paying for a service I felt was more of a commidity (sp) than a requirement

A lot of people keep arguing about voice chat and a few other features that PSN doesn't have, but when you really think about it, how many times do someone really uses cross game chat? Seriously I read so many arguments about how cross game chat is nice and a big step forward and in some ways I can see where someone would use it, at the same time is it really THAT needed? Are you gonna say "No I will not get a ps3 because I HAVE to have cross game chat"

tmt3453482d ago

Their site design is obviously aimed at gay people!

Anyways back on topic, there's only 3 features missing from PSN. The article dumbly stated "here's 3 features but there's many more" because they couldn't think of any more.

randomwiz3482d ago

agreed, some features are blown out of proportion. Take your friends and exclusives out of the equation and just look at features. Would you still pay to use live?

The features that psn is missing are just as useful as home.

Gamertags3482d ago

I know many fine gamers who are trading in their PS3's for 360s! Once you experience Live there is no going back to basics.

Also, for gaming, most games are better on the 360 anyways.

I happen to own both and I know and others that own both know the truth. This isn't fanboyism, it is a truth.

Live - onstar28607
PSn - gw4k

MEsoJD3482d ago

you guys even bother commenting on something from HHG???


waltercross3482d ago

Why would anybody trade in there PS3 for a 360?
Just for Live? that you pay for?, I Believe you
have both a PS3 and a 360 and I believe you prefer
the 360 over the PS3, But I Don't believe that people you
know traded in there PS3 for a 360. If they did then they
arent real Gamers and they are biased.

solidjun53482d ago

...what sets live apart? Apart from your obvious preference? besides cross-game chat, what makes it so superior? I ask this honestly because they both serve the same functionality. Yes, I'll agree LIVE looks better (subjective) but other than that, what's the huppla over it relative to the PSN?

DaTruth3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

I would not pay $50 for lag, when I can get no lag for free with more players. I "PLAY" games online; This is the main thing "PLAYING GAMES ONLINE!!!" Thus, the one with bigger player counts and less lag wins!

I couldn't stand MGO because of the lag! No lag means everything to me and I would pay $50 a year for no lag; So, the very idea of paying for lag is a totally ridiculous concept.

Tell MS to take your $50 and invest in whatever it is that stops lag!

Again, "NO LAG" and "HIGHER PLAYER COUNTS" make a better service for "PLAYING ONLINE GAMES"; I cannot stress this point enough!

@below: Judging by the amount of I's and me's in my post I am guessing you are not talking about me! But I honestly believe that stopping a game to talk, is not as important as what is happening while playing games, when comparing online gaming services! I do believe this to be a fact!

Immortal Kaim3482d ago

What's with everyone stating their opinions as facts, sorry to say but PSN vs LIVE is a matter of preference, not an absolute.

I'm not really into either service, I'm more of a single player gamer.

Arnon3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

"and I still can't tell you what people think makes XBL better. All I can think about is the cross-game chat/invites and the party chat."

Then there is something... SERIOUSLY, wrong with you. That is, by far, the biggest subtle (hah, oxymoron) fanboy response I have ever seen regarding Xbox LIVE.

But that's fine. You really haven't posted a single positive thing about the 360 since I've seen you on this site. Yet, you write long paragraphs about why you don't like it. Why?

"If they did then they
arent real Gamers and they are biased."

Lol? So if someone trades in a 360 for a PS3 it means they're a real gamer and are NOT biased? What kind of logic is that? I've had 2 of my friends trade in their PS3 for a 360. And yes, the reason was because of LIVE. Not to mention there's about 1,400 games on the console.

Traveler3482d ago

I have a PS3 and a 360 and for what I need the two services are basically equal. Only one is free.

I seriously don't understand how some people can sit here and pretend that there is some big difference between the two services. There are a few features one has that the other doesn't, but 90% of the core functionality is the same.

aueslander3482d ago

@ HarrymanBack who wrote "Its human nature to think that something thats more expensive/costs money (xbl) must be better than something thats least expensive/free (psn). "

THis could be the same for PS3 vs 360. I could just replace a few of your words and say the following

"Its human nature to think that something thats more expensive/costs money (xPS3) must be better than something thats least expensive/free (360).

otherZinc3482d ago

If SONY boys cant admit defeat on this subject, they'll never do it. So, whatever, PSN isn't better than LIVE nor will it ever be because it wasn't developed from inception.

Have a good day blind people.

vhero3482d ago

I used to always visit HipHopGamers site and watch his rants but hes just lost it recently with half the crap he comes out with he needs to shut up now as hes lost the respect of a lot of people including myself. His article is pure flame bait and I would expect it off a fanboy but not even they would do it as its complete BS. PSN is better than XBL in some ways and XBL rules over PSN in others its a matter of preference I love em both but XBL ain't free and that's the kicker.

Downtown boogey3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

Live's got more versatile "core" features like mentioned in the article. That's because they have patented some of those mechanics and Sony's sometimes very good at procrastination...

Marquis_de_Sade3481d ago

Stewgart, I take it you haven't played Virtua Tennis on the PSN then? It's just as laggy on that and is a poor example to use. PSN is good, rather rustic but offers what you need to have a great time online, for free.

thesummerofgeorge3481d ago (Edited 3481d ago )

I don't chat with people in other games... I'm not that big a nerd, I've got a cell phone if I wanna chat with someone who's not in the same game as I. I honestly don't get what people think they're paying so much money a year for, other than maybe preferring live aesthetically and the cross game chat crap... What? Oh I see, it must be mostly kids who have their parents to pay for it all so they don't have to even think about or appreciate that they're throwing money away for trivial features I wouldn't waste a nickel on.

njr3481d ago

The only difference between both is less chatter on PSN, and that's a good thing.

+ Show (54) more repliesLast reply 3481d ago
mastiffchild3482d ago

Indeed. They twisted what was said for hits and to ignite the oldest and dullest flamewar of the geberation. Noone from Sony said that "we do more on PSN" tghey just said in some areas-which considering you get different stuff on each(as well as the sgared features), like Home on PSN and party chat on Live is undeniably true.

I don't really prefer either but do think that paying for Live if all you want to do is game costs a bit too much-but then again I despise what cross game party chat does and you can't do anything about it(even if I'm not using it someone else on my team can be, and ignoring anything deliberate, the distrated wasred games of TF2 are wearing me down!)so maybe that colours my opinion a little.

Thing is if we take away any preference we have we all have ti admit that they're both damn good services and whether you lose out on one or two services can be offset by not having to pay anything. So, to me, as long as you have the choice and the cash it's just a matter of taste. I wouldn't mind too much if I was stuck with either one tbh.

I would include the more frequent availability of dedicared servers as a pro for PSN but isn't that provided by the developer/publisher rather than Sony? If it is then, honest question as I really don't know, why aren't they as common on Live? Dedicateds are provided by Epic for UT3 on PSN but not for Gears on Live and it makes no sense to me esp when most of the real issues that game had online would have been at least reduced by having them. Do Sony maybe put more presure on devs to do it? Genuinely I haven't got a single clue.

But anyway , crap, crap misleading, pointless flambait article, imo. Total gutter journalism-pathetic-and I'm usually pretty lenient but to call the guy a liar and then twist what he really said is reprehensible in my book regardless of what you feel about the two services. Hit whoring, flame war starting writing at it's very lowest. HHG should watch what gets put up on his site much more closely as a few of his writers do this kind of thing but this is the worst instance.

likedamaster3481d ago

Are you always that longwinded? Sheesh. In a nutshell, man!


Winner = ?

lociefer3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

MCQ time , those who approved this story are xbots

b-fck yes
c-wuts a MCQ

TheHater3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

what is a MCQ?

edit: thanks Evildoomnerd

Evildoomnerd3482d ago

That's short for Multiple Choice Question.

-MD-3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

You sound like such a virgin when you use words like "xbots" lol

Edit: oooo bitter cave dwellers disagreeing with me :)

rucky3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

It's actually secret answer D - hiphopgamer minions

This is why we need stricter mods around n4g

Major_Tom3482d ago

No murderdolls, when people look at your comment history, they KNOW you're a virgin dude.

Snake Raiser3482d ago

I choose secret answer "F" as in WHO the F is approving all these stories anyway?!? This and the Blu-ray thing, which was completely flame-bait, is getting really annoying.

-MD-3482d ago (Edited 3482d ago )

"Hi there, my names Tom and I'm an inspiring video-game journalist. "

In other words virgin? Don't get angry Tom it'll happen one day.

Major_Tom3482d ago

Ever heard of a joke? Clearly not "Murderdolls" lol. Don't feel defensive because your nearly as pathetic as TheMart.

-MD-3482d ago

Yes a joke... right. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

Major_Tom3482d ago

Easy, don't slit your wrists old chap.

-MD-3482d ago

Are we really resorting to the wrist cutting jokes now? My twelve year old brother uses those over the phone.

Major_Tom3482d ago

You're getting your head stomped in by everyone around you on this website, just giving you some reassurance to not do it.

-MD-3482d ago