MS: PSN and Xbox Live not comparable

Microsoft has said research showing that a higher percentage of US PS3 owners have their consoles hooked up to the internet than Xbox 360 is misleading because it does not reflect pricing or the way services are used.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
nix3108d ago

awww...... how sweet!

Will-UK3108d ago (Edited 3108d ago )

From what my friends told me the core online experience is the same just differences like cross game chat but I hope sony provide us that for free and not in the premium service.

But this will not end well

nix3108d ago

i think even the sales of 360 are misleading because of the 50% failure rate you guys have there. but let's just look over that minor issue, eh?

Rainstorm813108d ago

Raiinstorm81 - 1 day 1 hour ago

- No one should compare PSN and XBL
the only thing is its dumb to compare PSN and XBL, when a free service is comparable to a pay service something is wrong.

Besides 50 bucks isnt alot of money but to some thats one extra game they are missing out on a year to others water under the bridge.

No one goes to mickey D's and says here's 50 bucks i want a happy meal every month for a year. j/k

Jamie Foxx3108d ago (Edited 3108d ago )

You can't compare because one is a free service...WTF? Whether free or raping gamers to pay to play online the gamer has to connect the console and facts are ps3 has more consoles connected plain an simple, goin by microsofts logic they should re-do the data and not include all the xbl silver subscribers as that's free.. PR department please

C-R-E-A-M3108d ago

I still dont c y pple say live is better than psn. If u ask me they both do the same job..PLAY GAMES ONLINE. U get one free and u pay for the other one. So which one would u get. A free online or the one u pay for!!!!!

Venatus-Deus3108d ago (Edited 3108d ago )

Silver membership is free. Wouldn't you connect anyway?

Mr_Bun3108d ago

"Xbox 360 continues to lead the charge"

It sure leads the "charge" alright....with peripherals such as hard drives as well as wi-fi. Not to mention their "charge" for online gaming

pixelsword3108d ago

you know how long it takes for me and my cousin to connect to Gears and play Gears online?

You knock-off the dead time on a lot of games, and it's probably around the five-hour mark for everyone.

3108d ago
StanLee3108d ago (Edited 3108d ago )

How is it bad PR spin? More PS3 users are connected to the internet but it's not reflected in the comparisons of online gaming activity. Independent researchers Neilson and the NPD have shown that more online gaming activity is logged on XBL than any other service so it's obvious those persons online on the PS3 aren't playing games.

AKS3108d ago

If Microsoft admitted that the two services were comparable, then their annual charge would not be justified. They are going to say that their service is far ahead of PSN and keep charging that fee.

I've played plenty on LIVE and PSN, and they are pretty close, really. I get a better connection on the AAA first party stuff on PSN, such as Warhawk, but it's easier to connect and jump into games on LIVE. I don't use cross game chat at all. LIVE has more co-op games, which I like, especially Crackdown and the Gears games, but that situation is gradually improving on PSN.

nix3108d ago (Edited 3108d ago )

for not starting the thread with something fanboyish. see.. how clean the first half of the page looks. everyone should practice this. q:

of course, Open Zone is a different ball game! lol. q:

IdleLeeSiuLung3108d ago (Edited 3108d ago )

It's akin to comparing a Mac to PC. Why do many people (still a minority though) prefer to use a Mac when it cost so much more than PC? Surely a PC does everything a Mac does at a fraction of the cost.

Answer is the experience and ease of use. As much as I dislike Apple, I gotta hand it to them, they make some very intuitive and user centric software.

So sure PSN does almost everything Live does, but just not as easy or convenient. So if you want your stuff sugar coated and sprinkled with cinnamon, go with Xbox Live Gold. Want a free (maybe cumbersome) experience go with PSN.

There are options, and I like options!

talltony3108d ago

How the hell could anyone pay for live if they already have a ps3? I mean unless you want to play halo or gears it's pretty pointless in my opinion. All major games nowadays are having party options and game invites on psn, for free!. Cross game chat to me doesnt justify the price especially when every single major exclusive on 360 doesnt even have dedicated servers while 90% of ps3's do.
Microsoft is really ripping people off with live imo.

Brklynty13108d ago

*PSN premium drops with boatload of features* "the competition still can't compare because, even though they now have a subscriptioned based plan, research shows that more of they're players are still using the free package."........Your freakin point?! Either way people are connected to PSN more than Live. But seriously, did they have to comment on this? The point of more people on PSN than Live is threatning or something?

Megaton3107d ago

The only difference is the party system. I actually use chat on 360 with my friends because the party system is so convenient. As for what really matters, the online gaming, XBL has proven to be laggier than the PSN in my experience. The $50/year thing is just a cash grab. There's no need to charge for what they offer. Sucker tax, plain and simple. I think Microsoft's supercharged PR brings in a lot of people who haven't done online gaming before, and so they just don't know any better. Then there's the other type of defender, who pulls out the ol' "paying is better than free". Suppose XBL is better than PC gaming then too, eh? You guys should be spending your time raging against Microsoft for taxing you rather than defending the fee to people who don't matter.

The only redeeming quality about XBL Gold for me is the Deal of the Week. A guy like me who buys tons of games online would likely make my money back and then some in a whole year of having XBL Gold.

WildArmed3107d ago

They totally aren't like omgz.

Because you can only play games online on xbox live..
oh wait............

I guess because it's free so it's not comparable. But PR at it's finest.
I love Live as much as PSN, but seriously?

darthv723107d ago

You have to think there are two very different ways to compare (or not compare) these services. Interface and infrastructure. By looking at the interface first those who use both obviously know there is a real difference between the two. Some may prefer the XMB to the NXE and vice versa.

One thing that catches my eye first when looking at both is how integrated everything is on the NXE. That isnt saying XMB is bad but it is all separate and detached. MS really went to the trouble of making the NXE more unified and seamless witheverything the Live service has to offer. Sony is currently very simple and simple is good to just get in and get going. Where i see the XMB as more of a "mall experience" is when going from section to section and especially the store. Going in to the store is basically that. You can't jump between sections without being prompted to leave the store.

I have used this example before so I will use it here. Between the two you could view the XMB like a mall. Lots of stuff but you are basically leaving one section and going to another like leaving one store and going to another in a mall. NXE is more like a big department store. You are in and can go anywhere without ever having the feeling of leaving the overall store. You can tend to wander about between departments.

That is basically the interface portion. Infrastructure (as I am using the term) is the actual service itself when it comes to all things interactive. Here we have differences again with Sony feeling detached and MS being more community connected. Both offer similar abilities of finding your friends with Live getting the nod thanks to the ever always connected friends list. Any moment your friend comes on you can see what they are doing and jump out of a game (or into a game) with a few button presses.

I have tried the game launching part of PSN but currently it seems you need to be in home to do that. PSN has made some great efforts to become a better service while maintaining the notion of online play being free. That single solitary element seems to be the focal point in many heated debates. If we had to use service providers in place of these you could look at Live like AOL (community driven connected feeling) with PSN being more of the individualized non community based service.

Live started out as a community service and has grown better over the years with many additions to try and justify the cost. However, the key ingredient to Live (online play) may or may not change in the coming months. Rumor has it that silver members that are child accounts to existing gold accounts will be getting full gold level percs so long as their profile resides on the same system as a paid gold member.

wow...that is a long read (and write).

vhero3107d ago

Sounds like they are a baby throwing there toys out the cot.. They still have the superior online service but JUST not worth the price they charge for the differnce though..

jjacinto233107d ago

NPD=/=WORLD SALE DATA end of story

Sevir043107d ago

The core experience is the same, only, one allows you to do it for free. and thats the reason i'm on the PSN... I think right now it can Go to paid because it offers everything you'd want in a Paid subscription, the beauty of it all is that they dont, they still manage to keep the service free, even with the advent of Netflix, last Fm, PS Home, Video store, and online gaming for games, and it's own achievement like system. all these things are considered premium experience on the the next console. yet Sony does it for free. This makes a world of difference. Which is why the tides have been turning, World wide the PS3 is getting more online play time. MS can cry.

+ Show (19) more repliesLast reply 3107d ago
Simon_Brezhnev3108d ago

"Xbox 360 is the hands-down leader in online gaming, with 48 percent of all online gamers using Xbox 360 and Xbox Live to connect with friends, family and competitors"

PC is the leader in online gaming.

t8503108d ago

PC is the Platform that established Online gaming orignally, its no surprise PC has the highest online following. That platform just has too many generes as well which gives the user a wide verity of selection.

wicko3108d ago

Wasn't there an article recently claiming that Sony had a higher percentage of users connected to PSN? Of course, that was worldwide, but apparently all that matters is NPD to MS. They LOVE to quote those figures.

PS360_373108d ago

When the percentage difference is that small and one service is free while the other is charging...I think that really tells you what service is better.


Take all home PC's into account and see how many are connected to the net. Then take all home consoles and see how many are connected to the net. I think it's safe to say among the PC's, they are used far more often to play online than consoles. Then you can factor in LAN houses/internet cafes and then..well, Korea... and the numbers go even further in the PC's favor.

Trroy3108d ago (Edited 3108d ago )

The numbers posted reasonably are completely comparable, since most XBL users, who were counted in the tally, were Silver users, not Gold.

Honestly, if you subscribe to Qore, you're practically getting the same thing as what paying for XBL gives you -- some extra demos and stuff to watch and play. Cross-game chat is nice for some, but that's pretty much the only other thing.

PS360_373107d ago

I highly highly doubt that there are more silver users than gold or even close to the same amount.

First of all party chat and cross game invites are very very convenient, at least for me.

Second, the invite system for PSN is very awkward and inefficient. I'm not going to explain in detail, but if you try both you will surely notice the differences.

This doesn't mean that PSN is bad, but like I said, there is a reason that many people are paying for XBL (not silver).

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3107d ago
N4BmpS3108d ago

Immersive is as overused a term as the term epic nowadays. Oh MS I hope you didn't take that personal. Shhh you hear that? Ignorance is on the way.

Omega43108d ago

MS is right you can't compare the two with just "connected" numbers.

Everyone who has a PS3 and Internet will be on PSN since its free but the majority of them won't even touch the online aspects. While EVERYONE who has XBL WILL use the online aspects because they will want to get their moneys worth.


what a stupid argument wouldnt eveyone that have a xbl silver account also be connected. and as you probably wouldnt no you have to set up a psn account so those that dont want to use online wouldn bother to set one up.

Venatus-Deus3108d ago

Yeah, the silver account argument kind of disproves that.

For what it’s worth, my 360 isn’t connected because it doesn’t have wifi.

Between that and Modded offline 360's, you probably have a explanation for a good percentage of the difference. Still interesting numbers seeing the 360 still has a circa 5 million lead.

Max Power3108d ago (Edited 3108d ago )

Please define the "online aspects," because I could have sworn I have been enjoying them since I got my PS3.

Nineball21123108d ago

@ Max Power... lol

Yeah, I was wondering that myself. Online Aspects? WTF. If your online, I'm pretty sure you're enjoying the Aspects of being Online.


It's always bizarro world when dealing with the MS faithful.

PS360_373108d ago

You guys are just making blind statements. There is a reason more people are using live, even though it cost $50 a year.

Facts are facts. Numbers speak. Just because you can get online and play doesn't mean their isn't a better way.

pixelsword3108d ago (Edited 3108d ago )

When going online, these "aspects" come to mind, and I use them:

- the web browser
- the psn store
- multiplayer gaming
- sending friends messages
- my mic
- playstation home (They have the first episode of Afro Samurai playing in the theater, and added a new spot on the SOCOM home space).

- and I guess playing games

so I'm not certain what you mean you you make the inference that PS3 players aren't using this or that to play videogames... especially since most of the things I listed aren't usually used when playing videogames.

danielle0073108d ago

See, your list shows your priorities. The web browser and PSN store are what you think of FIRST when you thought of features you use on the PSN. Not multiplayer gaming or playing with your friends. Which, are the biggest features for me on the 360, and what I would think of first before anything else.

It may not have been your intention, and that's swell. But, for PSN, I do think in the order of your list... Except I do find the browser pointless, but I have a laptop.. Anyhoo, I don't think of multiplayer games first, because none of my friends have headsets so I never play with them, so I just buy games with real strong single player. So, really, I'm connected to PSN for no reason other than to buy crap off the store, and have people send me messages on occasion.

webeblazing3107d ago

you cant say majority for psn tho cause they got the right to do with what they want with the money they spend for their ip. ex my friend dont have online no more but when he can get online where ever he go or decide to get it back on he can. and the thing about live is funny cause its true if you paying for it your gonna try in get your moneys worth, but its stupid cause you already brought the game at the store supporting the devs but ms tells you you cant play the other half til you pay them. the real question you should ask them is why they aint making it free for a loyal fan like yourself or why they not letting more customers see the other half of work the dev did which could get the customer hooked and make them seek other games the dev could be making next. im just saying

pixelsword3107d ago (Edited 3107d ago )

My over or almost 200 hours of play on multiplayer for the games Killzone2, MAG, Resistance 2, and Warhawk kindly disagrees with you. Not to mention the lesser games of MGO, Battlefront I and II, Killzone 1, and Motorstorm.

You didn't pick-up on the sarcastic tone of my order in reference to the OP, is all.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3107d ago
Meus Renaissance3108d ago

PSN was the reason which saw me play an average of 2 hours a week on my PS3 and subsquently sold it. It is the same reason why my younger brother replaced his PS3 just yesterday with an Elite. Until PSN offers the same fundamental features as Live does that allows friends to play and communicate together without an issue in any game they choose to, it is farcical to suggest that PSN is better for the gamer than Live. Eventually Sony will deliver those functions, although most likely in a Premium Service.

I mostly rent games so I'm aware about the costs involved in gaming more than most, but paying £30 a year for Live really is no issue if it sees me as involved as I am with my gaming and my Friends list. I'm on an average of 10 hours a week. That's the difference its made for me.

Wrathman3108d ago

since wot you stated was fact,expect lots of disagrees.common sense and your personal experience makes ps3 owners very angry on here.

forcefullpower3108d ago

You specify nothing in your statement about why XBL is better PSN. Can you give me a list of features that are missing or problems you had with PSN that stop you playing and communicating with friends.


He specified no reason for why they had problems. Also how do you know it is fact. Are you friends in real life with him and also what facts where you talking about?

PS3 owners don't get annoyed by people giving reasons why they are having problems. They get annoyed by people not giving any reason for it.

Sitris3108d ago

And playing 10 hours a week is nothing haha i do that on sundays alone lol and i only game on Ps3. I have over 10 real life friends that game daily on Ps3 and have played many hours of Uncharted 2 survival together. My gf and i played 10s of hours together on Killzone 2 and have had a huge amount of hours playing MAG with clans and friends with a touch of a button.

So what are the features that make live so much better? I am quite serious as i have zero problems gaming with my friends on a daily basis.

kneon3108d ago

I probably average 25 hours a week on PSN as does my daughter. I've never felt there was anything lacking.

Venatus-Deus3108d ago

The only difference I’m aware of is cross game chat. You can message and forum chat with friends as well as voice chat on the PS3 out of game.

Personally I would hate cross game chat because it doesn’t work on multiplayer team games. Isn’t that why MW2 doesn’t allow it? It stops the cheating and communication from dead teammates. It would destroy SOCOM

Other than that everything is the same… except the fee.

Pocketaces1113108d ago

Hey there is always one thing lacking on the PSN I've noticed. 10 year old boys swearing and yelling fa& this and fa& that. Also less T-bagging BS. I have no interest in Live played both didn't need cross game chat because most of the time we are playing together with my friends and if not my phone works GREAT. I even have a headset for it :)

pixelsword3108d ago (Edited 3108d ago )

The only thing that XBL has that PSN hasn't is cross-game chat; which isn't a deal-breaker in the least.

If anything (and if you look close enough), every once in a while you also see friends playing on opposite teams friends who coordinate to up their friend's gamerscore. MW2 disabled it in some types of play probably because of that reason from what I hear (I never bought the game)... or maybe not, but it makes sense.

Cross-game chat isn't a bad thing in the least, but it's sure not a thing to where it's perfect.

danielle0073108d ago

PSN is lacking a lot. Sure, you could point out the obvious like the Party Chat that they're missing, which hey I think is pretty important, and made the Xbox 360 that much more amazing for me. But, seriously, I never meet anyone worthwhile on the PSN, & no one EVER seems to have a head set. Ever. I've played on my friends PS3 until I got my own, and I just have had bad luck with that apparently.

But, anyone who buys something outside of the arcade package for 360, the system comes with a headset. So, 99% of the people that I meet on XBL have a headset, and for better or worse, they talk. Which, sometimes really is for the worst, but other times I make amazing friends that I can play for hours and hours with. I never really have had that experience on PSN. Plus, most people buying a PS3 don't realize that the majority of Blutooths would work for it, so they feel that if they want a headset, they'd have to pay $50 for the PSN one, so, they never do. However, if your 360 didn't come with one, the wired ones are $20, and work perfect.

Seriously, XBL feels more like a community. & that's worth paying for.

Venatus-Deus3107d ago

Nowhere in your comment do you actually list any features that Live has over PSN. Once again the argument is just a baseless opinion.

You state that a hardware accessory is what makes Live better, and you get this free. Buy PS3 owners also get all the features for free. The PS3 works with most Bluetooth headset and all wired UBS ones. I’m not sure where you get that from.

Again, you just list opinions. PSN & Live are the same. They offer the same service except a few minor differences. Read the comments above and you will get the idea.

webeblazing3107d ago

well live got a whole bunch of stuff i dont need those been on pc. when i use to game on pc i never cared about a mic just the games and playing online (when online wasnt even on consoles) maybe its me cause it seems today most people want to be connect to everything mostly youngings ( myspace, facebook, youtube, im, etc..) its not need to me friends list is good, mic only get used for games that demand them to win in mp both most game can be played with team work without it. im to old to be bff with people i dont even know lol.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3107d ago