Why Xbox Live is a Paid Service – Why PSN is NOT

"I’m getting downright sick and tired of reading so many fan boy comments on the internet about how Xbox Live shouldn’t cost any money. As someone who is unbiased to this, as I own both an Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 and have used both of their online services I can attest that paying for Xbox Live is absolutely worth it, and I plan to explain why in this article."

Cody @ VideoGameBlogger

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
3649d ago Replies(10)
come_at_me_bro3649d ago

Two of your favorite features are contradictory. Everyone has a mic so they can communicate, but you don't hear anyone because you're in a party with your friends all the time? Okay bro, you sold me.

codyodiodi3649d ago

No. I can talk with them if I want. But I don't have to.

On top of that all my friends have mics, so no they don't contradict at all.

skagrerrrr3649d ago (Edited 3649d ago )

wow mate, you got 60 disagrees...aawesoooomeee! I'd hate to be you right now :o(

Kleptic3649d ago

I'm a little lost at some of your examples of why XBL is better though, aside from the party chat feature...

What I'm really confused about though is your problems with title updates?...I've never owned a multiplatform game that was 'never' getting updates that the 360 version was...and the only one that I know of is the orange box, which Valve never supported the PS3 version from the beginning...

Also, this too has nothing to do with XBL or the fact developers (valve included) have ALWAYS stated that the PSN is easier to patch games than XBL...where patches need to be submitted much farther in advance than the PSN or PC patches, as MS will do their own quality control checks on the updates before letting them go live...this makes patching 360 games even more expensive...Sony does this to some degree with the PSN, but the PSN is a much more open networking community for developers to do what they want (i.e. UGC for games like UTIII) developers still need to get certain updates approved by Sony, the process is far less tedious and cheaper...

When the 360 gets an update first...its because of the user base, not that its 'easier' for XBL...more people are playing games like MW2 on XBL at any given moment than on the there is a stronger incentive to fix that version first...also, more users ALWAYS means more problems with networking...a lot of the time problems on XBL are NOT being experience for the PSN user base...they are different networks and different systems entirely...the reverse side of this would be fallout 3...where the PS3 version was getting constant updates, and the 360 was not...point being, the 360 didn't need them, the PS3 did...

I see what you mean about certain DLC coming to the 360 first...thats just marketing by MS and 3rd party publishers...You are not getting the DLC still pay the EXACT same amount as PSN just get access to it many of us that, thats simply a waste of are paying a premium to have access to premium content first, albeit you will still have to pay for it?...I look at PS plus the same way...but i like that the PSN gives you the option for this, you still get all the features (all but ONE of XBL) for free...and are offered the xbl'like premise of paying a premium to be offered content before others...

either way man, your article reads like you made up your mind first...and then just listed things that fit your opinion...Down time on PSN?...come on, both have down time...and the PSN is only down for hours at a time a few times a year for scheduled maintenance...XBL has crashed for days on end several times this after Halo 3 nearly shattered happens when something is popular...but the biggest problem is that almost everything you listed has nothing to do with where exactly your money is going for the service...

lastly...just like every article like always dodge the biggest thing...Why do tons of online PSN titles have huge banks of high speed dedicated servers?...and almost no 360 titles?...that is something where money would be well spent on XBL...Sony seems to manage doing this for nearly every online title they make, and even some 3rd parties do it on the PSN, but not on XBL? (back to epic again with UT3 for example)...MS doesn't even do it for their own games?...

Paying a premium to play games online where someone's residential broadband connection is the host never made that much sense to me (leave out the P2P stuff, XBL doesn't do that nearly as much as many people think)...but I guess i'm in the minority on this...

VandimionX3649d ago

I really wish this idiot wouldn't dodge all the replies like yours, and actually elaborate on his (never well thought out) articles. He's a fanboy troll folks, best we all just move-along and ignore his posts from now on.

cruncher_203649d ago

Having both system (ps3 and xbox) don't make you unbiased !

spec_ops_comm3649d ago

"I could set up a fake KKK related account on PSN right now and really annoy some African Americans."

Wow... Just... Wow.

Unreal. Such an unbelievably random and offensive idea. Why would you publish this with your name on it?

Your article sounds like it was written by a 12 year old boy. Please keep your thoughts to yourself next time, kthx.

specialguest3648d ago (Edited 3648d ago )

This has got to be one of the worse written articles/opinion blog ever. It reminds me of a simplistic children's argument similar to the "my dad can beat your dad up" stuff.

And then when asked to elaborate why? Little Cody replies with, "because..umm..because my dad has big muscles!"...oh no! lol!

Most of your examples are irrelevant and could be countered.

UltraNova3648d ago

Kleptic, man I couldnt say it better my self. Well said made.

TheREAL-HyDRo1x3648d ago

It's funny how the author of this ridiculous story is posting the obvious on a news website. Anyhow, I go on PSN every day as I have been for almost 4 years now and I've only been unable to connect due to Sony like 3 times now! I like this one, "...I’m getting ESPN and a couple other streaming services on Xbox Live this month, sure I don’t like sports but it’s nice to know that I have it.", Hey I'm getting a bowl of cow manure, I don't like its taste but good to know its there! Also I don't read any text messages on my phone because I'd rather just by a book (sure Text parties are lame but hey thats a sorry reason!). You can now report people through PSN also I don't see how creating a new account counts as cheating, I've seen cheating in almost every 360 game and only in COD series on PS3! You sure love bashing huh, as if creating a new account for free is a bad thing. What if a girl want to get away from all the harassment and creates a new account, or you just want another personal account. Go ahead and post your terrible blog on your blog website, but don't bring it here man!

jessupj3648d ago

I've said it once and I'll say it again, dedicated servers will always trumpth ANYTHING XBL has to offer as long as it forces you to pay for greatly inferiour P2P technology. It seems for a lot of 360 fanboys this is their first gaming console and so they are uneducated about the benifits of dedicated servers.

XBL could give me a blowjob while I play online for all I care, I'd still hate it because I'd still be playing laggy P2P games.

Kleptic3648d ago (Edited 3648d ago )

^^XBL rarely uses P2P anymore, as its much more problematic networking wise because it relies on everyone's uploading speed more than normal host/client networking...

I can't think of any current, or at least popular, 360 titles using true P2P networking for gaming...As in a situation where everyone's broadband connection shares hosting duties...its an IT protocol that looks great on paper, but just one limited connection can cause the entire game to fail for everyone, not just the person with the bad connection...

XBL now mostly uses a network wide heartbeat server, that every user connects to...but that server (well technically its 1000's of servers) is limited to stat tracking and 'location' services that is used for user awareness (i.e. it tells other users what game you are playing or what you are doing, etc.)...and its opened for voip, so that you can chat with any user anywhere at anytime...

but thats all it does...actual game hosting is done by 1 person's connection...The game's are usually coded with some form of a matchmaker that tests every persons connection on the fly before a match, and the 'best' one is used for hosting...anyone familiar with broadband internet connections knows the rest...the game plays great for the host, and several others with great connections, but the majority of residential broadband connections aren't nearly as fast as needed to connect to another dinky connection...which is handling uploading information to as many as 24 other players...

So what do you get?...Host advantages, as they don't have to worry about upload speed to their own connection, and constant dropped games when the host's connection times out to multiple users...Or worse, a game ender just because the host quit, and didn't know he was the host...some newer games now use host migration, in which the heartbeat server gets enough information to 'pause' a game and quickly find a new host...but it can take enough time that multiple users will simply quit, rather than wait for the game to start again...

The PSN does this too on some multiplatform games...but any first party online enabled game ships with 100's of activated high speed servers for then its just like PC gaming used to be...everyone playing is a client...and a beast of a server with a commercial connection is dealing out the info faster than any home connection could dream of...THAT is no lag for users...period...

Thats why when people say 'you get what you pay for with xbl'...they almost never know what they are talking about...when the dedicated server issue is brought up, they reply with 'well, i don't have any lag because i have a great connection'...good for you, but its not even close to what a real host server can do...

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3648d ago
number473649d ago

all of my 'friends' on PSN have mics, else I couldn't have made friends with them.

erathaol3649d ago

I made a few friends online who don't have Mics and some on Home too when I was bored. Just MP's are way better when you interact with friends who have mics, cause you lend your personality to your actions.

A neat PS3 feature is the voice changer to me, can go in sounding like a chipmunk or the killer of a horror movie. LOL

wsoutlaw873648d ago

@erathaol no offence but that is the worlds most annoying feature

GoldPS33649d ago

Believe me not everyone on XBL use mics.

HDgamer3649d ago

That is completely true.

aquamala3649d ago

true but on XBL if I'm in a game of 10 people, on average at least 2-3 would be on mics. on PSN I have played hours of medal of honor or CoD and never heard anyone talk.

shoddy3649d ago

Sometime just wanna communicate for the team to win, some sucka just wanna be the king of the room and put people down. Then I have to call thier mom a c0ck sucking ho for not teaching thier kids manner.

wsoutlaw873649d ago

i agree on moh because people stopped talking cuz the chat sucks on moh but, on cod, no way have you played hours and never heard anyone talk.

lazysey3649d ago

They are using their mics, just not publicly.

seinfan3649d ago

I'm usually in a private chat or party when I play online. People in the game may very well think I don't have a mic, much like yourself.

wlchrbandit3649d ago

Yeah, I recently bought an xbox, and most of my friends who play 360 said that everyone has a mic so everyone talks. BULL! I played Reach for hours, came across about 3 people using mics, same with COD4, I VERY rarely come across people that are talking. I'm also kinda shocked that more people actually talk on PSN, and the people that do tend to care more about the game as they went and spent money on a mic. Also, in the past week of playing on 360, all the 6 people I have ran into have been no older than 13, and bloody annoying..

They may have mics but they're all in party chats so that argument is completely invalid.

DJnal053649d ago

cuz it died!! 2 years ps3 headset... rock sold...

elmaton983649d ago

You know is true that people get a free Mic when you buy a xbox 360 but I rather not talk than used a piece crap Mic and audio quality on PS3 is far more superior than that of the 360

No Way3649d ago (Edited 3649d ago )

I call BULL on you!!!!!!! lol.
PSn is soo lonely to me. =(

RazRei3648d ago

the assholes are in party chat. In a team oriented game you get NOTHING done because they're in party chat/doesn't have their mic connected. It gets annoying when I'm playing BFBC2 and my team is running around like a bunch of chicken with their heads cut off.

PSN is a mixed bag. You either have everyone with mics or none at all. But the barrier of entry is pretty cheap seeing how almost all blue tooth headsets will work with the PS3.

And if you're too dumb to pair a headset to your PS3, good. You probably didn't have anything of interest to say.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 3648d ago
frostypants3649d ago

So random nobody posts uninteresting thoughts to his blog, and it's N4G worthy?


Condemnedman3649d ago (Edited 3649d ago )

yep so [email protected] can vent their pointless anger .

skyblue142133649d ago (Edited 3649d ago )

From my experience I rather play without mics because most of the time the people that have them are so annoying that I have to mute(the single best online feature imo) them so I can enjoy the game and not be annoyed by their blabbing. I could see mics as useful in coordinated strategic war combat type games like mag or something like that, but the people that have them better use them properly in game related situations and maybe some "congratulations" or "good job" type comments. Otherwise I don't want to hear anything else because it ruins the game imo. I mean small talk is ok once in a while but that is it and it should not go beyond that unless the game battle session is over. I am there to play the game, not to hear useless nonsense while playing "said" game.

Qui-Gon Jim3649d ago

I hope that, if Sony does do cross-game chat, they limit it to single-player modes for that reason. I want to concentrate on the game I'm playing and have people communicating with their team. Also because of the potential of cheating by using cross-game chat to communicate when the game would prohibit you from doing so.

foss33649d ago

voice chat volume should be able to be turned off in settings on all games. i hate games where you have to individually mute each player every time i'm thinking modern warfare, but could be wrong.

it's either some suburban white kid who thinks he's a ghetto inner-city gang banger or some high pitched 10 year old kid screaming come on guys let's attack!

wsoutlaw873648d ago

yes mute is the best. On games that dont have it I end up having to turn on my mic and toss it on the floor so i dont have to hear it.

CimmerianDrake3649d ago (Edited 3649d ago )

"As someone who is unbiased to this..."

Just because you own both doesn't mean you are unbiased. An unbiased individual would state the positives and negatives of BOTH services, not sit there and drool over one while shunning another. But let's go over your points.

Point 1: If the devs decide to give the 360 content first, it's not PSN's fault it's the devs choice. Devs don't get any part of the annual subscription fee that Live members pay, so it's not like that is an enticement. It's more likely Microsoft buys exclusive content.

Point 2: Did you conveniently forget the 2 weeks of downtime when Halo 3 released? Or how about the downtime virtually every year that there is a Fall update on Live? PSN has never randomly gone down for me except the one time where everyone had the clock issue, and that was for all of 2 days. Sony tells everyone that PSN will be down for maintenance, and it's never for very long. Small moments of downtime to keep up PSN is preferred to having 2 weeks without it.

Point 3: Those "extra features" are free elsewhere, and could potentially ruin a gaming experience. I don't know about you, but when I'm playing a specific game, I don't want someone who is playing a different game coming online and sampling some of his awful freestyling, or talking about what he's had for dinner, etc. I want to concentrate on the game. Cross game chat is not a feature worth paying for, nor is party chat. A feature that IS worth paying for would be something like dedicated servers for EVERY game. Something that enhances the actual games themselves, not areas for people to get their ego fest on. In truth, voice chat is only marginally necessary for shooter games really. You can't really justify it for other genres.

Point 4: Irrelevant. That is all. Mics have nothing to do with the price of Live.

Point 5: First, you didn't talk about cheaters at all. Second, the jerks are more prevalent on Live still to this day. So tell me how that $60 a year has prevented it? Truth is, jerks are a part of life and always will be. And you're forgetting that you don't need to pay for Live to have a Silver (now known as a Free) account and still be a jerk.

Point 6: This is hardly a universal issue. I have never had an update on PSN take longer than 10 minutes. It all depends on when you choose to update, and the stability and quality of your connection. I would bet that you exaggerate that 60+ min example, and this is still nothing that makes Live worth paying for. Downloads are almost ALWAYS a user issue, as everyone has different connection speeds.

Point 7: And if you're naive enough to believe that people pay for Live because they actually want these features, and it has little to nothing to do with the fact that THEY HAVE NO CHOICE if they want to game online, then you deserve being ripped off for free features. The minute amount of extra features that Live has over PSN are NOT worth paying for, and the fact remains that you are paying Microsoft to allow you to access your already paid for internet connection. You are paying to play. The fact you get ESPN, Facebook, etc. which are free elsewhere is just a smoke screen designed to make you think you're paying for something substantial, when you're not. That $60 a year that PSN users DO NOT pay can be used for one more game a year.

For what PSN offers for free, it's value is much greater than Live. That's just a fact.

DXM13649d ago

bubbles for actually bothering to respond to that amateur of a writer.

Oxymoron283649d ago

I made a some what similar post down below somewhere, but yeah as for point 7, they get ESPN, I get BBC iPlayer, for free.

There's not been a price boost for that feature, nothing like that. It's completely free. And something I will ACTUALLY use more then once...

No Way3649d ago (Edited 3649d ago )

On your point 6, I just have one question.. serious question. -.-
Why does it take 3290532 hours to download a demo on PSn.
But, only about 45 minutes to download same demo on Live?

User issue, possibly. But, it makes no sense to me.

Anon19743648d ago (Edited 3648d ago )

Something's wrong with your connection. Plain and simple. I've never, ever had anything take that long. I download episodes of Qore usually at 1 1-5 Gigs, demos, beta's - you name it and I've never had anything take longer than 20-minutes, half an hour...tops.

Comparative downloads have been done in the past and found, downloading the same demos on the same connections that there is virtually no difference between PS3 and 360 load times. Google it. Same goes, I understand, with Netflix on each console.

Something is wrong with your connection.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3648d ago
MUNKYPOO3649d ago

just because someone owns both consoles does not make the person unbiased. As i own both and im biased

GamingGamer3648d ago

he said. "PSN lags while XBL dont"

ok first of all, PSN and XBL have SAME servers for games..

and if you compare download speed, PSN is faster.

it just shows that you are desperately making this up to justify paying for XBL.

its kinda pathetic when you have to lie to make an argument.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3648d ago
ssj2gohan833649d ago (Edited 3649d ago )

Wow, what a biased article. Why am I not surprised.

skagrerrrr3649d ago

what a D*CK of an article...

rroded3649d ago ShowReplies(2)
coolbeans3649d ago (Edited 3649d ago )

1. Just having both consoles and using both online services doesn't mean you're not predisposed to a certain bias. I'm not trying to claim he/she is, but starting off your article like that only draws more attention as to whether you could be biased or not, let your reasoning on the subject matter "do the talking".

2. Not all people on the internet who don't think XBL is worth paying are fanboys. I'm aware he/she never stated that up front, but some people legitimately think Xbox Live shouldn't cost money, they're not all fanboy comments.

coolbeans3649d ago (Edited 3649d ago )

I agree :P. Srsly, thank you :D.

gigaware3649d ago (Edited 3649d ago )

He's probably talking about the armies of PS3 fanboys that regurgitated the same O'l bull day in and day out. I don't think 360 fans not happy with the fee make bit*hing about a few bucks a month when they spend hundreds every few months a life long goal. Seems a bit naive you thinking 360 fans have a belligerent attitude towards the fee when it's clear as day the people complaining don't even own the 360.

xAlmostPro3649d ago

@gigaware im sorry but you talk about armies of PS3 fanboys, and probably have said before (like most 360 fanboys) that PS3 fanboys are worse..

Yet you get articles like this, completely biased..

Read 90% of the comments against XBL, most likely by in your eyes "PS3 fanboy" and their arguements will consist of facts..

where as most of the comments for XBL, consist of "psn lags more, xbl is better i can talk to my friends more"..

just saying, you contradict yourselfs alot

OSU_Gamer3649d ago (Edited 3649d ago )


"Read 90% of the comments against XBL, most likely by in your eyes "PS3 fanboy" and their arguements will consist of facts.. "

Where are the facts?
PS3 and 360 fanboys or not, its all opinion. Its people arguing that the extra features of XBL are worth $60 a year and people who argue the opposite.

You can state facts about each service, but that doesn't mean that one service is necessarily better.

"where as most of the comments for XBL, consist of "psn lags more, xbl is better i can talk to my friends more".. "

and how is that different when most of the comments for PSN are about how PSN is less laggy because a small ammount of games have dedicated servers? ITs funny to see people assuming that dedicated servers automatically means less lag. My online experience with KZ2 says differently.

Add to that the OPINION of many xbl haters that PSN is better because a a few games allow for 30+ players, as if that automatically makes PSN better.

You are discrediting his response (whether his response is right or wrong) by calling opinions facts.