By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Which has the better(SMOOTHER) online gaming experience LIVE or PSN+

Degausser said:
Although I do have to do a lot of port forwarding to get Fifa / Demon Souls / Battlefield to work online properly on Ps3, which might not be a problem on 360? Something I'm used to doing and dont even think twice about but could cause problems to some who are less knowledgable about such things.

Well not for individual games, but I had to do port forwarding for both PSN and Live aswell as tinker with some of the internet settings on the menu screens to get both online services to run smoothly and to get Nat type open.

In my experience once in-game there is no noticeable difference. I've had games lag on both services where I've been forced to quit, but nothing exceptionally prolonged on either. 



 

Around the Network

I've played quite a few Blazblue and S/SF4 matches with some friends from Japan and Australia (I live in North America) and connections relatively rarely lagged. Don't know what the experience with those games is like on Live, I would assume similar. Rhythm and fighting games are probably the best way to compare these types of things since they require such specific input timing.



Proudest Platinums:
1. Gran Turismo 5
2. Persona 4 Arena
3. Wipeout HD
4. Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2
5. Super Street Fighter 4

brendude13 said:
P2P or dedicated servers, the ping will be identical between Xbox 360 and PS3.

Both PSN and Xboxlive used dedicted servers, but very few.



LivingMetal said:
slowmo said:
brendude13 said:
sunK1D said:
This site is dominated by PS3 fans. Yeah i'm new and figuring it out now.

Where did you draw that conclusion from? Why is it even relevant?


Probably the number of posts in this thread saying how good PSN is, in fairness he's right that there's a lot.....


Maybe there are more PS3 fans here because PSN is smoother.  Very logical.  Or maybe they are just gamers who just prefer the PS3 one reason being that PSN is better.  More logic for you.  Does everyone who prefers a PS3 and/or PSN has to be a PS3 fan?  Nope.  Maybe you prefer Live because you are an Xbox 360 fan, no?

Your not making any sense?



I've tried Street Fighter IV on both of them and Live was better. Less lag and it found games quicker. It's still not worth paying for though.



Around the Network

the same in my experance.



I've had xbl for the first year of 360 and had a lot of problems with it. Mainly incompatible NAT type errors. 4 out of 5 multiplayer games did not work in TDU. PGR3 would not allow all of us to talk during a race, and have bad echos when it did work.

Burnout paradise worked flawlessly on psn. I did have some NAT errors in GT5:p too but far less. Resistance 2 8 player co-op, perfectly fine. GT5 also always works, however Dark souls was pretty unstable, 3 out of 5 summons did not work. More recently NFS: most wanted, very smooth. Far cry 3 co-op very decent, but the co-op game is very buggy.

Anyway after a disappointing first year of xbl I switched to psn and never went back. I'm sure it's all fine nowadays but the few times I play online don't justify a gold subscription.



LivingMetal said:
slowmo said:
brendude13 said:
sunK1D said:
This site is dominated by PS3 fans. Yeah i'm new and figuring it out now.

Where did you draw that conclusion from? Why is it even relevant?


Probably the number of posts in this thread saying how good PSN is, in fairness he's right that there's a lot.....


Maybe there are more PS3 fans here because PSN is smoother.  Very logical.  Or maybe they are just gamers who just prefer the PS3 one reason being that PSN is better.  More logic for you.  Does everyone who prefers a PS3 and/or PSN has to be a PS3 fan?  Nope.  Maybe you prefer Live because you are an Xbox 360 fan, no?

Maybe you've jumped to completely the wrong conclusion



slowmo said:
Degausser said:
Only got Ps3 but never had an issue with PSN, and played Live on mates consoles in the past. Could never
tell the difference on games of FIFA or Battlefield. End of the day servers arn't gonna influence if someones connection itself isn't up to speed.


Yes it does, the way matchmaking works on each service would mean deciding if you get to play with mainly those closest to you or crap games with someone halfway across the globe.  Then there is a element of whether there is efforts by the console manufacturer to limit match making within regions or not.  Just because you haven't noticed a difference doesn't mean there isn't or cannot be.  Items such as more ports being required by the different services could also have a bearing on user experience.  I think your main point is probably that the host connection matters most ultimately which is of course accurate.


 Well all the games I play online seem to be EA games anyway which seem to have some sort of ping based match making as I never don't get a smooth game nowadays. Or maybe everyone who plays the thing are just European so you're always gonna be fine for lag.

 I grew up on Socom 2 playing Swedish and Finnish clans so I'm well adjusted to lag anyway, so everything nowadays probably feels stupidly smooth :P.



Having had only limited experience of PSN, the experience I had was beyond disappointing, a) the severely large patches had me waiting for days to even get online b) the games that I have played, cod and kz2 both seemed to have consistent disconnecting issues. Killzone lag was abysmal, albeit i think it was an eastern server, the lagg was just terrible, the matchmaking didn't work properly on either of the games and cod has experienced very bad lagg, and it wasn't even one of the newer ones, so connection issues should have been ironed out before. Although my experience was somewhat limited, what i have seen was enough to deter from trying anymore. The only upside is the fact that PSN is free, If xbl was anywhere as bad, i would definitely feel ripped off for paying for such terrible service.



Disconnect and self destruct, one bullet a time.