Well, it's the first rental service where I don't have to return my rented games, so I'm fine with that. I currently have 50 games and I can play all of them anytime I want. It's true that I won't be able to once my sub runs out, but what do you expect? If you were to keep the games, everyone would just buy those games for 4,99 with a monthly sub. Sony would be bleeding money. The way it works now, everybody wins. For me personally, PS Plus is the better deal, that's all I can tell you.

But yeah, of course they will be compared. Everything concerning PS and Xbox will be compared. It's just the way it is. If you don't like that, don't visit forums and just play some games or something.

So because it isn't a problem FOR YOU it isn't a problem at all?

I never said that I used apps more than I played games. You just decided that was the case for some reason...I play game alot more than I use apps. I really only use Netflix on my PS3 a couple of times a week. But just becuase it isn't the main reason I have a PS3 doesn't mean I don't ever want to use other features. You'll notice if you go back and read my post again that I said  it was the worst part of live FOR ME. I could care less if you don't use apps or if you play online or whatever. I also don't care what MS makes on hiding apps behind a paywall. I was just saying that it makes no sense for me to get a 360 and pay a subcription for features that I use and get now for free.

You think you caught me? What the? You think you "caught me" because you came up with some odd conviluted scenario based on an incorrect assumption. 

Let people have their personal preference I say. I have tried PSN and PS+ on Vita some time and find overly simplistic and cumbersome at the same time whilst Live just keeps getting better. For other people, it's the other way around.

Games for Gold is the PSN+ equivalent and still manages to give far less. Xbox Live Gold is equivalent in offerings to free PSN. People keep mixing it up. Xbox Live Silver is a joke and a tease. It renders the Xbox pointless. Even with the new PSN on the PS4 having multiplayer on PSN+ the vast majority of PSN is still free.

PS Plus

First the comparison is PSN vs Live.

One is paid and the other not.

PSN+ is a amazing service that doesn't exists on 360.

Now can you guys explain to me what make the servers on Live better than PSN? I see no difference because most games are client based... no server at all.

What you are saying OP, is not correct. Why? Because you are comparing the wrong things. 

On 360 and PS3, the service offered by Microsoft at a fee is offered for free by Sony with PSN (you can communicate with friends aswell. I use Skype on my Vita for it and its quite confortable and i believe theres a party app just for PSN on it wich i never bothered with cause we dont have mics on the PS3). 

So yeah... microsoft has nothing on that. 

The "rental" service as you put it, wich is PS+ doesnt have an equivalent on the microsoft side (even though they started doing it with really old titles aswell). The quality of the offered titles is clearly on a different level.

So in review: Theres an acess service wich is free on PSN and a fee on Xbox live and theres a rental component on PSN that is clearly superior (for a fee) to the rental component that microsoft attached to their acess fee.

Its beyond clear why the article says PSN+ service is clearly a better pack than the Xbox live gold service.

On X1 and PS4 they are essentially very similar services.

Also to make this completely obvious, by definition a competitor is a company that fights with yours for the same customers with the same type of products. The products are comparable and aimed at the same customer. The rental component is the clear connecting link right there, but the unspoken acess service is also a clear component you cant ignore. The acess component is an aspect of PSN+ just like the demos you get for free with silver are a component of Xbox live gold aswell. Actually lets just go ahead and say these are gaming services, because thats the purpose they both serve. They give you acess to multiplayer gaming experiences. On top of that, they offer the rental experiences and other goodies like demo's. You cant definine the services by the rental compenent alone but i am trying to make the connection clear to you.

To make it completely clear to you imagine 2 pizza delivery services. One delivers you a pizza for free and charges you for garlic bread if you want it, the other asks you to pay for both of them it if you want anything. Do you think these services arent competitors? Of course they are, they are still offering Pizza's and garlic bread to the same consumers.

Exactly !

strictly talking about PS3 vs. 360 here:

One is an optional service that gives you alot of games over the course of the year without restricting your basic internet access. for 50 bucks per year (in contrast to 60 for live...right ?)

...the other gates basic functions with a lot of stuff that is free on every other devices (Skype, Bing, Netflix etc.) behind a paywall to create the illusion of value.

...and those "free" games on Live can´t be compared to the PS+ games.

I say that as someone who hasn´t subscribed to PS+, because I like to own my games.

...PS4 vs XBone ? That is a different can of worms altogether !

In Australia Live is better than PSN because internet providers like iiNet, Westnet, Internode, Netspace, Adam Internet etc' provide Xbox Live content data-free (You need expensive equipment to catch the packets on Akami to do that.), so you can download untill the cows come home.

Microsoft seems to have more bandwidth and lower latency too, at-least here. - That can change massively depending on location, internet connection, Internet provider etc' of course, even rain can affect such things if you're still stuck on copper.

As for the individual content on the networks, well. Everyone would be biased about that as we all have different tastes in games and content, which is a good thing.

Of course, I still think Steam beats them both, it's not only free to use, but it provides free content and free games, internet providers all around the world also set-up dedicated servers near their content delivery networks for lower latency and higher bandwidth and less down times for all the Steam things.
My internet provider (Internode via Games.on.net) is a big supporter of Steam actually.

Here (Brazil) using the same internet provider I can't say the server are different... sometimes the download is better on Live and others time it is better on PSN... overall the download is pretty good in both.

PSN have more downtime for maintance and the Store updates have some mistakes yet but that's the difference between how the two deal with the updates/maintance... it is not server related.

I really can't see diference between the server on PSN and Live.

So who says "better servers" I call biased... you can says Live have better content, or like you said the plan with your internet provider is better, or you have cross voice chat, etc... but in terms of servers there are no difference today.

Even for games... the multiplaforms uses the same servers (when there are servers) for both versions of the game... and the first-party uses the servers (when there are servers) provided by Sony/MS but I can't tell the difference.

If there are any game with server on 360 and no server on PS3 then I can agree but this case never happened too.

So what is that talk about "better servers"?