Why not compare, they are two services that offer a premium service, and for two games consoles, so ofcourse theyre gonna be compared.
Why not compare, they are two services that offer a premium service, and for two games consoles, so ofcourse theyre gonna be compared.
PSN all the way especially next gen, an improved online infrastructure comparable with xbox live and for $50/year, you get access to multiple games every month so there is always something new to play, maybe it's a game that you really wanted but didn't find the cash to buy it or a new game that you thought not worth buying cause the fear of not meeting expectations.
Here is the issue right here plain as can be.
If you do not buy PS+ or Xbox Live what happens?
For a PlayStation owner they do not get exclusive discounts, long term game rentals, or 1 GB cloud memory for saves.
For a 360 owner they do not get accessed to the multi-player sections of their games, do not get access to Netflix, Hulu Plus, no cross game chat, no skype, etc.
PS+ is a wonderful service that adds value onto what is already provided for free on PSN. Live is a bull shit cash in that forces its consumers to pay for a service in order to access significant portions of games they already paid for.
Access to at least 66 games plus additional discounts, automatic updates and cloud storage or cross game chat and better match making.
I think it is pretty obvious PS+ offers a much better value than Live does.
Nem said:
Both are online network services that give acess to multiplayer gaming and digital goods. You cant say that the "renting" component is separate from it and call it a different service as its impossible to acess one without the other. The PS+ service does not exist independent from PSN. Its all part of the Playstation network service. Let me give you another example. When you contract a service internet provider. They have different packs that offer you different options. Say a pack offers free internet acess but charges you for your phone. Another company offers a pack with internet+phone for a fee. They are both still competing for the same costumers with the same type of product. They are competitiors. They are comparable. |
Good Lord...Nem... hang with me here a sec huh. Really try and hold on. I know it must seem like my logic is cruising around all light-speed and stuff, but you can do this. Alright. Here we go:
If someone is comparing the wrong things, then obviously... and I mean like way obviously, then comparing them is wrong.
don't try to twist the semantics around just cause I called you out for not paying attention to what you read.
I clearly state in the first post that comparing xbox live and PS+ is a mistake and that people should STOP doing it. Then you come blazing in, with the intellectual heat and intensity of an electric blanket and tell me I'm incorrect and comparing the wrong things. What??? Did I actually just read that?? Stop man, seriously. If you can't comprehend someone's point of view, then you have no business trying to argue with them.
Sevengen said: Good Lord...Nem... hang with me here a sec huh. Really try and hold on. I know it must seem like my logic is cruising around all light-speed and stuff, but you can do this. Alright. Here we go: |
I understand what you wrote, but it seems you might mean something else. What is your point at the end of the day? You say they are different and cant be compared, im telling you they can because PS+ doesnt exist but within the service PSN. People are essentially comparing PSN to Xbox live.
Is your point that you dont like that people call it PS+ instead of PSN? I would think that would've been an easier statement than the post you made.
Nem said:
Is your point that you dont like that people call it PS+ instead of PSN? I would think that would've been an easier statement than the post you made. |
if you understood what I wrote... you know what, forget that, let's go with this instead cause I'm not going to keep arguing with you. I'll just trap you now and that'll be the end of it.
I want you to tell me, and show me, what I was comparing. Then afterwards we'll deal with your 'I was comparing the wrong things' sentence.
O.K. Nem, since you don't want to reply (which was the right choice) I'll just use the contradiction in your last post to end this.
Nem said, ".....You say they are different and cant be compared..."
Nem first stated, "....What you are saying OP, is not correct. Why? Because you are comparing the wrong things."
Now if by your own admission, and eventual understanding, I'm saying that they're different and can't be compared.. then I'm obviously not comparing them, like you first said, but rather stating the reasons a comparison between the two is flawed; which consequently leaves the opening in your first reply to me the prime example of the reading comprehension issue you have.. and further validates my contention that you didn't actually understand what I was saying to begin with but still chose to argue.. which is always a loss my man.
Thanks for playing, enjoy the rest of your day here at Sevengen's post, the exits are easily accessible, don't forget to tip the maître d’, come back anytime we love serving you, and/or watching you get served.
cmeese47 said: Here is the issue right here plain as can be. If you do not buy PS+ or Xbox Live what happens? For a PlayStation owner they do not get exclusive discounts, long term game rentals, or 1 GB cloud memory for saves. For a 360 owner they do not get accessed to the multi-player sections of their games, do not get access to Netflix, Hulu Plus, no cross game chat, no skype, etc. PS+ is a wonderful service that adds value onto what is already provided for free on PSN. Live is a bull shit cash in that forces its consumers to pay for a service in order to access significant portions of games they already paid for. Access to at least 66 games plus additional discounts, automatic updates and cloud storage or cross game chat and better match making. I think it is pretty obvious PS+ offers a much better value than Live does. |
QFT. People can like Xbox Live, but this is just the damn truth. The majority of the games made for the 360 were tailor made for online so to advocate not having Xbox Live while having an Xbox is pointless. Enjoy the third party single player but no one is stupid here.
The better service would have to be PS Plus just due to the amount of free games you get.
However, we all know Live is much more successful and has loads more subscribers. Clearly all the 20 million+ Gold members don't just keep paying for Live for no reason - they are paying for it because they think the service is good.
S.T.A.G.E. said:
|
no. it's not the truth, because they're different things. they're values in different systems ( and I don't mean the consoles )
PSN is a better value than Live Gold, no argument here, but by the same turn, the dollar store's a better value than shopping at Target.
Microsoft doesn't have a competing service with PSN+
they just don't.
I pay for Gold to play online against other people (value and what I actually get for my money is a completely subjective thing, an opinion)
people pay for PSN+ to play a host of games that Sony chooses to put on there. See. Different.
... and seriously, in reality, if PSN and PSN+ is such a great value for the customer, why is Sony changing those services to more accurately reflect what Microsoft's been doing for years?
I've been on VgChartz for a long time and have had to endure countless posts from illogical PS fanboys about Sony's free online, all the while knowing that sooner or later Sony was going to start charging for it. they finally did... and I think it's awesome... only because the world loves a fool who doesn't know it. and so do I.