By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
pearljammer on 03 August 2009
Edit Thread
Onyxmeth said:
Taz! said:
Onyxmeth said:

I think Live is better. I was a big fan of the arcade scene, and Microsoft has done admirably giving that experience in content over the course of the last few years. I like the party system, I plan to get Netflix soon when the movie parties happen, I don't use cross game chat too often but that has more to do with my friends not being on as much as they used to.

It's all opinion though, and there's no definitive answer here. The only problem I see with the PSN being better argument is the fact that it's free. So what? Something being free does not change the service being provided. It seems as ridiculous as someone saying Yaris, Dash of Destruction and Aegis Wing are the three best games on Xbox Live because they're the ones you don't pay for. The quality does not change based on the price. All price does is tell you whether the quality of what you're purchasing is worth it. It doesn't change what you're getting at all.

Price plays into the 'Value' of the service, and what you get for your money. Granted, it doesn't determine how good the service is, but when comparing services surely Value has to be taken into account?

I completely disagree. Last Fall when the argument was LittleBigPlanet vs. Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts, I would have found the most ridiculous argument in the "Which is better" battle to be "Well Banjo costs $20 less, so it's better". Who judges quality that way? Look at your internet service. 56K is not better than cable, it's just cheaper. You said it yourself in your reply to me, "...it doesn't determine how good the service is...", so then why is it a justifiable argument when the topic at hand is "which is better now?". I don't find value and quality to be intertwined. My Sony DVD player is much better than the knockoff Coby DVD player I could have bought for $100 cheaper. It's not that value does not matter at all. It's just that it doesn't matter in an argument regarding quality of service.

I also said that people can like PSN better. In fact many great reasons were given, like certain PSN titles, PSOne classics, Home, dedicated servers, etc. Those are great reasons to like PSN over Xbox Live because it is a portion of the service Sony provides that Microsoft has not matched. However, "free" is not a legitimate reason. It's copout. It's basically saying "Xbox live is better, but I don't want to/shouldn't have to pay for it". Hey look, I'm never going to justify spending money on a Porsche, but I know damn well that doesn't make my Camry a better car than one.

I completely agree with you but only in regard to how you interpret the word better.

Before I had started reading over the thread, my initial interpretation of better was: which of the two services is better suited to me or, in otherwords, which of the two is most suitable to my preference/needs.

I don't think either party would be wrong here, it's just simply a matter of whether you interpreted better as meaning of greater quality or of greater suitability; of which both are incredibly subjective. One can either be better suited to your needs, or it can be of greater quality in your opinion. However you decide which one is better, is simply up to you... I think so anyway.

OT: I'm now playing Fat Princess online, but it's the first game that I've done so in about a year. Online gaming doesn't appeal much to me, so I'd say that PSN is the better choice for me. Although, I must admit, LIVE (for the month that I did use it) seemed to be the much cleaner experience.