PSN vs. Xbox Live - which is better now?

[pearljammer]

Onyxmeth said:

pearljammer said:

 

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.

Well it just seems to me that adding in the price differences is more in line with asking "Which service has better value". I mean we compare a hell of a lot of things here at VGC, and it seems only in this one special case does price ever determine which of two things is better. Every other time it's a matter of the strict qualities of two opposing products. I also think of all arguments a PS3 fan would use to prove something to be better, price would be the last one, since it's completely backwards to the reasons why one purchased a PS3 over an Xbox 360 in the first place (for those that did). Price to me seems more like a compromise someone makes and not necesarily what they really feel is better. To give another example, I may want Fallout 3 more than Oblivion, but I may settle on Oblivion because it's $30 cheaper and keeps more money in my wallet. Now I did get a comparitively good game, but did I get the game I wanted, or merely the one I settled for?

I'm just not of the mind that people's inability to afford things are reasons to say something they actually feel is inferior is now the superior product. All it's really better for is their financial situation, not really for them.

I understand what you're saying and, as I said, completely agree with you in a sense. I just think its completely legitimate to interpret this thread as being of better value as opposed to of better quality. It really wasn't clarified in the OP, he used a combination of the two it seems.

I mean, better is synonymous with both superior and preferred.

I supposed the answer best lies somewhere inbetween