PSN vs. Xbox Live - which is better now?

[JaggedSac]

kjj4t9rdad said:

JaggedSac said:

kjj4t9rdad said:
It really comes down to one thing, if you want to chat with friends and use your console as a social networking tool LIVE is better, however, if you actually want to play games PSN is better. Untill LIVE uttillises dedicated servers like Sony does, it will always be inferior IMO. Peer to Peer connections are terrible compared to dedicated servers.

That is up to the developers.  If developers want to carry the cost of dedicated servers, nothing is stopping them.

If it is up to the developers, why doesn't M$ have any?  As far as I know there is only one (Battlefield 1943) and I've only heard that it had dedicated servers, I do not know for sure.  On the other side, most, if not all the PS3 exclusives are some type of dedicated server set up.

If it is up to the developers, you LIVE members should be screaming for this.  It is so much better, if you are not getting them you are missing out on a far better network than what you are used to.  After all, you are paying for what is supposed to be a premier network service, it at least should offer more than one game with the best network set up.

 

Actually, I would rather have P2P.  You can read a previous post I made in this thread as to why that is.  As to why developers do not use dedicated servers, that is also answered in my post.  MS offers them a free alternative(MS sure isn't going to pay for any 3rd party dedicated servers) and provides an excellent API for helping them with their online component. 

And yes, Battlefield uses dedicated servers, hence why there is no matchmaking in that game.