| TRios_Zen said: I own both consoles...so while I may have a more informed opinion, it is still, JUST my opinion... I pay for live because IMO the interface is easier to use, and has multiple perks that I either can't find (poor design) or don't exist on the PSN. Currently those would include: a party system, voice messages, cross game chat/messaging, friends sorting, a better download system (I downloaded the same game twice on PSN, because I didn't remember downloading it before and unlike Live, it didn't tell me I already had), and Netflix/Twitter/Facebook integration. BEYOND all of that however I have a long list of friends that I play with on Live and many more mullti-player games that I play on Live (so far my PS3 is a single player only experience). So in short (or was that long...) nothing the PSN does will stop me from paying for Live. When LIVE ceases to be of use to me I will stop, but it is unlikely the PS3 will influence that much at all. THAT however is just my opinion, I'm sure there are lots of folks on here, with their own. |
I totally agree with this.
It baffles me to think that there are people out there that have both consoles and think that PSN is just as good, or in some cases, better than Live. The only area where it wins is in the cost. Live not only has more features, those features are consistent across all games and the implementation of them is slick. Most of my gaming friends also own a PS3 and 360 and they use them in the same way I do - PS3 for exclusives only. Even the ones that had a PS3 first and were sceptical about paying for Live when they got their 360s soon changed their minds when they spent a bit of time using Live. I understand that PSN may be good enough for some, and that's fine, but to say it's as good or better than Live in general terms is complete nonsense. It's still not even close.
