As soon as I see "XBL and PSN are the same," I just stop reading the comments, because I can't take them seriously. They aren't the same. They just aren't. And if you think they are, then you haven't used both.
People saying "PC online" is better are also ridiculous. Whether you're talking independent game-specific servers, WoW or other MMO's or BlizzNet in general, or Steam, they are COMPLETELY different entities doing absolutely unique things in a very different space on vastly different machines and in different environments. It would be like saying elephants are better than oranges.
And as for people saying "Oh Dreamcast was online." Yah. For 8 people. What the Xbox Live team at MS did was beyond audacious and bold, and it cost a great deal to develop and institute and run. They have every right to profit off it and to help fund further developments, which they absolutely have clearly had, as someone who's been on Live since the MechAssault days.
People forget what a gamble Live was at the time, a time where only a small percentage of people had broadband in their homes and no one expected anything along these lines the way people do now. If Live failed, it all failed. MS took that risk and sunk a LOT of money into the research, development and upkeep. Even with all the money pulled in over PSN in movies and Home items and ads and ames and other downloadables, PSN has yet to come close to breaking even FOR A QUARTER, let alone recoup the losses sunk into it. And it HASN'T won over a significant enough number of users. Shouldn't it? If it's free and the same? Why are they still being outsold and outspent ? LIve users pay for it AND spend more online per user. Why? It's horrible, horrible business by Sony, and if I were a stockholder I'd be pissed.
Look at what the majority of the people keep saying that defend PSN. "Because it's free." "I don't use online that much so I don't care." "All I want to do is play online." Then the Playstation network has failed. PSN or Live or Steam is not developed to be only a portal to connect multiplayer sessions. They are meant to be communities and attractive features in their own right. Live is that, and it has been since it launched. PSN is not, and it is only now limping toward that goal.
I understand that some of you with strong opinions don't actually have both consoles, so you can't really base a comparison. Or by your own accord, you say "I haven't used Live since 2004", or "I only used it for like 10 hours". You don't have to tell us you only use one. We can tell by the comments and your reasoning.
There ARE things that are better on PSN - the Netflix software is better, the layout's a bit cleaner which might be nice for some (I find it a bid sterile, though easy to use), you have a few more options in terms of video services and the browser and the like (though does anyone REALLY use the browser?) But the tangible qualitative differences in PSN's favor and few compared to what Live offers - if you choose to use the service to its full capacities and capabilities.
Can't we all just get along and play our games in peace?
