| J_Allard said: Nah I never said Live would degrade. Would it be a bad thing for Live to free up multiplayer while continuing to be just as good? No. Why would anyone say it would be? But why would MS want to do that when they have a service that millions of people are glad to pay for? Would it be bad for Sony to make PS+ free? No. That would be great for PS3 owners. But it's not realistic or logical. There's no point in entertaining the thought that the two services are equal simply because they aren't. PSN improving "leaps and bounds" is still a far cry from XBL. And it's been said many times in this thread there are people who feel the services are close enough to warrant not paying for XBL. That's fine, more power to them. You might think they need to include more to hold off competition but reality doesn't mesh with that sentiment. By the way, what's your source for PSN creeping up on XBL Gold? And are you talking strictly number of users? Because I have 5 PSN accounts on one PS3. You're talking a business approach so I'd expect something substantial in terms of evidence that PSN is making Sony money that is creeping closer and closer to what MS makes off Live. The burgers costing money is entirely irrelevant. The part that actually matters is you have two competing companies offering similar products for different prices. You can't expect company A to match company B when company A has a product that is superior, so much so that millions have been shown to have no problem paying a premium price for it |
Sorry to interject, but you're asking for a source but it seems neither of you have defined what the source is for or how it should be measured.
If it's your earlier comment that insinuated that X-box Live is superior in multiplayer to PSN then that would require an article that's actually measured lag, ping and number of disconnects over a wide range of geographical locations and over a wide range of games. I don't think one exists 
