Chark said:
Oh, little do we know. You make your arguement on XBL being better because XBL is better. It is becaues it is. That's not reasoning. At least you tried to list a few items. So is XBL more popular? More popular in gaming? No, 360 itself is outnumbered by competitive systems. More popular online? Last number announcemnt indicates that a higher percentage of PS3's are activate for online use than there are subscribers to XBL. More popluar for specific titles? Sure, there is no doubt more Call of Duty gamers use live over PSN, the proof is in the sales, but that isn't true for the service all together. Perhaps here lies the confusion of your perception. So is XBL faster? Here's the one that baffles me. I ask for proof, measurement, and the least I expect are some examples. So what is it? Are you talking matchmaking times? In game latencies? I might give you this one if you can show some evidence, but if you attempt to argue using OS or hardware issues rather than server quality, well...you can ignore this one like you have any attempt to substantiat your claims. So is XBL more reliable? I'm guessing this is tied into the last point? Latency, matchmaking times, or are we talking about security? No doubt the PSN hack was a mess. PSN had one huge hole in their system. SInce then, it has been resolved, but what about it's XBL counterpart? Don't tell me you haven't heard or don't remember when XBL was hacked and brought down for a month aswell? And what about the countless claims about account hacking and the Microsoft employee accounts falling to hackers? While some of that is phishing, and PSN users suffer that, XBL's problem is more widespread. A month down is the worst large scale hack XBL has seen, but for what security they manage for the entire system they fall short on the small scale. I'm not saying XBL and PS+ are the same thing, you must have a hard time reading. They are both services top tier premium memberships. They both have different offerings and so do their free plans. I don't know why I have to explain this so thoroughly to you. XBL free offers access to their store for digital purchases and system updates, unless I'm missing something not much else. PSN free offers store access, updates, online gaming, store discounts, media apps, web browser, in game chat, out of game voice and video chat, messaging, remote play, remote start, crossplatform, crossplay, crossbuy, and crosscontroller. XBL Gold offers in addition; online gaming, in game chat, cross game chat, messaging, media apps, social apps, store discounts(exclusive to gold?), web browser, cloud saving, and dedicated 1st party game servers for every game. PS+ offers in addition; cloud saving, automatic updates, deep additional discounts, 48 free games for PS3, 24 free games for Vita, free themes, and free avatars. They don't have to be the same thing to be the premium service on each console and unless you back up your claims it becomes hard to say one is superior to the other. I believe my point still stands that XBL will need to change up its offers, not neccessarily by improving their free offering, but increasing the features and benefits of XBL Gold to a level PSN won't be able to provide. And they need to maintain that edge. Probably through exlusive features or something. |
At this point I can only assume one of three things. You either have never used Xbox Live. Or, if you have, it's been so long or your experience is so little that your ignorance is as if you have never used it. Or you love Sony so much you're just gonna argue any thing you can when it comes to XBL. Because asking someone to explain why Live is faster, more reliable, or more popular is like asking someone to explain why they think water is wet.
"competitive systems"? I am talking PSN vs Live. Nothing else matters. If MS cared about what is happening in the PC market, Live would be free on consoles just like it is on PC. And hit me up when Nintendo's online network is worth a damn. By the way, if Sony cared about what is happening in the PC market, maybe PS+ would be free since Steam does everything it does for free. As for number of users online.. are you talking strictly number of accounts? Because again.. I have 5 on my PS3. Be a little more specific.
Asking why Live is faster is something that just confirms to me you have either never used it or you're just arguing to argue. Everything is faster on Live. Downloads are faster, there is no installing. When you see a friend log on you press one button and in the background they are invited to your game. Or with one button press you're joining their game. Compare this to PSN where you have to cycle to their name on your friends list (which takes awhile to load if you're in a game, dat RAM) and if the game he is playing happens to support join in progress, and if that game happens to support it from the friends list, then you click on his name and cycle to join session. Or on Live at the press of a button you start a party and then you just go to his GT and press a button and he's invited. No loading, no waiting on a blank screen like Vita, all instantaneous, in the background and without hassle. Matchmaking is faster. These are all things done on MS's end. This is powered by Live. So it is consistent across every single title that uses the service. On PSN you are at the mercy of the developer and which features/abilities they will allow you to use and even then, how efficient they are varies wildly by title.
I'm sorry, XBL was down for a month due to hackers? I hate to ask you again for a link or some sort of proof because it's proven to be a futile request but really, wtf are you talking about? There was a couple weeks in 2007 or 2008 I forget where the service was up and down. That's it. There was never a month long period where the service was inaccessible. Maybe you shouldn't be talking so much about things you clearly know nothing about? Just gonna end my reply here at this laugher and we can just agree to disagree. You're funny.
