This isn't a thread about which ones better for multiplayer, Microsofts evil ways for charging for online gaming or which console is better, this is a more serious thread in the sales discussion, look up a little if you don't believe me.

PSN and Live are two competing online networks. They aren't interoperatable, they offer pretty similar features and long after the consoles which offer them are a distant memory they will likely still be around and flourishing or dead like the consoles which brought them to prominance. The consoles may very well just be a vehicle to the success of these networks, but not the only vehicles.

Microsoft has:

• Xbox Live
• Windows mobile 7 live integration (coming soon)
• Games for Windows Live (yes its sucky but they are trying)
• Live Pass (Messenger, some websites)
• Zune Video service
• Office Live (coming soon)

Beyond gaming they have video services, messaging services, music services and office type services all based upon their Live group of network/cloud services. So in the end Live is becoming a more 'complete' networki and every 6-12months they have marked and recordable growth in this arena.

Beyond this they have two areas of adoption which may quickly come into the above fold:

• Their OS for cars. Ford Sync, Hyundai and I think Fiat off the top of my head. So they will likely have these vehicles sync with Live.
• TV manufacturers + HTPC. Natal is the link here which can bring TV companies into the fold and I suspect the Live subscription sharing is the carrot to entice TV manufacturers whom have long struggled with tight margins and difficult competition.

Overall its becoming a tighter and more defined overall package and the evolution of both the subscription numbers and the sheer number of partners and revenue are all areas showing marked improvement year over year.

Live is likely worth more to Microsoft than the Xbox 360 and the Xbox next will ever be in terms of overall revenue. Its a service which can scale to multiple devices and in the end the console is just a means to that end in that it holds up one end of the service delivery platform by itself. However the console itself is becoming unimportant. The hardware is just a means to an end in delivering the software. Once other hardware can substitute the Xbox console, hopefully paid for by some other company it will.

Sony has:

• PSN on PS3
• PSN on PSP
• PSN on TVs (coming soon)
• PSN on VAIO computers (coming soon)
• PSN on phones (coming soon)
• PSN on cameras/misc electronics (expected)

The difference in philosophy is pretty clear. Where Microsoft is partnering with any and all partners they can, Sony appear to be focusing on presenting a unified hardware/software/online experience through just their own hardware and their own networks. They have pretty good reasons to do this. They want to entice consumers to buy Sony and buy just Sony and to participate in their own private network. They want to add value and hence extract revenue from their basic hardware offerings and they want to be a more unified hardware/software services company along the vein of Apple.

The conflict:

They come into conflict because one Live subscription is likely one fewer for PSN for consoles. One Live pass on other TV makes is potentially one fewer consumer who will buy a Sony TV. The success of one is likely to be at the detriment of the other. They are fighting over the ability to form a long term monetary relationship with consumers, over 10 years thats a lot of potential revenue and recurring hardware sales. In essence they are fighting over the 21st centry internet, with Google and a few others as well.

Current status of the conflict?:

 A friend said to me once that the only way that a certain developer would make a PSN game over Live is if Sony funded it because of data he had seen from 'somewhere'. Thats a pretty big difference, and it shows the momentum that each has in the console online distribution space at present. Sony has the subscribers to their console based offerings, Microsoft has the larger console based active userbase and they have a wider range of services to offer and the momentum of getting there sooner.

Overall it looks like Microsoft has the momentum and the lead in this space. The difference it makes to Sony is not about whether or not they can succeed with their plans for PSN, but how successful overall they can be. Its possible to be a bit player in this market, especially if you're like Apple and control both the hardware and software at your disposal and offer a differentiated experience. Things can change, but if all pieces which are in play stay their course Microsoft looks to have won. Things can and probably will change, and momentum will definately shift, but this is where its at right now.

Comments? Suggestions?

The pink elephant standing in the room is Apple.

^ and Nintendo with Dsiware and Wiiware .and wii channels.

^ But hes banned... Never spoke to him on the forum personally...

Don't forget about Google

Trying to keep it simple and relevant. Think of how many pages I would have to go to if I listed Apple and Google and whomever else, probably Steam too.

Well on that note, do you have more information on PSN on VAIO computers?  Are we talking about something intergrated into the hardware of the VIAO or just software?

Just software, PSN is just a software layer after all.

This is also not to count that you can already access PSN from a PC, though I think its limited to just PSP accessible content. If they opened their licensing up to allow PC's to view downloaded TV shows, then it might further their progress.

ALL that is far to complicated to the average consumer and wont matter to any one not a tech genius. Live or PSN wont ever matter to any one when choosing a tv. Unless it can some how cut the price by half no one will care.

There really is no big war as you claim since both are getting their ass's handed to them by Apple.