It means we tend to play people from overseas more than european/ united states players. The people I have spoken to from Australia dont even thing twice about which one is smoother online for vs non oceanian players.

Yeah pretty simple to me, the xbox is cheaper initially then you pay for the online service it provides, ps3 is more expensive but that is all you have to pay for the online service... that is of course before plus

and you're posting, why?

oops quoted wrong person

Xbox Live easy

I see. I thought of that but got confused.

quick question. after you connect to a games online server through xbox live or psn are you using sony's or microsoft's bandwidth?

does the data when playing a match go

1. you----> xbox live or psn -----> game server

OR

2. you------> game server

option 1 seems like it would slow game play down.

if it works like option 2 then it seems to me xbox live is kinda a scam.... but i don't know how it works. anyone want to educate me?

Actually its 3.

3. You connect to both Xbox Live services and other players at the same time.

Actually the biggest scam of all is the fact you pay for games when the cost per game to dowload is cents in a gigabyte. Get over this scam and the idea of paying for Xbox Live doesn't sound so bad, after all you've swallowed the camel there so the fly doesn't sting the throat so badly.

I didn't even want to get into this debate, but I noticed one incorrect statement mentioned in the OP and repeated throughout the thread that I felt the need to correct:

Killzone 2 and 3 do NOT use dedicated servers.  Killzone 2 merely allowed you to create a "server" hosted on your own system, while Killzone 3 relies solely on matchmaking.  When you're in a game, it's all P2P.

They do use servers to a degree, however.   Killzone 2 relied on servers for clan information, tournaments, and listing all available user-made servers, and Killzone 3 uses it for the same reasons sans server list.

How do you know for sure? Because resistance 2 has this option too but its dedicated and a 32 player p2p will be disastrous.

Why when everybody compare XBL and PSN they always leave out the 2 most important things? 1 Matchmaking XBL has a much better matchmaking and it actually pairs you up with players with similar skill raiting as your own. Every time i play on PSN its random sometime i fight noobs sometimes i fight clans etc. On XBL its usually even teams not always but the service is not perfect.

And the most important thing is; latency, if you play a FPS this doesn't matter that much due to the great network code thos games have (although i notice much more spikes in COD on PS3 than 360). But if you play another game like a fighter,  XBL is the way to go, unless you want a lag fest. I don't know what makes it so since neither PSN nor XBL uses dedicated servers. I think its because more use wireless for PS3.

So there you have it, XBL also got more players which is a plus.