By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - PSN vs XBL which is better?

 

PSN vs XBL which is better?

PSN 187 40.22%
 
XBL 206 44.30%
 
SAME 34 7.31%
 
obama saved or created 465 million jobs 36 7.74%
 
Total:463
damefan on 01 April 2011
Mad55 said:

lol man sounds like you just wanna say you dont like xbox live more than psn and decided to make a thread about it.

This is exactly what he wanted. Me and him were in a long debate over which one is better (and XBL is winning even with the overwhelming amount of PS3 owners here vs 360) and he decided to create a thread with a huge bias and made up facts in the OP.



Around the Network
damefan on 01 April 2011

Hilarious we have people voting who don't even have XBL and picking PSN obviously because thats what they use. Anyone with both consoles knows XBL is better. I guess it doesn't matter because its winning.



osamanobama on 01 April 2011
damefan said:
Mad55 said:

lol man sounds like you just wanna say you dont like xbox live more than psn and decided to make a thread about it.

This is exactly what he wanted. Me and him were in a long debate over which one is better (and XBL is winning even with the overwhelming amount of PS3 owners here vs 360) and he decided to create a thread with a huge bias and made up facts in the OP.


could you please point out the made up facts i have in the OP, i will be glad to fix it.

and i dont understand how my reason on why I think psn is better is biased



mantlepiecek on 01 April 2011
damefan said:
anikikim said:

These are the exact reasons why I think PSN is better. You read my mind dude. Even if XBL was free. I would still prefer PSN due to the dedicated servers. Games like Killzone 2, Mag, Resistance 2, and Socom 4 support way more players than what any xbox game can.  So does xbl have any games that support over 30 players ? Guess not because they still use shitty P2P.


You have no idea what you are talking about. Killzone 2 has more players in multiplayer because that is how many players the devs wanted in the game. Mag could have 1,000,000 players and it would still suck, but once again a design choice, not cause PSN is "better" according to you. Socom 4 isn't even out yet. All of those games combined didn't sell as much as COD so I guess it doesn't matter if its P2P does it? This site should have an minimum IQ requirement before posting.

And all of those games put together don't have as much whining about lag as much as COD has. That just proves something doesn't it?

Dedicated servers are wayy superior to P2P, don't even try to argue it. No host advantage, no lag, more players, less glitches(yes, glitches) and it also helps in people playing across the countries easily without lag. It usually doesn't require you to go around in your router settings messing with ports and stuff.



Mad55 on 01 April 2011
mantlepiecek said:
damefan said:
anikikim said:

These are the exact reasons why I think PSN is better. You read my mind dude. Even if XBL was free. I would still prefer PSN due to the dedicated servers. Games like Killzone 2, Mag, Resistance 2, and Socom 4 support way more players than what any xbox game can.  So does xbl have any games that support over 30 players ? Guess not because they still use shitty P2P.


You have no idea what you are talking about. Killzone 2 has more players in multiplayer because that is how many players the devs wanted in the game. Mag could have 1,000,000 players and it would still suck, but once again a design choice, not cause PSN is "better" according to you. Socom 4 isn't even out yet. All of those games combined didn't sell as much as COD so I guess it doesn't matter if its P2P does it? This site should have an minimum IQ requirement before posting.

And all of those games put together don't have as much whining about lag as much as COD has. That just proves something doesn't it?

Dedicated servers are wayy superior to P2P, don't even try to argue it. No host advantage, no lag, more players, less glitches(yes, glitches) and it also helps in people playing across the countries easily without lag. It usually doesn't require you to go around in your router settings messing with ports and stuff.

lag in  call of duty?....when ive never had any glitches either sounds to me like your disk is scrathed lol.



Around the Network
damefan on 01 April 2011
osamanobama said:
damefan said:
Mad55 said:

lol man sounds like you just wanna say you dont like xbox live more than psn and decided to make a thread about it.

This is exactly what he wanted. Me and him were in a long debate over which one is better (and XBL is winning even with the overwhelming amount of PS3 owners here vs 360) and he decided to create a thread with a huge bias and made up facts in the OP.


could you please point out the made up facts i have in the OP, i will be glad to fix it.

and i dont understand how my reason on why I think psn is better is biased

xbl has hardly any dedicated server games (playstation has way more)

Until you have concrete numbers you are just guessing.

xbl has small multiplayer counts, i think the most so far is 24. (psn has 30, 32, 60, and i believe 256)

Developer choice, doesn't matter if its XBL or PSN. Halo would be retarded with 24 players, same with Gears. Those are your two exclusive shooters. You actually think PSN can handle a higher player count than XBL? You think Sony's network is better than Microsofts? You are delusional.

xbl is very closed network (cant get games with features like LBP and Portal)

Once again I say to you Final Fantasy XI was a cross platform MMO on Xbox LIVE. How is that closed? LBP could easily be done on XBL. You are making up facts once again. Find an article written by a professional stating otherwise and I'll retract my statement.

xbl started the paid DLC

I'm pretty sure developer's started paid DLC but once again if you can prove it with an article stating MS started it then by all means go ahead.



damefan on 01 April 2011
mantlepiecek said:
damefan said:
anikikim said:

These are the exact reasons why I think PSN is better. You read my mind dude. Even if XBL was free. I would still prefer PSN due to the dedicated servers. Games like Killzone 2, Mag, Resistance 2, and Socom 4 support way more players than what any xbox game can.  So does xbl have any games that support over 30 players ? Guess not because they still use shitty P2P.


You have no idea what you are talking about. Killzone 2 has more players in multiplayer because that is how many players the devs wanted in the game. Mag could have 1,000,000 players and it would still suck, but once again a design choice, not cause PSN is "better" according to you. Socom 4 isn't even out yet. All of those games combined didn't sell as much as COD so I guess it doesn't matter if its P2P does it? This site should have an minimum IQ requirement before posting.

And all of those games put together don't have as much whining about lag as much as COD has. That just proves something doesn't it?

Dedicated servers are wayy superior to P2P, don't even try to argue it. No host advantage, no lag, more players, less glitches(yes, glitches) and it also helps in people playing across the countries easily without lag. It usually doesn't require you to go around in your router settings messing with ports and stuff.

Then I guess COD, Halo, and Gears must be that much more superior and fun to have 3x or more the amount of players to put up with it.



mantlepiecek on 01 April 2011
Mad55 said:
mantlepiecek said:

And all of those games put together don't have as much whining about lag as much as COD has. That just proves something doesn't it?

Dedicated servers are wayy superior to P2P, don't even try to argue it. No host advantage, no lag, more players, less glitches(yes, glitches) and it also helps in people playing across the countries easily without lag. It usually doesn't require you to go around in your router settings messing with ports and stuff.

lag in  call of duty?....when ive never had any glitches either sounds to me like your disk is scrathed lol.

I have had lag in Call of Duty 5 and 6, and know of others who have lag as well.

Killzone 2 on the other hand runs like the single player.



Pjams on 01 April 2011

Free wins 100% of the time

XBL has some great features that are worth the money, but nothing beats free online gaming with your friends.



 

mantlepiecek on 01 April 2011
damefan said:
mantlepiecek said:

And all of those games put together don't have as much whining about lag as much as COD has. That just proves something doesn't it?

Dedicated servers are wayy superior to P2P, don't even try to argue it. No host advantage, no lag, more players, less glitches(yes, glitches) and it also helps in people playing across the countries easily without lag. It usually doesn't require you to go around in your router settings messing with ports and stuff.

Then I guess COD, Halo, and Gears must be that much more superior and fun to have 3x or more the amount of players to put up with it.

O fuckin really?

I am suuuure GT 5 is 100x more fun than Forza since sooo many more people play that game..

Fact is, no. of people playing a game doesn't equal its quality. Until you realise this, you shouldn't even be having a discussion about which one is better because you clearly don't know the difference between popularity and quality.