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

Forums - Gaming - 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
DestroyingFanboys on 01 April 2011
osamanobama said:
damefan said:
osamanobama said:
damefan said:
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.


if you could please show me some dedicated server games for xbl i will retract my statement.

psn does have more player count in games, nothing is keeping microsoft from having more dedicated server games.

could you provide a link that FFXI was cross platform. xbl doesnt allow for the free sharing of content that LBP has, so yes it would have it. also like gabe newall said, he could put steam onto xbl, but he could for psn.

dlc used to be free on pc (still largely is), until xbl for xbox 1 came, and they forced developers to charge for content, as they continue to do, and Gabe also doesnt like that, he prefers free

if you could please show me some dedicated server games for xbl i will retract my statement.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

Gears of War 3

Homefront

Rainbow Six:Vegas

psn does have more player count in games, nothing is keeping microsoft from having more dedicated server games.

Dedicated server does not mean higher player count. Its developers choice for the last time.

could you provide a link that FFXI was cross platform. xbl doesnt allow for the free sharing of content that LBP has, so yes it would have it. also like gabe newall said, he could put steam onto xbl, but he could for psn.

http://www.giantbomb.com/cross-platform-multiplayer/92-4183/games/

dlc used to be free on pc (still largely is), until xbl for xbox 1 came, and they forced developers to charge for content, as they continue to do, and Gabe also doesnt like that, he prefers free

Didn't know you and Gabe were on a first name basis. And without Xbox LIVE on Xbox 1 you wouldn't have PSN or it wouldn't be 1/10th what it is today.

i was not aware that BAd company has dedicated servers, i could of sworn there were host migrations (could u prove i really dont know)

gears 3 isnt out yet (but yes it will have them, thank God)

homefront does. 

i dont think rainbow 6 does, but sure.

and all but one of those games are also on ps3.

i meant to say:

could you provide a link that FFXI was cross platform. xbl doesnt allow for the free sharing of content that LBP has, so yes it would have it. also like gabe newall said, he couldNT put steam onto xbl, but he could for psn.

and i said his last name, its bolded. hes the owner of valve and steam.

and ps2 had online play, so i dont know what ur talking about, but its a bunch of bs

How ignorant are you? If you dont know what your talking about why are you debating?  All EA games run on dedicated servers. Its up to the developer to decided not MS.

Also what do you mean there is no free sharing of content on live? Did you ever played Halo before? You know the whole Forge thing, or what about Froza? Both those games allow users to generate content and share them with the community. You dont know what your saying do you? All your doing is making assumptions .

Live is a better service, ps3 fanboys need to realize if you pay or not  is not the point. God i hate fanboys from all systems.



Around the Network
elvacano80 on 01 April 2011

Post something about xbox live on vgchartz, this whole thread is a failure, its impossible to get a not biased opinion around here



 

 

BenVTrigger on 01 April 2011

I gotta be honest here.

Anyone who thinks PSN is better than Live is kidding themselves.  PSN is excellent and Plus rocks and the service is more than just ok but its not close to Live.



deskpro2k3 on 01 April 2011
BenVTrigger said:

I gotta be honest here.

Anyone who thinks PSN is better than Live is kidding themselves.  PSN is excellent and Plus rocks and the service is more than just ok but its not close to Live.


why?



d21lewis on 01 April 2011
osamanobama said:

no obviously competetion makes things better (we r not a communist state.... yet). that goes for xbl too, also steam could have potentally given that compatition.

anyway i dont know if live came out first, but i do know that the ps2 had the data port for online since launch.


No, you had to buy the network adapter seperately and attach it to the console.  Same goes for the PS2 hard drive.



Around the Network
osamanobama on 01 April 2011
d21lewis said:
osamanobama said:
 

no obviously competetion makes things better (we r not a communist state.... yet). that goes for xbl too, also steam could have potentally given that compatition.

anyway i dont know if live came out first, but i do know that the ps2 had the data port for online since launch.


No, you had to buy the network adapter seperately and attach it to the console.  Same goes for the PS2 hard drive.

i know, but the data expansion port was there you just had to but, the expansion pack or something (which i never did)

but with the introduction of the slim, you had an ethernet port, which youd just plug in the cable to get online.

i never new you could get a harddrive for the ps2



anikikim on 01 April 2011
dsister said:
osamanobama said:

i was not aware that BAd company has dedicated servers, i could of sworn there were host migrations (could u prove i really dont know)

gears 3 isnt out yet (but yes it will have them, thank God)

homefront does. 

i dont think rainbow 6 does, but sure.

and all but one of those games are also on ps3.

i meant to say:

could you provide a link that FFXI was cross platform. xbl doesnt allow for the free sharing of content that LBP has, so yes it would have it. also like gabe newall said, he couldNT put steam onto xbl, but he could for psn.

and i said his last name, its bolded. hes the owner of valve and steam.

and ps2 had online play, so i dont know what ur talking about, but its a bunch of bs

Section 8 has 32 players and dedicated servers on the 360
Frontlines has over 50 and dedicated servers on the 360 

Link for cross platform play for FFXI: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080803181150AAgKXDt
Shadowrun also had cross platform play between 360 and PC: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/03/05/shadowrun-cross-play-requires-games-for-windows-live-gold-accoun/

Have fun you two ^^ 

never heard of Front lines or section 8, and Im pretty sure theyre multiplat. Mind telling me any xbox exclusive games that have dedicated servers and a high player count?



deskpro2k3 on 01 April 2011

Steam PSN. enough said :P



d21lewis on 01 April 2011
osamanobama said:
d21lewis said:
osamanobama said:
 

no obviously competetion makes things better (we r not a communist state.... yet). that goes for xbl too, also steam could have potentally given that compatition.

anyway i dont know if live came out first, but i do know that the ps2 had the data port for online since launch.


No, you had to buy the network adapter seperately and attach it to the console.  Same goes for the PS2 hard drive.

i know, but the data expansion port was there you just had to but, the expansion pack or something (which i never did)

but with the introduction of the slim, you had an ethernet port, which youd just plug in the cable to get online.

i never new you could get a harddrive for the ps2

Yeah, it was only for the phat PS2, though.   Once the slim came out, they left out the port where you placed the HDD.  I had the network adapter (came attached to a used PS2 that I got....illegally.  I didn't steal it, though!).  Never had a slim PS2 but over the years, I had three phats.  There was a little bit of an uproar when the new design came out because you had to have the HDD to play Final Fantasy XI on the PS2 and the new slim PS2 didn't support it.

I'm a fountain of video game trivia!



pizzahut451 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.

He is stating his opinnion. He is allowed to be biased when he is saying his opinnion :/