Farsala said: slowmo said: Amazing how many people will not be buying a PS4 when Sony start charging a basic fee next gen. Sony cocked up and vastly underestimated the running costs for PSN this gen, hence why their cutting corners on costs lead to the oversight in security last year. PSN+ is just testing the water. Please feel free to save this post as I know I'll be bookmark it to wave in posters faces if I'm right . I hope you do, because then you convinced me to not buy  MS or Sony next gen. If either charge fee for online then I am buying Wii U no matter what.

I think that's the point many people make in this thread, you either see value in paying for a service or you don't.  I don't blame you for your principles though.

Apps? Really? You act like Sony and Nintendo dont have the ones that matter. Halo 4 isnt an argument, its a game and Microsoft locks you out from playing it online if you dont pay them ontop of buying the game.

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.

The 360 has the ones that matter and more that matter to people who want those apps.

Halo 4 absolutely is an argument. I can't play it anywhere else or for free and its a reason I feel Gold is worth having.

Just give up, you aren't winning this argument.

I don't know Mister Pugs, I think I agree with STAGE. Halo 4 is a reason to have a 360 more than anything. Whether there should be a required subscription fee in order to fund forced dedicated servers on every game for the platform, that's something else. Though I understand that Halo 4's multiplayer is worth having Gold, but not neccessarily worth Gold having to be a pay service. So, technically you are both right?

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.

OK, it's totally true that for many millions XBL Gold users, improved multiplayer + streaming + extra features are value good enough to justify the fee, the simple fact they paid for it proves it.

But how can you know that a part of them wouldn't rather just basic multiplayer for free, if it just were possible? Or free streaming with MS charging a fee on content providers, but not on the consumers (that this way would end up paying indirectly MS anyway, but only on premium contents, not on free ones)?

BTW, it's not true that people want basic multiplayer for free: basic online multiplayer, be it based on P2P, or free 3rd party servers, is allowed by having an internect connection, and people normally pay ISPs for it, and the Gold fee doesn't replace the ISP fee, it's on top of it.

What does that even mean? The 360 has the ones that matter? Halo is a selling point for the console and Sony has the same multiplats that can be played without paying for online. Halo 4 is not an argument, it is a game. An online perk, is an online perk (online enhancers, innovative applications, etc.)...keep games out of it. Focus on the online (Unless you can explain how Xbox Lives amazing service enhances the online playability of games.) You're arguing that Halo makes the Xbox 360 the more valuable console, not exactly the most valuable online service. 

Yes, it must be because I never use XBL. That makes it so much easier to argue points rather than to actually have to provide evidence. Just try to discredit your oppenent when they ask for your evidence. Credibility is so apparent on the internet. If someone doesn't use XBL they must not know about how amazing it is. In fact, it is so amazing it is so apparent how the service is better than PSN. Anyone could easily explain the reason. For example ______________

Please fill in the blank. These are simple questions that you aparently have a firm understanding of.

You argue hardware points between 360 and PS3. The fluency of the OS and what was it, installs? Surely nothing to do with servers. If that is why you think XBL is better than PSN I have news for you. Those things have to do with the hardware and software of the systems and with new hardware coming over the horizon there is a chance Xbox's console won't hold that advantage. If that happens, and I say if. What will XBL do to keep its marketshare. Services need to evolve and status quo for XBL would damage their brand. I find it funny I'm arguing improving XBL and you are arguing against it. Not on purpose it seems, you just seem to think that it holds a strong edge on the competition despite the improvements and upcomming generation of hardware. What improvements can XBL make? That is what you should be focusing on rather than trying to justify doing nothing.

Side note:

My apologies, I am mistaken about the month XBL was down, it was 2 weeks. Caused by hackers and not by Microsoft taking the servers down like how Sony attempted to fix their hack. XBL also had times when hackers disrupted the service but it was still accessible. These were years ago but account hacks still occur.

The service was never down for 2 weeks, it was up and down for 2 weeks. For many people there was no interruption. Personally I got disconnected a few times playing online and a couple nights it took a few tries to connect to XBL and that was it. For others they could not log on at all. These are things you'd know if you actually used the service. Next time try having some actual experience, it will help you out.