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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Xbox Live: No Longer the Gold Standard

"You keep saying Live is superior while downplaying PSN. Please explain yourself why its superior. Justify that $60 fee to play games online for a year. edit: curious, how many games do you play online anyways."

 

Much, much faster matchmaking

Universal mute list built into the entire service

Bandwidth for downloading games is higher

Party chat

I use some of the other services on there, like ESPN and Verizon, which aren't big deals but cool perks

Superior voice quality

 

More so than anything else I listed, I prefer Live for all the little things it does better. Joining games is faster, joining parties is faster. Unlike PSN, all games on Live support join in progress. Also unlike PSN, Live actually lets you know whether or not you CAN join the session. If I want to join a friends game in CoD on PS3, I have to just keep trying to join and hope there is a slot open. On Live, it won't even allow me to try and join unless there is a spot open. Works on other games the same way. Also, it gives me more details about the games my friends are in. I am in Madden leagues on both consoles. If I see an opponent online on PS3 and ask if he wants to play, he might tell me he is in a game already and will hit me up when he's done. Well... how long will that be? I don't know, because all PSN tells me is he is playing Madden 13. I could send him another text message and ask him, but I don't want to bother him while he is in a league game. On Live in the same scenario, I just look at my friends list. Not only does it tell me that he is playing Madden 13, it also tells me the score and quarter of the game. Also, I can send him a party invite and we can just chat in game. The invite pops up and he can just hit the Guide button and then hit X and he's in. On PSN for a text message you have to hit the Home button, wait for the XMB to load, cycle to the last list, cycle to messages, cycle to received, find mine, then read it. And whether he reponds or not, he then has to back out of 2 menus just to get back to the XMB, then hit Home again and wait for it to go to the background and bring the game back up. PSN is dreadfully slow and a pain to use in comparison. But it's free so who cares.

I could go on but there's no point. And again I paid $35 for my subscription. So that's less than a dime a day. Worth it to me. If not for yourself, oh well. If it wasn't worth the price to me, I wouldn't pay. I didn't pay last gen. When I got tired of playing Warhammer Online I stopped paying. When I decided The Old Republic was no longer worth the subscription fee, I stopped playing. Idk why it's so hard for others.



Around the Network
J_Allard said:
JoeTheBro said:
J_Allard said:


The only thing "moronic" is paying for a service you admit that you think is dumb.

Your analogy doesn't really work because

a. Sony doesn't control CoD, the only franchises they can force online passes on are their own franchises, which no one cares about mostly

b. In your scenario you're still getting an online pass to a PSN network that pales in comparison to Live

c. You can pretty much always get Live deals for $35-40 for a year subscription

 

I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that some people don't mind paying for a superior service.

I pay every year for GOLD just like I pay every week for gas. They cost way more then they should, but as long as I own a 360/car I'm practically forced to buy.

A. If what you said was true, that would actually make things worse for GOLD. However online pass is included with most non Sony games too so your point is moot. BTW everyone knows you're a 360 guy and don't enjoy first party games from Sony. There is no need to remind us in every one of your posts.

B. Live has more features to help get people into lobbies, that's true. However again lets look at the cost per game. Say I want to buy Black Ops 2 but I'm not sure which console to get it on assuming I have both. Well I can get it on PS3 for $60 or I can get it on 360 for $70 with "bonus matchmaking tools and cross-game chat." Only a fool would pay $10 extra for those features alone.

C. Alright, care to message me next time you see one? I'd much rather have it for that price since it sure isn't worth $60. My question then would be if it is so common to get it for $35-40, why do many people try and justify it at $60 when that isn't what they pay?

The problem is because this "superior" service isn't optional to any real 360 gamers. In order to fully play 80% of my 360 games I NEED to be a GOLD member. You may not mind paying for it, but you should.

 

Well your issue is you view it as a necessity, equal to gasoline. If paying for the service bothers you that much then you clearly don't think it's worth the price. So then why pay? PSN is archaic in comparison but it gets the job done for free, use that.

A. It doesn't matter if its included with other games. You posed a hypothetical where Sony makes CoD require an online pass and I was just letting you know CoD is a 3rd party franchise and Sony can't make them include an online pass. At best Sony can make all of their own titles have an online pass and they pretty much do already. And you seem butt hurt about my comment about people not caring much for most of those franchises. Are you saying people actually do care about Resistance 3, Twisted Metal, LBPKarting, Reality Fighters, PSASBR, The Show, etc? Sales say otherwise.

B. $70? My 360 copy of Black Ops 2 cost $60. What if I buy ten 360 titles in a year and only paid $35 for my Gold subscription? That's less than a dime a day for a vastly superior online experience. Does that meet your standard for cost? Then again you're the guy who pays $60 for Live and hates doing it so honestly I don't care about your standard.

C. Why do you need me to message you? Is your Google broken? TigerDirect had a sale that ended 3-4 days ago that had 12 months for like $37. All you have to do is look. As far as people "justifying at $60", idk what you're going on about there.

Every time this thread pops up, all the debating can be ended with one simple piece of logic. Some people find the service to be worth paying for and have no problem paying for it. You can call these people "moronic" or "fools" but if we pulled the curtain back, I am sure there would be things you pay for that others would consider "moronic". Who cares. If you don't think the service is worth it then don't pay. It's hilarious watching people put other gamers down for it though.

A. Great response but I won't waste my time disagreeing to such a well thought out and educated point. Seems you really beat me there.

B. $60 plus $3.50 is how much you paid for COD going by a per game breakdown. Glad to know you feel that way.

C. I'll be sure to remember that when I'm up for renewal. Thank you.

I wish you told me that logic instead of saying 1. people pay it, 2. I buy stupid things, 3. no one cares, it's only money, 4. take it or leave it, and 5. you enjoy watching internet fights.



fillet said:

Sure there's a few of the "I used to own an Xbox 360 now I own a PS3"...most of which are lying, the rest are those types that see themselves as intellectually elevated and smoke a pipe in a library, there's not many of them.

 


I've always wondered if they are lying. I mean, I'm sure there are many who own both, but many times, you have fanboys on every site who say they "own" both, but I doubt they are telling the truth, cause they give a very biased point of view. 



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

J_Allard said:

"You keep saying Live is superior while downplaying PSN. Please explain yourself why its superior. Justify that $60 fee to play games online for a year. edit: curious, how many games do you play online anyways."

 

Much, much faster matchmaking

Universal mute list built into the entire service

Bandwidth for downloading games is higher

Party chat

I use some of the other services on there, like ESPN and Verizon, which aren't big deals but cool perks

Superior voice quality

 

More so than anything else I listed, I prefer Live for all the little things it does better. Joining games is faster, joining parties is faster. Unlike PSN, all games on Live support join in progress. Also unlike PSN, Live actually lets you know whether or not you CAN join the session. If I want to join a friends game in CoD on PS3, I have to just keep trying to join and hope there is a slot open. On Live, it won't even allow me to try and join unless there is a spot open. Works on other games the same way. Also, it gives me more details about the games my friends are in. I am in Madden leagues on both consoles. If I see an opponent online on PS3 and ask if he wants to play, he might tell me he is in a game already and will hit me up when he's done. Well... how long will that be? I don't know, because all PSN tells me is he is playing Madden 13. I could send him another text message and ask him, but I don't want to bother him while he is in a league game. On Live in the same scenario, I just look at my friends list. Not only does it tell me that he is playing Madden 13, it also tells me the score and quarter of the game. Also, I can send him a party invite and we can just chat in game. The invite pops up and he can just hit the Guide button and then hit X and he's in. On PSN for a text message you have to hit the Home button, wait for the XMB to load, cycle to the last list, cycle to messages, cycle to received, find mine, then read it. And whether he reponds or not, he then has to back out of 2 menus just to get back to the XMB, then hit Home again and wait for it to go to the background and bring the game back up. PSN is dreadfully slow and a pain to use in comparison. But it's free so who cares.

I could go on but there's no point. And again I paid $35 for my subscription. So that's less than a dime a day. Worth it to me. If not for yourself, oh well. If it wasn't worth the price to me, I wouldn't pay. I didn't pay last gen. When I got tired of playing Warhammer Online I stopped paying. When I decided The Old Republic was no longer worth the subscription fee, I stopped playing. Idk why it's so hard for others.

"Much, much faster matchmaking"  - A few seconds faster if at all is insignificant

"Universal mute list built into the entire service"  - Can block, and mute people on PSN too.

"Bandwidth for downloading games is higher" - Everyone's Bandwidth is different. I can download One Piece Pirate Warriors a 12gig game in 3hrs.

"Superior voice quality" - The quality depends on each individual headset. You can use any bluetooth headset. Blame the user, not PSN.

I can tell you right now that the official Playstation bluetooth headset is light years ahead.

"Joining games is faster, joining parties is faster"  - a few nano seconds faster if at any is insignificant.

 

You list a lot of things here, and the only feature that stands out among them in my opinion is party chat. Most of your gripe is based on how fast you can do something, and since the difference is in seconds, in my opinion its unimportant.

I have a fairly large friend list on PSN, I don't spend anytime browsing my list unless I get an invitation or a message. I could care less about what my friends are doing because I just want to log in and play with anyone. (sorry friends on friend list)

 

If you find those insignificant details a better service than I solute you. I still don't see a reason why MS should charge you for that because you can do all that for free on PC on software like Xfire and games that supports it.



CPU: Ryzen 7950X
GPU: MSI 4090 SUPRIM X 24G
Motherboard: MSI MEG X670E GODLIKE
RAM: CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM 32GB DDR5
SSD: Kingston FURY Renegade 4TB
Gaming Console: PLAYSTATION 5

The difference is more than "a couple seconds". The difference in time just browsing for messages/invites is more than "a couple seconds". And yeah, you can mute on PSN.. if the game allows it. If not, you're out of luck. That's the problem with PSN, features and usability are a la carte. And your excuse regarding voice quality is hilarious. Yes, I know anyone can use any BT headset. That's the problem, not an excuse.

Why do you even bother asking for an opinion, if you're just going to shrug the things off as "insignificant"? Like i said, people like you in these threads are always funny. Sorry that my paying for Live's vastly superior service and being happy to do so, bothers you so much :)



Around the Network
J_Allard said:
The difference is more than "a couple seconds". The difference in time just browsing for messages/invites is more than "a couple seconds". And yeah, you can mute on PSN.. if the game allows it. If not, you're out of luck. That's the problem with PSN, features and usability are a la carte. And your excuse regarding voice quality is hilarious. Yes, I know anyone can use any BT headset. That's the problem, not an excuse.

Why do you even bother asking for an opinion, if you're just going to shrug the things off as "insignificant"? Like i said, people like you in these threads are always funny. Sorry that my paying for Live's vastly superior service and being happy to do so, bothers you so much :)


I didn't ask for your sympathy. I asked for a justifyable reason why you think that service is superior. Your reasons and opinions simply failed to impress me. A few seconds does not impress me.



CPU: Ryzen 7950X
GPU: MSI 4090 SUPRIM X 24G
Motherboard: MSI MEG X670E GODLIKE
RAM: CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM 32GB DDR5
SSD: Kingston FURY Renegade 4TB
Gaming Console: PLAYSTATION 5

Yup PS+ really ruined it for them, Now MS fans can't say you get what you pay for.



The only thing that really annoys me about Live is that if you don't have it then in most cases you are actually only buying half a game for the price of a full one ( If you are a multiplayer gamer like me).

Without Live I can't enjoy my game to its fullest and that's total BS I say. It's like you buy a game and then M$ says "well if you really want to fully enjoy your game then you gotta pay me a subscription. because buying my console isn't enough!" I already have an internet bill, Cell phone bill, power bill, water bill, Sky television bill and weekly rent, the last thing is another cost to my ever growing list of bills.



J_Allard said:
The difference is more than "a couple seconds". The difference in time just browsing for messages/invites is more than "a couple seconds". And yeah, you can mute on PSN.. if the game allows it. If not, you're out of luck. That's the problem with PSN, features and usability are a la carte. And your excuse regarding voice quality is hilarious. Yes, I know anyone can use any BT headset. That's the problem, not an excuse.

Why do you even bother asking for an opinion, if you're just going to shrug the things off as "insignificant"? Like i said, people like you in these threads are always funny. Sorry that my paying for Live's vastly superior service and being happy to do so, bothers you so much :)

Are both of you sure the problem with voice quality lies inside the service? I think it depends far more on the game, IF it is comparable to the PC. When I play TF2 all the voices of my friends sound crappy via ingame voice-chat, perfectly fine via Steam's own voice chat. Also in CoD.

If it is not comparable, go ahead and ignore this post.



KHlover said:
J_Allard said:
The difference is more than "a couple seconds". The difference in time just browsing for messages/invites is more than "a couple seconds". And yeah, you can mute on PSN.. if the game allows it. If not, you're out of luck. That's the problem with PSN, features and usability are a la carte. And your excuse regarding voice quality is hilarious. Yes, I know anyone can use any BT headset. That's the problem, not an excuse.

Why do you even bother asking for an opinion, if you're just going to shrug the things off as "insignificant"? Like i said, people like you in these threads are always funny. Sorry that my paying for Live's vastly superior service and being happy to do so, bothers you so much :)

Are both of you sure the problem with voice quality lies inside the service? I think it depends far more on the game, IF it is comparable to the PC. When I play TF2 all the voices of my friends sound crappy via ingame voice-chat, perfectly fine via Steam's own voice chat. Also in CoD.

If it is not comparable, go ahead and ignore this post.


From my experience I think it depends on the headset. My friends and I may sound crystal clear to each other but someone else with most likely a bad headset is noticeable. 



CPU: Ryzen 7950X
GPU: MSI 4090 SUPRIM X 24G
Motherboard: MSI MEG X670E GODLIKE
RAM: CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM 32GB DDR5
SSD: Kingston FURY Renegade 4TB
Gaming Console: PLAYSTATION 5