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

Forums - Sony - Plus Points: Sony's PS Plus Humiliates The Game Industry

Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 on 29 January 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
riderz13371 said:
MB1025 said:
pezus said:
MB1025 said:
bertlsenix said:
J_Allard said:
It's a great service for customers but lol @ comparing it to XBL. They are two different services that offer two different things.


Yeah its wrong to compare them cause PSN+ is in every way superior and customer friendly.
And of course they offer different thngs...PSN+ is offering a lot of value in terms of free stuff for the customer and better quality for services both share.


No XBL is the entire experiecne from online gaming, apps, and so on. PS+ is a subscription based service that has nothing to do with online gaming and apps.

You have to pay for the same apps as PS players have to, no? PS3's entire online experience is free, so you can see why people say XBLGold compares unfavourably to Plus - which is an additional service, that is still cheaper than a year of Gold.


No you comapre Xbox Live to PSN. Not PS Plus which is a side service that give you free content. You don't need PS Plus to play online. However I would rather pay 60 dollars a year to have a better online experience with first and thrid party than Sony's free experience and have have a mediocre expereince.

In the end that is Son'y fault. They had to play catch up with their entire online sevice for years and still they are far behind when it comes to cross chat and connectivity. There is a CLEAR difference between Call of Duty and Battlefield on Xbox and those same games on PS3. People who play Call of Duty on PS3 get kicked out of games on the regular for no reason. No problems on Xbox though.

HAH! You gave me quite a laugh to be honest. The reason there is a clear difference between Call of Duty on Xbox and PS3 is because Activision is clearly more heavily focused on the 360 version of the game. This has nothing to do with Sony or the PS3, it is Activision's fault as well as the developer. Also in regards to your Battlefield comment, Battlefield games have had dedicated servers for a while now and therefore there is rarely any lag and there is absolutely no difference between Battlefield games on the 360 or PS3 other than the fact the PS3 users get the DLC early. I've played Bad Company 2 for over 50 hours and I have NEVER been dropped out of a game or even experienced any lag whatsoever. This is all thanks to dedicated servers. Boy do I love dedi servers.

There is no clear difference between the PS3 and 360 version of Black Ops besides how the game runs and thats based on console specs. Games are virtually equal, its just that Xbox Live gamers have to pay to get it and Activision gives them early DLC.

As a person whose spent 100+ hours on both version of COD BO (dont ask me why lol). I can tell you now that the two versions are different. In both textures and frames and its VERY noticeable. 



Yay!!!

Around the Network
gergroy on 29 January 2013
Gribble said:
gergroy said:
Gribble said:
gergroy said:
Gribble said:
gergroy said:
Without actual numbers of subscribers though that doesn't mean much.... I'm sure playstation plus is successful, but throwing out a percentage increase doesn't actually say if the subscription is popular or not.  I really hate these empty stats companies throw out.  I wish they would just give the real stats...

 

Looking at your friends list does though. I have 25 friends on there and 14 of them have PS+. Now if everyone who has PS+ did the same in this thread, we'd have a good idea of what the average was.

anecdotal evidence does not give a good idea of what an average is, I'm sorry.  

How would it be anecdotal evidence ... or are you suggesting that some people may lie?

 

an·ec·do·tal  

/ˌanikˈdōtl/ 

 

Adjective
  1. (of an account) Not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

understand?

So you think that people will lie.

understand?

no, that is not what anecdotal means.  It can I guess, but it means that it is based on personal accounts instead of research.  For example, you said you have 14 friends out of 25 that subscribe to ps+.  I have 33 and only 2 of them subscribe to ps+.  Is either a good indicator of total ps+ membership as a whole?  no, because it is based on our own personal accounts.  

If somebody wanted to get an average, you would have to poll all kinds of gamers, many of which are not represented on this site at all.  You would have to poll different regions, different cutltures, etc.  And you would have to poll a lot of them to get anywhere near a number large enough to even be in the ball park of possibly getting close to the actual average.  

That is why I said your anecdotal evidence would not give a good idea of the average, capiche?



S.T.A.G.E. on 29 January 2013
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
riderz13371 said:
MB1025 said:
pezus said:
MB1025 said:
bertlsenix said:
J_Allard said:
It's a great service for customers but lol @ comparing it to XBL. They are two different services that offer two different things.


Yeah its wrong to compare them cause PSN+ is in every way superior and customer friendly.
And of course they offer different thngs...PSN+ is offering a lot of value in terms of free stuff for the customer and better quality for services both share.


No XBL is the entire experiecne from online gaming, apps, and so on. PS+ is a subscription based service that has nothing to do with online gaming and apps.

You have to pay for the same apps as PS players have to, no? PS3's entire online experience is free, so you can see why people say XBLGold compares unfavourably to Plus - which is an additional service, that is still cheaper than a year of Gold.


No you comapre Xbox Live to PSN. Not PS Plus which is a side service that give you free content. You don't need PS Plus to play online. However I would rather pay 60 dollars a year to have a better online experience with first and thrid party than Sony's free experience and have have a mediocre expereince.

In the end that is Son'y fault. They had to play catch up with their entire online sevice for years and still they are far behind when it comes to cross chat and connectivity. There is a CLEAR difference between Call of Duty and Battlefield on Xbox and those same games on PS3. People who play Call of Duty on PS3 get kicked out of games on the regular for no reason. No problems on Xbox though.

HAH! You gave me quite a laugh to be honest. The reason there is a clear difference between Call of Duty on Xbox and PS3 is because Activision is clearly more heavily focused on the 360 version of the game. This has nothing to do with Sony or the PS3, it is Activision's fault as well as the developer. Also in regards to your Battlefield comment, Battlefield games have had dedicated servers for a while now and therefore there is rarely any lag and there is absolutely no difference between Battlefield games on the 360 or PS3 other than the fact the PS3 users get the DLC early. I've played Bad Company 2 for over 50 hours and I have NEVER been dropped out of a game or even experienced any lag whatsoever. This is all thanks to dedicated servers. Boy do I love dedi servers.

There is no clear difference between the PS3 and 360 version of Black Ops besides how the game runs and thats based on console specs. Games are virtually equal, its just that Xbox Live gamers have to pay to get it and Activision gives them early DLC.

As a person whose spent 100+ hours on both version of COD BO (dont ask me why lol). I can tell you now that the two versions are different. In both textures and frames and its VERY noticeable. 


As I said ...it all comes down to specs. As I said Xbox 360 owners will argue nothing to prove Xbox Live is better until they are blue in the face. Its all just hot air, because you are STILL playing the same game with the same levels and there are no dedicated servers so theres nothing extra to argue. DLC is the only difference and its still coming.



J_Allard on 29 January 2013
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:

As a person whose spent 100+ hours on both version of COD BO (dont ask me why lol). I can tell you now that the two versions are different. In both textures and frames and its VERY noticeable. 


Yep and even though STAGE will tell you different, matchmaking was way faster on 360 and latency was better too.



S.T.A.G.E. on 29 January 2013
J_Allard said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
 

As a person whose spent 100+ hours on both version of COD BO (dont ask me why lol). I can tell you now that the two versions are different. In both textures and frames and its VERY noticeable. 


Yep and even though STAGE will tell you different, matchmaking was way faster on 360 and latency was better too.


Ive played black ops 2 on the PS3 and 360 and because of the amount of people playing the game every day its near instantaneous on both consoles especially on core mode. The Wii U's respawn takes too long though. Ive also played at a friends house on his Wii U version.



Around the Network
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 on 29 January 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

There is no clear difference between the PS3 and 360 version of Black Ops besides how the game runs and thats based on console specs. Games are virtually equal, its just that Xbox Live gamers have to pay to get it and Activision gives them early DLC.

As a person whose spent 100+ hours on both version of COD BO (dont ask me why lol). I can tell you now that the two versions are different. In both textures and frames and its VERY noticeable. 


As I said ...it all comes down to specs. As I said Xbox 360 owners will argue nothing to prove Xbox Live is better until they are blue in the face.


Well PERSONALY (this does not apply to anyone except me) what I have experienced are these. 

XBL can:

Hold parties much reliably, Invite friends much quicker, Communicate much MUCH easier (Clearer voice), Download games quicker (You hear it all the time but seriously Im not kidding) and Find matches much quicker (Based on MY COD BO and Crysis 3/2 experience).

Despite all this, I dont think XBL is worth paying for but its active XBLA community keeps me in. 

Dont get me wrong, I do agree that PS+ humiliates MS lol. 



Yay!!!

warhalohog on 29 January 2013
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
riderz13371 said:
MB1025 said:
pezus said:
MB1025 said:
bertlsenix said:
J_Allard said:
It's a great service for customers but lol @ comparing it to XBL. They are two different services that offer two different things.


Yeah its wrong to compare them cause PSN+ is in every way superior and customer friendly.
And of course they offer different thngs...PSN+ is offering a lot of value in terms of free stuff for the customer and better quality for services both share.


No XBL is the entire experiecne from online gaming, apps, and so on. PS+ is a subscription based service that has nothing to do with online gaming and apps.

You have to pay for the same apps as PS players have to, no? PS3's entire online experience is free, so you can see why people say XBLGold compares unfavourably to Plus - which is an additional service, that is still cheaper than a year of Gold.


No you comapre Xbox Live to PSN. Not PS Plus which is a side service that give you free content. You don't need PS Plus to play online. However I would rather pay 60 dollars a year to have a better online experience with first and thrid party than Sony's free experience and have have a mediocre expereince.

In the end that is Son'y fault. They had to play catch up with their entire online sevice for years and still they are far behind when it comes to cross chat and connectivity. There is a CLEAR difference between Call of Duty and Battlefield on Xbox and those same games on PS3. People who play Call of Duty on PS3 get kicked out of games on the regular for no reason. No problems on Xbox though.

HAH! You gave me quite a laugh to be honest. The reason there is a clear difference between Call of Duty on Xbox and PS3 is because Activision is clearly more heavily focused on the 360 version of the game. This has nothing to do with Sony or the PS3, it is Activision's fault as well as the developer. Also in regards to your Battlefield comment, Battlefield games have had dedicated servers for a while now and therefore there is rarely any lag and there is absolutely no difference between Battlefield games on the 360 or PS3 other than the fact the PS3 users get the DLC early. I've played Bad Company 2 for over 50 hours and I have NEVER been dropped out of a game or even experienced any lag whatsoever. This is all thanks to dedicated servers. Boy do I love dedi servers.

There is no clear difference between the PS3 and 360 version of Black Ops besides how the game runs and thats based on console specs. Games are virtually equal, its just that Xbox Live gamers have to pay to get it and Activision gives them early DLC.

As a person whose spent 100+ hours on both version of COD BO (dont ask me why lol). I can tell you now that the two versions are different. In both textures and frames and its VERY noticeable. 

your talking about black ops 1? cause yea would have to agree that the game ran alot better on 360 than ps3 for me. Plus for the question on numbers for psn plus, just take a look on the psn blog these days nearly everyone on the eu blog is a plus member although doesnt tell us how long they are staying with the subsription. 



Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 on 29 January 2013
J_Allard said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
 

As a person whose spent 100+ hours on both version of COD BO (dont ask me why lol). I can tell you now that the two versions are different. In both textures and frames and its VERY noticeable. 


Yep and even though STAGE will tell you different, matchmaking was way faster on 360 and latency was better too.

I do agree that the matchmaking is much faster but the latency... I dont really notice any difference in it. 



Yay!!!

riderz13371 on 29 January 2013
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
J_Allard said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
 

As a person whose spent 100+ hours on both version of COD BO (dont ask me why lol). I can tell you now that the two versions are different. In both textures and frames and its VERY noticeable. 


Yep and even though STAGE will tell you different, matchmaking was way faster on 360 and latency was better too.

I do agree that the matchmaking is much faster but the latency... I dont really notice any difference in it. 

Is it really that much faster? I get into Black Ops (1) games in like 5-10 seconds on my PS3.



S.T.A.G.E. on 29 January 2013
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

There is no clear difference between the PS3 and 360 version of Black Ops besides how the game runs and thats based on console specs. Games are virtually equal, its just that Xbox Live gamers have to pay to get it and Activision gives them early DLC.

As a person whose spent 100+ hours on both version of COD BO (dont ask me why lol). I can tell you now that the two versions are different. In both textures and frames and its VERY noticeable. 


As I said ...it all comes down to specs. As I said Xbox 360 owners will argue nothing to prove Xbox Live is better until they are blue in the face.


Well PERSONALY (this does not apply to anyone except me) what I have experienced are these. 

XBL can:

Hold parties much reliably, Invite friends much quicker, Communicate much MUCH easier (Clearer voice), Download games quicker (You hear it all the time but seriously Im not kidding) and Find matches much quicker (Based on MY COD BO and Crysis 3/2 experience).

Despite all this, I dont think XBL is worth paying for but its active XBLA community keeps me in. 

Dont get me wrong, I do agree that PS+ humiliates MS lol. 


I can agree with most of that, but party chat is something Sony will have next gen so we know its coming, but thats an Xbox perk not a COD one.