it all goes for personal preference.

the only reason i like xbl is because all my friends are on it. besides that i think psn is better than xbl. but w e

I cant really be bothered to enter into a + / - battle but I would say that £30 / year for great online play is not an awful lot, infact its frankly bugger all. £2.50 a month which is around the price of a pint of lager.

The better value comment makes me laugh.

Based on UK prices you could buy:

-360 Pro
- 2 years worth of live
- Bioshock
- Lost Odyssey
- Halo3
- MassEffect
(will dig out links and prices if required!)

OR

- a PS3 without games

Fairly easy better value for money proposition in my opinion. Anyone saying this 10 year lifecycle rubbish needs to realise just how long that is and that any serious console gamer is inevitably going to be buying the xbox3 / playstation4 / wii2 before the 10 year ps3 cycle is up.

psn is fine but i got a big problem with it, i can't buy games cause it won't accept my credit card even if i enter my info the way it is written on my credit card bill, that's the only part that ruind psn for me but for the rest am pretty sure it's as good as xbl but cheaper

I totally feel the same way about PSN and XBL. I got a chance to experience them both for the first time not to long ago. As I surfed through the "Blades" I realized.....this is WAY more laggy than the XMB. It also is a tad clunky in options and selective devices. And PSN and Live Store are almost IDENTICAL! Only difference is PSN runs faster than it (Now that it has been updated) and has a better menu set up.

I think the only reason People like XBL better is because of the friends aspect. Like as soon as a friend logs on you see their name pop up. This is a particular feature that is split on being fairly annoying(blocks game screen) or intuitive. Yet PSN is constantly evolving and they already have implemented in game XMB, it is a matter of time till they get the friend list aspect down....

i think paying 50bucks is not too bad for a year, but my brother wants his own account for call of duty 4 and that is only possible (without paying 100per year) on psn. and everything else is just the same on psn and xbl, micorsoft lies to much.

I would not pay to play games online period. That is why it works for me.

ive used psn since i got my ps3 its superb and easy to use. all the games i play onlne like cod4 burnout and gta4 play perfectly. i see no reason 2 pay 39.99 a year to play them same games over live.

once the free home network is out i cant see the point in live.

live has a couple more functions than psn, and some p2p games like vegas2 seem more stable over live than psn. but even so i still play vegas2 get into games etc on psn.

You either get it...or you don't. One cant explain it to a person...

I'd gladly send 50 dollars a year to Sony if they could make PSN as good as xbox live.

I'm sure posting this in the sony forum isn't going to lead to biased opinions whatsoever.

Use the search function. There is already a huge thread documenting the reasons.

It's funny as i recall SSJ gets owned and starts calling people names.

Funny to think he's the sites PR guy.

Then he goes into a "Who cares if XBL is better then PSN PC Is better then all! Fallback he likes to do when he loses an arguement.

Basically 360 still has features PSN doesn't despite the new update... more people in the US have it, so you are more likely to be able to play with your friends and it sells more software... so more people overall are likely to be online for multi-plat games. Which while not as important right away, is going to matter later on.

Also... Achivements are still better then Trophies.