Which is really better? Xbox LIVE or the Playstation Network? At the surface, they appear very similar, but there is a depth to this battle that any casual observer may not understand. With size limits to consider, the community aspect, and developer support, it can be kind of confusing. It’s okay, though. I may not be a doctor, but I’m here to help.
Microsoft and Sony have taken almost opposite approaches to their online plan, so it’s a wonder that both of these are thriving at a time when consoles are becoming so expensive that no average person can afford to have both. Sony is using technology as a crutch in its service by allowing developers to upload larger games and by offering full games for download. Warhawk is unprecedented in that it is available in stores as well as online. It’s a trend that Sony is hoping to make popular with games like the newest Socom and Burnout Paradise, as they will soon be offering full downloads of their games. Ah, the convenience of not having to swap discs.
While LIVE may not offer full games at gigabytes in size for download, they do plan to help out the little guy by hosting byte-sized independent titles in their upcoming XNA service, currently in beta. It is dedicated to games made by a lone person or very few persons with almost no budget–a genius idea that will really help the gaming community. That’s what LIVE seems to build off of, after all.
Building a rock-solid community full of active players is very important for an online service. What good is it if you can’t keep tabs on your friends, share information, and invite friends to your games with ease? Microsoft mastered this art with LIVE. It’s even possible to check out friend’s profiles and see who is online at their website. Moreover, Microsoft gave no excuses for gamers not to communicate by including a headset with every 360. Gaming online with a 360 is practically deafening, as opposed to the crickets that must be playing PSN games. Who taught crickets how to use a headset? Who is making headsets that small?
That is not to say that the PSN lacks a community, however. Sure, until update 2.41 it was impossible to read messages from a friend without exiting a game, but that’s what patches are for. It still has great online games, but the tactical games are hard to organize with the lack of communication. Sony makes up for this by offering unique games on their network. LIVE has Castle Crashers, Geometry Wars, and Pacman CE, but those are all archetypes of classic games. Sony has captured the imagination of gamers with games like Everyday Shooter, Pixel Junk Eden, FlOw, and The Last Guy. “Quirky,” “strange,” and “bewildering” are all adjectives that describe these games, but that’s what makes the service worth it.
It’s hard to pick a definitive winner. What one lacks, the other thrives in, and it seems like they are complete opposites. If this was months ago, LIVE would be the clear winner, but slowly PSN has patched all of those holes in its outfit. Microsoft does have a great community, but it also has a yearly fee. Sony lacks a strong community presence but it is free. LIVE has exclusive blockbuster titles that make PSN users envious, but the PSN has quirky titles that you cannot find anywhere else. Sony is forward-thinking and might be ahead of its time, while Microsoft is offering downloads of movies in the future.
PSN yins and Live yangs: without the one, would we even have half of what we do have in the other? It’s hard to pick one over the other when they complement each other like salt compliments a pretzel. I’ll tell you this though: they both beat the hell out of WiiWare.
http://news.gotgame.com/a-network-showdown-does-xbox-live-or-psn-prevail/
Your thoughts?
