@numonex

XBox live has 20M users, all of which are not signed up and paid to use the service. Unless of course you think that nobody has silver accounts and that every person pays for LIVE.

Your 70% is close but your claim that those 70% all pay for Gold is completely false. I am not even sure they even reveal those numbers, I am sure they just bunch them all together.

Plus take into account the amount of people who've created multiple accounts! I know I have plus my brother has, and I by creating multiple I mean much more than 2 :D

S.T.A.G.E -
Actually PSN currently edges out live. Your right about one thing, PSN, at least where it is today, would not exist if live didn't come before it. But this can't be used as a means to argue that live is always better and will be forever. You say if live never existed "Sony wouldn't ever get it" as if it's a fact. While I respect MS and they have been a great influence in the console business, especially in providing online services, I completely disagree with you. This industry has benifitted from Sony just as much as MS. In retrospect, and judging by the way Nintendo and Sony have acted in the last two generations, If MS didn't do it, chances are thats Sony is probably the one who would have. This is obviously my opinnion, but Live doesn't currently offer anything over PSN to justify me paying a yearly fee for it. The reason I mention games is because I think that games, both in variety and quality, play an important role in the online service of a video game console. If I were to pay for live, I'd be interested in playing games like Gears, RE5, GTA, and Halo. I wouldn't spend my time in 1 vs. 100 (something I can do on the iPhone and it's lame even on a phone), or making special avatars for rock band, and I definitly wouldn't be on Twitter or facebook (phones and PS3 browser can do this too). This is why i brought games into the thread. Were sitting here arguing about little details while i think games should be the focus. I spend 98% of the time im on my consoles in-game. Now, Half of the games I listed have home spaces where players can interact, set up matches and compare stats. They can also participate in mini-games. Thats all fun and dandy from the prespective of creating an online service that brings ps users together online. But like i said, i dont really see all these small details as a big deal. What i do like is having a variety of games that i can play online with my buddies and enjoy it. I also like when you see games like killzone 2 and MGS4 that have levels, costumes and designs in little big planet. Then you see sackboy in hot shots golf. The kind of cross game, online functions that games like LBP has and Mod Nation Racers is bringing doesnt exist on Live yet (i may stand to be correctef here but tell me if im wrong). Also, games like warhawk are constantly being refined and even now, two years after release, the inclusion if the drop ship, jetpack and portable spawn tank keep the game miles ahead of games like battlefield. Resistance let 60 people play in an online FPS And had 8 player coop campaign mode. Killzone 2 online I don't even have to explain but it is like a modified futuristic version of modern warfare with amazing chat and squad options. As far as racers go, you obviously have your burnout and yearly dose of nfs, but there are also unparalleled games like wipeout, pacific rift and gt5. 

The only advantage Live can give me is games. There is a good chance I'll sign up again for a month ir two when the next massive online game like odst hits. Untill then, PSN has a clear edge.      

Face book, sky, twitter, decent avitars, more arcade games, on time arcade game release dates (sfhd and mvc2) full game download xb plus 360, cross game chat and party, photo shareing,achivements 4 all games, movies on demarnd netflix and 1080p, easier connectivity, oxm and ing videos weekly


No comp at all!!

CGI-Quality said: XxXProphecyXxX said: God I hate ppl who can't accept other ppl's opinion. This is really my only problem with this ongoing debate.

I accept and recognize the opinions of all people in this thread.

I think Live and PSN are fantastic services that enrich the gaming experience of millions of people and that both services are worthy of praise.  I have no intent of insulting or demeaning either of these services.

Therefore, my choice... is not to choose between them.

My bad on te last post s.t.a.g.e it wasnt supposed to be a block but aparantly the new vgc makes it impossible to edit b4 posting.

S.T.A.G.E- hrres a proper version of my earlier post i will edit tge first one when u can 

PSN currently edges out live. Your right about one thing, PSN, at least where it is today, would not exist if live didn't come before it. But this can't be used as a means to argue that live is always better and will be forever. You say if live never existed "Sony wouldn't ever get it" as if it's a fact. While I respect MS and they have been a great influence in the console business, especially in providing online services, I completely disagree with you. This industry has benifitted from Sony just as much as MS. In retrospect, and judging by the way Nintendo and Sony have acted in the last two generations, If MS didn't do it, chances are thats Sony is probably the one who would have. This is obviously my opinnion, but Live doesn't currently offer anything over PSN to justify me paying a yearly fee for it. 

The reason I mention games is because I think that games, both in variety and quality, play an important role in the online service of a video game console. If I were to pay for live, I'd be interested in playing games like Gears, RE5, GTA, and Halo. I wouldn't spend my time in 1 vs. 100 (something I can do on the iPhone and it's lame even on a phone), or making special avatars for rock band, and I definitly wouldn't be on Twitter or facebook (phones and PS3 browser can do this too). This is why i brought games into the thread. Were sitting here arguing about little details while i think games should be the focus.

I spend 98% of the time im on my consoles in-game. Now, Half of the games I listed have home spaces where players can interact, set up matches and compare stats. They can also participate in mini-games. Thats all fun and dandy from the prespective of creating an online service that brings ps users together online. But like i said, i dont really see all these small details as a big deal. What i do like is having a variety of games that i can play online with my buddies and enjoy it. I also like when you see games like killzone 2 and MGS4 that have levels, costumes and designs in little big planet. Then you see sackboy in hot shots golf. The kind of cross game, online functions that games like LBP has and Mod Nation Racers is bringing doesnt exist on Live yet (i may stand to be correctef here but tell me if im wrong). 

Also, games like warhawk are constantly being refined and even now, two years after release, the inclusion if the drop ship, jetpack and portable spawn tank keep the game miles ahead of games like battlefield. Resistance let 60 people play in an online FPS And had 8 player coop campaign mode. Killzone 2 online I don't even have to explain but it is like a modified futuristic version of modern warfare with amazing chat and squad options. As far as racers go, you obviously have your burnout and yearly dose of nfs, but there are also unparalleled games like wipeout, pacific rift and gt5. 

The only advantage Live can give me is games. There is a good chance I'll sign up again for a month ir two when the next massive online game like odst hits. Untill then, PSN has a clear edge.      

Numonex - I don't see how thr number of users on live vs. Psn or the popularity if the service males it any better than. But assuming it does, psn has 25 milling accounts and there is no way to know how many are on a ps3.

BROWSER BRO...

Only PS3 has Browser,... nothing more to say...

Zizzla, i think you need to move yourself infront of selnor on that sig of yours.

OT: How are people arguing? Its an OPINION.
Sure, Live has some really nice features what PSN would do much better with. But its same either way you look at it. PSN has way more content than Live.

Just have your opinions, and leave it at that. Dont have a go at some other guy for his opinion.

Matchmaking is one of the major reasons I love Live. It is in the very backbone of the Live service. The TruSkill rankings system in Live Matchmaking is a great system. This is one of the reasons why I personally think it is great that Live provides a robust P2P system.

I enjoy the idea of having a match where it is you and a team versus another team. No random joiners once it starts. If you win, you know it was against the same people you started against. Once you have the idea of a match, you can then utilize a ranking system that is across all games, attached to your profile. You don't even realize it is under the hood. It just makes sure that you get placed in a game that is most likely to provide you with a great experience. After Halo 2's matchmaking system, I detest picking from a list of servers. Hell I even don't care for being randomly placed into a dedicated server(aka Battlefield 1943). This also goes hand in hand with the party system. Join up with some guys and go from match to match with your friends. If you have a group of 4, you will most likely be matched with other groups of 4. Each match will have completely different opponents as well, instead of the same group going from round to round.

It is this deeply ingrained idea of matches that I find most likable with Live. This also is helped by the fact that your party can go from game to game very easily with the way Live is set up. Your group of 4 can go from Halo 3 to Gears 2 to whatever you want with a touch of a button. Very expertly integrated.