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

Forums - Gaming - YES or NO: PSN is already superior to LIVE.

XiaoMay on 27 November 2009

Yeah it iS



Try Rage Of Bahamut ! Free trading card and RPG game on ITunes / Android. Use Code : Laa49998 

And get free  rare card.  Enjoy !

 

Around the Network
Sweep on 27 November 2009
DarkisWR said:
Taken from IGN*who is pro sony*

Xbox Live Works
Alright, this one's boring but that's why it's important. Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2009, was an important day for Xbox Live. When Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was released, everyone with a spare $60 rushed out, bought the game and hopped on Xbox Live to play. And nothing happened. While 2 million people played online at the same time (an Xbox Live record), the system ran smoothly. Meanwhile, over in Sony land, Trophies malfunctioned and the PS3 multiplayer servers had to be shut down while everything was upgraded to meet demand. That's not a cheap dig at Sony. Growing pains happen. In fact, a similar situation arose for Microsoft during the 2007/2008 holiday season. But the situation shows just how far ahead Xbox Live is compared to the PlayStation Network.

It's entirely Activision's fault : They underestimated MW2 success on PS3 : http://news.filefront.com/activision-apologizes-promises-fixes-to-ps3-call-of-duty-4-online/



Onyxmeth on 27 November 2009
perpride said:
Yes it is. Easily. I wouldn't spend a penny on Live knowing that PSN exists. Onyxmeth, the fact that PSN is free doesn't make it better. You are deffinitiey right about that. But PSN offers everything Live does. So it's better.

At the same time, for me, it's not soo much about who offers what, but the games that I play online using my console. On PSN, I play games like MGO, Warhawk, Killzone, Wipeout, Gran Turismo, Uncharted. I could pay Microsoft a million dollars for live and still wouldn't be able to play the games I want to play online.

That's absolutely fine. I'm not trying to shit on anyone's parade here that simply thinks PSN is better than Live. I don't personally think so, but I understand that PSN offers enough unique features apart from Xbox Live's to capture it's own following. I just find the "free" argument completely irrelevant in this case, as cost does not decide quality of service.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



nightsurge on 27 November 2009

XBL is better.

Flamebait thread.



dsister44 on 27 November 2009
Sweep said:
dsister44 said:
rikuwttd said:
well with PSN u can download stuff from the JP PSN store plus its free so i say its better then live

You can do the same thing with the Xbox only with JP XBL store.

I would say that XBL is better, but I don't play games online. So with what I am stuck with is download speed, convenience, reliability, game selection, and extra features

Download speeds: Xbox Live has PSN beat with this -> NO. You're experience is not everyone's experience. I would like a serious magazine or website to perform deep tests on both PSN and XBL and something's telling me that the results would not be what the Xbox fans expect....I use the same internet for both, yet one is much faster. How is that possible?   The amount of time that it takes to download anything on PSN I can download it in maybe half the time on XBL. And I am not sure if it is with every game or not, but having recently played LBP online for the first time. It wanted me to install 11 updates. Not cool PSN, not cool 

Convenience: With the internet connection that I have I can't get on PSN or XBL often. So convenience also easily goes to XBL. With the ability to do a lot of things on Xbox.com . Like set my download queue for whenever I happen to get on, add friends, participate in the forums,redeem codes, and send messages(If you have gold). With PSN I can't do any of that. Due to an unfair banning  (do you think you can argue this one...?) Click on the playstation.com link I posted. That will prove that is was unfair from the forums on Playstation.com. 

Reliability: I am talking about with the updates here. With XBL there have not been many problems found with the updates, but with PSN you never know what is going to happen with their monthly firmware updates. So I have to say that XBL wins this one as well -> That has nothing to do with PSN, that has to do with firmware programmers...) People are including prices, and free wifi. I will include this

Game Selection: With the vast selection of games on both PSN and XBLA this is one of the hard ones. But I will have to tip my hat to PSN on this one. With many great PS1 games on there including some very good RPGs and platformers nothing can really compare. Even though Microsoft might have some great exclusives up there, nothing can compare to nostalgia 

Though a special note that all arcade games on XBL have demos. Which is very helpful for picking games -> I agree

Extra features: PSN wins this, because I am not paying for Live >.> -> at the moment, but will your XBL freeness will stand the test of time ? Like I said. I'm not paying for Gold. I am using silver. Doubt that will change 

So I would have to say that Live easily wins it for me 

 

 



Around the Network
Pharaoh on 27 November 2009

Can we say 60 player online for Resistance 2? Can we say 256 players for MAG, even in the Beta? 32 for Warhawk? Killzone 32 players? And for my connection, which is just a regular wireless connection, there isn't a performance issue when playing online. Halo it has 16 players. Gears - 10 players. Need I say more? I dare someone to respond with something debunking this. Because you can't.



Fact: Earthbound is the greatest game ever made

chocoloco on 27 November 2009

No,
I love cross game chatting on the 360.



dsister44 on 27 November 2009

Why didn't my last post show up?



Pharaoh on 27 November 2009

Can we say 60 player online for Resistance 2? Can we say 256 players for MAG, even in the Beta? 32 for Warhawk? Killzone 32 players? And for my connection, which is just a regular wireless connection, there isn't a performance issue when playing online. Halo it has 16 players. Gears - 10 players. Need I say more? I dare someone to respond with something debunking this. Because you can't.



Fact: Earthbound is the greatest game ever made

The_God_of_War on 27 November 2009
Pharaoh said:
Can we say 60 player online for Resistance 2? Can we say 256 players for MAG, even in the Beta? 32 for Warhawk? Killzone 32 players? And for my connection, which is just a regular wireless connection, there isn't a performance issue when playing online. Halo it has 16 players. Gears - 10 players. Need I say more? I dare someone to respond with something debunking this. Because you can't.

No argument here- my online experiences with Resistance 2, Warhawk and Killzone 2 are smoother than Halo 3/Gears 2. The fact is that Sony provide more dedicated servers on their free service than MS do on the £40 per year service. Something that doesn't get brought up enough in these PSN/XBL arguments. I've always given PSN the edge for performance and Live the edge for community/communication.